Things Learned from LGBTQ+ Discussions

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

It's your thread, do whatever you want.

But we haven't even exhausted the question of choice. As Serenity pointed out, that's the basis of Conversion therapy. It's an easy fix : Just teach 'em to make better choices.

But we haven't answered why it has to be a choice yet. There's lots in life that's not a choice. We didn't, for example, chose what gender we're born with.

It's my contention that there's a whole bundle of tweaks that hitch along, like same sex attraction ... that some can't help, any more than they could help with who and what they are at birth.

But why do some have to believe it's a choice?

Why does sexuality have to be a choice?

It's simple: Something went haywire along the line called the 1st Adam. God's solution for the only thing that fixes Adam? The cross and the Last Adam.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

It's simple: Something went haywire along the line called the 1st Adam. God's solution for the only thing that fixes Adam? The cross and the Last Adam.

So what is the fix? If a gay person accepts Jesus, is his gayness then fixed?

[Weighingin]

Originally Posted by awareness

So what is the fix? If a gay person accepts Jesus, is his gayness then fixed?

Once a brother and I talked to a brother. He told us when he got saved, he felt the Lord was telling him he isn’t gay. When he told his liberal family in CA about accepting Jesus, etc they threw him out.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Weighingin

Once a brother and I talked to a brother. He told us when he got saved, he felt the Lord was telling him he isn’t gay. When he told his liberal family in CA about accepting Jesus, etc they threw him out.

How old was he?

[Trapped]

I'm very behind in responding to things here, but am trying to catch up as I can. Below is an excerpt from the HuffPo article posted on the other LGBT thread (the article that the term "clobber verses" came from). The article was titled "The Best Case for the Bible Not Condemning Homosexuality".

Excerpt in red, italics and bold are NOT added by me:

-----

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, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. —Romans 1:26-27

In the times during which the New Testament was written, the Roman conquerors of the region frequently and openly engaged in homosexual acts between older men and boys, and between men and their male slaves. These acts of non-consensual sex were considered normal and socially acceptable. They were, however, morally repulsive to Paul, as today they would be to everyone, gay and straight.

The universally acknowledged authoritative reference on matters of antiquity is the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Here is what the OCD (third edition revised, 2003) says in its section about homosexuality as practiced in the time of Paul:

“...the sexual penetration of male prostitutes or slaves by conventionally masculine elite men, who might purchase slaves expressly for that purpose, was not considered morally problematic.”

This is the societal context in which Paul wrote of homosexual acts, and it is this context that Christians are obliged to bring to their understanding and interpretation of the three clobber passages. Paul certainly condemned the same-sex sexual activity he saw around him. It was coercive; it was without constraint; it involved older men and boys. As a moral man, Paul was revolted by these acts — as, certainly, he would have been by the same acts had they been heterosexual in nature.

The Bible’s clobber passages were written about same-sex acts between heterosexual persons, and do not address the subject of homosexual acts between a committed gay couple, because the concept of a person being a homosexual did not exist at the time the Bible was written.

-----

Okay. Anyone see the glaring issue with this?

The verses in Romans 1 that are cited refer to BOTH women lusting for each other as well as men. However, the article's response speaks only of the historical existence of MALE prostitute/coercive/conquering type acts.

Sorry. This doesn't hold up unless you can also show that there were somehow women who also had coercive homosexual relations with women slaves. These verses in Romans say "in the same way".....so the male/male relations and female/female relations are of the same type. If the argument is that male relations mentioned are about what is essentially coercive rape of a younger male, then the article also has to show the same type of coercive rape of younger females BY WOMEN also historically occurred and was similarly seen as acceptable in society. I'm not saying this isn't the case, but I have not see one instance of this in any of the articles supporting LGBT that deal with these verses. They always wave the male coercive acts around while conveniently skipping the fact that identical female acts are also in the verse, and yet provide no historical mention of female coercive rape being acceptable in society in those times.

Absent that, these verses are speaking of homosexual relations.

Furthermore, the words are "lusting for one other". This is both parties participating in lusting after one another. No one would describe coercive rape that way. It's not rape. It's consensual homosexual relations.....two men and two women wanting to have sex with each other (again, the ACT, not just having feelings). Shown as sin in Scripture, in the New Testament.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I'm very behind in responding to things here, but am trying to catch up as I can. Below is an excerpt from the HuffPo article posted on the other LGBT thread (the article that the term "clobber verses" came from). The article was titled "The Best Case for the Bible Not Condemning Homosexuality".

Excerpt in red, italics and bold are NOT added by me:

-----

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, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. —Romans 1:26-27

In the times during which the New Testament was written, the Roman conquerors of the region frequently and openly engaged in homosexual acts between older men and boys, and between men and their male slaves. These acts of non-consensual sex were considered normal and socially acceptable. They were, however, morally repulsive to Paul, as today they would be to everyone, gay and straight.

The universally acknowledged authoritative reference on matters of antiquity is the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Here is what the OCD (third edition revised, 2003) says in its section about homosexuality as practiced in the time of Paul:

“...the sexual penetration of male prostitutes or slaves by conventionally masculine elite men, who might purchase slaves expressly for that purpose, was not considered morally problematic.”

This is the societal context in which Paul wrote of homosexual acts, and it is this context that Christians are obliged to bring to their understanding and interpretation of the three clobber passages. Paul certainly condemned the same-sex sexual activity he saw around him. It was coercive; it was without constraint; it involved older men and boys. As a moral man, Paul was revolted by these acts — as, certainly, he would have been by the same acts had they been heterosexual in nature.

The Bible’s clobber passages were written about same-sex acts between heterosexual persons, and do not address the subject of homosexual acts between a committed gay couple, because the concept of a person being a homosexual did not exist at the time the Bible was written.

-----

Okay. Anyone see the glaring issue with this?

The verses in Romans 1 that are cited refer to BOTH women lusting for each other as well as men. However, the article's response speaks only of the historical existence of MALE prostitute/coercive/conquering type acts.

Sorry. This doesn't hold up unless you can also show that there were somehow women who also had coercive homosexual relations with women slaves. These verses in Romans say "in the same way".....so the male/male relations and female/female relations are of the same type. If the argument is that male relations mentioned are about what is essentially coercive rape of a younger male, then the article also has to show the same type of coercive rape of younger females BY WOMEN also historically occurred and was similarly seen as acceptable in society. I'm not saying this isn't the case, but I have not see one instance of this in any of the articles supporting LGBT that deal with these verses. They always wave the male coercive acts around while conveniently skipping the fact that identical female acts are also in the verse, and yet provide no historical mention of female coercive rape being acceptable in society in those times.

Absent that, these verses are speaking of homosexual relations.

Furthermore, the words are "lusting for one other". This is both parties participating in lusting after one another. No one would describe coercive rape that way. It's not rape. It's consensual homosexual relations.....two men and two women wanting to have sex with each other (again, the ACT, not just having feelings). Shown as sin in Scripture, in the New Testament.

Q: Unlike Corinthians and Timothy, Romans 1:26-27 clearly condemns same-sex erotic behavior for both men and women. How can this be mistranslation? “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” (ESV)

Answer:
Paul describes a complex descent into sin beginning many verses earlier in Romans 1, but what should be very clear for any reader in the chronology and context of Paul’s narrative in Romans 1 is that this has absolutely nothing to do with same-sex relationships. This is not an ambiguous, generalized portrayal of non-Christians. Paul is painting a picture of the pagan religious industry and its consumers. This likely was epitomized by either the Temple of Aphrodite itself or a Cybeline cult in Corinth. The former had its prostitution ring that would have operated in the temple or around the city, while the latter actually hosted orgies of men and women who mutilated their sex organs to achieve a state of “genderless transcendence.”

Moreover, Paul is speaking specifically about people who have rejected God, worship idols, are consumed with lust and love sin. That we would apply the reasoning of this passage to all people with a homosexual orientation, including people who love Jesus, makes a mockery of Paul’s careful logic.

But what about Paul detailing the homosexual behavior of men and women as “dishonorable,” “shameless,” and “contrary to nature”? Surely we can’t ignore that just because Paul is addressing the moral corruption that comes with pagan temple cults around him. Yet, Paul also describes their homosexuality as a result of “passions,” essentially unbridled lust and desire, but this is not the nature of a same-sex marriage that we seek to affirm.
Even more critical to Paul’s context is that Paul identifies all this homosexual activity to initially heterosexual idolaters. In the verses prior Paul describes the heterosexual sex ceremonies these people were having, which is why he also includes the critical caveat that both these men and women either gave up or exchanged “natural relations for what is contrary to nature.” Fitting within the ancient Mediterranean worldview that often viewed homosexuality as excessive and uncontrolled sexual desire by otherwise heterosexual people, Paul essentially saw them as straight people having gay sex. Heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts during the worship of pagan gods, which bears an uncanny resemblance to the Levitical context, has no logical bearing on same-sex relationships.

Are we then saying that Paul would have endorsed same-sex relationships? No. Paul’s formative exposure to homosexuality was limited to older men engaged in sexual relationships with younger boys (i.e. pederasty), temple prostitution, and wild temple cultic orgies. Additionally, as a former Jewish Pharisee in the first century, Paul was culturally predisposed to scorn expressions of homosexuality. However, just as we excuse Paul’s acceptance of slavery (Colossians 3:22) based on his ancient cultural and religious context, we should also be very careful to import his experience with expressions of first-century homosexuality into our current context of loving and monogamous same-sex relationships.

[Weighingin]

Originally Posted by awareness

How old was he?

I would say in his early 50s. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear, but he said he was gay before his salvation experience.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Weighingin

I would say in his early 50s. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear, but he said he was gay before his salvation experience.

50 is a little old for living with parents. Was he still gay after his salvation experience?

[awareness]

Oh! Shame on me. Thanks for weighing in Weighingin ....

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

50 is a little old for living with parents. Was he still gay after his salvation experience?

It could be he was bisexual. Sexuality is fluid, even with men. you can be 100 percent straight, 100 percent gay, or 50-50 or 70-30, etc.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

So what is the fix? If a gay person accepts Jesus, is his gayness then fixed?

I'll just tell you according to what happened to me. Before I was saved at age 18, I was really into smoking pot, drinking and partying and did a lot of experimentation with many other drugs - I got quite into the dark side of things (winding up in jail and even briefly the state mental institution). It was 1974 and I was sort of a wanabe hippie and bought into all the rhetoric - peace, love, drugs & rock & roll. When I cried out to Him in desperation one night and He saved me wondrously, I had a voice inside telling me over and over, "I is dead."

I didn't know exactly what "I is dead" meant, but I felt joyous repeating it out loud. I was in wonderful 1-on-1 communication and love with the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob (the Anointing spoke these names to me too). And one thing I found out rather quickly, was that the joy of pot smoking had simply been taken away --> when I tried it at one point, it didn't have the euphoric effect I had previously loved so much. In fact, it just made me depressed and paranoid. I knew that this part of me had died and just wasn't there. The real me wanted to be with those that loved Him the way I did, and I prayed He take me to be with them. He did, and that's how I was brought miraculously to the LC in Berkeley over 2000 miles away within a week's time. My new life had begun.

Now, in the time since, the flesh does try to rise up and say I'm still that old person and I should do this and that, but I know it's really a lie - there's little satisfaction in those things. Some things were very apparent that they were part of the old me that had died, like smoking pot. God was quite wise in taking pot from me in a strong and instant way, as it was certainly a gateway to other ruinous behaviors. Many other things from my old life are taking longer for me to realize the fact that yes indeed, those things were part of the old (crucified) me. When I identify and act according to my new life that's hidden in Him, then I have life, peace, joy and clarity; when I identify and act according to my old life, I experience basically none of those good things. But that's all part of the grand experiment of life - progressively finding out what He's already done and made me to be, and what is real and profitable and pleasing to Him!

My old man has been crucified with Him,
With all its foul corruption deep within;
And buried too its nature serpentine,
Completely finished—this great fact is mine,
I hold it fast.

But there’s a Person in my spirit now,
Born as a babe so small, so weak, so low;
Who by the Word’s pure milk will grow to be
The overcoming inner man in me
To gain my heart.

Christ as my Person must possess my heart
And be preeminent in every part.
The former owner died but haunts it still.
O Lord, move in; my mind, emotion, will
Now welcome Thee.

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling;
for it is God Who operates in you both the willing and the working for His good pleasure!"

Philippians 2:12-13

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I'll just tell you according to what happened to me. Before I was saved at age 18, I was really into smoking pot, drinking and partying and did a lot of experimentation with many other drugs - I got quite into the dark side of things (winding up in jail and even briefly the state mental institution). It was 1974 and I was sort of a wanabe hippie and bought into all the rhetoric - peace, love, drugs & rock & roll. When I cried out to Him in desperation one night and He saved me wondrously, I had a voice inside telling me over and over, "I is dead."

I didn't know exactly what "I is dead" meant, but I felt joyous repeating it out loud. I was in wonderful 1-on-1 communication and love with the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob (the Anointing spoke these names to me too). And one thing I found out rather quickly, was that the joy of pot smoking had simply been taken away --> when I tried it at one point, it didn't have the euphoric effect I had previously loved so much. In fact, it just made me depressed and paranoid. I knew that this part of me had died and just wasn't there. The real me wanted to be with those that loved Him the way I did, and I prayed He take me to be with them. He did, and that's how I was brought miraculously to the LC in Berkeley over 2000 miles away within a week's time. My new life had begun.

Now, in the time since, the flesh does try to rise up and say I'm still that old person and I should do this and that, but I know it's really a lie - there's no satisfaction in those things. Some things were very apparent that they were part of the old me that had died, like smoking pot. God was quite wise in taking pot from me in a strong and instant way, as it was certainly a gateway to other ruinous behaviors. Many other things from my old life are taking longer for me to realize the fact that yes indeed, those things were part of the old me. When I identify and act according to my new life hidden in Him, then I have life, peace, joy and clarity; when I identify and act according to my old life, I experience basically none of those good things. But that's all part of the grand experiment of life - progressively finding out what He's already done and made me to be, and what is real and profitable and pleasing to Him!

Thank you for sharing. It is an incredible journey you have been through. I still have a lot of questions though, like how can I just kick my “habit” of being with my sweetheart. Like she is a person, not a drug. And I also cried out so many times before I met her, until God sent me my wife, so I think it’s a blessing from Him and an answer that He is telling me that this love is real and profitable and pleasing.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Thank you for sharing. It is an incredible journey you have been through. I still have a lot of questions though, like how can I just kick my “habit” of being with my sweetheart. Like she is a person, not a drug. And I also cried out so many times before I met her, until God sent me my wife, so I think it’s a blessing from Him and an answer that He is telling me that this love is real and profitable and pleasing.

I don't know . . . just keep seeking Him. We are new creations in Him; "Behold I make all things new!" He is faithful to reveal what is part of the new creation and therefore lasting, and what isn't.

BTW - I made some edits and additions to that post you responded to.