LGBTQ, in LC and Beyond.

[SerenityLives]

Hello all, I am representing all the queerfolk, trans, bisexual, basically lgbtqia, since the last one landed in a disaster. and I would like to form a civilized discussion. No name calling etc. So what are ex-LC members experience with those they know who have left the church due to their own or friends/ family members’ different sexuality and gender identity issues? and what are you guys’ stance on this hot topic.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Hello all, I am representing all the queerfolk, trans, bisexual, basically lgbtqia, since the last one landed in a disaster. and I would like to form a civilized discussion. No name calling etc. So what are ex-LC members experience with those they know who have left the church due to their own or friends/ family members’ different sexuality and gender identity issues? and what are you guys’ stance on this hot topic.

Hi and welcome back! I think you are the same person that started a LBGTQ discussion last year, are you not? I thought that discussion was civilized and don't remember any name calling . . . but I looked for the thread to review it a fresh and couldn't find it - perhaps it was deleted?

In any case, are you that sister who was having a relationship with another sister in the LC? If so, how has all that progressed?

Personally, I don't know anybody who left the LC regarding those types of issues, it least it's not an issue I know about.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Hi and welcome back! I think you are the same person that started a LBGTQ discussion last year, are you not? I thought that discussion was civilized and don't remember any name calling . . . but I looked for the thread to review it a fresh and couldn't find it - perhaps it was deleted?

Yes deleted. She and I are close long distant friends. She asked me to contact Untohim to have him delete the thread. It was shameful. I used to be the moderator of AltVs, until I departed over how she was treated on this forum.

Basically, LCD smells like the local church. Not because it's made up of exLCers, but because so many members still think like LCer's.

[UntoHim]

Down boy, awareness, down boy! You're cruzin for a bruzin my man.

As always, Harold, you are free to start your own Internet forum that will smell anyway you like! It's easy, and it's just about free. And as a cool side benefit, you can bellyache and vent all about UntoHim to your little heart's desire. Just think of all the fun you can have! Just say the word and I'll pay the setup fee and first months rent.

In the meantime, since you're playin on my dime, feel free to just answer the poster's question without involving moi.
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes deleted. She and I are close long distant friends. She asked me to contact Untohim to have him delete the thread. It was shameful. I used to be the moderator of AltVs, until I departed over how she was treated on this forum.

Basically, LCD smells like the local church. Not because it's made up of exLCers, but because so many members still think like LCer's.

Maybe I didn't follow that thread long enough, but was there actual "name calling"? In any case, that shouldn't be condoned by us practicing believers in the Son of His love!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Basically, LCD smells like the local church. Not because it's made up of exLCers, but because so many members still think like LCer's.

And here we have our old friend awareness once again criticizing folks for how they think.

Even those on the way far left like avowed Wiccan zealot J.K.Rowling et.al. are protesting the ever-growing demands from the LGBTQ cancel culture community. Remember Rowling expressly wrote her Harry Potter books to introduce a whole generation of young people to Pagan Witchcraft.

But how dare anyone resist their demands or "think differently."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Maybe I didn't follow that thread long enough, but was there actual "name calling"? In any case, that shouldn't be condoned by us practicing believers in the Son of His love!

Son of love ... right!!!

We love those of ambiguous genitalia, without question. God made them that way. We can't insult Him for His handy work.

But then when God makes people queer, we've got to shun them, delegitimize them, dehumanize them ... as abominations of God.

Where's the love Jesus taught and lived?

Jud_1:21* Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Son of love ... right!!!

We love those of ambiguous genitalia, without question. God made them that way. We can't insult Him for His handy work.

But then when God makes people queer, we've got to shun them, delegitimatize them, dehumanize them ... as abominations of God.

Where's the love Jesus taught and lived?

Jud_1:21* Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

The foundation for all God does regarding us is love. However, man chose this mess we're in now, and God came in Christ to rescue us . . . because of His love for His created creatures. Only His Spirit can separate what is of Him and what has been man-made - whether as a result of the original error of our forefather Adam, or some subsequent decision.

Therefore, the idea that God made some people LGBTQ is not a settled fact in my mind: Because God created us, then man fell and our glorious, created bodies became flesh. Flesh, which all humans have, is now capable of all sorts of things not in-line with Him.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Therefore, the idea that God made some people LGBTQ is not a settled fact in my mind: Because God created us, then man fell and our glorious, created bodies became flesh. Flesh, which all humans have, is now capable of all sorts of things not in-line with Him.

Bone of my bone flesh of my flesh, Adam said when God yanked is rib out and made Eve. So they were flesh before the fall -- and Eve wasn't made of dirt, so she was superior to dirt made Adam.

Are you a heterosexual? If so, is that a settled fact in your mind? Then it's prolly a settled fact in their minds.

And since we don't know what's in-line with God, we should leave it up to God ... and love the lbgtq brothers and sisters just as we do heterosexuals.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But then when God makes people queer, we've got to shun them, delegitimize them, dehumanize them ... as abominations of God.

Where's the love Jesus taught and lived?

What planet are you from?

Those of Judeo-Christian background treat gay and lesbians better than any place on earth. Ever study what muslim, communist, or fascist countries do to them?

Methinks your anti-Christian bias is distorting the facts.

Matter-of-fact the gay and lesbian community in the US now enjoys the highest per capita income than any other group. Where is the discrimination? Also, the gay and lesbian community is protected by hate crime legislation which I am not entitled to. If someone kills me because they hate the way I look, there is no hate crime for that, but if the reverse occurs, I am subject to extra judgment. This simply means that their life is more valuable than mine. Think about that.

So much for "dehumanizing and delegitimizing."

It's time to grow up and get over whining about some phony victim status.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What planet are you from?

Those of Judeo-Christian background treat gay and lesbians better than any place on earth. Ever study what muslim, communist, or fascist countries do to them?

Methinks your anti-Christian bias is distorting the facts.

Matter-of-fact the gay and lesbian community in the US now enjoys the highest per capita income than any other group. Where is the discrimination? Also, the gay and lesbian community is protected by hate crime legislation which I am not entitled to. If someone kills me because they hate the way I look, there is no hate crime for that, but if the reverse occurs, I am subject to extra judgment. This simply means that their life is more valuable than mine. Think about that.

So much for "dehumanizing and delegitimizing."

It's time to grow up and get over whining about some phony victim status.

Hi Brother Ohio, so covert name calling is when you imply that Awareness is from a different planet and calling him a victim, even though he just shares different views from you. He probably surrounds himself with others that are different such as you and I do. But that doesnt mean he is from Mars or the future. He still lives in the era that we all do.

While I do agree that some countries physically jail and stone gay people to death and The U. S now legally supports gay marriage, there are still movements like preventing trans people from serving in the army, not creating safe environments or toilets (unisex bathrooms) for them. Christianity had a long history of discrimination, harrassment (examples: Stonewall and AIDS response to same sex couples, not legitimizing their relationships as a family member when one member of a couple wants to visit the other spouse/partner in the hospital at the death bed). Mental abuse and unacceptance is in some ways worse than physical death (an example of gays killed is the story of Matthew Shepherd). It’s a slower form of death, the person suffers from mental anguish, rejection, bullying that lead to higher suicide rates, depression, anxiety, and trauma. Take it from a sister who has first hand experience.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Hi and welcome back! I think you are the same person that started a LBGTQ discussion last year, are you not? I thought that discussion was civilized and don't remember any name calling . . . but I looked for the thread to review it a fresh and couldn't find it - perhaps it was deleted?

In any case, are you that sister who was having a relationship with another sister in the LC? If so, how has all that progressed?

Personally, I don't know anybody who left the LC regarding those types of issues, it least it's not an issue I know about.

Hello Sons of Glory, thanks for the warm welcome back. And yes, I am still with my partner, we are now both happily married. I remembered being called a “troll” and “hypocrite” a few times in the last thread but I want to put all that behind us and move forward I decided that the other thread wasnt productive due to being mindful that other ex LCers coming across it who are also struggling with their sexual/gender identity, which may lead to hopelessness for them.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bone of my bone flesh of my flesh, Adam said when God yanked is rib out and made Eve. So they were flesh before the fall -- and Eve wasn't made of dirt, so she was superior.

And since we don't know what's in-line with God, we should leave it up to God ... and love the lbgtq brothers and sisters just as we do heterosexuals.

Just a side note, before Adam and Eve discovered their nakedness, I’m wondering if they had genetalia to begin with, especailly since procreation was not in God’s interest until AFTER the fall. And were Adam and Eve like innicent children who did not know what sex was? or did they romp around in the Garden of Eden not knowing what they were doing? Why did they hide from God? was it because they were naughty and found out what their sexual organs were for? These are a lot of unanswered questions.

And Awareness, if you do indeed start your own website, there may be some lgbtq brothers and sisters and second generation church kids who may join who have previously visited this site but did not feel safe posting on here. For now, they are in this secret facebook group that I am in and there and there are about 20 of them, and I have talked to at least seven of them. I wonder if same sex attractions are immoral, why are there so many of us?

Originally Posted by Ohio

And here we have our old friend awareness once again criticizing folks for how they think.

Even those on the way far left like avowed Wiccan zealot J.K.Rowling et.al. are protesting the ever-growing demands from the LGBTQ cancel culture community. Remember Rowling expressly wrote her Harry Potter books to introduce a whole generation of young people to Pagan Witchcraft.

But how dare anyone resist their demands or "think differently."

I know that this is a little off topic but im curious, which sources did you come upon that expressedly stated Jk Rowling herself endorsed Wiccan craft? I’m just wondering because I thought the books were fictional and meant to be read that way.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I know that this is a little off topic but im curious, which sources did you come upon that expressedly stated Jk Rowling herself endorsed Wiccan craft? I’m just wondering because I thought the books were fictional and meant to be read that way.

There are links in the post.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Hi Brother Ohio, so covert name calling is when you imply that Awareness is from a different planet and calling him a victim, even though he just shares different views from you. He probably surrounds himself with others that are different such as you and I do. But that doesnt mean he is from Mars or the future. He still lives in the era that we all do.

While I do agree that some countries physically jail and stone gay people to death and The U. S now legally supports gay marriage, there are still movements like preventing trans people from serving in the army, not creating safe environments or toilets (unisex bathrooms) for them. Christianity had a long history of discrimination, harrassment (examples: Stonewall and AIDS response to same sex couples, not legitimizing their relationships as a family member when one member of a couple wants to visit the other spouse/partner in the hospital at the death bed). Mental abuse and unacceptance is in some ways worse than physical death (an example of gays killed is the story of Matthew Shepherd). It’s a slower form of death, the person suffers from mental anguish, rejection, bullying that lead to higher suicide rates, depression, anxiety, and trauma. Take it from a sister who has first hand experience.

"Christianity had a long history of discrimination?" -- This is your response? So did Aborigines, Native Americans, First Nation peoples. Every group of people who ever lived have a long history of discrimination against gay and lesbians. You then need to judge the entire world. Why just judge Christians of old? Christians and Judeo-Christian Western societies have taken the lead in protecting gays and lesbians. Why don't you acknowledge their help?

Neither did you answer how many in the gay and lesbian community have voiced their disagreement with the demands of transgenders. For example, trans athletes are beginning to destroy women's sports. All of the Title Nine gains might be wiped out eventually. Many are concluding that male and female sports can no longer be segregated, and unisex sports are the logical conclusion. Even gay and lesbian supporters are starting to realize the incredibly dangerous ramifications that trans people impose upon society.

There is no military in the history of the world which has accepted trans recruits for obvious reasons. You need to rethink this position. The US military is not a social experiment. I disagree that the entire society should be forced to change in order to accommodate those who don't like their own body. This is not discrimination!

"Covert name calling?" O my, are you sensitive. I am only addressing ideas and concepts here. It is merely a normal response to wild ideas to say, "what planet are you from?"

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Hello Sons of Glory, thanks for the warm welcome back. And yes, I am still with my partner, we are now both happily married. I remembered being called a “troll” and “hypocrite” a few times in the last thread but I want to put all that behind us and move forward I decided that the other thread wasnt productive due to being mindful that other ex LCers coming across it who are also struggling with their sexual/gender identity, which may lead to hopelessness for them.

I know gays who are deep in the closet, while staying in the local church. It would be nice if this thread allowed them to come out of the closet.

But fat chance. The LC will always force those that can't help being gay, into the closet ... or out the door. And LCD is the same.

Thank God for SerenityLives. She grew up in the LC, and she still turned out to be gay. Proving, it's not environmentally caused, but naturally caused.

So ... Paul didn't know what he was talking about. Or he was speaking to an audience of that day ... not to us today.

I skimmed the thread thus far but decided not to engage in the bickering.

Instead, I want to say I love Jesus. I'm a follower of Christ and the Great Divine. I'm also unapologetically Bi. I don't believe it is a sin. I believe the Bible has been mistranslated and misinterpretted making people assume that it is a sin.

My attraction to women has always been there, but part of me assumed all women felt that way (that women are attractive). Also, with homosexuality being judged culturally as I was growing up, I did my best to ignore those feelings.

It was the view of homosexuality within the church vs the *reality* of love shared between homosexuals, and compared to the verse "you will know them by their fruit" ultimately made me re-examine everything.

Is the fruit good that leads people to commit suicide after being kicked out and cut-off from their family because they love someone they "shouldn't"?

Is the fruit good that causes people to attack and kill homosexuals?

Or is the fruit good when you celebrate genuine love between two consenting adults who are enriched and built up by each other? Who can raise beautiful and well-adjusted children?

I prayed to God to reveal to me who He wanted me to be- who He designed me to be. I have kept my eyes on my God and He has led my down beautiful paths. I have accepted who I am, all of me, and I am much happier for it all. <3

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What planet are you from?

Those of Judeo-Christian background treat gay and lesbians better than any place on earth. Ever study what muslim, communist, or fascist countries do to them?

Methinks your anti-Christian bias is distorting the facts.

Matter-of-fact the gay and lesbian community in the US now enjoys the highest per capita income than any other group. Where is the discrimination? Also, the gay and lesbian community is protected by hate crime legislation which I am not entitled to. If someone kills me because they hate the way I look, there is no hate crime for that, but if the reverse occurs, I am subject to extra judgment. This simply means that their life is more valuable than mine. Think about that.

So much for "dehumanizing and delegitimizing."

It's time to grow up and get over whining about some phony victim status.

Gosh, if only you could give up projecting.

I have a cousin, not far up the road from me, whom I love dearly ; a conservative Southern Baptist.

Around 10 yrs ago or so I met his grown son. A clean cut looking Christian, writing Christian songs, and creating Christian CDs. I spotted right off the bat that he was gay. I talked to my cousin about it and he blew up at me, denying any possibility of it.

A couple of yrs ago his son introduced his gay lover to his father. All hell blew up. A Facebook war ensued between them, in public display, where his father Butch called his son Roger, an abomination to God, and Roger calling his dad a bigot.

There's nothing phony about that.

What's phony is, your defense of "Christianity," like it's been perfect ever since Jesus.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Hello Sons of Glory, thanks for the warm welcome back. And yes, I am still with my partner, we are now both happily married. I remembered being called a “troll” and “hypocrite” a few times in the last thread but I want to put all that behind us and move forward I decided that the other thread wasn't productive due to being mindful that other ex LCers coming across it who are also struggling with their sexual/gender identity, which may lead to hopelessness for them.

Well al the best (Jesus) to you and yours!

Sexuality is certainly a fascinating thing, to be sure. So much of the drive to satisfy it are hormones raging in our bodies. I muse on that from time to time, because when younger we think it's SUCH A BIG DEAL! But as I'm getting older, the hormones aren't clouding my thinking nearly as strongly as before, which I find to be a good thing!

And it's not clear to me how it will all be with our new bodies. Jesus said in Matthew 22:30, "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." So what does this mean? Will there not be gender or we just don't get married . . . or both? However, God did make Adam & Eve in His image and called them "good," so gender was in His plan.

In any case, we will be free of the flesh of sin and all the confusion will be gone!

Originally Posted by Ohio

And here we have our old friend awareness once again criticizing folks for how they think.

Even those on the way far left like avowed Wiccan zealot J.K.Rowling et.al. are protesting the ever-growing demands from the LGBTQ cancel culture community. Remember Rowling expressly wrote her Harry Potter books to introduce a whole generation of young people to Pagan Witchcraft.

But how dare anyone resist their demands or "think differently."

Check out wikipedia’s page of fake news sites, which includes your empirenews.net. Also this thread is not supposed to be focused on issues of the “far left”. Lets return to our discussion of lgbtq issues

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Check out wikipedia’s page of fake news sites, which includes your empirenews.net. Also this thread is not supposed to be focused on issues of the “far left”. Lets return to our discussion of lgbtq issues

But fake news we like is not fake news. It's factual .... hahahaha

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

But fake news we like is not fake news. It's factual .... hahahaha

Okay, it's embarrassing to quote fake sources. Glad none of the rest of us ever fell for that . . .

And before we get back to the main topic, isn't there one or two (or more) additional letters added to LGBTQ that we're leaving out?
SEE HERE: LGBTQIA
Which also links to HERE:LGBTQQIP2SAA

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Okay, it's embarrassing to quote fake sources. Glad none of the rest of us ever fell for that . . .

And before we get back to the main topic, isn't there one or two (or more) additional letters added to LGBTQ that we're leaving out?
SEE HERE: LGBTQIA
Which also links to HERE:LGBTQQIP2SAA

Aren't both all inclusive ... encompassing everyone? I like that. I fit in. Thank you Jesus!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Aren't both all inclusive ... encompassing everyone? I like that. I fit in. Thank you Jesus!

So the expanded one "LGBTQQIP2SAA" stands for:

>Lesbian
>Gay
>Bisexual
>Transgender
>Two Q’s to cover both bases (queer and questioning);
>I for Intersex, people with two sets of genitalia or various chromosomal differences;
>P for Pansexual, people who refuse to be pinned down on the Kinsey scale;
>2S for Two-Spirit, a tradition in many First Nations that considers sexual minorities to have both male and female spirits;
>A for Asexual, people who do not identify with any orientation; and
>A for Allies, recognizing that the community thrives best with loving supporters, although they are not really part of the community itself.

[awareness]

Pope Francis tells parents of LGBT children that 'God loves them as they are'

Francis is the best Pope ever.

Thank you Jesus!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cept-them.html

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Just a side note, before Adam and Eve discovered their nakedness, I’m wondering if they had genetalia to begin with, especailly since procreation was not in God’s interest until AFTER the fall. And were Adam and Eve like innicent children who did not know what sex was? or did they romp around in the Garden of Eden not knowing what they were doing? Why did they hide from God? was it because they were naughty and found out what their sexual organs were for? These are a lot of unanswered questions.

And Awareness, if you do indeed start your own website, there may be some lgbtq brothers and sisters and second generation church kids who may join who have previously visited this site but did not feel safe posting on here. For now, they are in this secret facebook group that I am in and there and there are about 20 of them, and I have talked to at least seven of them. I wonder if same sex attractions are immoral, why are there so many of us?

After God created both Adam and Eve, Genesis 2:24-25 says:

24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

The uniting and the one flesh is sex. It seems to me that God was interested in procreation before the fall (which didn't occur until Genesis 3:6), so they would have had genitalia before the fall.

They hid from God because they disobeyed Him. Any kid who's disobeyed their parents and got caught knows why they hid!

The shame they felt from their nakedness can be interpreted many ways, and has been. I guess there are two parts to it: shame before each other, and shame before God.

The shame before each other is interesting, given they were a couple, and couples see each other naked. Although I've never discussed it with anyone, I personally concluded that since the sinful fallen nature would be passed on to the human race through procreative sex, that's why the nakedness became shameful -- because it was tied to what would be the cascading devastating effects of the fall. That's just my own thoughts though.

The shame before God is so interesting too. Adam and Eve did what the leadership in the LC does in the face of sin - covered themselves up in an attempt to hide their sin. But that's not what God is about. God wants us to turn to Him with our sin and shame so He can be the one to cover us in a way better than we ever could, which is exactly what He did with Adam and Eve.

People who identify as LGB or T account for approximately 5% of the U.S. population.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

People who identify as LGB or T account for approximately 5% of the U.S. population.

Wow that is around 16 million Americans! And if you look at UCLA’s statistics, among millenials, it’s nearly 25 percent. Is it because society is more accepting of them to report higher numbers, cultural influences on shame, or nature/nurture?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by BeingCalled

I skimmed the thread thus far but decided not to engage in the bickering.

Instead, I want to say I love Jesus. I'm a follower of Christ and the Great Divine. I'm also unapologetically Bi. I don't believe it is a sin. I believe the Bible has been mistranslated and misinterpretted making people assume that it is a sin.

My attraction to women has always been there, but part of me assumed all women felt that way (that women are attractive). Also, with homosexuality being judged culturally as I was growing up, I did my best to ignore those feelings.

It was the view of homosexuality within the church vs the *reality* of love shared between homosexuals, and compared to the verse "you will know them by their fruit" ultimately made me re-examine everything.

Is the fruit good that leads people to commit suicide after being kicked out and cut-off from their family because they love someone they "shouldn't"?

Is the fruit good that causes people to attack and kill homosexuals?

Or is the fruit good when you celebrate genuine love between two consenting adults who are enriched and built up by each other? Who can raise beautiful and well-adjusted children?

I prayed to God to reveal to me who He wanted me to be- who He designed me to be. I have kept my eyes on my God and He has led my down beautiful paths. I have accepted who I am, all of me, and I am much happier for it all. <3

Thanks for sharing your testimony. I also agree that the first commandment Jesus told us is to love our neighbor. And if you think about all the gay conversion camps, most of them don’t work. In fact, more kids end up having more depressive thoughts and higher likelihood of attempting or commiting suicide after being sent to these camps. This is why in California, it is illegal for therapists to do “gay conversion therapy” on children and adolescents even if their family/parents insist on it. Even the English word “homosexuality” was a mistranslation from the Greek words for describing males having nonconsensual sex with their male slaves. You have to look at the historical and cultural context in whoch Paul and other New testament authors were writing in, during the Roman times where all types of sex and temple prostitutes were common and not frowned upon by Greeks and Romans.
My first attraction of women started when I was in elementary school. I remembered a vivid dream of myself after Sunday children’s meeting, where I dreamed I was “Adam” with this obscure female in this garden (we were learning about the Genesis story) Now I dont know if I was already experiencing sin at the time, but it sure felt real.

Thanks for this topic.

I am bisexual, and I really found it hard to accept myself during my teenage years and even early 20s.
I tried to push it down and "pray the gay" away for the longest time.

In my mid 20s I realised I could not deny that I was bisexual any longer. But still being in the LC made that hard. It was like the longer I stayed in the more homophobic preaching I heard from elders in the LC.

Every wedding I attended felt like it was being used as a lesson to push heterosexuality as the only right way.

This wasn't the only reason I left, but even so, when I first left and then met Christians who were also in the LGBT community and supported for it by their church, I felt envious.

I don't feel that way particularly anymore, but I do worry a lot for the queer kids still in the church.

Since I accidentally posted this anonymously I am going to add that this.

I am a woman and next week will be celebrating my one year anniversary with my girlfriend who is a beautiful transgender woman.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Since I accidentally posted this anonymously I am going to add that this.

I am a woman and next week will be celebrating my one year anniversary with my girlfriend who is a beautiful transgender woman.

So ... you have returned to God's original plan of one man and one woman?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So ... you have returned to God's original plan of one man and one woman?

No Ohio, she mentioned that she is with a person who identifies as a woman. They are both female gender. So they are a lesbian couple who have mutual attractions for each other.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"Christianity had a long history of discrimination?" -- This is your response? So did Aborigines, Native Americans, First Nation peoples. Every group of people who ever lived have a long history of discrimination against gay and lesbians. You then need to judge the entire world. Why just judge Christians of old? Christians and Judeo-Christian Western societies have taken the lead in protecting gays and lesbians. Why don't you acknowledge their help?

Neither did you answer how many in the gay and lesbian community have voiced their disagreement with the demands of transgenders. For example, trans athletes are beginning to destroy women's sports. All of the Title Nine gains might be wiped out eventually. Many are concluding that male and female sports can no longer be segregated, and unisex sports are the logical conclusion. Even gay and lesbian supporters are starting to realize the incredibly dangerous ramifications that trans people impose upon society.

There is no military in the history of the world which has accepted trans recruits for obvious reasons. You need to rethink this position. The US military is not a social experiment. I disagree that the entire society should be forced to change in order to accommodate those who don't like their own body. This is not discrimination!

"Covert name calling?" O my, are you sensitive. I am only addressing ideas and concepts here. It is merely a normal response to wild ideas to say, "what planet are you from?"

Not the entire world. In ancient times, there was acceptance among the Romans and Greeks for homosexual relations and among some Native American communities, the trans people were treated with respect and revered as shamans and “two-spirited”. Buddhist and Taoist religions don’t care much about someone’s sexual orientation. We need to acknowlege the hurt LGBTQ peeps have recieved from Christianity because it’s the same thing as disregarding how Europeans massacred and took away Native American lands, or brushing African American slavery under the rug. Please define “Christians of old”. Are you inquiring about the Roman Catholics, Pre-Augustine times, New Testament times or old Testament times.

I’m not sure where you are getting your sources from, but I have plenty of trans friends and I dont mind their “ramifications”, whether it’d be in sports or usage of bathrooms. The Chinese military and Vikings had women generals and warriors. What difference does it make if they are all fighting on the same side? Laws change base on societal standards and changes. Thus, the entire history of humankind has been one giant social experiment.

And thank you, I’m just being culturally sensitive.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Since I accidentally posted this anonymously I am going to add that this.

I am a woman and next week will be celebrating my one year anniversary with my girlfriend who is a beautiful transgender woman.

May this thread help more LC gays come out of the closet ... and help gay LC kids feel free from condemnation in their homosexuality.

Thank you Jesus for this thread.

Thanks Serenity ... you're an angel of God.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Pope Francis tells parents of LGBT children that 'God loves them as they are'

Francis is the best Pope ever.

Thank you Jesus!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cept-them.html

Well of course God loves them just the way they are! He loves all of us - even when were were flat-out enemies. Now He is bringing many sons to glory, and soon all the confusion will be gone!

We had dinner last night with an older couple - saints who are friends of ours - who have had their share of physical maladies. The sister has had cancer like three times over the past 20 years (she's all good now). She was discussing how she did a gene study and discovered that one little letter in a certain gene was wrong, and this makes someone predisposed to certain types of cancer. It's amazing to me that out of all the billions of "lines of code" in our DNA, that just one little tiny thing out of place causes big issues.

So, we fallen beings, all have these little things out of place that causes things to go sideways. This is why well all need to be renewed. He loves us, sent Christ to heal us, and through Him the new creation will be fully manifest with none of these issues. Hallelujah!

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well of course God loves them just the way they are! He loves all of us - even when were were flat-out enemies. Now He is bringing many sons to glory, and soon all the confusion will be gone!

We had dinner last night with an older couple - saints who are friends of ours - who have had their share of physical maladies. The sister has had cancer like three times over the past 20 years (she's all good now). She was discussing how she did a gene study and discovered that one little letter in a certain gene was wrong, and this makes someone predisposed to certain types of cancer. It's amazing to me that out of all the billions of "lines of code" in our DNA, that just one little tiny thing out of place causes big issues.

So, we fallen beings, all have these little things out of place that causes things to go sideways. This is why well all need to be renewed. He loves us, sent Christ to heal us, and through Him the new creation will be fully manifest with none of these issues. Hallelujah!

Hi Sons of Glory, you’ve matured a lot since the last time we spoke. I’m glad the couple you spoke of is in good health right now. I realize that over the last three years, I have also been doing some studies, both sociological and biological about what makes sexuality and gender so diverse in human beings. In fact, there are higher percentages of bisexuality in women than men and gay men know their sexuality at pre teen or puberty whereas on average, lesbians and bisexual women have more fluid sexuality throughout their lives and find out later on, usually in late teens or twenties to even thirties. There’s been studies showing that several alterations in genes can determine a person’s disposition to male or female attraction. And of course there is are studies where they put trans people’s brains under MRI scans and the parts that light up are more similar to that of which gender they feel, not of the sex organs they were born with. And there are toddlers, like three years old who feel they ate in the wrong body/assigned the wrong gender, insisting that they want to wear certain gendered clothing and say they are a “boy” or a “girl”, the first chance they have conception of gender. No one gave them the idea, but yet they know. Then there’s other studies that show that the amount of estrogen in a mother’s body during pregnancy can lead to gender identity in babies whether they’ve already developed male or female or intersex genitalia. Then there’s another study that reveals that in people who identify as intersex and the doctor and/or parents decide to cut off the penis or keep the penis, the brain still produces variant amounts of testosterone that can lead, say an intersex person whose family decides for them to remove the penis, to later find out they identify more as a male while growing up. It’s all very fascinating. And what makes heterosexuals attracted to the opposite sex and why are people always looking for a “gay gene” when they can’t even find a “hetero” gene, there’s so many factors and its mindboggling to even comprehend. We are all made in the image of God and so there is redemption for all of us.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Since I accidentally posted this anonymously I am going to add that this.

I am a woman and next week will be celebrating my one year anniversary with my girlfriend who is a beautiful transgender woman.

congratulations to your one year anniversary. my wife and I are having our fourth year anniversary next week as well. This just comes to show that same sex relationships can be as stable, healthy, and happy as opposite sex relationships !

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Thanks for this topic.

I am bisexual, and I really found it hard to accept myself during my teenage years and even early 20s.
I tried to push it down and "pray the gay" away for the longest time.

In my mid 20s I realised I could not deny that I was bisexual any longer. But still being in the LC made that hard. It was like the longer I stayed in the more homophobic preaching I heard from elders in the LC.

Every wedding I attended felt like it was being used as a lesson to push heterosexuality as the only right way.

This wasn't the only reason I left, but even so, when I first left and then met Christians who were also in the LGBT community and supported for it by their church, I felt envious.

I don't feel that way particularly anymore, but I do worry a lot for the queer kids still in the church.

I am bisexual as well and it took a lot of denial but nothing seemed to work no matter how hard I prayed to God, tried to date guys. At one time I felt like I was living a double life in college, joining Christians on Campus and simultaneously, neevously avoiding church people who happen to be on campus to go to evening lgbtq support groups. There were times when I felt like giving up, letting go, having suicidal thoughts, but I finally realized that I only had one life, and that was given to me by God. I had to live it and stop pretending. I worry also for the ones still stuck in LC and struggling with their sexuality or gender identity, hence why I wanted to start this thread to show that there is hope out there for any of them if they are starting to question and need to know that there are others like them, who have gone through similar experiences. Thank you for sharing and I’m glad to know I am also not alone.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

There’s been studies showing that several alterations in genes can determine a person’s disposition to male or female attraction.

....

And what makes heterosexuals attracted to the opposite sex and why are people always looking for a “gay gene” when they can’t even find a “hetero” gene...

I agree it is fascinating.

Can you explain these two statements and reconcile them a little more? From my reading, it sounds like the first statement is saying there is genetic component to whether a person is attracted to males or females, and from my reading of the second statement it sounds like you are disparaging looking for that very thing - a gene that determines attractions - as something silly. I don't want to misunderstand what you are saying, so I'm just asking for clarification. Thanks.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I am bisexual as well and it took a lot of denial but nothing seemed to work no matter how hard I prayed to God, tried to date guys. At one time I felt like I was living a double life in college, joining Christians on Campus and simultaneously, neevously avoiding church people who happen to be on campus to go to evening lgbtq support groups. There were times when I felt like giving up, letting go, having suicidal thoughts, but I finally realized that I only had one life, and that was given to me by God. I had to live it and stop pretending. I worry also for the ones still stuck in LC and struggling with their sexuality or gender identity, hence why I wanted to start this thread to show that there is hope out there for any of them if they are starting to question and need to know that there are others like them, who have gone through similar experiences. Thank you for sharing and I’m glad to know I am also not alone.

Hearing that you were in COC helps clarify for me the "in LC" part of this new thread. I had been thinking that, at least according to my own experience, the LGBT+ topic in the local church is essentially not brought up except in the college student context. As far as I am aware, "the ministry" doesn't spend much if any time on the topic, and the co-workers are more concerned with their own "deputy authority" during the trainings and conferences than to address this topic at all. The only place I have heard much said, and it wasn't much, was in the context of college student gatherings.....mostly things like Q&As or "special topics" or something like that.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Hi Sons of Glory, you’ve matured a lot since the last time we spoke. I’m glad the couple you spoke of is in good health right now. I realize that over the last three years, I have also been doing some studies, both sociological and biological about what makes sexuality and gender so diverse in human beings. In fact, there are higher percentages of bisexuality in women than men and gay men know their sexuality at pre teen or puberty whereas on average, lesbians and bisexual women have more fluid sexuality throughout their lives and find out later on, usually in late teens or twenties to even thirties. There’s been studies showing that several alterations in genes can determine a person’s disposition to male or female attraction. And of course there is are studies where they put trans people’s brains under MRI scans and the parts that light up are more similar to that of which gender they feel, not of the sex organs they were born with. And there are toddlers, like three years old who feel they ate in the wrong body/assigned the wrong gender, insisting that they want to wear certain gendered clothing and say they are a “boy” or a “girl”, the first chance they have conception of gender. No one gave them the idea, but yet they know. Then there’s other studies that show that the amount of estrogen in a mother’s body during pregnancy can lead to gender identity in babies whether they’ve already developed male or female or intersex genitalia. Then there’s another study that reveals that in people who identify as intersex and the doctor and/or parents decide to cut off the penis or keep the penis, the brain still produces variant amounts of testosterone that can lead, say an intersex person whose family decides for them to remove the penis, to later find out they identify more as a male while growing up. It’s all very fascinating. And what makes heterosexuals attracted to the opposite sex and why are people always looking for a “gay gene” when they can’t even find a “hetero” gene, there’s so many factors and its mindboggling to even comprehend. We are all made in the image of God and so there is redemption for all of us.

Well thank you. I have just come to the point where I realize I don't know exactly how it all works, and that's fine, because He knows how it all works! So to conclusively say that gayness happens because of personal decision, or genes or the devil or whatever - let's face it, no one but God knows. We don't even normally realize the extent of what the fall did, because we live with the corrupted flesh every day. So it's perhaps a little like a bunch of three-year-olds sitting around and arguing about some aspect of nuclear fission.

I'm reminded of that wonderful song "I Cannot Tell," because it comes down to just that - I cannot tell; but this I know: "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself"

(To the tune of "Danny Boy")
I cannot tell why He, whom angels worship,
Should set His love upon the sons of men,
Or why, as Shepherd, He should seek the wand’rers,
To bring them back, they know not how or when.
But this I know, that He was born of Mary,
When Bethl’hem’s manger was His only home,
And that He lived at Nazareth and labored,
And so the Savior, Savior of the world, is come.

I cannot tell how silently He suffered,
As with His peace He graced this place of tears,
Or how His heart upon the Cross was broken,
The crown of pain to three and thirty years.
But this I know, He heals the broken-hearted,
And stays our sin, and calms our lurking fear,
And lifts the burden from the heavy laden,
For yet the Savior, Savior of the world, is here.

I cannot tell how He will win the nations,
How He will claim His earthly heritage,
How satisfy the needs and aspirations
Of east and west, of sinner and of sage.
But this I know, all flesh shall see His glory,
And He shall reap the harvest He has sown,
And some glad day His sun shall shine in splendor
When He the Savior, Savior of the world, is known.

I cannot tell how all the lands shall worship,
When, at His bidding, every storm is stilled,
Or who can say how great the jubilation
When all the hearts of men with love are filled.
But this I know, the skies will thrill with rapture,
And myriad, myriad human voices sing,
And earth to heaven, and heaven to earth, will answer:
At last the Savior, Savior of the world, is King.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well of course God loves them just the way they are! He loves all of us - even when were were flat-out enemies. Now He is bringing many sons to glory, and soon all the confusion will be gone!

We had dinner last night with an older couple - saints who are friends of ours - who have had their share of physical maladies. The sister has had cancer like three times over the past 20 years (she's all good now). She was discussing how she did a gene study and discovered that one little letter in a certain gene was wrong, and this makes someone predisposed to certain types of cancer. It's amazing to me that out of all the billions of "lines of code" in our DNA, that just one little tiny thing out of place causes big issues.

So, we fallen beings, all have these little things out of place that causes things to go sideways. This is why well all need to be renewed. He loves us, sent Christ to heal us, and through Him the new creation will be fully manifest with none of these issues. Hallelujah!

Yeah brother Sons to Glory, and gays may be accepted in God's new kingdom ... after all, there won't be marriages.

And don't forget, Gen 6 told of the sons of God -- said to be angels -- coming down to know the young daughters of men (why not daughters of women? -- musta been written by men)? So, like Jesus stated, angels aren't given to marriage, but apparently, that doesn't keep them from being horny. And of course, who could resist gods ... or angels? Those pretty young girls didn't stand a chance against their godly charms.

In the OT gays were to be stoned to death. Why aren't there stories of lesbians in the OT? It's because there weren't none (sic). They were stoned.

Ever wonder why there's so much homophobia in the LC? That's easy. They get it from the Bible. The Bible is a homophobic book ... which means, according to that record, God is a homophobe ... God forbid

Those Leviticus commandments, that Christians love to use against gays, however, doesn't stop the Christian homophobe's from enjoying shrimp and lobster for dinner ... commandments included in the same book that calls men laying with men an abomination. Eating shrimp is an abomination to God. God's a funny arbitrary guy with his commandments and abominations.

So is the local church. But not funny to the gays in the LC ... it's actually painful to them ... not the love Jesus taught and lived. The local church isn't being Christ-like toward them. No surprise there. The LC isn't Christ-like. They're Lee-like.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

No Ohio, she mentioned that she is with a person who identifies as a woman. They are both female gender. So they are a lesbian couple who have mutual attractions for each other.

But one of them has a boy's body, and she is a girl ... see how that works?

Pay attention to what is happening today. It is the traditional gay and lesbian communities who are going to react the strongest against the trans movement, especially related to sports. Think about what will happen when Megan Rapinoe and other lesbian sports stars on the USA women's soccer team start losing to some insignificant country team with a bunch of trans athletes.

Lawsuits galore are in store. Women track stars in Connecticut have already filed lawsuits regarding trans athletes who have stolen their university scholarships and sports futures. The whole movement can be fraught with fraud. (My one son often says that he could have been a basketball legend if only he would have identified as a woman. ) If we as a society don't decide to limit sports to one's birth gender, then we will destroy all sports. Trans women will totally dominate women's sports, and if we go to unisex sports, women will totally lose out, except for a few sports like gymnastics, diving, skating, etc.

The entire trans movement may one day destroy the whole of society in order to give special privileges to a small handful of people. It is far and away the most self-centered and narcissistic movement in all of history.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Not the entire world. In ancient times, there was acceptance among the Romans and Greeks for homosexual relations and among some Native American communities, the trans people were treated with respect and revered as shamans and “two-spirited”. Buddhist and Taoist religions don’t care much about someone’s sexual orientation. We need to acknowlege the hurt LGBTQ peeps have recieved from Christianity because it’s the same thing as disregarding how Europeans massacred and took away Native American lands, or brushing African American slavery under the rug. Please define “Christians of old”. Are you inquiring about the Roman Catholics, Pre-Augustine times, New Testament times or old Testament times.

I’m not sure where you are getting your sources from, but I have plenty of trans friends and I dont mind their “ramifications”, whether it’d be in sports or usage of bathrooms. The Chinese military and Vikings had women generals and warriors. What difference does it make if they are all fighting on the same side? Laws change base on societal standards and changes. Thus, the entire history of humankind has been one giant social experiment.

And thank you, I’m just being culturally sensitive.

No, you are definitely not culturally sensitive.

If there ever was a movement to destroy the US, this would be it. And I definitely disagree with your distorted versions of Christian and American history. Since China has become the "most successful economic and socio-political" country today, after dealing so well with the Covid pandemic, please take your innovative ideas to their country in order to test them out before bringing them here.

What? China won't take them? Maybe Russia? No? How about Cuba? Venezuela? There must be lots of other "progressive socialist" countries out there that I'm sure you would like a whole lot better than this awful USA with its terrible Christians.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

May this thread help more LC gays come out of the closet ... and help gay LC kids feel free from condemnation in their homosexuality.

Have you considered that the horrible "condemnation" these people are forced to endure does not come from outside, but from inside, from within their own conscience given to them by God?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I am bisexual as well ...

What does your wonderful wife of 4 years say when you start getting interested in some guy?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Wow that is around 16 million Americans! And if you look at UCLA’s statistics, among millenials, it’s nearly 25 percent. Is it because society is more accepting of them to report higher numbers, cultural influences on shame, or nature/nurture?

Do you mean that of those who identify as LGBT, 25% of them are millennials? Or do you mean that of the U.S. millennial age bracket, 25% of U.S. millennials identify as LGBT?

College students do and say a lot of things they regret later on. Drinking, passing out drunk, drugs, sex they regret in the morning, hazing, driving recklessly over 100 mph, making out with people they wouldn't otherwise, getting naked in public pools, trying out lesbian/gay relationships, throwing caution to the wind. And then they wake up after college and say "Oops. I didn't have my head on straight." I can think of examples of almost all those I just gave -- and all within corporate living in a local church context! Are they doing those things anymore now that they are adults? Nope, not one of them. College students aren't bastions of reason and level-headed thinking.

If the 25% statistic remains and progresses through the age brackets as those millennials get older, then I would say that statistic gives us more to sink our teeth into.

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I wonder if same sex attractions are immoral, why are there so many of us?

I also want to revisit briefly the logic behind this statement of yours. My comments here are not regarding the morality or immorality of same sex attractions, but just the logic of your statement.

Prevalence of something does not determine its morality. There are over 2 million people in prison right now. That's a lot! But it doesn't make what they've done (steal, prostitute young girls, murder, rape, commit fraud, grand theft auto, burglary, etc) moral.

Note, I'm not comparing same sex attractions to criminal acts. I'm just trying to show you that the logic of your conclusion does not hold up. We can use a less horrible sounding example if it helps. Almost 40% of Americans are obese. That's over 70 million people. It's a staggering number. Does that make obesity normal, healthy, good, something to attain to? Of course not. Prevalence of something doesn't determine it's rightness or wrongness.

I just want to make sure we are handling the discussion with a common and basic level of logic.

Again - I'm not comparing LGBT to crimes or to obesity. I'm not commenting on the morality of it. I'm only concerned with the leap of logic, and used those things as examples to show the logic in that one statement doesn't hold. Thanks.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

If the 25% statistic remains and progresses through the age brackets as those millennials get older, then I would say that statistic gives us more to sink our teeth into.

I also want to revisit briefly the logic behind this statement of yours. My comments here are not regarding the morality or immorality of same sex attractions.

Oh I think it will. 90 percent of all lgbtq I’ve encountered havent changed their orientation in a decade and I havent changed my whole life.

And I know, just comparing it to heterosexuality, there’s many but is it moral?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What does your wonderful wife of 4 years say when you start getting interested in some guy?

Just because someone is bisexual does not mean they can easily flip flop. I am commited to my wife and am apalled at how you continue to disparage my relationship and the other lgbtq’s relations with their loved ones. If you have nothing good to say, then dont say it at all.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But one of them has a boy's body, and she is a girl ... see how that works?

Pay attention to what is happening today. It is far and away the most self-centered and narcissistic movement in all of history.

Just because you think something, doesnt mean it is true. Just because you think her partner is a male does not make that true. And no I think you should pay attention to what is happening today. I can see where you’re coming from but sorry it doesnt work that way. “self centered”? please take a look at yourself or Awareness will censure you.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No, you are definitely not culturally sensitive.

If there ever was a movement to destroy the US, this would be it. And I definitely disagree with your distorted versions of Christian and American history. Since China has become the "most successful economic and socio-political" country today, after dealing so well with the Covid pandemic, please take your innovative ideas to their country in order to test them out before bringing them here.

What? China won't take them? Maybe Russia? No? How about Cuba? Venezuela? There must be lots of other "progressive socialist" countries out there that I'm sure you would like a whole lot better than this awful USA with its terrible Christians.

Homsexuals have existed throughout history and we have not distroyed history, whatever that means. Think about the Holocaust and how homosexuals were rounded up too and thrown in the incinerators. Thinking that you are afraid with gays and lesbians destroying America speaks more about you and your privilege. I’m not going to engage with you anymore. Any retorts or answers will be met with my silence. Be civilized like Trapped and Sons of Glory.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

And I know, just comparing it to heterosexuality, there’s many but is it moral?

I'm having trouble understanding what you are trying to say here. Can you rephrase the question?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Just because someone is bisexual does not mean they can easily flip flop. I am commited to my wife and am apalled at how you continue to disparage my relationship and the other lgbtq’s relations with their loved ones. If you have nothing good to say, then dont say it at all.

I have not disparaged your relationship or any other.

It is you who said somthing quite concerning about being bi.

Do you esteem loyalty or faithfulness to your partner as important?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Just because you think something, doesnt mean it is true. Just because you think her partner is a male does not make that true. And no I think you should pay attention to what is happening today. I can see where you’re coming from but sorry it doesnt work that way. “self centered”? please take a look at yourself or Awareness will censure you.

Why don't you comment on lesbian concerns for women's sports?

[SerenityLives]

[QUOTE=Trapped;95042]I agree it is fascinating.

Can you explain these two statements and reconcile them a little more? From my reading, it sounds like the first statement is saying there is genetic component to whether a person is attracted to males or females, and from my reading of the second statement it sounds like you are disparaging looking for that very thing - a gene that determines attractions - as something silly. I don't want to misunderstand what you are saying, so I'm just asking for clarification. Thanks

So, for a very long time, researchers have been trying to find one specific gene, not genes (plural) that determines a person’s sexual orientation. Many of the LGBTQ community at that time found it ludicrous and offensive that they should be looking for a gay gene, which implies there’s something wrong or it’s a genetic mutation that results in their orientation. So if you flip it around, if people think that heterosexuality is the minority, by same logic, then they should also be lookin for the specific gene that make a person straight right?

As it turns out, recently in some studies, sexuality is a result of a combination of various parts of genes (plural), and hormones in the mother’s womb before birth. So that clears up a lot I guess for the confusion in overall society, not just lgbtq community. I hope I answered your question

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Homsexuals have existed throughout history and we have not distroyed history, whatever that means. Think about the Holocaust and how homosexuals were rounded up too and thrown in the incinerators. Thinking that you are afraid with gays and lesbians destroying America speaks more about you and your privilege. I’m not going to engage with you anymore. Any retorts or answers will be met with my silence. Be civilized like Trapped and Sons of Glory.

I have been speaking about trans people. Why are you changing the subject to gays and lesbians. I'm sure you know the difference.

My discussions have been entirely civil. I am only asking you to respond to issues which other gays and lesbians also have. I mentioned the open letter by J K Rowling et. al. but you ignored that.

You cannot come here and promote your agenda unless you are willing to discuss. This is a Discussion Forum. I have some very serious concerns about the trans movement. Society has never confronted this before.

I am shocked that you would bring up this topic and then attempt to censure or censor me.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I'm having trouble understanding what you are trying to say here. Can you rephrase the question?

Like I have to come to question standards of morality. If homosexuals are to be jusged for their behaviors, then heterosexuals with divorces, cheating, incest, pedophilia, etc should also be questioned regarding whether these behaviors are appropriate and healthy.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

So, for a very long time, researchers have been trying to find one specific gene, not genes (plural) that determines a person’s sexual orientation. Many of the LGBTQ community at that time found it ludicrous and offensive that they should be looking for a gay gene, which implies there’s something wrong or it’s a genetic mutation that results in their orientation. So if you flip it around, if people think that heterosexuality is the minority, by same logic, then they should also be lookin for the specific gene that make a person straight right?

As it turns out, recently in some studies, sexuality is a result of a combination of various parts of genes (plural), and hormones in the mother’s womb before birth. So that clears up a lot I guess for the confusion in overall society, not just lgbtq community. I hope I answered your question

Huh, that's interesting. Perspectives are so complicated! When I hear of people looking for a specific gene in this area, the way my brain works is not to conisder it a "gay gene", but to consider it a "sexual orientation gene". If it's "flipped" one way, you are attracted to males, if it's flipped another way, then to females. There is no morality inherent in genes; it's just straight coding.

Kind of like sickle cell anemia. It's a single-gene issue. If the gene is one way, blood cells are round. If the gene is another way, blood cells are sickle-shaped and more sticky. The end result can be mortally problematic, but as far as the genes are concerned, there's nothing to be offended by; it's just how information is coded.

If we flip it around so heterosexuality is the minority, I would still consider it looking for a "gene that determines sexual orientation" rather than a "straight gene".

I'm a little confused again. Why is looking for one gene that determines a person's sexual orientation offensive, while finding out that sexuality is a combination of genes (plural) and hormones not offensive? Neither of those scenarios have anything to do with making a judgment on the person who received those genes or hormones. Why is one scenario (one gene) offensive and the other scenario (plural genes and hormones) not offensive?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have been speaking about trans people. Why are you changing the subject to gays and lesbians. I'm sure you know the difference.

My discussions have been entirely civil. I am only asking you to respond to issues which other gays and lesbians also have. I mentioned the open letter by J K Rowling et. al. but you ignored that.

You cannot come here and promote your agenda unless you are willing to discuss. This is a Discussion Forum. I have some very serious concerns about the trans movement. Society has never confronted this before.

I am shocked that you would bring up this topic and then attempt to censure or censor me.

Because JK rowling have nothing to do with lgbtq. And I already stated my opinions regarding trans people in previous posts. I have the right to answer what I feel appropriate or needs answering to, because I have limited knowledge just like you. Maybe someone else can answer in regards to the trans movement, but based on personal experiences, and I will reiterate, with the “trans movement”, not all trans people are involved in this so called movement, they are not in sports. Just like not all heterosexuals have the same views, politically or are in same “movements”. Why do you think I am promoting an “agenda”? I dont even have a planner. It’s time for society to confront it. Like slavery, back then, it would have been new and nothing they have ever seen.
You were deligitimizing my relationship by insensitive questions of whether I would be loyal to my wife? or if the other member’s partner is indeed a male or female. I dont ask you about your marriage so stay out of mine and her relationship. Thanks

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I'm a little confused again. Why is looking for one gene that determines a person's sexual orientation offensive, while finding out that sexuality is a combination of genes (plural) and hormones not offensive? Neither of those scenarios have anything to do with making a judgment on the person who received those genes or hormones. Why is one scenario (one gene) offensive and the other scenario (plural genes and hormones) not offensive?

To me personally, I dont find it offensive but I can see where other lgbtq come from. Maybe this article will help a bit:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbc...mp/ncna1050831

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Have you considered that the horrible "condemnation" these people are forced to endure does not come from outside, but from inside, from within their own conscience given to them by God?

Obviously you haven't been on the receiving end. And apparently are unable to empathize --> that I take to be Christ-like.

Originally Posted by Ohio

But one of them has a boy's body, and she is a girl ... see how that works?

Except that she doesn't have a boy's body.

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

congratulations to your one year anniversary. my wife and I are having our fourth year anniversary next week as well. This just comes to show that same sex relationships can be as stable, healthy, and happy as opposite sex relationships !

Thank you, and congratulations to you too!

My current relationship is definitely healthier and happier than some of my past relationships with men.

Not saying that it is healthier just because she is a woman too, but maybe it is a little bit because she is a woman.

[clever sister]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Hearing that you were in COC helps clarify for me the "in LC" part of this new thread. I had been thinking that, at least according to my own experience, the LGBT+ topic in the local church is essentially not brought up except in the college student context. As far as I am aware, "the ministry" doesn't spend much if any time on the topic, and the co-workers are more concerned with their own "deputy authority" during the trainings and conferences than to address this topic at all. The only place I have heard much said, and it wasn't much, was in the context of college student gatherings.....mostly things like Q&As or "special topics" or something like that.

I left the LC about five years ago, but during the fivish years before that I heard brothers in LC speak more and more frequently to condemn homosexuality. This is in New Zealand though, maybe in the Southern states of the US they don't feel like they need to address it, outside of the campus work?

[clever sister]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have been speaking about trans people. Why are you changing the subject to gays and lesbians. I'm sure you know the difference.

My discussions have been entirely civil. I am only asking you to respond to issues which other gays and lesbians also have. I mentioned the open letter by J K Rowling et. al. but you ignored that.

You cannot come here and promote your agenda unless you are willing to discuss. This is a Discussion Forum. I have some very serious concerns about the trans movement. Society has never confronted this before.

I am shocked that you would bring up this topic and then attempt to censure or censor me.

You seem very interested in the internal politics of the LGBT+ community.

If you must know, some radical feminists who view men as the "enemy" have decided that transwomen are actually just men in dresses trying to get access to women's spaces for nefarious purposes, even though the evidence does not show this to be the case at all. JK Rowling has for many years been suspected of sharing these viewpoints and recently confirmed that she does.

Did not know you were so eager to support the views of a "Wiccan".

[clever sister]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have not disparaged your relationship or any other.

It is you who said somthing quite concerning about being bi.

Do you esteem loyalty or faithfulness to your partner as important?

What did she say about being bisexual that was concerning?

Being bisexual does not change how faithful or loyal one is to their partner, just like being heterosexual does not guarantee a person won't cheat on their partner.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

You were deligitimizing my relationship by insensitive questions of whether I would be loyal to my wife? or if the other member’s partner is indeed a male or female. I dont ask you about your marriage so stay out of mine and her relationship. Thanks

Oh my, are you sensitive! I'm only trying to discuss issues here bringing up diversities you may not be aware of.

I'm not delegitimizing your relationship. It was you who brought up the subject. But, think about if the roles were reversed here. I have been married to my wife for decades. What if my wife overheard a comment I made that "I am bi, I like guys too." Would not that seriously undermine our marriage? Delegitimize our relationship? Perhaps my "serenity" might take a turn for the worse.

Seriously though, how can you call your spouse your "wife," when "she" was born a boy? I'm not the only one who has trouble understanding this. I'm just trying to work thru this.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Obviously you haven't been on the receiving end. And apparently are unable to empathize --> that I take to be Christ-like.

You have no idea how much abuse I have been forced to endure my entire life. But I don't live nor love "victim" status.

I watch the news. Where are all these abuses that the LGBT community is enduring? They have the highest per capita income of all the "minority" groups. They have special hate crimes and employment legislation to protect and enrich them. Matter of fact, I see lots of straight conservatives getting LGBT stuff shoved in their faces. Who are the real abusers here?

And when did Jesus Christ show empathy to gay, lesbian, and trans marriage? Is there some verse that show us that Jesus Christ has reversed the teachings of the rest of the Bible? Yes, God loves all, but He sure don't love all that is done, and one day He will judge us all.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by clever sister

You seem very interested in the internal politics of the LGBT+ community.

If you must know, some radical feminists who view men as the "enemy" have decided that transwomen are actually just men in dresses trying to get access to women's spaces for nefarious purposes, even though the evidence does not show this to be the case at all. JK Rowling has for many years been suspected of sharing these viewpoints and recently confirmed that she does.

Did not know you were so eager to support the views of a "Wiccan".

I don't support Wiccan religion, but even this radical feminist has serious concerns about the trans movement. She is not alone either. I only supported her ideas in this open letter. Is there some law that says I cannot agree with her when her concerns match my own?

Society has become upside down. Of course there will be trans women who want to "get access to women's spaces for nefarious purposes." Why not? There are numerous reasons for this. I already mentioned sports. Athletes born male have many advantages over athletes born female in many high dollar sports. One of my sons claims he could have been a sports legend had he been able to play basketball as a trans woman.

Think about other "nefarious purposes" we have seen regarding race. We had a presidential candidate who rose to academic and political prominence claiming to be Native American. We have had numerous people who have transitioned into African Americans for personal gain. Why would they do such a thing if hatred and racism was so prevalent in America. Obviously it is not. Being part of some identity intersectionality, whether race, gay, trans, or better yet all three, has definite perks, or they would not be doing so.

It is not LGBT "internal politics" that concerns me. Obviously the recent SCOTUS ruling tells us that these are not "internal politics," but have an impact on all of us.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oh my, are you sensitive! I'm only trying to discuss issues here bringing up diversities you may not be aware of.

I'm not delegitimizing your relationship. It was you who brought up the subject. But, think about if the roles were reversed here. I have been married to my wife for decades. What if my wife overheard a comment I made that "I am bi, I like guys too." Would not that seriously undermine our marriage? Delegitimize our relationship? Perhaps my "serenity" might take a turn for the worse.

Seriously though, how can you call your spouse your "wife," when "she" was born a boy? I'm not the only one who has trouble understanding this. I'm just trying to work thru this.

1. You have a misconception that bisexuals can only be attracted to either men or women at a time. Bisexuals are actually attracted to men and women simultaneously. I believe that your thought process is that if the "options" available to an individual are more or less doubled, than the likelihood of that person losing interest in their partner will increase; this notion is deeply flawed and may or may not reflect on your own character/commitment to your own partner. I would look into that if I were you. If your wife would feel insecure about you being attracted to both men and women, that's more reflective of trust issues in your relationship rather than issues from a person's sexuality.

If a person is in a deeply committed relationship (ie marriage), then it doesn't matter how many alternatives there are available to a person, regardless of their sexuality. If that person is truly a person of integrity, then if they are in a deeply committed, monogamous relationship, they will stay true to their partner.

================================

2. How are you having trouble understanding that her wife is a wife? Genitalia at birth only determines that person's assigned sex, not their gender identity. To clarify, some quick terminology:
- male/female - sex terms related to genitalia assigned at birth (male = penis, etc)
- man/woman - gender terms based on subjective identity (man = identifies as a man, etc)

Thus, if their wife was originally born with a male sex assignment, but they identify as a woman, they are inherently a woman regardless of their biology. This identity is not a choice, it is something that manifests as the person's sense of self-awareness and identity forms. If you believe it is a choice, please ask yourself when you chose to stay the gender that correlated with your assigned sex at birth. If you can't figure out the rough date you made that choice, then sit down because you just discovered that it's not a choice.

Referring to a trans woman as the gender identity that correlates with their originally assigned sex is extremely disrespectful, as you are denying that person's autonomy and sense of self in leu of your own, narrow-minded worldview. To illustrate how disrespectful that behavior is, let's imagine you introduce yourself by name to someone, but that person refuses to you accept the name you introduce yourself with because in their mind, you look like a Bob instead of [insert your name here]. So regardless of how much you try to have that person address you by your name, which is something you can legally change to match your self-identity, they call you the name they think suits you best when they don't know anything about you. Don't you think that's disrespectful behavior? That's exactly what you're doing to this person's wife. Stop it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It is not LGBT "internal politics" that concerns me. Obviously the recent SCOTUS ruling tells us that these are not "internal politics," but have an impact on all of us.

Hey bro Ohio, I take it you're talking about legalizing same sex marriage.

I haven't been impacted by it in the least. If I have, it's all been good and happy. Those in a same sex marriage that I've known, were very happy. Prolly even, and I can't say with any degree certainty, happier than your marriage. I know this by my own experience and comparison. SerenityLives and her lucky partner couldn't be any happier.

But you don't seem to be close enough to such encounters to understand. So I'm very curious, please explain, you seem to think same sex marriage is destroying America, so how has same sex marriage actually impacted you?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Don't you think that's disrespectful behavior?

No, none of my posts are disrespectful. But I do think it is a little disrespectful to post anonymously without even a moniker. You cannot play semantic word games and then call me "disrespectful."

Why is it you have not addressed my points? I have made numerous posts on this forum on behalf of women. I stand against all abuse, and stand up for the rights of those who have been hurt. On this particular thread I have pointed out how the trans movement hurts women. It damages women's rights. It is just ripe for corruption and fraud. Since I am advocating for women, why do you not support me?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey bro Ohio, I take it you're talking about legalizing same sex marriage.

I haven't been impacted by it in the least. If I have, it's all been good and happy. Those in a same sex marriage that I've known, were very happy. Prolly even, and I can't say with any degree certainty, happier than your marriage. I know this by my own experience and comparison. SerenityLives and her lucky partner couldn't be any happier.

But you don't seem to be close enough to such encounters to understand. So I'm very curious, please explain, you seem to think same sex marriage is destroying America, so how has same sex marriage actually impacted you?

Where in this thread have I mentioned same-sex marriage? Or people being happy? In fact, I was alarmed when she said that she was bi, and attracted to men. I brought up my concern because it seemed that may hurt her present happiness.

When God is happy with us, then are not we the most happy too?

Originally Posted by Ohio

No, none of my posts are disrespectful. But I do think it is a little disrespectful to post anonymously without even a moniker. You cannot play semantic word games and then call me "disrespectful."

Why is it you have not addressed my points? I have made numerous posts on this forum on behalf of women. I stand against all abuse, and stand up for the rights of those who have been hurt. On this particular thread I have pointed out how the trans movement hurts women. It damages women's rights. It is just ripe for corruption and fraud. Since I am advocating for women, why do you not support me?

You may not view your posts as disrespectful but disrespect is not always intended; it can come from implicit misunderstandings and/or ignorance towards a group of people that are different from yourself. It's like saying all Muslims are terrorists; a person may genuinely believe that all Muslims are terrorists so from their perspective they are stating a fact rather than bigotry, so as a product of that person's ignorance, a bigoted statement doesn't appear disrespectful to that person.

When it comes to your "activism" of women's rights and safety, you're hiding behind the veil of advocacy to label an entire demographic you clearly don't understand as a 'danger to society'. The intention behind identifying as trans is not anything else but identifying as that person actually is. This hypothetical danger you perceive from the trans community to women is irrational and incorrect.

Will there be individuals who might take advantage of a situation for their deviant behavior? Sure, that goes for all of humanity in every circumstance and scenario. Does that justify denying an entire demographic of real people the right to live normally in society? No. That would be like outlawing cars because some outlier deviants would intentionally use cars to kill people.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oh my, are you sensitive! I'm only trying to discuss issues here bringing up diversities you may not be aware of.

I'm not delegitimizing your relationship. It was you who brought up the subject. But, think about if the roles were reversed here. I have been married to my wife for decades. What if my wife overheard a comment I made that "I am bi, I like guys too." Would not that seriously undermine our marriage? Delegitimize our relationship? Perhaps my "serenity" might take a turn for the worse.

Seriously though, how can you call your spouse your "wife," when "she" was born a boy? I'm not the only one who has trouble understanding this. I'm just trying to work thru this.

SerenityLives never said her wife is a transwoman, not that it would matter if she was.

I'm the one whose girlfriend is a transwoman. We've been dating for one year minus 2 days. One of the anonymous posters.

[Sons to Glory!]

Is it just me, or is all this confusing?

[zeek]

I'm curious. How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? The New Testament doesn't say anything explicitly about his sexuality one way or the other. It doesn't even say if he was married or not. So people seem to assume he was a celibate heterosexual. Based on what? And why did the authors leave the door open for speculation? Ideas?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm curious. How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? The New Testament doesn't say anything explicitly about his sexuality one way or the other. It doesn't even say if he was married or not. So people seem to assume he was a celibate heterosexual. Based on what? And why did the authors leave the door open for speculation? Ideas?

Do you think God's Firstborn of all creation could be homosexual? Where would we find any inclination in scripture to suggest that . . . starting with the 1st Adam?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Do you think God's Firstborn of all creation could be homosexual? Where would we find any inclination in scripture to suggest that . . . starting with the 1st Adam?

Where would we find any inclination in scripture to suggest that He was straight? If it's actually important to be straight instead of homosexual, bisexual, etc, don't you think the Bible would have explicitly emphasized that in the humanity of Jesus, which is a pattern for Christians everywhere to follow?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You may not view your posts as disrespectful but disrespect is not always intended; it can come from implicit misunderstandings and/or ignorance towards a group of people that are different from yourself. It's like saying all Muslims are terrorists;

I definitely agree with you here.

People like you are needed in this cancel culture age, with many claiming all white people have "white privilege" and by nature are racists.

But in no way did I mis-characterize a group or characterize anyone wrongly.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Is it just me, or is all this confusing?

That's why I said it's a little disrespectful not to identify oneself somehow.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm curious. How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? The New Testament doesn't say anything explicitly about his sexuality one way or the other. It doesn't even say if he was married or not. So people seem to assume he was a celibate heterosexual. Based on what? And why did the authors leave the door open for speculation? Ideas?

Trollin' on by?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Where would we find any inclination in scripture to suggest that He was straight? If it's actually important to be straight instead of homosexual, bisexual, etc, don't you think the Bible would have explicitly emphasized that in the humanity of Jesus, which is a pattern for Christians everywhere to follow?

There was a first Adam (male), who had Eve (female) given to him by God. First man Adam came up short and then we have the last Adam finishing the job in perfection. So why would we think God would have the last Adam as a homosexual when the first one wasn't? There would be no pattern in scripture for that, right?

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm curious. How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? The New Testament doesn't say anything explicitly about his sexuality one way or the other. It doesn't even say if he was married or not. So people seem to assume he was a celibate heterosexual. Based on what? And why did the authors leave the door open for speculation? Ideas?

How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? How do we know he wasn't an Antifa protester who was out looting, catching chariots on fire and seeking to defund the Roman army? The New Testament doesn't say one way or another? What the NT does say is that Jesus was a Jew who observed the law., in fact he was a Rabbi and spoke in the temple and many synagogues throughout Isreal.

Homosexual sex was punishable by death. So the NT writers would leave out something as significant as Jesus being married? Doubtful.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I definitely agree with you here.

People like you are needed in this cancel culture age, with many claiming all white people have "white privilege" and by nature are racists.

But in no way did I mis-characterize a group or characterize anyone wrongly.

You actually did mischaracterize me, as you assumed I belong to the neo-liberal cancel culture that automatically assumes all white people are racist without knowing anything about me.

You also mischaracterized the trans community when you said that they pose a danger to women.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You actually did mischaracterize me, as you assumed I belong to the neo-liberal cancel culture that automatically assumes all white people are racist without knowing anything about me.

No, I did not mischaracterize you. I said, "People like you are needed in this cancel culture age, with many claiming all white people have "white privilege" and by nature are racists."

If you would read my words carefully, you would discover I assumed nothing about you nor did I mischaracterize you. I only expressed how much you were needed these days.

But you claimed I did. So, I will accept your apologies gracefully.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You also mischaracterized the trans community when you said that they pose a danger to women.

Not so fast there!

I said repeatedly that the trans movement poses dangers to women's rights.

• I cited an open letter addressing radical cancel culture to support my position
• I cited recent lawsuits by female athletes whose scholarships and futures were damaged by trans athletes
• I explained how trans athletes would nearly destroy most of women's sports
• I agreed with Serenity that trans-gender incentives were ripe for fraud
• I supported that position by noting that trans-racials have received enormous benefits from their deceptions, one of which ran for President, and there have been numerous others who have benefitted

How unfortunate it is that your blatant biases mischaracterize me, all the while claiming that you are the "victim" here.

But to your point, actually I agree. Though I did not yet mention this, there are huge segments of society outraged by the dangers presented by trans to women while sharing bathrooms, locker rooms, gym classes, etc.

Trans rights violate women's rights and puts them in danger!

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Except that she doesn't have a boy's body.

I wasn't going to ask about this since I'm not sure where some of the "that's too personal" lines are in this topic that's already of a very personal nature, but this was naturally one of the thoughts that came up in me when considering your relationship. Are you saying that your transgender wife has had surgery and physically appears more like that of a woman now (as far as anatomy that's usually covered up, rather than just, say, facial appearance)?

Sorry if this is crossing a line to ask. I'm genuinely trying to get a clear picture so my attempt to "walk a mile in your shoes" is more accurate.

Originally Posted by Trapped

I wasn't going to ask about this since I'm not sure where some of the "that's too personal" lines are in this topic that's already of a very personal nature, but this was naturally one of the thoughts that came up in me when considering your relationship. Are you saying that your transgender wife has had surgery and physically appears more like that of a woman now (as far as anatomy that's usually covered up, rather than just, say, facial appearance)?

Sorry if this is crossing a line to ask. I'm genuinely trying to get a clear picture so my attempt to "walk a mile in your shoes" is more accurate.

No, I meant that her body is not a boy's body because it belongs to her and she is not a boy in any sense of the word.

And yes, asking someone what kind of genitals they have is usually considered crossing the line. I am not sure why you need to know this to "walk a mile in my shoes" unless you are interested in my sex life.

Now, there is a lot of variation in how open transgender individuals are about their transition. Some people don't tell others they are transgender unless they need to know while others post all about the surgeries they have had on the internet.

The things that my girlfriend is comfortable telling people is that she is transgender and that she takes estrogen.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm curious. How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? The New Testament doesn't say anything explicitly about his sexuality one way or the other. It doesn't even say if he was married or not. So people seem to assume he was a celibate heterosexual. Based on what? And why did the authors leave the door open for speculation? Ideas?

For all we know Jesus was built like a Ken doll down there ... or even like a Barbie doll. I doubt it, but we don't know. Nothing in the New Testament mentions such things.

We don't even know if Jesus had bowel movements. And if he did -- that's likely since he was 100% human -- where he relieved himself. Did they back then just go in the open ground, like in India today.

We don't even know what made Jesus laugh. It's recorded that he wept, and that he was perfect.

The point being : We know little about the historical Jesus. We only have accounts of Jesus written decades after Jesus left the earth, by anonymous authors.

And we can't look to Paul. He didn't know the historical Jesus. And we don't know if he was a celibate homosexual either ... or what the thorn in his flesh was. And Paul was 100% human. No divinity there. No perfection either.

But thanks bro zeek for bringing up the question. What I wonder is, if Jesus was gay -- doubtful -- would we still love him.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not so fast there!

I said repeatedly that the trans movement poses dangers to women's rights.
[*]I agreed with Serenity that trans-gender incentives were ripe for fraud[*]I supported that position by noting that trans-racials have received enormous benefits from their deceptions, one of which ran for President, and there have been numerous others who have benefitted[/LIST]How unfortunate it is that your blatant biases mischaracterize me, all the while claiming that you are the "victim" here.

Trans rights violate women's rights and puts them in danger!

I’m sorry when did I say this?? that there was fraud in transgender “incentives”?
if it were a deception, then how come you’re aware? hahaha. But some transwomen are women! so they have women rights too!

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm curious. How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? The New Testament doesn't say anything explicitly about his sexuality one way or the other. It doesn't even say if he was married or not. So people seem to assume he was a celibate heterosexual. Based on what? And why did the authors leave the door open for speculation? Ideas?

This raises a very interesting question because back in the day, the average guy living in that time era would have been married before age 33, which was how old Jesus was before he got crucified.

I was also thinking along the lines that if God is a “He”, and he was lonely and created Adam, then doesnt that sound gay? you know, before Eve came along

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by OnewithGF

No, I meant that her body is not a boy's body because it belongs to her and she is not a boy in any sense of the word.

And yes, asking someone what kind of genitals they have is usually considered crossing the line. I am not sure why you need to know this to "walk a mile in my shoes" unless you are interested in my sex life.

Now, there is a lot of variation in how open transgender individuals are about their transition. Some people don't tell others they are transgender unless they need to know while others post all about the surgeries they have had on the internet.

The things that my girlfriend is comfortable telling people is that she is transgender and that she takes estrogen.

If your girlfriend is a female NOT in a male's body.....then why call her transgender? It seems we are getting away from commonly understood definitions of terms now.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

If your girlfriend is a female NOT in a male's body.....then why call her transgender? It seems we are getting away from commonly understood definitions of terms now.

Like I said ... semantic word games ... to kill all discussion.


The creepy comments about the humanity of our Savior Jesus Christ are perhaps the most pathetic and sickening this forum has ever had.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I was also thinking along the lines that if God is a “He”, and he was lonely and created Adam, then doesnt that sound gay? you know, before Eve came along

The Bible never says God was lonely. That would imply the infinite God was needy or lacking, and He sure isn't.

Genesis 1:26 says "Let US make man in Our image...." not "let ME make man in MY image". God wasn't alone at the beginning of creation when He made Adam, and He didn't create man because He was lonely.

If He was gay, then He would have wanted Adam for Himself, and would never have created Eve for Adam.

If God was gay, then why would He make a straight Adam? And Adam was clearly straight because God made Eve. That's a heterosexual relationship. It would be pretty awful of God to have made a straight Adam if He wanted a gay relationship with straight Adam.

So, no, for multiple pretty logical reasons, God's not gay.

God is Spirit. He's not a physical person like us. He is not bounded by space, by time, by physical matter. He is infinite, holds the universe in His hands, knows every star, every hair on your head, He is powerful, moral, personal, more mighty and majestic than we can ever comprehend.

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's why I said it's a little disrespectful not to identify oneself somehow.

You are just so curious about everyone else arent you? I thought the forum was supposed to be anonymous.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Like I said ... semantic word games ... to kill all discussion.


The creepy comments about the humanity of our Savior Jesus Christ are perhaps the most pathetic and sickening this forum has ever had.

If they’re so creepy and bother you, why are you here? It seems like this topic is very interesting for you, personally.

They are not word games. You just need to know the definitions of gender identity, sexuality, etc.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

The Bible never says God was lonely. That would imply the infinite God was needy or lacking, and He sure isn't.

Genesis 1:26 says "Let US make man in Our image...." not "let ME make man in MY image". God wasn't alone at the beginning of creation when He made Adam, and He didn't create man because He was lonely.

If He was gay, then He would have wanted Adam for Himself, and would never have created Eve for Adam.

If God was gay, then why would He make a straight Adam? And Adam was clearly straight because God made Eve. That's a heterosexual relationship. It would be pretty awful of God to have made a straight Adam if He wanted a gay relationship with straight Adam.

So, no, for multiple pretty logical reasons, God's not gay.

God is Spirit. He's not a physical person like us. He is not bounded by space, by time, by physical matter. He is infinite, holds the universe in His hands, knows every star, every hair on your head, He is powerful, moral, personal, more mighty and majestic than we can ever comprehend.

okay you got me there. But consider this: if God said “it is not good for man to be alone”, and God wasn’t alone, then why do some (not all) Christians state that homosexuals should be celibate, and imply that they do not deserve a loving companionship with one they choose?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

If your girlfriend is a female NOT in a male's body.....then why call her transgender? It seems we are getting away from commonly understood definitions of terms now.

Here you go Trapped and Ohio:

https://www.dummies.com/relationship...e-transgender/

Please read thoroughly and dont be afraid to ask if you have any questions.

[awareness]

Just for the record, transgender is not mentioned in the Bible, neither for or against it. None of the authors of the books of the Bible, writing in the bronze and iron ages, knew anything about it. Therefore Bible believers have no Biblical standing to be against it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You are just so curious about everyone else arent you? I thought the forum was supposed to be anonymous.

You missed the point entirely!

I said the minimum was to pick some moniker.

How else do we have a discussion? When a string of comments can't even be ascribed to a single poster?

Is that too hard to understand?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If they’re so creepy and bother you, why are you here? It seems like this topic is very interesting for you, personally.

They are not word games. You just need to know the definitions of gender identity, sexuality, etc.

What's creepy are the attempts to make God in the image of LGBT activists.

But you knew that! Just not honest enough to admit it!

These word definitions are indeed a game. Just read the responses. No dictionary can keep up with the evolutionary semantics of the 21st century.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Just for the record, transgender is not mentioned in the Bible, neither for or against it. None of the authors of the books of the Bible, writing in the bronze and iron ages, knew anything about it. Therefore Bible believers have no Biblical standing to be against it.

The Bible does address lying with animals. That seems to apply here.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Bible does address lying with animals. That seems to apply here.

Are you comparing and equating same sex loving relationships to bestiality, or one partner of a same sex relationship as an animal? Or both homosexuals as animals? trying to understand, bro Ohio. You cant just lump bestiality and homosexuality together. Both are very different. LGBTQplus does not include people who have animal fetishes., only includes humans. And for your information, heterosexuals also can engage in bestiality. Being transgender is very different than having sex and attraction with an animal. They have attractions to other fellow human beings, so your reasoning doesnt apply here. And if you going to quote the “strange flesh” verse or Paul’s Romans verses, Awareness has a lot to say about that one.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Are you comparing and equating same sex loving relationships to bestiality, or one partner of a same sex relationship as an animal? Or both homosexuals as animals? trying to understand, bro Ohio. You cant just lump bestiality and homosexuality together. Both are very different. LGBTQplus does not include people who have animal fetishes., only includes humans.

Some people behave like animals, and it's hard to differentiate them at times. Haven't you heard that there are some people who want to marry their favorite pet? Don't you think that some pets and their owners "love" each other? I have been told that only love is needed for marriage.

Once we decide that marriage is no longer exclusively one man and one woman from birth, then the door is open to almost everything. Or do you discriminate against animals? Are you against polygamy?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Some people behave like animals, and it's hard to differentiate them at times. Haven't you heard that there are some people who want to marry their favorite pet? Don't you think that some pets and their owners "love" each other? I have been told that only love is needed for marriage.

Once we decide that marriage is no longer exclusively one man and one woman from birth, then the door is open to anything. Or do you discriminate against animals? Are you against polygamy?

The flaw in your reasoning has to do with consent and position of power.. Animals do not have consent in bestiality and is therefore harmful to the animal. So is pedophilia and necrophilia, incest among father and daughter, rape etc. there’s always one party hurt in the process or being disrespected. Define “door opening to almost everything”. what is the door open to? And homosexuality hasnt linearily led to legalization of other sorts of hanky pank nor does it have an affect on any other kind of relationship.

Polygamy is a whole other issue. Is it causing unhealthy boundaries, nonconsent, disrespect, jealousy in the relationship(s). if so , then it’s not moral. In the Old Testament, major characters were able to have multiple wives, kind david, solomon, abraham, isaac, etc. so it must have been condoned by God at the time. But elsewhere in the bible, the new testament talks about monogamy. The Bible can contradict itself at times.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

The flaw in your reasoning has to do with consent and position of power.. Animals do not have consent in bestiality and is therefore harmful to the animal. So is pedophilia and necrophilia, incest among father and daughter, rape etc. there’s always one party hurt in the process or being disrespected. Define “door opening to almost everything”. what is the door open to? And homosexuality hasnt linearily led to legalization of other sorts of hanky pank nor does it have an affect on any other kind of relationship.

Polygamy is a whole other issue. Is it causing unhealthy boundaries, nonconsent, disrespect, jealousy in the relationship(s). if so , then it’s not moral. In the Old Testament, major characters were able to have multiple wives, kind david, solomon, abraham, isaac, etc. so it must have been condoned by God at the time. But elsewhere in the bible, the new testament talks about monogamy. The Bible can contradict itself at times.

You bring up "consent and position of power." I agree, but when it comes to LGBTQ marriage, I never have heard this, rather only "love" is cited as the sole defining issue.

Regarding "morality," there is a whole array of diverse standards, which create endless conflicts. This is why I believe only God's standard of morality is valid and universal, i.e. one man and one woman constitute a marriage.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Regarding "morality," there is a whole array of diverse standards, which create endless conflicts. This is why I believe only God's standard of morality is valid and universal, i.e. one man and one woman constitute a marriage.

Yes I agree with you that there are different standards for morality, from cultural and historical lens. you can believe in the traditional marriage if you want. I respect that. For me, Im not so much a bible literalist so morality looks different for me

I’m here and I’m queer. 🌈 I’m 30 and left the LC at 24. I’m trained as a therapist, I’m an LGBT+ educator, and my primary mode of therapy was gender and sexuality affirmative counseling. Although I’m agnostic now, I’ve personally found a ton of healing in Jewish biblical theology. They do a lot less biblical literalism and rely more on bringing their religion into the real world of today (perhaps minus some ultra orthodox sects). There is plenty of argument out there from both Jewish scholars and Christian scholars alike who argue that the Bible never condemned homosexuality, but instead condemned pedophilia (which was rampant in Greek culture at the time) and infidelity. There are very sound linguistic arguments that anti lgbt+ portions of the Old Testament were purposely mis translated or at the very least translated through biases of the translator and the time. Personally I don’t give much credence to the NT as a source of theology on this topic because I think Paul was skewed on many topics such as marriage and tradition as well as gender and sexuality.

All that to say, there is no concrete agreement among biblical scholars that being gay is wrong or against the Bible. There is plenty of Biblical argument for minding one’s own business and letting people live their walk with God as they are called (see Roman’s 14 for a start). You aren’t going to save anyone from whatever you think damnation is by hating queer people. You’re only going to drive queer people to suicide and give yourselves blood pressure problems in the mean time by being upset about other people’s relationships.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by ephemeralsplendor

You aren’t going to save anyone from whatever you think damnation is by hating queer people. You’re only going to drive queer people to suicide and give yourselves blood pressure problems in the mean time by being upset about other people’s relationships.

Who is hating & upset here? I don't think that four letter word ("hate") needs to be brought up here - we are having a civil discussion, and there is no need to escalate into that kind of accusation (which stops effective communication and can quickly descend into name calling, etc.). Considering the conversation so far, I think it's something of a strawman fallacy to say things like that . . .

Originally Posted by Trapped

If your girlfriend is a female NOT in a male's body.....then why call her transgender? It seems we are getting away from commonly understood definitions of terms now.

Did you read my whole post?

Now, there is a lot of variation in how open transgender individuals are about their transition. Some people don't tell others they are transgender unless they need to know while others post all about the surgeries they have had on the internet.

The things that my girlfriend is comfortable telling people is that she is transgender and that she takes estrogen.

I am not sure why there is confusion about if she is transgender.

When she was a child people told her she was a boy but she never felt that was right. As soon as she was able to as an adult she transitioned to living as a woman.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Some people behave like animals, and it's hard to differentiate them at times. Haven't you heard that there are some people who want to marry their favorite pet? Don't you think that some pets and their owners "love" each other? I have been told that only love is needed for marriage.

Once we decide that marriage is no longer exclusively one man and one woman from birth, then the door is open to almost everything. Or do you discriminate against animals? Are you against polygamy?

Your arguing by claiming the Bible has only one way ; one biological man and woman can marry.

But the Bible doesn't say that. In the Bible it's one man and many wives ; polygamy.

And I guess you just gloss over that David loved Jonathan more than women, and that they kissed and got naked together, and Saul condemned Jonathan for it, saying it shamed his mother. So knock it off using the Bible to support your desired morality. It doesn't.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Where in this thread have I mentioned same-sex marriage? Or people being happy? In fact, I was alarmed when she said that she was bi, and attracted to men. I brought up my concern because it seemed that may hurt her present happiness.

When God is happy with us, then are not we the most happy too?

If only we knew today what makes God happy. And your reference to the SCOTUS ruling, what ruling then?

And you didn't answer my question of how it's impacting your life.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by OnewithGF

Did you read my whole post?

I am not sure why there is confusion about if she is transgender.

When she was a child people told her she was a boy but she never felt that was right. As soon as she was able to as an adult she transitioned to living as a woman.

Of course I read it. This is a conversation and both sides are expected to listen/read to the other. My question to you still stands.

I understand that you are saying "the person inside the body is a girl and thus the body of that person is a body that belongs to a girl and is thus a girl's body", but you know full well that that's not what I am talking about.

If she is transitioning, what is she transitioning from? If she is taking estrogen, why is she taking estrogen? Obviously it's because the physical body she is in is one that has historically, for thousands of years, been called a "male body", separate from whether the gendered person who possesses that body feels like a man or a woman. Surely you are not disputing that concept, are you? That seems to be at the core of the distress of transgendered people -- the disconnect between their physical body and who they feel they are inside. If that concept has changed, I'd appreciate help understanding what on earth has changed.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

God is Spirit. He's not a physical person like us. He is not bounded by space, by time, by physical matter. He is infinite, holds the universe in His hands,

I guess you're speaking figuratively. If God is Spirit, He doesn't have hands.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by ephemeralsplendor

All that to say, there is no concrete agreement among biblical scholars that being gay is wrong or against the Bible. There is plenty of Biblical argument for minding one’s own business and letting people live their walk with God as they are called (see Roman’s 14 for a start). You aren’t going to save anyone from whatever you think damnation is by hating queer people. You’re only going to drive queer people to suicide and give yourselves blood pressure problems in the mean time by being upset about other people’s relationships.

I agree with StG, where are you getting "hating queer people" from? Your post wasn't directed to anyone specific, so it sounds like you are pointing to everyone on this thread. Where have I, for example, said anything remotely like "hating" anyone? And where did I remotely insinuate that I'm upset about other people's relationships??

Glad you're here, but no need to point fingers at people who haven't done any of the things you're pointing fingers at them about.

Romans 14 is about eating or not eating meat, and observing or not observing days. It's not about sexual acts.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Your post wasn't directed to anyone specific, so it sounds like you are pointing to everyone on this thread.

Not to likely at me. I'm clearly a LGBT+ supporting hetero. They can be whoever they want to be. I support love wherever anyone can find it. It's a rare commodity.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

I guess you're speaking figuratively. If God is Spirit, He doesn't have hands.

Isaiah 40:12
Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens.....

Isaiah 49:16
Behold, I have engraved you on the palms of My hands.....

The Bible says God's got hands.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Your arguing by claiming the Bible has only one way ; one biological man and woman can marry.

But the Bible doesn't say that. In the Bible it's one man and many wives ; polygamy.

And I guess you just gloss over that David loved Jonathan more than women, and that they kissed and got naked together, and Saul condemned Jonathan for it, saying it shamed his mother. So knock it off using the Bible to support your desired morality. It doesn't.

The bible tells us that marriage is one man and one woman. The Bible also records many other things, but that doesn't make them right.

The Bible says murder is wrong, but then it records that many murders happened. That doesn't make murder right.

I'd say knock it off that you use recorded events in the Bible to negate the Bible.

Two men together is not marriage. Two women together is not marriage. A man and his dog together is not marriage.

And knock it off with your smear job of David. Yes, he loved Jonathon, but it is your sick mind that equates this love as marriage or sex.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Not to likely at me. I'm clearly a LGBT+ supporting hetero. They can be whoever they want to be. I support love wherever anyone can find it. It's a rare commodity.

If it was a healthy love, they wouldn't accuse others of hating them right in the middle of a discussion.

Like I have continually said, the LGBT have special rights and the highest per capita income levels, then why do they constantly play the victim.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Isaiah 40:12
Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens.....

Isaiah 49:16
Behold, I have engraved you on the palms of My hands.....

The Bible says God's got hands.

How in the world would awareness know that God doesn't have hands?

Has he become the forum know-it-all ever since he was made the Moderator of the Age?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Of course I read it. This is a conversation and both sides are expected to listen/read to the other. My question to you still stands.

I understand that you are saying "the person inside the body is a girl and thus the body of that person is a body that belongs to a girl and is thus a girl's body", but you know full well that that's not what I am talking about.

If she is transitioning, what is she transitioning from? If she is taking estrogen, why is she taking estrogen? Obviously it's because the physical body she is in is one that has historically, for thousands of years, been called a "male body", separate from whether the gendered person who possesses that body feels like a man or a woman. Surely you are not disputing that concept, are you? That seems to be at the core of the distress of transgendered people -- the disconnect between their physical body and who they feel they are inside. If that concept has changed, I'd appreciate help understanding what on earth has changed.

I have been told by a counselor who counsels trans genders that for trans to feel "normal" or healthy, they must be convinced that the entire world must be wrong. Thousands of years and billions of people all wrong to prove trans are OK. Something is seriously wrong with this picture. I doubt that God would place someone like this in the world knowing this entire world was wrong.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If it was a healthy love, they wouldn't accuse others of hating them right in the middle of a discussion.

Like I have continually said, the LGBT have special rights and the highest per capita income levels, then why do they constantly play the victim.

I guess you're just unable to imagine why. While your imagination seems to work fine when it comes to the Bible.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If it was a healthy love, they wouldn't accuse others of hating them right in the middle of a discussion.

Like I have continually said, the LGBT have special rights and the highest per capita income levels, then why do they constantly play the victim.

The first statement doesnt make sense. How does one’s relationship correlate with how they act on this forum? A lot of projection ohio.

They do not have the highest per capita income levels. Show me the evidence. The homeless population here is mostly consisted of lgbtq. Why? Because their parents kicked them out. that in itself shows they are a victim of society. And I am not rich. i live paycheck to paycheck. Maybe you’re just angry because you think that lgbtq people are stealing your wealth? thats ludicrous.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Yes I agree with you that there are different standards for morality, from cultural and historical lens. you can believe in the traditional marriage if you want. I respect that. For me, Im not so much a bible literalist so morality looks different for me

Where does your morality come from?

That's a serious question with no tone behind it. It's one that Christian apologists and their atheist debate partners spar on over and over. The boiled down version is that one side has an objective standard of morality outside themselves (God/Bible), and one side says there is no objective standard, and that the standard for each person is subjective.

Do either of those describe how you determine what is moral, good/bad, right/wrong? If not, how would you describe it for you?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

okay you got me there. But consider this: if God said “it is not good for man to be alone”, and God wasn’t alone, then why do some (not all) Christians state that homosexuals should be celibate, and imply that they do not deserve a loving companionship with one they choose?

I have some thoughts about this, probably none of which will be satisfying to anyone here. Your question is basically one of the THE big questions, and I know I'm not going to be the one to solve this painful struggle. I'm just posting this to let you know that I've seen your question and haven't forgotten about it. I will respond when I can, but it won't be right away. I am at the edge of my capacity in my non-forum life, and need some time to think about your question, because it's such an important one.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm curious. How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? The New Testament doesn't say anything explicitly about his sexuality one way or the other. It doesn't even say if he was married or not. So people seem to assume he was a celibate heterosexual. Based on what? And why did the authors leave the door open for speculation? Ideas?

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? How do we know he wasn't an Antifa protester who was out looting, catching chariots on fire and seeking to defund the Roman army? The New Testament doesn't say one way or another? What the NT does say is that Jesus was a Jew who observed the law., in fact he was a Rabbi and spoke in the temple and many synagogues throughout Isreal.

Homosexual sex was punishable by death. So the NT writers would leave out something as significant as Jesus being married? Doubtful.

I just want to echo our visitor Humperdinck's answer on this one (zeek, welcome back!)

Keep in mind that Jesus was a known figure, thronged by crowds much of the time, and most importantly was always being watched and scrutinized so the Pharisees, etc could find a reason to do away with Him. If there was a single HINT of homosexual activity on Jesus' part, the religious guys after Him would have pounced before they could say "aha!" since it was, as Humperdinck said, punishable by death. They were looking for any reason to kill Him. And yet Jesus was with a group of guys all throughout the time of His earthly ministry and the religious establishment still had nothing to charge Him with in that regard. They muttered and complained about His speaking to women, eating with prostitutes and tax collectors and sinners, but we never read a word about them scheming about any homosexual suspicions.

I'm all for no question being off the table when it comes to grappling with the Bible. I hope the sincere and reasoned responses you are getting don't just "glance off" of you, but actually settle some of these questions sufficiently.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Like I have to come to question standards of morality. If homosexuals are to be jusged for their behaviors, then heterosexuals with divorces, cheating, incest, pedophilia, etc should also be questioned regarding whether these behaviors are appropriate and healthy.

Okay, sure, that seems pretty straightforward. Do you come across many people who think divorces, cheating, incest, pedophilia, etc, are appropriate and healthy for heterosexuals though? I don't know of anyone who has said that here on the forum, and as I'm thinking about it, I don't know of anyone even in my LIFE who has said anything like that! Are there debates and disagreements out there that these things are healthy??

Everyone is judged by their behaviors, homosexual or heterosexual, or other. The question is, what is the standard by which people are judged? That's part of what my question a few posts ago to you about where you get your morality from was about. We are ultimately talking about differing (not better, not worse, just different) standards.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I just want to echo our visitor Humperdinck's answer on this one (zeek, welcome back!)

Keep in mind that Jesus was a known figure, thronged by crowds much of the time, and most importantly was always being watched and scrutinized so the Pharisees, etc could find a reason to do away with Him. If there was a single HINT of homosexual activity on Jesus' part, the religious guys after Him would have pounced before they could say "aha!" since it was, as Humperdinck said, punishable by death. They were looking for any reason to kill Him. And yet Jesus was with a group of guys all throughout the time of His earthly ministry and the religious establishment still had nothing to charge Him with in that regard. They muttered and complained about His speaking to women, eating with prostitutes and tax collectors and sinners, but we never read a word about them scheming about any homosexual suspicions.

I'm all for no question being off the table when it comes to grappling with the Bible. I hope the sincere and reasoned responses you are getting don't just "glance off" of you, but actually settle some of these questions sufficiently.

Thank you for the welcome, Trapped. Since the New Testament says nothing about Jesus' sexuality, he may have been a celibate homosexual which would not be a violation of Torah law. The same may be true of Paul. I don't know and I don't think anybody else does either. The New Testament is strangely mum about the sexuality of these men. Whether by accident or design the issue is left open. The ambiguity allows for a more inclusive interpretation than the traditional view.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by zeek

Thank you for the welcome. Since the New Testament says nothing about Jesus' sexuality, he may have been a celibate homosexual which would not be a violation of Torah law. The same may be true of Paul. I don't know and I don't think anybody else does either. The New Testament is strangely mum about the sexuality of these men. Whether by accident or design the issue is left open. The ambiguity allows for a more inclusive interpretation than the traditional view.

The NT is equally mum about whether Jesus killed anyone or didn't kill anyone, stole anything or didn't steal, coveted or didn't covet, liked His meat cooked rare or well done......does anyone consider that "strangely mum" or issues that are "left open"? The NT writers probably could never have imagined people 2,000 years later reasonably positing that the Son of God who came to seek and to save those who are lost was a homosexual!

And if this discussion is couched in Jesus, and if you want to reasonably suggest what you've suggested, then His being a celibate homosexual, and an example to those claiming to be Christian, means His is the example to follow when it comes to what people who have homosexual attractions should do. To suggest Jesus was a celibate homosexual doesn't seem to be a desirable suggestion for homosexuals who want the Bible/Jesus to support their desire for a homosexual relationship.

What does suggesting that Jesus was a celibate homosexual (the very two things no one wants paired together) gain for anyone?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Where does your morality come from?

That's a serious question with no tone behind it. It's one that Christian apologists and their atheist debate partners spar on over and over. The boiled down version is that one side has an objective standard of morality outside themselves (God/Bible), and one side says there is no objective standard, and that the standard for each person is subjective.

Do either of those describe how you determine what is moral, good/bad, right/wrong? If not, how would you describe it for you?

Long story short, my morality is based on a combination of loose interpretation of bible, my personal subjective experiences of what is right and wrong that goes with my conscience and God. Life is full of gray areas so I cant say for sure what moral or immoral unless you give me a specific scenario. Like for example, Christians label the story of Sodom and Gomorahh as saying homosexuality is bad. but what kind of homosexuality? The people in those cities wanted to rape the angels/guests of Lot and Lot even offered up his two daughters for them to ganga rape in exchange for doing good hospitality and protection of the angel guests. Yet, Chrisitians use this story so much to condemn loving concensual homosexual relationships. For me, the immorality or reason why God may have destroyed the two cities was because of their disconcern and rude way of treating their guests, gang rape (forced sexual relations). For me, Lot was also immoral offering his daughter like that. But God didnt seem to care about Lot’s actions. He focused on the people in the citites who wanted to gang rape the angels.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Trapped

The NT is equally mum about whether Jesus killed anyone or didn't kill anyone, stole anything or didn't steal, coveted or didn't covet, liked His meat cooked rare or well done......does anyone consider that "strangely mum" or issues that are "left open"? The NT writers probably could never have imagined people 2,000 years later reasonably positing that the Son of God who came to seek and to save those who are lost was a homosexual!

And if this discussion is couched in Jesus, and if you want to reasonably suggest what you've suggested, then His being a celibate homosexual, and an example to those claiming to be Christian, means His is the example to follow when it comes to what people who have homosexual attractions should do. To suggest Jesus was a celibate homosexual doesn't seem to be a desirable suggestion for homosexuals who want the Bible/Jesus to support their desire for a homosexual relationship.

What does suggesting that Jesus was a celibate homosexual (the very two things no one wants paired together) gain for anyone?

My point is that I don't know, and I don't think you or anyone else does either, because I don't think the New Testament makes a factual statement about it one way or the other. That strikes me as odd and perhaps meaningful.

I've read other classical literature and usually the sexuality of the major subjects of the texts is characterized. We know quite a bit about the sexuality of Socrates , the Caesars and St. Augustine as examples. But, nothing about the sexuality of Jesus, the putative perfect man of the Christian religion.

So I'm asking the question: why? And it seems, as often the case, when I question the assumptions of people, they become defensive about it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Thank you for the welcome. Since the New Testament says nothing about Jesus' sexuality, he may have been a celibate homosexual which would not be a violation of Torah law. The same may be true of Paul. I don't know and I don't think anybody else does either. The New Testament is strangely mum about the sexuality of these men. Whether by accident or design the issue is left open. The ambiguity allows for a more inclusive interpretation than the traditional view.

If only I was there. If Jesus and Paul were celibate gays, if they were light in the loafers, rather sandals, limp-wristed, and speaking with a lisp, I would have spotted it the minute I looked at them. I learned that gift from gay brothers in the local church.

But I wasn't there, and neither were any of us. All we've got is a skimpy record.

But we do have : Luk 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by zeek

My point is that I don't know, and I don't think you or anyone else does either, because I don't think the New Testament makes a factual statement about it one way or the other. That strikes me as odd and perhaps meaningful.

I've read other classical literature and usually the sexuality of the major subjects of the texts is characterized. We know quite a bit about the sexuality of Socrates , the Caesars and St. Augustine as examples. But, nothing about the sexuality of Jesus, the putative perfect man of the Christian religion.

So I'm asking the question: why? And it seems, as often the case, when I question the assumptions of people, they become defensive about it.

I concur. If God wanted us to know and to avoid so much heartbreak over the issue, he should have been more clear about Jesus since Hems the Son of God Or maybe he doesnt care, but then why all the secrecy?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

But I wasn't there, and neither were any of us. All we've got is a skimpy record.

But we do have : Luk 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed

sorry this part made me laugh so hard

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Keep in mind that Jesus was a known figure, thronged by crowds much of the time, and most importantly was always being watched and scrutinized so the Pharisees, etc could find a reason to do away with Him. If there was a single HINT of homosexual activity on Jesus' part, the religious guys after Him would have pounced before they could say "aha!" since it was, as Humperdinck said, punishable by death.

They were looking for any reason to kill Him. And yet Jesus was with a group of guys all throughout the time of His earthly ministry and the religious establishment still had nothing to charge Him with in that regard. They muttered and complained about His speaking to women, eating with prostitutes and tax collectors and sinners, but we never read a word about them scheming about any homosexual suspicions.

Many thanks to Trapped and Humperdinck for expressing an obvious rebuttal from the gospels and refuting the pathetic and scurrilous accusations against our beloved Savior, Jesus Christ. It did serve, however, to expose the crooked hearts of zeek, awareness, and others on this thread.

Peter spoke specifically about such ones, "But also among you will be false prophets and teachers, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." (2 Peter 2.1)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But we do have : Luke 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

sorry this part made me laugh so hard

But, of course, the Bible never says "two men" in one bed, it simply says "two."

KJV added "men" in italics to, I suppose, identify two humans, rather than a couple of dogs or perhaps MyPillows.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But, of course, the Bible never says "two men" in one bed, it simply says "two."

KJV added "men" in italics to, I suppose, identify two humans, rather than a couple of dogs or perhaps MyPillows.

You are so very creative, bro!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Okay, sure, that seems pretty straightforward. Do you come across many people who think divorces, cheating, incest, pedophilia, etc, are appropriate and healthy for heterosexuals though? I don't know of anyone who has said that here on the forum, and as I'm thinking about it, I don't know of anyone even in my LIFE who has said anything like that! Are there debates and disagreements out there that these things are healthy??

Perhaps you have not heard about this recent legislation in California ...

Kamala Harris together with California State senator Scott Wiener sponsored the most disgusting & terrifying bill SB-145 that just got passed into law in California which makes it perfectly legal for a 24 year old to have sex with a 14 year old. As long as the age difference isn't more than 10 years and the minor consents it's perfectly fine!! In order words, an adult can have sex with any child as long as the age difference is not more than 10 years. And Scott Wiener is not married and does not have a kid, but claims to know what is good for your kids. Yes, you read that right, pedophilia is perfectly legal in the state of California thanks to Scott Wiener and Kamala Harris.

Not only did Kamala jail pot-smokers and then laugh about it with Charlamagne, she has now legalized what society had condemned Michael Jackson and Jeffrey Epstein for doing.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps you have not heard about this recent legislation in California ...

Not only did Kamala jail pot-smokers and then laugh about it with Charlamagne, she has now legalized what society had condemned Michael Jackson for doing.

Did it get passed into law? What I read said it was headed to the gov's desk. (and it appears to reduce penalties, not make it legal)

SACRAMENTO (KUSI) September 4 – A California bill that would lower penalties for sexual relations with minors is heading to Governor Newsom’s desk.

SB 145 passed both legislative houses, and would remove the requirement for offenders to register as a sex offender after committing certain sex acts with minors within a 10-year age difference.

The legislation applies in cases where the victim is aged between 14 and 17 years old. It also tries to remove existing the registration requirement for having oral and anal sex.

Both the California state senate and assembly voted to approve SB 145, which had Republican opposition in the Senate and even bipartisan opposition in the assembly.

SB 145 was introduced by State Senator Scott Weiner, says it was designed to treat LGBT offenders the same as heterosexual offenders. Weiner cites a similar exemption already in place from mandatory registration for partners of a similar age difference.

“If signed into law, a 24-year-old could have sexual relations with a 15-year-old child without being required to register as a sex offender,” Senate Republican Leader Shannon Grove tweeted Tuesday.

SEE HERE

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many thanks to Trapped and Humperdinck for expressing an obvious rebuttal from the gospels and refuting the pathetic and scurrilous accusations against our beloved Savior, Jesus Christ. It did serve, however, to expose the crooked hearts of zeek, awareness, and others on this thread.

Peter spoke specifically about such ones, "But also among you will be false prophets and teachers, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." (2 Peter 2.1)

Hi Ohio. I see you are as opposed as ever to new thinking. Once again you resort to personal attack, judgment and condemnation.

By the way I wonder what happened to our buddy ZNP. We had a lot of interesting conversations with him back in the day.

Anyway, I wish all the best to you and your family in these difficult times.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Hi Ohio. I see you are as opposed as ever to new thinking. Once again you resort to personal attack, judgment and condemnation.

By the way I wonder what happened to our buddy ZNP. We had a lot of interesting conversations with him back in the day.

Anyway, I wish all the best to you and your family in these difficult times.

Nice to see you too zeek. Glad to see you are surviving this DemPanic.

I'm am not opposed to any "new thinking," rather I believe all new thinking must be vetted for value, veracity, and virtue. Assaulting the personal integrity of the holy Lamb of God qualifies for none of these.

It truly amazes me that you would consider attacks on the virtue and character of Jesus Christ as merely an acceptable forum inquiry, and yet make my expected responses to these posts a "personal attack" to yourself.

I just saw a recent post on the forum by ZNP. Being a teacher from NYC, he has faced much greater hardship than most.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Did it get passed into law? What I read said it was headed to the gov's desk. (and it appears to reduce penalties, not make it legal)

CA Governor Newsom signed it into law on 9/11.

Did you hear Michael Jackson and Jeffrey Epstein holler from the grave, "why only ten years?"

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

CA Governor Newsom signed it into law on 9/11

Yes, I saw that afterward. In the extreme, a 24 year old could have "consensual" homosexual sex with a 14 year old, and they won't have to register as a sex offender. Previously (as I understand it), in a different sex situation, the adult didn't have to register as a sex offender, and now this also applies to homosexual situations . . . again, potentially between a 24 and 14 year old.

Is this correct?

If so, I can more fully see what some warned us about - what a slippery slope we're sliding down now!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But, of course, the Bible never says "two men" in one bed, it simply says "two."

KJV added "men" in italics to, I suppose, identify two humans, rather than a couple of dogs or perhaps MyPillows.

Many translations besides the KJV has "two men," including the ASV, Darby, and many others.

Besides, before modernity, it wasn't uncommon for two men to sleep in the same bed together. And I suppose no one is concerned when two women sleep in the same bed together. And they can grind together too, it goes on to say, in verse 35.

Again, these verses only goes to prove that the record is skimpy, leaving it open to question.

Now, more importantly, just because you hate this thread doesn't mean you should be trying to sabotage it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Many translations besides the KJV has "two men," including the ASV, Darby, and many others.

Besides, before modernity, it wasn't uncommon for two men to sleep in the same bed together. And I suppose no one is concerned when two women sleep in the same bed together. And they can grind together too, it goes on to say, in verse 35.

Again, these verses only goes to prove that the record is skimpy, leaving it open to question.

Now, more importantly, just because you hate this thread doesn't mean you should be trying to sabotage it.

I told you what the Greek said "duo" -- "TWO." Look it up. Whenever the Bible or translators refers to people, they normally say "men" or perhaps use the inflected ending for male gender. Sometimes not. The English language has very few gender specific words (e.g. his, her) so most Americans don't understand that nouns and pronouns in other languages often have inflected endings.

A while ago you said God was female because the word for "wisdom" is feminine. Today you are implying that Jesus is gay because the Bible was silent about it. The reader should be aware that you have a severe bias against God, His word, and His people.

How do you know what was "common" before "modernity?" Were you there? Human nature has not changed, only technology, and I assert that it made many of us more stupid.

Once again your mind is in the gutter bro. "Grind together" (Lk 17.35) is in the flour mill, and is not a sexual act. You also have gender stereotypes here. The verse says "duo" -- "TWO." The verse does NOT say "two women." All of that is assumed by translators.

Each verse in Luke 17:34, 35, 36 refers to "two" or "duo" in Greek. The word "men" in v 34 and v 36 is added. The word "women" in v 35 is added.

Obviously you can twist any verse to say what you want. It's a habit of yours. At least try to maintain a little integrity about what the scripture says.

Obviously I don't hate this thread, as you suppose. I have presented a number of unique perspectives which no one has responded to. Perhaps you also are afraid of the honest truth?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes, I saw that afterward. In the extreme, a 24 year old could have "consensual" homosexual sex with a 14 year old, and they won't have to register as a sex offender. Previously (as I understand it), in a different sex situation, the adult didn't have to register as a sex offender, and now this also applies to homosexual situations . . . again, potentially between a 24 and 14 year old.

Is this correct?

If so, I can more fully see what some warned us about - what a slippery slope we're sliding down now!

“Before SB-145, an 18-year-old male convicted of having oral or anal sex with a 17-year-old male would be required to register as a sex offender, while a 24-year-old male convicted of having penile-vaginal sex with a 15-year-old female would not be automatically required to register – it would be left up to the judge”.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill...lifornia%3famp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.abc...0-c745cad03c80

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usa...amp/3456171001

Anyways, this is concerning since I live in California.

Okay reading further into the bill, I can see why it was changed:” One thing that appears to have been lost in this discussion and is obscured by the comments Gonzalez, Bry and Faulconer have made: Sex with a 14-year-old is illegal. It was illegal before SB 145, and it remains illegal now.

SB 145 addresses a disparity in the law specifically with regard to whether people who commit sexual offenses must also register as a sex offender.

Before SB 145, the law treated statutory rape cases – in which the victim is between 14 and 17 and the perpetrator is between the ages of 18 and 24 and within 10 years of a victim’s age – differently depending on whether the people involved were gay or straight. In cases involving vaginal penetration, a judge had the discretion to decide whether the perpetrator should be placed on the sex offender registry; but in cases involving anal or oral intercourse, common forms of sexual intercourse for gay couples, the sex offender registry was mandatory. SB 145 allows the same judicial discretion for all cases.

Sen. Scott Weiner, who is gay and wrote the bill, said this bill is about equal treatment under the law.

“An 18-year-old having sexual intercourse with a 17-year-old is different than a 24-year-old teacher having sex with a 14-year-old student. Most judges in that case would say that person would go on the registry because there’s a power imbalance and it’s never appropriate,” he said.

Wiener said the fact that the law treats sex crimes in which there’s an age gap of 10 or fewer years differently is a separate issue that would require another bill to address.

“It’s important to distinguish the broader structure of sex offender registry. People can have whatever views they want about the 10-year discretionary standard,” Weiner said. “It’s a separate issue regardless of what structure. It is what it’s been for 76 years. The question is: Should gay people be treated the same as straight people? Our equality should not be conditioned on making some broader change to the sex offender registry.”

Dan Felizzatto, a deputy district attorney in the Los Angeles County DA’s office, echoed that statement and said legislators could introduce new legislation to change how that 10-year age gap is addressed, but thinks expanding the registry would pose its own challenges. He said law enforcement wants to be able to use the sex offender registry as it was originally intended – as an investigatory tool and to monitor serial predators.

Rick Zbur, Equality California’s executive director, said it’s been common throughout the struggle for LGBTQ rights for opponents to advance a narrative that LGBTQ individuals are deviants or predators.”

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have presented a number of unique perspectives which no one has responded to

Which persoectives havent been responded to? Is it the sports one? You havent responded to one of the poster’s questions regarding how lgbtq rights affect you.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Which persoectives havent been responded to? Is it the sports one? You havent responded to one of the poster’s questions regarding how lgbtq rights affect you.

That's right. I will not divulge personal hardships. None of your business.

I have addressed damages to society as a whole, and women in particular, by the trans movement. None has been willing to discuss that.

Then my posts were regularly distorted. Pretty disingenuous.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

“Before SB-145, an 18-year-old male convicted of having oral or anal sex with a 17-year-old male would be required to register as a sex offender, while a 24-year-old male convicted of having penile-vaginal sex with a 15-year-old female would not be automatically required to register – it would be left up to the judge”.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill...lifornia%3famp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.abc...0-c745cad03c80

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usa...amp/3456171001

Anyways, this is concerning since I live in California.

Okay reading further into the bill, I can see why it was changed:” One thing that appears to have been lost in this discussion and is obscured by the comments Gonzalez, Bry and Faulconer have made: Sex with a 14-year-old is illegal. It was illegal before SB 145, and it remains illegal now.

SB 145 addresses a disparity in the law specifically with regard to whether people who commit sexual offenses must also register as a sex offender.

Before SB 145, the law treated statutory rape cases – in which the victim is between 14 and 17 and the perpetrator is between the ages of 18 and 24 and within 10 years of a victim’s age – differently depending on whether the people involved were gay or straight. In cases involving vaginal penetration, a judge had the discretion to decide whether the perpetrator should be placed on the sex offender registry; but in cases involving anal or oral intercourse, common forms of sexual intercourse for gay couples, the sex offender registry was mandatory. SB 145 allows the same judicial discretion for all cases.

Sen. Scott Weiner, who is gay and wrote the bill, said this bill is about equal treatment under the law.

“An 18-year-old having sexual intercourse with a 17-year-old is different than a 24-year-old teacher having sex with a 14-year-old student. Most judges in that case would say that person would go on the registry because there’s a power imbalance and it’s never appropriate,” he said.

Wiener said the fact that the law treats sex crimes in which there’s an age gap of 10 or fewer years differently is a separate issue that would require another bill to address.

“It’s important to distinguish the broader structure of sex offender registry. People can have whatever views they want about the 10-year discretionary standard,” Weiner said. “It’s a separate issue regardless of what structure. It is what it’s been for 76 years. The question is: Should gay people be treated the same as straight people? Our equality should not be conditioned on making some broader change to the sex offender registry.”

Dan Felizzatto, a deputy district attorney in the Los Angeles County DA’s office, echoed that statement and said legislators could introduce new legislation to change how that 10-year age gap is addressed, but thinks expanding the registry would pose its own challenges. He said law enforcement wants to be able to use the sex offender registry as it was originally intended – as an investigatory tool and to monitor serial predators.

Rick Zbur, Equality California’s executive director, said it’s been common throughout the struggle for LGBTQ rights for opponents to advance a narrative that LGBTQ individuals are deviants or predators.”

Every adult over 18 years knows that sex with a minor is against the law.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obviously I don't hate this thread, as you suppose. I have presented a number of unique perspectives which no one has responded to. Perhaps you also are afraid of the honest truth?

Well you've been honest, admitting that you stand on the Bible, and therefore LGBTQ+ are an abomination to God. So your unique views are just covering for your real views.

We've got it. There's no since in carrying on. The gays know the applicable verses better than most Bible Thumpers. They are used as ammunition against them.

So stop shooting.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Here you go Trapped and Ohio:

https://www.dummies.com/relationship...e-transgender/

Please read thoroughly and dont be afraid to ask if you have any questions.

This is what impressed me :

"Until you have a chance to get to know some people who identify as transgender and hear their stories, it’s natural to be confused or to have questions or concerns. Everyone has been there at one time or another!"

Originally Posted by Ohio

Every adult over 18 years knows that sex with a minor is against the law.

As a therapist in California, as a mandated reporter for child abuse, I dont have to report if a 15 year old is having sex with a 20 year old. The cut off is 14 years old. So your legality claims are wrong. Now, if it’s a matter of ethics and morality, thats a different issue. Some laws are unethical. Ethics and law are not necessarily not always on same page.

[clever sister]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Of course I read it. This is a conversation and both sides are expected to listen/read to the other. My question to you still stands.

I understand that you are saying "the person inside the body is a girl and thus the body of that person is a body that belongs to a girl and is thus a girl's body", but you know full well that that's not what I am talking about.

If she is transitioning, what is she transitioning from? If she is taking estrogen, why is she taking estrogen? Obviously it's because the physical body she is in is one that has historically, for thousands of years, been called a "male body", separate from whether the gendered person who possesses that body feels like a man or a woman. Surely you are not disputing that concept, are you? That seems to be at the core of the distress of transgendered people -- the disconnect between their physical body and who they feel they are inside. If that concept has changed, I'd appreciate help understanding what on earth has changed.

I just want to come in here and say that, yes, how we talk about transgender individuals has changed.

There has been a move away from gender dysphoria being an essential part of the definition of being transgender. Gender dysphoria is still a common experience, but with improvements in treatment for transgender children it may become less and less common. And I don't mean that people are doing surgery on children, not at all.
Gender affirming behaviour towards children and young adults can reduce and even eliminate gender dysphoria.
And puberty blockers can delay puberty until one is old enough to decide if they want to take hormone replacement therapy and/or have surgery.

There has also been increased understanding that biological sex is made up of five factors, not one or two.
These are chromosones, gonads, hormones, internal reproductive anatomy and external genitalia.
When a child is born, or in these cases even before they are born, there external genitalia is used to determine if they are a boy or a girl. Only in cases where it is unclear will they do something like test chromosones (this usually indicates a type of intersex condition, but not all intersex conditions are diagnosed at birth).
So, even with intersex children, after birth a gender is assigned to them and recorded on their birth certificate. This is where you may see people saying "I'm AFAB" or "AMAB", assigned female at birth or assigned male at birth.

For most people all their biological sex, their assigned gender and their own gender identity match.
In cases where some of the biological sex markers do not match their assigned gender, they are intersex.
In cases where assigned gender does not match their gender identity, they are called transgender.
Someone can be both or neither.

Going back to the five markers of biological sex, some of these can be changed with medical intervention.

Chromosomes- unchangeable, but the one with the least impact. I don't even know if my sex chromosomes are XX. I just assume so.

Gonads- can be removed, but as yet can't be replaced with working alternatives.

Internal reproductive anatomy- similar to gonads, can be removed but not yet replaced.

Hormones- completely changeable. Hormones replacement therapy is the most common treatment option for people who are transgender. I have friends who I have known since we were children and I have watched the impact that taking hormones has had on them. It changes how they look, it changes how they sound and it even has changes on their emotions.

External genitalia- the one everyone obsesses about. Yes, many transgender people get or want to get surgery down there. But it does not have that much impact on their day to day lives as hormone replacement therapy. How many people outside yourself, your spouse and your doctor see your private parts on a regular basis?


I hope this has been an educational post

[clever sister]

Originally Posted by awareness

This is what impressed me :

"Until you have a chance to get to know some people who identify as transgender and hear their stories, it’s natural to be confused or to have questions or concerns. Everyone has been there at one time or another!"

I agree with this statement so much!

Having friends come out as transgender and non-binary and explain their experiences to me really has helped me understand so much more and to think more about my own experience with my own gender.

[clever sister]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Every adult over 18 years knows that sex with a minor is against the law.

When did this become an discussion about the age of consent???

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's right. I will not divulge personal hardships. None of your business.

I have addressed damages to society as a whole, and women in particular, by the trans movement. None has been willing to discuss that.

Then my posts were regularly distorted. Pretty disingenuous.

Because it doesnt affect you. Only the sports issues because your son is in it. A lot of trans people are not in sports. Why don’t you address that?

Surely you havent been reading any of the posts above regarding other’s perspectives

[clever sister]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's right. I will not divulge personal hardships. None of your business.

I have addressed damages to society as a whole, and women in particular, by the trans movement. None has been willing to discuss that.

Then my posts were regularly distorted. Pretty disingenuous.

Personally I have not been discussing it because I do not see any damage being done to ciswomen, only damage being done to transwomen, transmen and intersex women.

Yes, there are predators, but they can be of any gender identity.
There is plenty of evidence to show that men do not need to dress up as women to be a danger to women.

Surely this article may change some minds.. or not:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...s-gay-probably

[clever sister]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If it was a healthy love, they wouldn't accuse others of hating them right in the middle of a discussion.

Like I have continually said, the LGBT have special rights and the highest per capita income levels, then why do they constantly play the victim.

Source?

Because I have a source which shows they are more likely to be in poverty

https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/lgbt

[awareness]

Originally Posted by clever sister

I just want to come in here and say that, yes, how we talk about transgender individuals has changed.

There has been a move away from gender dysphoria being an essential part of the definition of being transgender. Gender dysphoria is still a common experience, but with improvements in treatment for transgender children it may become less and less common. And I don't mean that people are doing surgery on children, not at all.
Gender affirming behaviour towards children and young adults can reduce and even eliminate gender dysphoria.
And puberty blockers can delay puberty until one is old enough to decide if they want to take hormone replacement therapy and/or have surgery.

There has also been increased understanding that biological sex is made up of five factors, not one or two.
These are chromosones, gonads, hormones, internal reproductive anatomy and external genitalia.
When a child is born, or in these cases even before they are born, there external genitalia is used to determine if they are a boy or a girl. Only in cases where it is unclear will they do something like test chromosones (this usually indicates a type of intersex condition, but not all intersex conditions are diagnosed at birth).
So, even with intersex children, after birth a gender is assigned to them and recorded on their birth certificate. This is where you may see people saying "I'm AFAB" or "AMAB", assigned female at birth or assigned male at birth.

For most people all their biological sex, their assigned gender and their own gender identity match.
In cases where some of the biological sex markers do not match their assigned gender, they are intersex.
In cases where assigned gender does not match their gender identity, they are called transgender.
Someone can be both or neither.

Going back to the five markers of biological sex, some of these can be changed with medical intervention.

Chromosomes- unchangeable, but the one with the least impact. I don't even know if my sex chromosomes are XX. I just assume so.

Gonads- can be removed, but as yet can't be replaced with working alternatives.

Internal reproductive anatomy- similar to gonads, can be removed but not yet replaced.

Hormones- completely changeable. Hormones replacement therapy is the most common treatment option for people who are transgender. I have friends who I have known since we were children and I have watched the impact that taking hormones has had on them. It changes how they look, it changes how they sound and it even has changes on their emotions.

External genitalia- the one everyone obsesses about. Yes, many transgender people get or want to get surgery down there. But it does not have that much impact on their day to day lives as hormone replacement therapy. How many people outside yourself, your spouse and your doctor see your private parts on a regular basis?


I hope this has been an educational post

And that it is. Thanks so much. I now feel that I finally understand transgender. Excellent work, and presentation. You're a gem. Thanks for being on this thread.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's right. I will not divulge personal hardships. None of your business.

Or ... prolly ... you haven't been impacted by same sex marriage at all.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nice to see you too zeek. Glad to see you are surviving this DemPanic.

I'm am not opposed to any "new thinking," rather I believe all new thinking must be vetted for value, veracity, and virtue. Assaulting the personal integrity of the holy Lamb of God qualifies for none of these.

It truly amazes me that you would consider attacks on the virtue and character of Jesus Christ as merely an acceptable forum inquiry, and yet make my expected responses to these posts a "personal attack" to yourself.

I just saw a recent post on the forum by ZNP. Being a teacher from NYC, he has faced much greater hardship than most.

I didn't question Jesus' virtue or character. I asserted that the Bible makes no explicit statement about his marital status or sexuality thus leaving the matter open for speculation.

You accused me of "trolling", having "a crooked heart" and implied that I was a "false prophet" worthy of "swift destruction" by quoting 2 Peter 2.1. I'll let others decide for themselves if that was a personal attack on me or not.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by LoveMatters

Surely this article may change some minds.. or not:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...s-gay-probably

That should bunch up Ohio's knickers. And help to take the heat off of brother zeek and I.

So then, others have questioned if Jesus was homosexual or not. Never mind the beloved disciple John as a sign. What about the fact that he recruited young naked boys? Add that to John, as evidence, and there's a strong possibility that he was gay, tho likely in practice asexual, or celibate gay, or whatever.

And again, if it was found for certain that he was gay, would we still love him?

And if I "love him" does that make me, a male, gay?

[Sons to Glory!]

After the weekly brothers' breakfast this morning, one brother made a comment to a few of us I'd never thought about. He said that most women are probably more accepting of homosexuality, because they've not been in a position where they have felt that threatened by it. On the other hand, many men have experienced this from other males (sometimes in an aggressive way). Therefore men may tend to feel less accepting of homosexuals than women.

So the Guardian says Jesus was gay?

Right. And the National Inquirer says that John the Baptist was a cross-dresser and Martha and Mary were drag queens!

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

So the Guardian says Jesus was gay?

Right. And the National Inquirer says that John the Baptist was a cross-dresser and Martha and Mary were drag queens!

https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets...osexuality.pdf

[clever sister]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

After the weekly brothers' breakfast this morning, one brother made a comment to a few of us I'd never thought about. He said that most women are probably more accepting of homosexuality, because they've not been in a position where they have felt that threatened by it. On the other hand, many men have experienced this from other males (sometimes in an aggressive way). Therefore men may tend to feel less accepting of homosexuals than women.

I have heard something similar before.

"Some men are homophobic because they are afraid of being treated the way they treat women"

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

So the Guardian says Jesus was gay?

Right. And the National Inquirer says that John the Baptist was a cross-dresser and Martha and Mary were drag queens!

The writer of the Guardian article, "Was Jesus gay? Probably", Paul Oestreicher, is an Anglican priest.

[Trapped]

From the article:

"Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches."

I think it's pretty understood that Jesus never married. To suggest that theologically it would have been fine for an unmarried, unblemished, sinless, spotless Son of God to have been involved in sexual activity (gay or straight regardless) outside of marriage is utter absurdity. All of us are eternally dead in our sins if this is the case, because then Jesus would have been a sinner and could never have been acceptable as the one who could lay His life down as a sacrifice for any of us.

I'm speechless that what seem to be professing Christians (zeek excluded, IIRC) on this thread are waving that article as anything remotely credible to point to. Do you even understand the implications of some of the things you are trying to pass off?!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I think it's pretty understood that Jesus never married. To suggest that theologically it would have been fine for an unmarried, unblemished, sinless, spotless Son of God to have been involved in sexual activity (gay or straight regardless) outside of marriage is utter absurdity. All of us are eternally dead in our sins if this is the case, because then Jesus would have been a sinner and could never have been acceptable as the one who could lay His life down as a sacrifice for any of us.

I'm speechless that what seem to be professing Christians (zeek excluded, IIRC) on this thread are waving that article anything remotely credible to point to. Do you even understand the implications of some of the things you are trying to pass off?!

What Trapped said . . .

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I'm speechless that what seem to be professing Christians (zeek excluded, IIRC) on this thread are waving that article as anything remotely credible to point to. Do you even understand the implications of some of the things you are trying to pass off?!

It's like trying to reason with a mob.


Anyone understand what blasphemy looks like?

Paul Oestreicher? A well-known commie socialist who wears a crucifix. Yeah, that's where we should get our theology and biblical history from!


Oestreicher with his two heros Marx and Engels

So what other kooks do you want to dig up that claim Jesus was a homo? Keep at it guys. This is fun!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's like trying to reason with a mob.

I typically feel sorry for the underdog.

Originally Posted by O

Anyone understand what blasphemy looks like?

No. Tell me.

[Trapped]

I'll sit at a roundtable and grapple sincerely with "Is God gay?" and "Was Jesus homosexual" but there has to be a basic level of logic and reason to be able to have a discussion. If claims and statements are made, the logic has to hold up. That's all I'm asking.

The claim has been made earlier in this thread that Jesus could have been a celibate homosexual. As I also mentioned elsewhere, if this is the case, then we also have to look at the implications of that claim and what it means for those with same-sex attractions now. In other words, His example is the one to follow. This is why I didn't understand what there was to gain by throwing Jesus's potential homosexuality around.....because it logically brings us to a place it doesn't seem like you would want to be.

It's also not an assumption that Jesus was heterosexual. It's a reasonable inference. There is a vast difference between the two. For Jesus to be homosexual and yet surround Himself with a group of men makes no sense. That is what someone who was heterosexual and reasonably wanted to remain sinless would do.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

Paul Oestreicher? A well-known commie socialist who wears a crucifix. Yeah, that's where we should get our theology and biblical history from!

Oestreicher with his two heros Marx and Engels

So what other kooks do you want to dig up that claim Jesus was a homo? Keep at it guys. This is fun!

Humperdinck ... you were not supposed to expose things like this.

Didn't you know you were supposed to "cover the bros?"

Sure you guys asked for it: for fellow brothers, Humperdink, Ohio, Sons of Glory, Trapped

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vic...-jesus-gay-702

http://religiousinstitute.org/denom_...s-in-the-bibl/

Ruth and Naomi (lesbian or bisexual)
http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/bi...uth_naomi.html

Jonathan (gay) and David (bisexual):
http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/bi..._jonathan.html

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

Paul Oestreicher? A well-known commie socialist who wears a crucifix. Yeah, that's where we should get our theology and biblical history from

This is an ad hominem fallacy argument for dismissing the contents of his reasonings based on his character/personality

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This is an ad hominem fallacy argument for dismissing the contents of his reasonings based on his character/personality

Not totally. When his reasonings are related to a character issue, his own character does become relevant. It’s one thing to look at the character of a person trying to reason a math proof or something. But it’s another to look at the character of the person claiming a fornicating-outside-of-marriage Jesus (a character issue) is theologically no big deal. The character of a person arguing a character point provides a framework for the basis of his viewpoint.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by LoveMatters

Sure you guys asked for it: for fellow brothers, Humperdink, Ohio, Sons of Glory, Trapped

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vic...-jesus-gay-702

http://religiousinstitute.org/denom_...s-in-the-bibl/

Ruth and Naomi (lesbian or bisexual)
http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/bi...uth_naomi.html

Jonathan (gay) and David (bisexual):
http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/bi..._jonathan.html

In today's vernacular these are all fake websites. O the website is real, but the info is fake, unreliable, speculative, not fact-based, and purely conjecture.

A little surprising coming from "Love Matters."

[Sons to Glory!]

As usual, man is trying to change God into our image: that of fallen, sinful, confused man. I am unsubscribing from this thread as it is more & more offensive to me. If anyone wants to communicated with me, they know where (PM). But I will not entertain outright blasphemy - there is a spirit behind it, and it's not of Him.

May the Lord be with you all!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

Paul Oestreicher? A well-known commie socialist who wears a crucifix. Yeah, that's where we should get our theology and biblical history from

This is an ad hominem fallacy argument for dismissing the contents of his reasonings based on his character/personality

That's right. Humperdinck's argument is an ad hominem fallacy dismissing Oestreicher's argument based nothing more than questionable inferences Humperdinck makes about Oestreicher from a single photo.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

I typically feel sorry for the underdog.


No. Tell me.

I find it ironic when people start to think it's blasphemy when greeted with views that reveal there are gay people in the bible. Jesus was crucified for "blasphemy". good riddance because that is how pharisees think.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I typically feel sorry for the under dog.

Where is zeek et. al. coming out to defend me for awareness' vicious ad hominem insult calling me a dog?

Talk about double standards, yet without them, some folks around here would have none at all.

Where's that "my feelings are so hurt" emoji?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I find it ironic when people start to think it's blasphemy when greeted with views that reveal there are gay people in the bible. Jesus was crucified for "blasphemy". good riddance because that is how pharisees think.

No one is saying there aren't gay people in the Bible. Paul speaks of this in one of his letters, saying "this is what some of you were". There they are in Scripture, right there.

What we are saying, which so far no one has actually addressed other than weak ad hominem claims that don't apply, is that arguments and logic starts crumbling if you try to claim Jesus was gay. We can reasonably infer He wasn't, and if He was, His celibate example doesn't bode well for homosexuals who want to engage in homosexual activity. In two directions that argument fails.

Blasphemy, by the way, is only blasphemy in relation to the truth of the issue. Just as calling a murderer "a murderer" is not slander because it's true, so are Jesus' claims to divinity not blasphemy, because they are true. If you or I made claims to divine origins, that's a problem because it's not true. But if Jesus does, no problem, because it's true. The Pharisees didn't like the truth, and they called that truth blasphemy.

Likewise, for all the logical and rational reasons and arguments I've stated here, it is similarly blasphemy to make the false statements about Jesus and God that are being thrown around here, that I've repeatedly shown to hold no water.

Let me ask anyone reading a question: If living a homosexual lifestyle (I'm not talking about having the feelings, but continually acting on them) was indeed shown to be a sin, would you continue to live according to your same-sex attractions? In other words, if God Himself undeniably visited you and told you without question that acting on the attractions was immoral, would you cease?

This is a simple hypothetical question, and I'm curious how you would answer.

[Humperdinck]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's right. Humperdinck's argument is an ad hominem fallacy dismissing Oestreicher's argument based nothing more than questionable inferences Humperdinck makes about Oestreicher from a single photo.

I'll make a deal with you zeek, you don't try to bolster your argument by referencing somebody's supposed credentials (Anglican priest) and I won't bother to point out that your "proof" is coming from a fraud. If you don't want me to be shootin your fish in that barrel, don't bring out that barrel full of fish and shove it in my face. Deal partner?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

As usual, man is trying to change God into our image: that of fallen, sinful, confused man. I am unsubscribing from this thread as it is more & more offensive to me. If anyone wants to communicated with me, they know where (PM). But I will not entertain outright blasphemy - there is a spirit behind it, and it's not of Him.

May the Lord be with you all!

I am seriously taking STG's advisement under consideration. This thread has transitioned from a discussion about transgender damages to our society as a whole to an orchestrated and blasphemous assault on the character of the holy Lamb of God, my Savior Jesus Christ.

I didn't want to leave this thread without saying why. If I had any say in the matter, I would shut down the Alt-Views to all such blasphemy about the holy virtue and character of Jesus Christ.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I find it ironic when people start to think it's blasphemy when greeted with views that reveal there are gay people in the bible. Jesus was crucified for "blasphemy". good riddance because that is how pharisees think.

It's an emotional heart thing for SoG and Ohio. They have ideals of purity coming down from tradition about Jesus and the Bible.

I think it's caused by seeing only the divine side of the Bible and not the human side of the Bible ; producing such divine idealism that they completely miss the fact the the every book of the Bible were written by human hands, thinking rather, that it was written by God's hands ... like God actually has hands.

I think it boils down to ignorance of the formations of the Bible, and its compilation. An ignorance that's likely going to stick with them until the grave, unfortunately. Cuz, they're very happy in their ignorance, and will likely proudly tell you so.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

As usual, man is trying to change God into our image: that of fallen, sinful, confused man. I am unsubscribing from this thread as it is more & more offensive to me. If anyone wants to communicated with me, they know where (PM). But I will not entertain outright blasphemy - there is a spirit behind it, and it's not of Him.

May the Lord be with you all!

Why thank you brother. You'll be missed. May the Lord be with you as well.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

I'll make a deal with you zeek, you don't try to bolster your argument by referencing somebody's supposed credentials (Anglican priest) and I won't bother to point out that your "proof" is coming from a fraud. If you don't want me to be shootin your fish in that barrel, don't bring out that barrel full of fish and shove it in my face. Deal partner?

I'll speak for zeek : not until you tell us who the disciple whom Jesus loved was ... the one that's said laid on his bosom. And prove it beyond a shadow of doubt.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'll speak for zeek : not until you tell us who the disciple whom Jesus loved was ... the one that's said laid on his bosom. And prove it beyond a shadow of doubt.

Yeah.......the Greek word for bosom in that verse (John 13:23) is the same word used in John 1:18 where it says that the Son of God is in the bosom of the Father. Unless you sincerely are also trying to imply some kind of homosexual relationship between God the Father and His own Son, seriously, for your own sake, just stop.

Is anyone going to deal in the realm of logic and with the substance of the previous posts or is this thread just for making up sexually scandalous and baseless insinuations about the only One who can save your soul?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Yeah.......the Greek word for bosom in that verse (John 13:23) is the same word used in John 1:18 where it says that the Son of God is in the bosom of the Father. Unless you sincerely are also trying to imply some kind of homosexual relationship between God the Father and His own Son, seriously, for your own sake, just stop.

Is anyone going to deal in the realm of logic and with the substance of the previous posts or is this thread just for making up sexually scandalous and baseless insinuations about the only One who can save your soul?

Now now bro Trapped. Calm down. I think brother zeek's point about Jesus possibly being homosexual is that the NT has left us with only speculations about his sexuality.

Same with the word bosom. Angels carried the beggar into Abraham's bosom, Lazarus was "in" his bosom, and the same Greek word was used for a "creek" in Acts 27.

All the speculation about those days 2000 yrs ago is taken care of by tradition, and christian hearts has embraced it. So John the evangelist is said to be the one that lay on Jesus' bosom, proof not needed.

And Humperdinck is acting all smart and everything, so I challenged him to answer who it was, to test his standing on tradition ... and his emotional attachment to all this.

You keep wanting logic, but most are objecting due to emotion, not logic. Logic can't answer speculations about 2000 yrs ago, if the records don't.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

Now now bro Trapped. Calm down. I think brother zeek's point about Jesus possibly being homosexual is that the NT has left us with only speculations about his sexuality.

Same with the word bosom. Angels carried the beggar into Abraham's bosom, Lazarus was "in" his bosom, and the same Greek word was used for a "creek" in Acts 27.

All the speculation about those days 2000 yrs ago is taken care of by tradition, and christian hearts has embraced it. So John the evangelist is said to be the one that lay on Jesus' bosom, proof not needed.

And Humperdinck is acting all smart and everything, so I challenged him to answer who it was, to test his standing on tradition ... and his emotional attachment to all this.

You keep wanting logic, but most are objecting due to emotion, not logic. Logic can't answer speculations about 2000 yrs ago, if the records don't.

I'm already calm. Do you think you are riling people up by posting totally ludicrous statements that are still handled seriously?

I really don't think you all read the "other side's" posts on these threads. The NT doesn't leave us with only speculations, there is plenty to reasonably infer, as I've detailed out. I know, some people love to claim that John the beloved disciple was literally in Jesus's underwear, as the Vice article posted earlier (did you read it?) said, but do you really think angels carried a beggar into Abraham's underwear? This is why I'm asking for just a semblance of logic and reason. Because if we don't have that as a basis, then there is no way to have a discussion. And that's what this forum is about, and that's what the OP said she wanted in her OP - "a civilized discussion". I've kept my posts civil as well as discussion-oriented to the point of seriously engaging topics that many would have walked away from the second they were even posed. Are you going to hold to that parameter?

We've already got some people on one side of the issue claiming they are "hated" while others on that same side are the ones to tell people on the other side "good riddance" they are gone. Where's the civility?

Here's another semblance of reason: the rest of the apostles were Jews giving up their lives for this guy. Do you really think they were all sitting there at the last supper chilling out with no issues as John got in Jesus's underwear....and still came away believing in faith that the sinless Lamb of God was who He said He was?

The objections are not even emotional. They are out in left field and crumble under a little basic inspection. Again, if logic and reason are out the window, then the entire basis of this thread is also out the window. It's up to you.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I'm already calm. Do you think you are riling people up by posting totally ludicrous statements that are still handled seriously?

I really don't think you all read the "other side's" posts on these threads. The NT doesn't leave us with only speculations, there is plenty to reasonably infer, as I've detailed out. I know, some people love to claim that John the beloved disciple was literally in Jesus's underwear, as the Vice article posted earlier (did you read it?) said, but do you really think angels carried a beggar into Abraham's underwear? This is why I'm asking for just a semblance of logic and reason. Because if we don't have that as a basis, then there is no way to have a discussion. And that's what this forum is about, and that's what the OP said she wanted in her OP - "a civilized discussion". I've kept my posts civil as well as discussion-oriented to the point of seriously engaging topics that many would have walked away from the second they were even posed. Are you going to hold to that parameter?

We've already got some people on one side of the issue claiming they are "hated" while others on that same side are the ones to tell people on the other side "good riddance" they are gone. Where the civility?

Here's another semblance of reason: the rest of the apostles were Jews giving up their lives for this guy. Do you really think they were all sitting there at the last supper chilling out with no issues as John got in Jesus's underwear....and still came away believing in faith that the sinless Lamb of God was who He said He was?

The objections are not even emotional. They are out in left field and crumble under a little basic inspection. Again, if logic and reason are out the window, then the entire basis of this thread is also out the window. It's up to you.

Brother Trapped, this post has me flooring in the floor. Thanks for that. These days while in isolation I could use a good laugh.

Okay, there exists lots of speculation about Jesus' sexuality, going back to the 16th c. And there's lots flying around out here.

Did homosexuality even exist 2000 yrs ago? Was anybody homosexual? Of course, but it doesn't make sense that Jesus and/or Paul were gay. It doesn't come up in the record left to us.

And it certainly doesn't enter the minds of 99.9999% of Christians. Their minds are filled with traditional imaginations of Jesus and Paul, and their hearts are deeply attached to them.

And I have to admit that, if I went around in this Bible belt saying Jesus or Paul were gay, I doubt I'd be long on this earth. That's how deeply and strongly Christians feel toward common and/or traditional imaginations of Jesus and Paul. And I'm not on any of the social media sites, like Facebook, but if I were, and I suggested that either or both of them were gay, I'd likely get plenty of death threats, from both rational and irrational Christians alike.

Brother zeek is a master at weaving words, and put the question up about Jesus' sexuality to make a point that our records are skimpy on details, even about Jesus' sexuality. Did they even wear underwear back then, as we know 'em today? Maybe, and prolly, at least loincloths. But according to our NT records we don't know, do we?

We get more such details from Egyptian records, and from Roman records, during the days of Jesus.

So let's drop speculations that can't be supported by the records we have so far today.

Let's rather get back to the question of how gays should be treated today, by both Christians and the community at large. After all, homosexuality isn't contagious, either biologically or socially. We don't control it any more than we can control the genitalia we're born with.

I've been told for much of my life that homosexuality is a choice. That's what Bible believers have told me. But it's not. They just want it that way so that they and God can condemn homosexuals to everlasting torment in hell fire.

But Jesus didn't say, "Love your neighbors, unless they are gay." Not according to the record we have. No need for speculations there. We're to love them.

Thanks for speaking for logic. Jesus made it logical to love the gays, and people -- neighbors -- of all variations thereof. Let's stick with Jesus, and the two great commandments ... and not the law from long before Jesus.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Trapped, this post has me flooring in the floor. ... Let's stick with Jesus, and the two great commandments ... and not the law from long before Jesus.

Thanks for your fantastic post. Your laughing about my post also gave me a good laugh I sorely needed myself. I was taking the topic so seriously I didn't stop to think about what comical scenarios were being described (I mean poor guy, Lazarus is a beggar covered in sores licked by dogs [as the verses say] and he dies and ends up in someone's underwear instead......hardly the sweet release of death.....)

I agree with your post too. Jesus absolutely made it logical to love gay people. And God so loved the world, which last time I checked, includes everyone. Although I don't know specific concrete reasons why any given person has same-sex attractions, I have heard enough stories of people who say they desperately prayed not to feel that way, and that they have suffered for years where they would do anything to be rid of those attractions that I believe them when they say it's not a choice. That's why I'm on this thread, because I recognize the agony inside a person struggling with something they didn't seem to ask for, and on a basic level I wanted to understand it better in hopes my understanding could some day help someone dealing with it themselves. Or at least I might be the first Christian they encounter in their life who sits and listens and sees them because I had previously taken the time to discuss and comprehend the serious thing they are crushed by, rather than maybe all the other Christians before them who added to their pain.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Thanks for your fantastic post. Your laughing about my post also gave me a good laugh I sorely needed myself. I was taking the topic so seriously I didn't stop to think about what comical scenarios were being described (I mean poor guy, Lazarus is a beggar covered in sores licked by dogs [as the verses say] and he dies and ends up in someone's underwear instead......hardly the sweet release of death.....)

I agree with your post too. Jesus absolutely made it logical to love gay people. And God so loved the world, which last time I checked, includes everyone. Although I don't know specific concrete reasons why any given person has same-sex attractions, I have heard enough stories of people who say they desperately prayed not to feel that way, and that they have suffered for years where they would do anything to be rid of those attractions that I believe them when they say it's not a choice. That's why I'm on this thread, because I recognize the agony inside a person struggling with something they didn't seem to ask for, and on a basic level I wanted to understand it better in hopes my understanding could some day help someone dealing with it themselves. Or at least I might be the first Christian they encounter in their life who sits and listens and sees them because I had previously taken the time to discuss and comprehend the serious thing they are crushed by, rather than maybe all the other Christians before them who added to their pain.

And your fantastic post too. Ya got me laughing again Trapped.

I'll tell this story, in a nutshell. In the c. in Ft. Lauderdale Fl a brother and I would meet once a week to study Jessie Penn-Lewis, and her teachings on the cross. That was the times when my questions about Lee were boiling up to the surface.

Eventually I left, or was booted - excommunicated -- from the church. Six months or so afterwards, that brother I was meeting with, in a separate room from wife and kids, came out that he was gay ; telling everyone, including his wife and three kids, his parents, and many in the LC, that he was gay. I was shocked.

But I already loved the brother so we stayed friends. I spent a good decade picking his brain as to what made him gay. It's wasn't a choice. I didn't know it at the time but he was reading about the cross in hopes that it would crucify his gayness away ... and that he was at that time literally beating his head against a cement wall, trying to get it out. He told me that when he came out he finally felt free ; free to be who he really was ... finally.

Clearly it wasn't a choice for him.

But we know why it's got to be a choice. Because in the Bible God judges it ; and God can't judge someone for how He makes them. So for those that consider the Bible to be the inerrant inspired word of God, God condemns homosexuality, so it's got to be a choice. They're wrong, it's not.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

And your fantastic post too. Ya got me laughing again Trapped.

I'll tell this story, in a nutshell. In the c. in Ft. Lauderdale Fl a brother and I would meet once a week to study Jessie Penn-Lewis, and her teachings on the cross. That was the times when my questions about Lee were boiling up to the surface.

Eventually I left, or was booted - excommunicated -- from the church. Six months or so afterwards, that brother I was meeting with, in a separate room from wife and kids, came out that he was gay ; telling everyone, including his wife and three kids, his parents, and many in the LC, that he was gay. I was shocked.

But I already loved the brother so we stayed friends. I spent a good decade picking his brain as to what made him gay. It's wasn't a choice. I didn't know it at the time but he was reading about the cross in hopes that it would crucify his gayness away ... and that he was at that time literally beating his head against a cement wall, trying to get it out. He told me that when he came out he finally felt free ; free to be who he really was ... finally.

Clearly it wasn't a choice for him.

But we know why it's got to be a choice. Because in the Bible God judges it ; and God can't judge someone for how He makes them. So for those that consider the Bible to be the inerrant inspired word of God, God condemns homosexuality, so it's got to be a choice. They're wrong, it's not.

Well I'm glad this sorta got back on track, so let me jump in here again and say something . . . regarding being a choice or not being a choice - I don't think anyone knows for sure how this thing works!

The things that might be listed which causes homosexuality could include:

> Choice
> Genes and/or hormones
> Some other predisposition
> Deceiving spirits
> God's plan
> Some combination of above

Are there other potential causes that could be listed?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

He told me that when he came out he finally felt free ; free to be who he really was ... finally.

Clearly it wasn't a choice for him.

But we know why it's got to be a choice. Because in the Bible God judges it ; and God can't judge someone for how He makes them.

So for those that consider the Bible to be the inerrant inspired word of God, God condemns homosexuality, so it's got to be a choice. They're wrong, it's not.

The same can be said of all human "propensities" which are contrary to God's laws. Whether a liar, a thief, an arsonist, a murderer, a sorcerer, an idolator, an alcoholic, a reviler, a prostitute, a drug addict, a womanizer, an adulterer, etc -- all such ones can claim that their own personal innate "propensities" were not their choice, but they were "born that way." They were merely "surviving" in a nasty world. They were only living the way God had made them.

And coming out of their many "conscience closets" made them all feel so free. It's way too hard to resist the way we are made, eh? And if God made them all the way they were, how can He ever judge any of them?

Either awareness is wrong or the Bible is wrong, God included. Can't be both. I sure hope awareness is right because I would hate to be judged for any of my "propensities." But if awareness is wrong, a whole lot of people are in for the shock of their lives.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

And your fantastic post too. Ya got me laughing again Trapped.

I'll tell this story, in a nutshell. In the c. in Ft. Lauderdale Fl a brother and I would meet once a week to study Jessie Penn-Lewis, and her teachings on the cross. That was the times when my questions about Lee were boiling up to the surface.

Eventually I left, or was booted - excommunicated -- from the church. Six months or so afterwards, that brother I was meeting with, in a separate room from wife and kids, came out that he was gay ; telling everyone, including his wife and three kids, his parents, and many in the LC, that he was gay. I was shocked.

But I already loved the brother so we stayed friends. I spent a good decade picking his brain as to what made him gay. It's wasn't a choice. I didn't know it at the time but he was reading about the cross in hopes that it would crucify his gayness away ... and that he was at that time literally beating his head against a cement wall, trying to get it out. He told me that when he came out he finally felt free ; free to be who he really was ... finally.

Clearly it wasn't a choice for him.

But we know why it's got to be a choice. Because in the Bible God judges it ; and God can't judge someone for how He makes them. So for those that consider the Bible to be the inerrant inspired word of God, God condemns homosexuality, so it's got to be a choice. They're wrong, it's not.

Yeah....see....there it is. I don't see his behavior as that of someone who has a choice.

What I write here may make some people mad, I have no idea, but this is my honest handling of what has gone on in my head about this topic that I don't have firsthand experience with. I think what makes the issue so complicated is that I don't think there is one "Aha! This one thing is why a person has same-sex attractions" answer. I think there are numerous pathways to it. (I started writing this before StG jumped back in, and he has already hit on a few).

I do believe one of those pathways is trauma. And I am saying that with a much broader view in mind than just homosexuality. I am of the personal opinion that the majority of humankind has endured or encountered some level of trauma (whatever kind) somewhere in their life, and many of those people are walking around without having faced it, maybe even without having even spoken of it, and certainly not having gotten professional help for it or processed it in any way. I had this same conversation with a physical therapist one time, not thinking that he would have much input, and he immediately told me a story of the patient of a medical doctor he knew. (The PT was in the MD's office visiting him and somehow saw this play out). The patient was known as a happy guy, joyful, exuberant, hilarious, everyone loved him. But that day, the MD told this patient he needed to get a scan to check for testicular cancer.

The patient blew his top in anger. Yelling, screaming, lashing out. Furious. No one knew why. They tried to calm him down, not understanding his reaction. Eventually, it came out that he had been sexually abused as a young kid, and hid it. He didn't want anyone touching anything down there. But if you didn't know that, you would think, "this guy is mentally unstable. One minute happy, the other minute furious, for no apparent reason. He has anger issues, etc...."

Nope. He had trauma that still haunted him.

And I honestly think most people have experiences in their life that cause their eyes to get haunted and make them turn inward to protect the pain still inside them if you try to get them to talk about it. And our complicated beings use some very difficult coping mechanisms sometimes to deal with it on our behalf.

One doctor/psych friend of mine told me about a patient who had been verbally and emotionally abused by a close partner for several years without a way out from the abuse. Anyone she went to turned a deaf ear and she couldn't get help from anyone. Finally once she was able to break free and the abuse was over, the coping mechanism the welled up to try to process and work through her feelings of helplessness was to .... sorry to be graphic here ... act out fantasy rape scenarios where she was also exactly that - helpless. But it wasn't for pleasure; it was a coping mechanism that just came out from within her. She was apparently horrified at what she did, but it was a physical manifestation of an inward feeling she couldn't handle having. The doctor said it provided her some relief because for that period of time her outward experience matched her inward feeling about what had happened that she hadn't yet been able to move on from.

Anyway, all that to say, I think some people were abused and/or traumatized, and their body deals with it via same-sex attractions.

But then you have people who say they knew at 3-4 years old. They had an awareness at a very early age. They freely say they had a wonderful childhood and there wasn't anything specific that would have affected their attractions. What's going on there? Is it the set of genes SerenityLives spoke about? Is it the presence of certain hormones in the womb? I see no reason to discount these experiences of people, and believe for some there is an "inborn" reason.

I know in some LC meetings they have mentioned demon possession or evil spirit or something like that as an explanation. This probably does account for a very minor % but I see no real reason to claim that homosexuals have a higher rate of demonic susceptibility than any other member of the human race. In other words, whatever % of people out there who are demonically influenced in some way is probably the same % whether gay or straight, so I don't think that's an explanation that gets us very far.

So with traumatized people, get help for the root trauma. For demons, pray to cast them out.

But regarding the "inborn" reason. This is the hardest. And what it seems to boil down to is fairness. And I don't mean this glibly. I mean this knowing that it is an anguished cry from deep within that Satan has twisted around to make you think that it is a value statement on you as a person. "It's not fair that I have these feelings I don't want to have. It's not okay to call it abnormal and make me feel like I'm abnormal. It's not fair I get cheated of xyz experience other people have."

I can understand the emotions and the pain behind those things, because it's not isolated to homosexuals only. Someone born with cerebral palsy or spina bifida or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome or no arms and legs can say the same thing. Someone who has a promising athletic career in front of them who gets sideswiped by a drunk and ends up a quadriplegic paralytic can say the same thing. Someone who gets lung cancer at age 23 and dies can say the same thing.

"Why me?"

It's not fair I was born this way. It's not fair I didn't live long enough to get married. It's not fair my life was cut short prematurely. It's not fair my spine is irreparably crooked and walking causes me excruciating pain. It's not fair you get to run and jump and catch a ball, and I can't because I was born without arms or legs to do those things. It's not fair I can't feel anything from the neck down and will never know the pleasures of sex.

It's not fair I have same-sex attractions I don't want to have.

But those things aren't normal. Cerebral palsy isn't the normal condition of a human being. Spina bifida isn't the normal condition of a human being. Paralyzed from the neck down isn't the normal state of a person. But it is strange to me to have a problem with calling something that isn't normal "abnormal". If someone is born that way, or something happens TO a person outside of their control, it is certainly not a judgment on who they are as a person. We can say someone suffering from cerebral palsy, who was born with it, was born abnormally, and it's a truth that has nothing to do with the value of their person. They did nothing to have the condition, so why would we think less of them in any way, rather than have compassion on their situation? What it means is they are suffering in a certain way, that's all. It doesn't determine their worth in any way. And same-sex attractions, to me, can be described this way too. I don't think it's a "normal" state of affairs. I do think you can be born with it. I don't think it is a statement on your worth and value as a person. And no, I don't think it's fair. And this is why there should be compassion. Because it's a suffering, just like many others are born suffering in other ways. It's just very, very personal kind of suffering.

And just as being born with the conditions I provided as an example isn't a sin, so being born with same-sex attractions isn't a sin either. It's what you do with them that determines whether you step into sin.

I may be wrong here, but I don't think God judges someone for how He makes them. He's a righteous judge. He's the Holy One. That wouldn't be a righteous judgement. One of the apologists says it this way: "at the judgment seat no one will think they got an unfair judgment". God is a just God. I think, in contrast, He judges someone for what they do with how they were made. This is why I tried to delineate on the previous deleted thread between simply having same-sex attractions, and actually acting on them.

Am I saying any of this is easy for those dealing with them? Not on your life. I understand when people say "I felt so free" once they came out or gave in. It makes sense, because it would certainly feel free to stop fighting distressing internal things. There is definitely a freedom when anyone who has been fighting nonstop for a long time finally decides to stop fighting. To me it's the same type of thing going on internally inside someone fighting depression. At a certain point they can't fight anymore, it's too much, too hopeless, nothing's changing.....and so they give up and commit suicide to escape the torment. And there is a freedom there; a freedom from the struggle and the fight and the pain. Same thing with same-sex attractions.

The pain we are talking about is immense. The reaction of many people to someone with same-sex attractions usually increases their pain unbearably. This is why there has to be compassion.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The same can be said of all human "propensities" which are contrary to God's laws. Whether a liar, a thief, an arsonist, a murderer, a sorcerer, an idolator, an alcoholic, a reviler, a prostitute, a drug addict, a womanizer, an adulterer, etc -- all such ones can claim that their own personal innate "propensities" were not their choice, but they were "born that way." They were merely "surviving" in a nasty world. They were only living the way God had made them.

And coming out of their many "conscience closets" made them all feel so free. It's way too hard to resist the way we are made, eh? And if God made them all the way they were, how can He ever judge any of them?

Either awareness is wrong or the Bible is wrong, God included. Can't be both. I sure hope awareness is right because I would hate to be judged for any of my "propensities." But if awareness is wrong, a whole lot of people are in for the shock of their lives.

You've already announced out here that the Biblical way is the only right way.

So it's not surprising that you consider homosexuality a choice.

God is my witness, it's not.

Thanks for expressing your opinion. You're a Peach ...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well I'm glad this sorta got back on track, so let me jump in here again and say something . . . regarding being a choice or not being a choice - I don't think anyone knows for sure how this thing works!

The things that might be listed which causes homosexuality could include:

> Choice
> Genes and/or hormones
> Some other predisposition
> Deceiving spirits
> God's plan
> Some combination of above

Are there other potential causes that could be listed?

We'd have to ask each gay person to know that. The question remains. Are we suppose to love and accept them, or do we condemn them to hell?

[Humperdinck]

You mean love and accept them like you love and accept all the Christians that post here?::

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

You mean love and accept them like you love and accept all the Christians that post here?

Sure. Are you feeling unloved because I asked you who it was that but has head on the bosom of Jesus?

Or are you against loving the gays?

Please explain.

[Humperdinck]

To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; Titus 1.15

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; Titus 1.15

Do you post this verse as in opposition to this thread?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

We'd have to ask each gay person to know that. The question remains. Are we suppose to love and accept them, or do we condemn them to hell?

Of course! That's never been a question! Love trumps all. (I still use that word in its original sense, just like "gay")

Like most all things humans discuss, our ideas and emotions get in the way sometimes . . .

[Humperdinck]

Hey awareness, I'm assuming you ask your questions with sincerity and good faith. If so, then take my answer with the same. Otherwise, maybe it's just a shoe that fits you pretty well. God bless you my child.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

Hey awareness, I'm assuming you ask your questions with sincerity and good faith. If so, then take my answer with the same. Otherwise, maybe it's just a shoe that fits you pretty well. God bless you my child.

Yes I do. And hope you do as well.

I think I've made position pretty clear out here. But unless I missed it, I don't think you have. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Just to be clear, I'm a LGBTQ supporting heterosexual, raised in the Southern Baptist church, and a member of Lee's local church from approx. 70 to 80.

Please tell us a little about yourself, or why you prefer not to. And what is your position on the LGBTQ?

[Humperdinck]

awareness, I have lots of experience with the local church all over the world for many decades. I was in the LC before you came in and left long after you left.

As far as LBGTQ is concerned, I'll let my post, and more importantly, the Bible, speak for themselves. Yes, you've made your position concerning the Bible clear for a long time now. You are a humanist atheist who thinks the Bible is a bunch of bunk and fairytales. So people like me and other Christians have no common ground to dialogue with you in a serious way. But hey, that's what this place is all about, and that's why you feel you can play the games you play. More power to you bro, more power to you!!!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

awareness, I have lots of experience with the local church all over the world for many decades. I was in the LC before you came in and left long after you left.

As far as LBGTQ is concerned, I'll let my post, and more importantly, the Bible, speak for themselves. Yes, you've made your position concerning the Bible clear for a long time now. You are a humanist atheist who thinks the Bible is a bunch of bunk and fairytales. So people like me and other Christians have no common ground to dialogue with you in a serious way. But hey, that's what this place is all about, and that's why you feel you can play the games you play. More power to you bro, more power to you!!!

And to you as well. So since you claim to be a Bible is the very word of God believer, we now know where you stand. To you, unless you tell differently, gays are an abomination to God.

Thanks for making that clear. And making it clear that you are trolling this thread. And you have no way of knowing whether or not I'm an atheist, and how I consider the Bible. Yes I see the human side of the Bible, and know full well the divine side as well ... which is, apparently, twice as much as you.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. And thanks for sharing.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

... a Bible is the very word of God believer, we now know where you stand. To you, unless you tell differently, gays are an abomination to God.

When you say "gays are an abomination to God", are you referring to Leviticus 18 and 20?

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

It's the acting on the attractions that's the problem. It doesn't say "gays are an abomination." It's the sexual act that's the abomination, not the person. Quite a difference.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

When you say "gays are an abomination to God", are you referring to Leviticus 18 and 20?

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

It's the acting on the attractions that's the problem. It doesn't say "gays are an abomination." It's the sexual act that's the abomination, not the person. Quite a difference.

Correct me if I am wrong but didnt Jesus talk about how the Old Testament laws dont apply in the New Testament age? Sorry just want to see if anyone has something extra to add to this

[Humperdinck]

Originally Posted by Trapped

It doesn't say "gays are an abomination." It's the sexual act that's the abomination, not the person. Quite a difference.

What say you awareness?

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Correct me if I am wrong but didnt Jesus talk about how the Old Testament laws dont apply in the New Testament age? Sorry just want to see if anyone has something extra to add to this

No, he never said or taught any such thing. He did say that "Don’t think that I have come to destroy the Law of Moses or the teaching of the prophets. I have come not to destroy their teachings but to give full meaning to them."

The full meaning of the laws against homosexual acts are that they violate God's original intention, which was one man with one woman, which was for the procreation of the human race. "Be fruitful and multiply". Homosexuality is not fruitful in the eyes of God, and thus it is not fruitful or profitable for us as his creation. Many of the OT laws full into this category. But awareness the bible expert already knows this so maybe you should be asking him these quesions.

[SerenityLives]

Hello UntoHim are you the moderator or is Awareness?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Yeah....see....there it is. I don't see his behavior as that of someone who has a choice.

What I write here may make some people mad, I have no idea, but this is my honest handling of what has gone on in my head about this topic that I don't have firsthand experience with. I think what makes the issue so complicated is that I don't think there is one "Aha! This one thing is why a person has same-sex attractions" answer. I think there are numerous pathways to it. (I started writing this before StG jumped back in, and he has already hit on a few).

I do believe one of those pathways is trauma. And I am saying that with a much broader view in mind than just homosexuality. I am of the personal opinion that the majority of humankind has endured or encountered some level of trauma (whatever kind) somewhere in their life, and many of those people are walking around without having faced it, maybe even without having even spoken of it, and certainly not having gotten professional help for it or processed it in any way. I had this same conversation with a physical therapist one time, not thinking that he would have much input, and he immediately told me a story of the patient of a medical doctor he knew. (The PT was in the MD's office visiting him and somehow saw this play out). The patient was known as a happy guy, joyful, exuberant, hilarious, everyone loved him. But that day, the MD told this patient he needed to get a scan to check for testicular cancer.

The patient blew his top in anger. Yelling, screaming, lashing out. Furious. No one knew why. They tried to calm him down, not understanding his reaction. Eventually, it came out that he had been sexually abused as a young kid, and hid it. He didn't want anyone touching anything down there. But if you didn't know that, you would think, "this guy is mentally unstable. One minute happy, the other minute furious, for no apparent reason. He has anger issues, etc...."

Nope. He had trauma that still haunted him.

And I honestly think most people have experiences in their life that cause their eyes to get haunted and make them turn inward to protect the pain still inside them if you try to get them to talk about it. And our complicated beings use some very difficult coping mechanisms sometimes to deal with it on our behalf.

One doctor/psych friend of mine told me about a patient who had been verbally and emotionally abused by a close partner for several years without a way out from the abuse. Anyone she went to turned a deaf ear and she couldn't get help from anyone. Finally once she was able to break free and the abuse was over, the coping mechanism the welled up to try to process and work through her feelings of helplessness was to .... sorry to be graphic here ... act out fantasy rape scenarios where she was also exactly that - helpless. But it wasn't for pleasure; it was a coping mechanism that just came out from within her. She was apparently horrified at what she did, but it was a physical manifestation of an inward feeling she couldn't handle having. The doctor said it provided her some relief because for that period of time her outward experience matched her inward feeling about what had happened that she hadn't yet been able to move on from.

Anyway, all that to say, I think some people were abused and/or traumatized, and their body deals with it via same-sex attractions.

But then you have people who say they knew at 3-4 years old. They had an awareness at a very early age. They freely say they had a wonderful childhood and there wasn't anything specific that would have affected their attractions. What's going on there? Is it the set of genes SerenityLives spoke about? Is it the presence of certain hormones in the womb? I see no reason to discount these experiences of people, and believe for some there is an "inborn" reason.

I know in some LC meetings they have mentioned demon possession or evil spirit or something like that as an explanation. This probably does account for a very minor % but I see no real reason to claim that homosexuals have a higher rate of demonic susceptibility than any other member of the human race. In other words, whatever % of people out there who are demonically influenced in some way is probably the same % whether gay or straight, so I don't think that's an explanation that gets us very far.

So with traumatized people, get help for the root trauma. For demons, pray to cast them out.

But regarding the "inborn" reason. This is the hardest. And what it seems to boil down to is fairness. And I don't mean this glibly. I mean this knowing that it is an anguished cry from deep within that Satan has twisted around to make you think that it is a value statement on you as a person. "It's not fair that I have these feelings I don't want to have. It's not okay to call it abnormal and make me feel like I'm abnormal. It's not fair I get cheated of xyz experience other people have."

I can understand the emotions and the pain behind those things, because it's not isolated to homosexuals only. Someone born with cerebral palsy or spina bifida or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome or no arms and legs can say the same thing. Someone who has a promising athletic career in front of them who gets sideswiped by a drunk and ends up a quadriplegic paralytic can say the same thing. Someone who gets lung cancer at age 23 and dies can say the same thing.

"Why me?"

It's not fair I was born this way. It's not fair I didn't live long enough to get married. It's not fair my life was cut short prematurely. It's not fair my spine is irreparably crooked and walking causes me excruciating pain. It's not fair you get to run and jump and catch a ball, and I can't because I was born without arms or legs to do those things. It's not fair I can't feel anything from the neck down and will never know the pleasures of sex.

It's not fair I have same-sex attractions I don't want to have.

But those things aren't normal. Cerebral palsy isn't the normal condition of a human being. Spina bifida isn't the normal condition of a human being. Paralyzed from the neck down isn't the normal state of a person. But it is strange to me to have a problem with calling something that isn't normal "abnormal". If someone is born that way, or something happens TO a person outside of their control, it is certainly not a judgment on who they are as a person. We can say someone suffering from cerebral palsy, who was born with it, was born abnormally, and it's a truth that has nothing to do with the value of their person. They did nothing to have the condition, so why would we think less of them in any way, rather than have compassion on their situation? What it means is they are suffering in a certain way, that's all. It doesn't determine their worth in any way. And same-sex attractions, to me, can be described this way too. I don't think it's a "normal" state of affairs. I do think you can be born with it. I don't think it is a statement on your worth and value as a person. And no, I don't think it's fair. And this is why there should be compassion. Because it's a suffering, just like many others are born suffering in other ways. It's just very, very personal kind of suffering.

And just as being born with the conditions I provided as an example isn't a sin, so being born with same-sex attractions isn't a sin either. It's what you do with them that determines whether you step into sin.

I may be wrong here, but I don't think God judges someone for how He makes them. He's a righteous judge. He's the Holy One. That wouldn't be a righteous judgement. One of the apologists says it this way: "at the judgment seat no one will think they got an unfair judgment". God is a just God. I think, in contrast, He judges someone for what they do with how they were made. This is why I tried to delineate on the previous deleted thread between simply having same-sex attractions, and actually acting on them.

Am I saying any of this is easy for those dealing with them? Not on your life. I understand when people say "I felt so free" once they came out or gave in. It makes sense, because it would certainly feel free to stop fighting distressing internal things. There is definitely a freedom when anyone who has been fighting nonstop for a long time finally decides to stop fighting. To me it's the same type of thing going on internally inside someone fighting depression. At a certain point they can't fight anymore, it's too much, too hopeless, nothing's changing.....and so they give up and commit suicide to escape the torment. And there is a freedom there; a freedom from the struggle and the fight and the pain. Same thing with same-sex attractions.

The pain we are talking about is immense. The reaction of many people to someone with same-sex attractions usually increases their pain unbearably. This is why there has to be compassion.

wanted to say a little somthing here. Thank you Trapped for your well thought out post. First, I would like to say that based on my personal experience, coming out was not giving in. In fact it was the opposite, it was going on. I never experienced any trauma while growing up but I can tell you that I am still fighting to this day after I came out. In fact I experienced trauma AFTER i came out, based on prejudices that others have. Would anyone be stupid enough to choose a life where they are rejected and have to fight contantly for who they are? Its like blacks with systemic racism. It’s not their fault. Think about it another way, if heterosexuals were told to not give in to their desires, would they?

I think the main thing is how do we define norms in our society? To say that homosexuality is not normal is based on religious views. Based on my sociology and psychology classes, norms are based on current societal constucts. Societal constructs have been changing since the beginning of time. Just because something is rare, doesnt make it abnormal. Just like all the other physical ailments and hereditary diseases you pointed out. But comparing homosexuality as a disease, it’s misleading.

Now an interesting tidbit, is why would God create transgender clownfish if not to show us that it’s part of their developmental stages (when the highest ranking female clownfish dies, the next one, if it’s male, turns into a female in order to have a good family and offspring? I know that Chritians think plants and animals are below us and we shouldnt rely on them for our morality (and I agree with chimpanzees murdering other chimpanzees and such) but among clownfish, this is normal and healthy behavior.

I like that you mentioned compassion. My sexuality has taught me many things, the main thing it has brought me is greater compassion for those in need and different. Just like Jesus who was both divine and human, he was able to empathize more despite being rejected. If you look at Joseph in the Old Testament, he was rejected too. And yet he grew with such maturity and eventually was able to do so many things. Thats what gives me hope from the Bible, not the verses about how homosexuality is wrong (if doesnt say so explicitly), but the stories of humanity it has. As awareness says, the Bible is also a very human book.

Sorry it took a while Trapped for me to get back to you. For some reason, whenever I type very long responses, it logs out on me

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

What say you awareness?



No, he never said or taught any such thing. He did say that "Don’t think that I have come to destroy the Law of Moses or the teaching of the prophets. I have come not to destroy their teachings but to give full meaning to them."

The full meaning of the laws against homosexual acts are that they violate God's original intention, which was one man with one woman, which was for the procreation of the human race. "Be fruitful and multiply". Homosexuality is not fruitful in the eyes of God, and thus it is not fruitful or profitable for us as his creation. Many of the OT laws full into this category. But awareness the bible expert already knows this so maybe you should be asking him these quesions.

Give me specific verses where it says homosexual acts violate God’s original intention. Also, homosexuality is helping the population boom now. If heterosexuals keep multiplying, then our earth is not viable. What do you say about the heterosexuals who decide not to have children? How can you decide what is fruitful or profitable for my life? For your information, homosexual people can also adopt the children left behind by heterosexuals who are not “profitable” since they abused or neglected or cannot for some reason take care of their children. They can also have children other methods. For example, a lesbian couple can get a sperm donated from a gay friend. Win win dont you think?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

What say you awareness?

I say good point. And thanks for being cute. But then there's the story of David, who loved Jonathan more than women, got naked with him and kissed him ... and that Jonathan's father, Saul, was miffed at his son cuz Jonathan was shaming his mother.

No, he never said or taught any such thing. He did say that "Don’t think that I have come to destroy the Law of Moses or the teaching of the prophets. I have come not to destroy their teachings but to give full meaning to them."

And then there's Jesus saying things like "you have heard that it was said, but I say."

The full meaning of the laws against homosexual acts are that they violate God's original intention, which was one man with one woman, which was for the procreation of the human race. "Be fruitful and multiply". Homosexuality is not fruitful in the eyes of God, and thus it is not fruitful or profitable for us as his creation. Many of the OT laws full into this category. But awareness the bible expert already knows this so maybe you should be asking him these quesions.

She can ask me on the phone. You brought up "procreation of the human race." That certainly was true back then. God told the only two to be fruitful and multiply, but of course. But with almost 8 billion today, I doubt God would need that any more, and won't likely be saying that. So then, homosexuality was opposing that end. However now, it wouldn't be of such a concern ... certainly not the concern Christian's make of it today ... that make the Bible, both Old and New, their LAW ... to condemn those they don''t agree with ... specially the gays ... but look the other way for gossipers.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Hello UntoHim are you the moderator or is Awareness?

I'm the sole moderator/administrator. Awareness is no longer the official moderator, but he still can function as a moderator by leading the discussions, which he has done for years, and is very good at it.
-

[awareness]

I'm going to do a brother Humperdinck thing, and quote a single verse from the Bible :

Lev_20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

[Sons to Glory!]

I just want to add something I've wanted to say, that is hopefully clarifying. The whole mess mankind is in, is because of his choosing something that wasn't good for the race. And now the error is being fully manifested in the cesspool of the flesh and fleshly works. Things have gone awry from God's original purpose. This includes a whole litany of things known as the fruits of the flesh.

So when we talk about "sin," it is just to say it is something off the mark from what God intended and from what glorifies Him. If I get drunk, that harms my body and is off the mark. If I get angry and yell foul things at my wife, that is hurtful and off the mark. If I covet and lust after another's wife, that's off the mark. This is just the flesh, and it can't please God. So when someone inferred that homosexuality is an abomination - it could be said that everything about the flesh is an abomination to God! It is all against Him and what's in it makes enemies to God out of His human creation.

Is there a special place in hell for homosexuals & LGBTQ+? No, I don't think so. The only demarcation to get out will be whether someone has received God's free gift in Christ. Those without Christ, whether they practice homosexuality or whatever (even "good" things), have no hope of escape. All works of the flesh are all the same in that respect.

He who has began a good work in us is faithful and will perfect it! The flesh will fall away and it's works burned up. Hallelujah!

Personally, I count all forms of LGBTQ+ as being off the mark of God's original intention, just like other manifestations of the sins of the flesh. It's all simply worthy of being crucified in Christ. Can I try and justify that I'm raging at my wife over something silly or try and justify some other manifestation of sin? Sure. I can try. But it's still an error, and I need to recognize through these experiences of the flesh that I need Jesus to complete His good work in me!

I think some on this thread are trying to justify what they are doing in any way they can, and even try and bring scripture to make that justification. So what I see is we can try to justify all sorts of things and make them right in our own eyes - but that doesn't mean it's God's truth.

And for the record, least someone claim I am hating, I really do love all of you in Christ, as members of His body. Therefore the old cliché of "Hate the sin, but love the sinner" isn't far off (except that technically, I don't think we are sinners any more - we are saints who sometimes still sin). I hate the sin in my own life too, brothers & sisters! In that respect, no one of us has the market cornered when it comes to the flesh - we've all got it and it's all rotten, being corrupted, and won't get better. It will only get worse and worse as we see His day approaching quickly!

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So when we talk about "sin," it is just to say it is something off the mark from what God intended and from what glorifies Him. If I get drunk, that harms my body and is off the mark. If I get angry and yell foul things at my wife, that is hurtful and off the mark. If I covet and lust after another's wife, that's off the mark. This is just the flesh, and it can't please God. So when someone inferred that homosexuality is an abomination - it could be said that everything about the flesh is an abomination to God! It is all against Him and what's in it makes enemies to God out of His human creation.

Is there a special place in hell for homosexuals & LGBTQ+? No, I don't think so. The only demarcation to get out will be whether someone has received God's free gift in Christ. Those without Christ, whether they practice homosexuality or whatever (even "good" things), have no hope of escape. All works of the flesh are all the same in that respect.

He who has began a good work in us is faithful and will perfect it! The flesh will fall away and it's works burned up. Hallelujah!

Personally, I count all forms of LGBTQ+ as being off the mark of God's original intention, just like other manifestations of the sins of the flesh. It's all simply worthy of being crucified in Christ. Can I try and justify that I'm raging at my wife over something silly or try and justify some other manifestation of sin? Sure. I can try. But it's still an error, and I need to recognize through these experiences of the flesh that I need Jesus to complete His good work in me!

I think some on this threadare trying to justify what they are doing in any way they can, and even try and bring scripture to make that justification. So what I see is we can try to justify all sorts of things and make them right in our own eyes - but that doesn't mean it's God's truth.

And for the record, least someone claim I am hating, I really do love all of you in Christ, as members of His body. Therefore the old cliché of "Hate the sin, but love the sinner" isn't far off (except that technically, I don't think we are sinners any more - we are saints who sometimes still sin). I hate the sin in my own life too, brothers & sisters! In that respect, no one of us has the market cornered when it comes to the flesh - we've all got it and it's all rotten, being corrupted, and won't get better. It will only get worse and worse as we see His day approaching quickly!

Hi sons of Glory, this article explains more of my views on the matter personally than I can on this thread. Please read it carefully:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffp...ry/1396345/amp

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I think some on this thread are trying to justify what they are doing in any way they can, and even try and bring scripture to make that justification. So what I see is we can try to justify all sorts of things and make them right in our own eyes - but that doesn't mean it's God's truth.!

Are you not doing the same thing to justify why homosexuality is a sin? It seems like based on the experiences of all the bisexual women on here, God has personally told them that it’s God’s Truth that they are living this way. These are human lives we’re talking about.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I'm the sole moderator/administrator. Awareness is no longer the official moderator, but he still can function as a moderator by leading the discussions, which he has done for years, and is very good at it.
-

Why thanks bro Untohim. You carry to much on your shoulders. Kudos for doing it.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Hi sons of Glory, this article explains more of my views on the matter personally than I can on this thread. Please read it carefully:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffp...ry/1396345/amp Title:The Best Case for the Bible Not Condemning Homosexuality

Thanks for sharing. In my estimation, the article takes a lot of unjustified liberalities in its thinking and does not make a very good case at all for its claim. One statement is made early on that sets up much of what follows, " God would not ask or expect Christians to ever choose between their heart and their faith." This is fundamentally wrong. The Bible has much to say about man's heart, and it's not too good, right? It says "“The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9) A lot else along these lines is stated in scripture, and it urges us to "not lean on your own understanding." It's popular now to say, "Oh just follow your on heart!" It's all over pop culture and the media and New Age thinking. So follow our heart? NO! NO! NO! The message in the Bible is don't follow your heart, because you can be horribly deceived by its flighty feelings - instead follow Him and what He says in His word!

And the article talks a lot about "clobber verses" that Christians use to condemn gays and their activities. First, anyone using verses to clobber another person is, in my book, is a prognosticator of legalism. It does little accept alienate and condemn, and makes others defensive. I agree that it's usually not done in love.

However, my intention is not to use such verses to "clobber" gays no more than I would want to use verses about being drunk to clobber an alcoholic. We all know firsthand how the letter kills. But the Bible does call fleshly things out as being off the mark, and that is all there is to it. If I get drunk, or if I say hateful things in anger, that's sin. Period. My heart might not like that the scriptures call out my behavior, but it does. So what do I do? Agree with Him that my behavior has been off the mark and claim the blood of Christ, as my only standing before Him. And ask Him that He would live through me to cause me not to practice such destructive things.

As people with these fleshly "earthsuits," we do still sin. He knows that and has made a Wonderful Provision in Christ for our sin to be handled, so we can come boldly to Him. If we fall 7 times (or 70 x 7), we get back up looking to Him. And by His life, we will not practice sin (though we might fall from time to time).

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Are you not doing the same thing to justify why homosexuality is a sin? It seems like based on the experiences of all the bisexual women on here, God has personally told them that it’s God’s Truth that they are living this way. These are human lives we’re talking about.

Not me, sister. I'm just pointing out what I see in scripture. Again, the Bible tells us the heart is deceitfully wicked and we shouldn't trust our own understanding! One needs to question what they think God has told them, if it doesn't line up well with scripture. It would be like an adulterer saying God told them it was OK to be that way (yet scripture doesn't agree - an inconvenient truth for this one, but there it is)!

I made the example before, but here it is again with some more detail. I like to drink liquor and get buzzed. I do my best to just have fun and not to hurt anyone by this, but sometimes I indulge too much. I then read Ephesians 5:18 which says being drunk is a dissipation of spirit (i.e., leads to reckless indiscretion). I don't like that it exposes my behavior on this, and I can either choose to dismiss it or recognize that it's true. If I dismiss it in some way, this is not agreeing with the Lord and His word, and it will tend to lead me away from Him and away from fresh, open fellowship. What should I do then? I should confess/agree that His word is true and not try to build some case that says being drunk is fine as long as it doesn't cause whatever . . . In other words, I shouldn't justify why I am righteous in my own eyes and agree that I have been off the mark. This is a humble heart and a contrite spirit before Him. He can and will work with such a heart. But the proud He strongly resists (those that think they know better than He).

The Bible condemns sin, as it should, because sin kills us and those around us. My firm belief is homosexuality is in that category, like many other things of the flesh. A loving God will, and does, point out things that are death to us. If a child is having fun playing with poisonous vipers, should their father withhold his concern even though the child protests being told, "Don't do that!"? Of course not. The child may think there's no harm and get mighty upset, but . . .

I hope that makes sense, sister.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thanks for sharing. In my estimation, the article takes a lot of unjustified liberalities in its thinking and does not make a very good case at all for its claim. One statement is made early on that sets up much of what follows, " God would not ask or expect Christians to ever choose between their heart and their faith." This is fundamentally wrong. The Bible has much to say about man's heart, and it's not too good, right

As people with these fleshly "earthsuits," we do still sin. He knows that and has made a Wonderful Provision in Christ for our sin to be handled, so we can come boldly to Him. If we fall 7 times (or 70 x 7), we get back up looking to Him. And by His life, we will not practice sin (though we might fall from time to time).

Not me, sister. I'm just pointing out what I see in scripture. Again, the Bible tells us the heart is deceitfully wicked and we shouldn't trust our own understanding! One needs to question what they think God has told them, if it doesn't line up well with scripture.

The Bible condemns sin, as it should, because sin kills us and those around us. My firm belief is homosexuality is in that category, like many other things of the flesh. A loving God will, and does, point out things that are death to us. If a child is having fun playing with poisonous vipers, should their father withhold his concern even though the child protests being told, "Don't do that!"? Of course not. The child may think there's no harm and get mighty upset, but . . .

I hope that makes sense, sister.

This is serenity lives. I’m wondering if you read the whole thing since you only made points about the first point but what I would like to ask is how is homosexuality fleshly? when it’s made with pure love. What happens when I am clear in my conscience that God approves? How do you know what God wants? The thing is my heart lines up with the basic tenents of Christianity. how can you compare homosexuality or same sex love between two commited persons who are pure to adultery or taking alcohol? Or even playing with snakes and vipers. I love my spouse and I will be commited to her forever, no matter what you think. Let God be the judge of that. Again you miss the entire point but I’m sure awareness will speak more upon this. “we shouldnt trust our own understanding”? this is what LC does to manipulate people into not using their minds. It’s not death I experience but life and you are implying homosexuality kills those among us. Where is the evidence? It only makes those conservative fundamental Christians uncomfortable.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Hi sons of Glory, this article explains more of my views on the matter personally than I can on this thread. Please read it carefully:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffp...ry/1396345/amp

Great link, and informative. I gotta say, for such a sweet angel, you sure got some big cojones to tangle with all these old fart heterosexuals out here, who likely find it impossible to understand homosexuality.

But reading the material on the link will go far at helping them to understand the Bible concerning homosexuality (that's not in the Bible ... and Paul had no idea about it). Maybe at least some will learn something.

I know I did. Thanks. But I have a open mind.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Again you miss the entire point but I’m sure awareness will speak more upon this. “we shouldnt trust our own understanding”? this is what LC does to manipulate people into not using their minds. It’s not death I experience but life and you are implying homosexuality kills those among us. Where is the evidence? It only makes those conservative fundamental Christians uncomfortable.

StG quoted "the letter kills," and then goes to the letter to make his points.

I'm more concerned about leaning on our misunderstanding.

And all this going on about how evil the heart is, is nothing more than cherry picking verses. In fact, just a few verses above the verse he quotes about not leaning on your own understanding is :

Pro 3:3* Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart.

I could go on and on about the heart and 'own understanding.' There's way way more verses speaking highly of both.

[UntoHim]

While I certainly fit awareness' ignoble category of "old fart heterosexual", I'm here to tell you that I don't fit the second category of "impossible to understand homosexuality".

I had an older brother who died of AIDS in the early nineties. I now have a very close relative who has come out as a lesbian. I have had a number of gay and lesbian friends, friends of friends, neighbors and co-workers and employees over the past 50 years. I have had civil relations with all of them. The Lord calls us to love our neighbors as ourselves. One of the first aspects of loving someone is to understand them. There is no practical way for us to love our neighbor unless we take the time and care to understand them. In John 4, the Lord Jesus did not immediately condemn the woman at the well, although her lifestyle was certainly shameful and condemnable, rather he engaged her in a conversation which led to her salvation. A few chapters later in John 8, in another confrontation with a woman involved in sexual sin. Again, he did not condemn her, rather he protected her from those seeking to condemn her to death. Yet the story did not end there. The story ended with Jesus telling her "go, and sin no more". The Greek here reads closer to "Go, and from now on, sin no more" (πορεύου ἀπὸ νῦν ἁμάρτανε μηκέτι) While it seems that the Lord Jesus was releasing her from the immediate consequences of her sin, he was more concerned with her eternal salvation..."and from now on".

All this being said, I believe that God has delivered his word to us in the form of the Old and New Testaments. In my view, these Scriptures are clear in the revealing of God's original intention in the creation of human beings - both men and women. I believe that there was an actual fall of Man. This fall negatively affected every aspect of human beings, including, and most especially, sexuality. Some of the negative affects of the fall were addressed in the Old Testament with the Law. The Lord Jesus was very clear in his declaration "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matthew 5:17) When taken in it's entirety, I believe the Gospel explains, and even illustrates for us, how God is in the process of redeeming every aspect of humanity, including, and most especially, human sexuality.

So here we are on an Internet discussion forum in 2020. I don't think any of us are the woman at the well, and I don't think any of us are the Lord Jesus. Maybe we're like the observers of these events. We all have our experiences. We all have our backgrounds. We also have various environments that we have grown up with and surrounding us today. Most importantly, I believe, we have and accurate, true and complete record of God's intentions in his creation, before the Fall, and his intentions in the salvation and redemption of human beings.
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

While I certainly fit awareness' ignoble category of "old fart heterosexual", I'm here to tell you that I don't fit the second category of "impossible to understand homosexuality".

I had an older brother who died of AIDS in the early nineties. I now have a very close relative who has come out as a lesbian. I have had a number of gay and lesbian friends, friends of friends, neighbors and co-workers and employees over the past 50 years. I have had civil relations with all of them. The Lord calls us to love our neighbors as ourselves. One of the first aspects of loving someone is to understand them. There is no practical way for us to love our neighbor unless we take the time and care to understand them. In John 4, the Lord Jesus did not immediately condemn the woman at the well, although her lifestyle was certainly shameful and condemnable, rather he engaged her in a conversation which led to her salvation. A few chapters later in John 8, in another confrontation with a woman involved in sexual sin. Again, he did not condemn her, rather he protected her from those seeking to condemn her to death. Yet the story did not end there. The story ended with Jesus telling her "go, and sin no more". The Greek here reads closer to "Go, and from now on, sin no more" (πορεύου ἀπὸ νῦν ἁμάρτανε μηκέτι) While it seems that the Lord Jesus was releasing her from the immediate consequences of her sin, he was more concerned with her eternal salvation..."and from now on".

All this being said, I believe that God has delivered his word to us in the form of the Old and New Testaments. In my view, these Scriptures are clear in the revealing of God's original intention in the creation of human beings - both men and women. I believe that there was an actual fall of Man. This fall negatively affected every aspect of human beings, including, and most especially, sexuality. Some of the negative affects of the fall were addressed in the Old Testament with the Law. The Lord Jesus was very clear in his declaration "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matthew 5:17) When taken in it's entirety, I believe the Gospel explains, and even illustrates for us, how God is in the process of redeeming every aspect of humanity, including, and most especially, human sexuality.

So here we are on an Internet discussion forum in 2020. I don't think any of us are the woman at the well, and I don't think any of us are the Lord Jesus. Maybe we're like the observers of these events. We all have our experiences. We all have our backgrounds. We also have various environments that we have grown up with and surrounding us today. Most importantly, I believe, we have and accurate, true and complete record of God's intentions in his creation, before the Fall, and his intentions in the salvation and redemption of human beings.
-

Great post. But in spite a deep calling need to do an exegesis on it, I'll graciously bow out. Thanks for sharing. Much of your explanation of what we all encounter, go thru in life, and experience, I have experienced and encountered. And I have had no problem loving gays ... right up to today ... to this very minute. If God don't like 'em, that's his problem. He can't judge those he makes ... just like hermaphrodites.

Does the Bible even mention them? I couldn't find evidence of it. But not so in the Navajo "Bible" creation story.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This is serenity lives. I’m wondering if you read the whole thing since you only made points about the first point but what I would like to ask is how is homosexuality fleshly? when it’s made with pure love. What happens when I am clear in my conscience that God approves? How do you know what God wants? The thing is my heart lines up with the basic tenents of Christianity. how can you compare homosexuality or same sex love between two commited persons who are pure to adultery or taking alcohol? Or even playing with snakes and vipers. I love my spouse and I will be commited to her forever, no matter what you think. Let God be the judge of that. Again you miss the entire point but I’m sure awareness will speak more upon this. “we shouldnt trust our own understanding”? this is what LC does to manipulate people into not using their minds. It’s not death I experience but life and you are implying homosexuality kills those among us. Where is the evidence? It only makes those conservative fundamental Christians uncomfortable.

I thought that sounded like you Miss SerenityLives! (I didn't catch the 1st sentence when I briefly looked at the message last night . . .) I did scan each paragraph in the article, and completely read paragraphs where I thought I needed to know more. I only focused on two main points from the article, for better simplicity of our conversation here. We can look at other things if you like.

Can’t agree with homosexual or any biologically based love being “pure love,” sister, that would be only God Himself, who is agape (Greek; unconditional) love The best we produce is not "pure love," no matter how great it feels.

I know things we do feel good. Gosh, I once was all about feeling good . . . back in the day that lead me into a lot of drugs, partying and experimentation (I'll let your imagination fill in those blanks), and that then lead into homelessness, jail and despair. And I'm still something of a Christian Hedonist (John Piper's term; meaning pursuing God as the highest pleasure of all), so I like to do enjoyable things and have a drink or two occasionally. Why? To feel good. Look, we all want to feel good, don't we?! Of course! And feelings are much about the heart. And the heart can easily be lead astray. That's why we need Him.

And "lean not unto your own understanding" is not my words, but scripture. The idea is to lean on Him and His understanding. Yes, the LC would have you lean unto WL's understanding, which is another rabbit hole. There is only one Lord, and one Word that is not a rabbit hole. All else, no matter how good or enjoyable it seems, is off the mark and falls short. (and to put it in terms of feelings, anything besides Christ alone will fail and fall short in the pleasure department too)

You don’t want to admit that homosexuality is a sin and you seem to imply that it is really God’s desire, right? That is between you and the Almighty. In my Bible homosexuality is listed as a sin, along with many other things. Let me ask this sister – is there any sin in your life, that is, anything off the mark . . . do you believe there actually is sin, or is everything your heart tells you okay?

Originally Posted by awareness

StG quoted "the letter kills," and then goes to the letter to make his points.

Scripture is scripture bro - it can be life or the dead letter. The problem is not scripture, but rather how its used.

My intention in that post was far from condemnation. In fact, just the opposite - in humbleness we admit failure to Him and He is faithful and righteous to forgive us. Why? Because He already died for every sin I have done and will do. He took sin out of the way and nailed it to the cross. Therefore, because of His righteous act, we are now called to NOT have a conciseness of sin - God is greater than our conscience - so we can boldly go to Him at ANY time! But that doesn't mean we don't sin - we all do because we all have the fallen flesh still. As regenerated ones with Christ in us, we are saints who sometimes still sin. And sin has consequences (hinders fellowship on our part plus other negative things) whether we see those consequences now or not. "The sting of death is sin." (1 Cor 15:56)

So what do I know saints? Truly not much! I am not the judge - He is. At the Bema Seat Christ will judge all Christians’ works to see what will remain. How much of my works will remain? I cannot tell (like the old hymn says). But this I know - He has done it all in love and harmful things will be fully revealed and burned away. By His mercy, grace and operation in us, may none of us suffer any loss at that time!

And please forgive me if there was any condemnation in my writing as that is certainly not my intention. But if we know something is harmful and we are silent about it, that is not love . . .

[awareness]

STG, so now not only can we not trust our heart, nor trust our understanding, but love has been reduced to just feelings.

Goodness brother. Do you have a wife or girlfriend? If so, if you share this with either one you're not going keep them.

Love is the highest need in our life. Paul says if we have not love we're just a clanging cymbal.

Or are you saying gays can't love?

Take a look at this:
https://rmnetwork.org/newrmn/wp-cont...16-reduced.pdf

[Sons to Glory!]

See my responses below.

Originally Posted by awareness

STG, so now not only can we not trust our heart, nor trust our understanding, but love has been reduced to just feelings. Scripture (as cited) says we can't trust our hearts and shouldn't lean to our own understanding. The Bible speaks of three kinds of love, right? Bios - physical, phileo - of the soul and agape - unconditional (God's love). We shouldn't confuse these.

Goodness brother. Do you have a wife or girlfriend? If so, if you share this with either one you're not going keep them. Huh? Refer to above response.

Love is the highest need in our life. Paul says if we have not love we're just a clanging cymbal. AMEN!

Or are you saying gays can't love? Nope - not saying that. (I wonder where you got that from what I wrote.)

Take a look at this:
https://rmnetwork.org/newrmn/wp-cont...16-reduced.pdf
Thanks for sharing.

Look, we may be shooting past each other on this conversation. To me it seems like you're trying to set up a strawman argument with things I have not said. Let's not do that, okay?

Love is the foundation of all God does toward us, and therefore should be the foundation we have with one another. I see the gay thing as sin, but some on here see it as normal and even God's design. I don't see it that way and see it as another fruit of the flesh, period. We all manifest fruits of the flesh and all need love and forgiveness. But if someone doesn't see gayness as sin, then they don't think they need to seek forgiveness or that there's anything harmful there that they need to seek God after. We will all stand at the Bema Seat and hope we are not surprised (me included).

I don't think my view is complicated, is it?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

See my responses below.

I don't think my view is complicated, is it?

Brother, it's clear you mean well. But you are on the LGBT thread. So saying the heart can't be trusted, and don't lean on your own understanding, and love is just a feeling, seems to be an attack on gays.

But I'm doing wrong, and we're doing wrong.

SerentyLives intended this thread to hopefully reach out to gays in the LC, not for us to argue about it.

She now thinks this thread is a failure, and wants it closed and deleted, thanks to us.

But I need to talk to her first.

And for the record, I think you are a sweet brother.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother, it's clear you mean well. But you are on the LGBT thread. So saying the heart can't be trusted, and don't lean on your own understanding, and love is just a feeling, seems to be an attack on gays.

But I'm doing wrong, and we're doing wrong.

SerentyLives intended this thread to hopefully reach out to gays in the LC, not for us to argue about it.

She now thinks this thread is a failure, and wants it closed and deleted, thanks to us.

But I need to talk to her first.

And for the record, I think you are a sweet brother.

Sorry . . . it's a sensitive issue and not always easy to have effective communication regarding it.

[awareness]

And brother StG, our fleshly skin is the largest organ of the body. So if we go against the flesh we're denying what we're made of, and insulting what God called good.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother, it's clear you mean well. But you are on the LGBT thread. So saying the heart can't be trusted, and don't lean on your own understanding, and love is just a feeling, seems to be an attack on gays.

But I'm doing wrong, and we're doing wrong.

SerentyLives intended this thread to hopefully reach out to gays in the LC, not for us to argue about it.

She now thinks this thread is a failure, and wants it closed and deleted, thanks to us.

But I need to talk to her first.

And for the record, I think you are a sweet brother.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. I take serious issue with this thread being deleted AGAIN. I and others have poured time as well as serious thought into it, and, I'm not joking, hours of walking around in agony considering how to respond in the most compassionate way. I have numerous drafts still in limbo as I've tried to squeeze some time in during the week after work to respond to the many responses posted this week.

Let me remind everyone what the original post of this thread said:

Hello all, I am representing all the queerfolk, trans, bisexual, basically lgbtqia, since the last one landed in a disaster. and I would like to form a civilized discussion. No name calling etc. So what are ex-LC members experience with those they know who have left the church due to their own or friends/ family members’ different sexuality and gender identity issues? and what are you guys’ stance on this hot topic.

This has been as civilized a discussion as you can hope given the topic, as well as some of the awkwardness inherent in the subject, and any failures in keeping it civilized have come from both sides.

Everyone has provided their stance on the "hot topic", just as requested -- there is nothing to delete here. To come on a largely Christian forum and ask for a discussion on a contentious topic and then repeatedly delete the entire history of it because you don't like the responses that were totally in-line with everything you asked for, is beyond frustrating, as well as disrespectful to those participating.

There is no "thanks to us". Don't throw that at the people who complied with the original post. The "thanks to us" belongs to SerenityLives who wants anything that handles this topic logically and rationally deleted from existence.

I DEALT WITH YOU CALLING GOD GAY AND JESUS HOMOSEXUAL AND I DIDN'T ONCE ASK FOR THE THREAD TO BE DELETED.

I personally think there is a lot of value in what has been written not only from the "side" or perspective I hold, but also in all the experiences, articles, thoughts, feelings, points of view, and responses from the pro-LGBTQ lifestyle side. Someone on the LGBTQ side may come onto this thread and get tremendous help from those who are in favor of it.

The heart CAN'T be trusted, we are NOT to lean on our own understanding. That's not an "attack on the gays". That's the truth of God's word no matter what the topic.

And for heaven's sake, no one here "hates the gays" as you keep claiming. I don't know how many more times I need to say, both from my perspective, as well as what the Word says, that it's the sexual act that is the issue. That's it. NO ONE HERE "HATES THE GAYS", SO STOP MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS.

Leave this thread be.

[Sons to Glory!]

I agree and amen every single statement in Trapped's last post! And "me too" regarding "I and others have poured time as well as serious thought into it, and, I'm not joking, hours of walking around in agony considering how to respond in the most compassionate way."

Very well said.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. I take serious issue with this thread being deleted AGAIN. I and others have poured time as well as serious thought into it, and, I'm not joking, hours of walking around in agony considering how to respond in the most compassionate way. I have numerous drafts still in limbo as I've tried to squeeze some time in during the week after work to respond to the many responses posted this week.

Let me remind everyone what the original post of this thread said:

Hello all, I am representing all the queerfolk, trans, bisexual, basically lgbtqia, since the last one landed in a disaster. and I would like to form a civilized discussion. No name calling etc. So what are ex-LC members experience with those they know who have left the church due to their own or friends/ family members’ different sexuality and gender identity issues? and what are you guys’ stance on this hot topic.

This has been as civilized a discussion as you can hope given the topic, as well as some of the awkwardness inherent in the subject, and any failures in keeping it civilized have come from both sides.

Everyone has provided their stance on the "hot topic", just as requested -- there is nothing to delete here. To come on a largely Christian forum and ask for a discussion on a contentious topic and then repeatedly delete the entire history of it because you don't like the responses that were totally in-line with everything you asked for, is beyond frustrating, as well as disrespectful to those participating.

There is no "thanks to us". Don't throw that at the people who complied with the original post. The "thanks to us" belongs to SerenityLives who wants anything that handles this topic logically and rationally deleted from existence.

I DEALT WITH YOU CALLING GOD GAY AND JESUS HOMOSEXUAL AND I DIDN'T ONCE ASK FOR THE THREAD TO BE DELETED.

I personally think there is a lot of value in what has been written not only from the "side" or perspective I hold, but also in all the experiences, articles, thoughts, feelings, points of view, and responses from the pro-LGBTQ lifestyle side. Someone on the LGBTQ side may come onto this thread and get tremendous help from those who are in favor of it.

The heart CAN'T be trusted, we are NOT to lean on our own understanding. That's not an "attack on the gays". That's the truth of God's word no matter what the topic.

And for heaven's sake, no one here "hates the gays" as you keep claiming. I don't know how many more times I need to say, both from my perspective, as well as what the Word says, that it's the sexual act that is the issue. That's it. NO ONE HERE "HATES THE GAYS", SO STOP MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS.

Leave this thread be.

Thanks so much for expressing yourself on this thread.

And by the way. Maybe SenerityLives doesn't realize that a google search of LGBTQ will list this thread, as soon as the google spider digs it up.

So I don't want it deleted either The OP doesn't express her hopes, but she has them. But she's the boss of this thread.

And I don't remember calling God gay. I think I called Him a homophobe, which can be backed up with scripture. And there's no sound scripture that Jesus was gay. At most there's just inferences and conjecture.

If anyone is gay, it's males that love the man Jesus fervently, like a lover.

[Ohio]

I too agree with Trapped's many excellent points here.

If anything, I am disappointed with awareness's posts. Instead of moderating or mediating beneficial discussion, he at times sowed controversy by throwing gasoline into many of his posts. Knowing this subject was so sensitive, awareness should have endeavored to facilitate the OP's opening remarks. Instead he lobbed many obnoxious insults, like hand grenades, into the discussion based on his own biases against God, Jesus, Bible, and Christians.

I did not think that some of his posts fairly represented Serenity et. al. Instead of blaming others for the thread, perhaps he could reconsider his own role.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I am disappointed with awareness's posts. Instead of moderating or mediating beneficial discussion, he at times sowed controversy by throwing gasoline into many of his posts.

My observation too. I found myself hoping SerenityLives (et. al. in LGBTQ+ community) would comment on things instead of awareness, because his gasoline was creating fires that maybe didn't even need to be there in the first place . . .

So an OP can request a thread be deleted, and it will be, as a matter of forum policy?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

My observation too. I found myself hoping SerenityLives (et. al. in LGBTQ+ community) would comment on things instead of awareness, because his gasoline was creating fires that maybe didn't even need to be there in the first place . . .

So an OP can request a thread be deleted, and it will be, as a matter of forum policy?

Hello everyone, I hope you guys would stop fighting. It is not my intention for this thread to be deleted, just closed. I have reached out to many of our ex LC lgbtq brothers and sisters and some of them take a look at this thread and told me personally that they feel too stressed to post. As to the few that did, I applaud them for their bravery and commitment. I also applaud all of your commitment to this thread. I believe awareness did not intend to throw any bombshells if it seems that way, he contributed a lot of ideas that were pro-lgbtq that moved the thread forward. At this point, I just feel the thread should be closed for the benefit of everyone. If anyone has anything else to say, nows the time to do so and then afterwards, UntoHim can close the thread. Personally, this thread was a lot more civil than the other, even though I did get angry sometimes at some of the conversations that came up, it wasnt nearly as bad as the other one with awareness taking more of a role stepping in and moderating.
I hope you guys all find peace. I am amazed at the amount of time you guys put in despite not being lgbtq. Thank you, thats all I’ve got to say ❤️

I would like to also add that I believe not only that the Bible is from expressed through human writers and there are hints of human biases throughout the Bible. Just look at heinous tragedy of “spilling seed” in the case of Judah and his sons and Tamar. At the time, society was for propagating. And also take a look at the story of the adulterous woman the Pharisees brought to Jesus to have her stoned. If there was an adulterous woman, there must have had sexual relations with men, implicating them also in adultery. But where are these men? Were they punished as well or was only the woman punished (kind of like the witch trials in Salem)? Why is the Bible mute about thee men. Was the woman commiting adultery by herself? The interpretation that makes most sense is that the Bible including the New Testament was written mostly be men with biased patriarchical views based on the time period that they lived in, so to talk about stoning the men along with the woman must’ve prob been covered up. This shows that the Buble is a human book made by humans (with some divine inspiration but surely not completely). Then we have to wonder about the circumstances regarding the passages regarding clobber passages used by some Christians to condemn homosexuality as a sin.

In short, live and let live. Everyone will have a chance in front of God at the judgement seat, according to most Christians. Only God is sovereign to decide. We shouldnt be casting any stones at this point. If he allows His agape love to accept love between two consenting adults who love God, I dont see the problem. But that is my view. And I hope from this thread that any church kids who are deep in the closet and are struggling with their sexuality feelings to know that it’s okay. God loves you all the same and don’t be scared to reach out to me or any of the sisters who shared about their experiences regarding this issue.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I thought that sounded like you Miss SerenityLives! (I didn't catch the 1st sentence when I briefly looked at the message last night . . .) I did scan each paragraph in the article, and completely read paragraphs where I thought I needed to know more. I only focused on two main points from the article, for better simplicity of our conversation here. We can look at other things if you like.

Can’t agree with homosexual or any biologically based love being “pure love,” sister, that would be only God Himself, who is agape (Greek; unconditional) love The best we produce is not "pure love," no matter how great it feels

And "lean not unto your own understanding" is not my words, but scripture.

Scripture is scripture bro - it can be life or the dead letter. The problem is not scripture, but rather how its used.

My intention in that post was far from condemnation.

And please forgive me if there was any condemnation in my writing as that is certainly not my intention. But if we know something is harmful and we are silent about it, that is not love . . .

I think “lean not onto your own understanding” is also something very personal. If you’ve never known how it’s like to be lgbtq, then you shouldn’t tell them how to live. Using scripture to voice one’s concerns that homosexuality is sin is “dead letter”, since it makes lgbtq people feel bad, unaccepted, unloved, uncherished. Of course, you would have to walk a thousand miles in my shoes to only understand the tip of the iceburg of what I experience day to day. The thing is, you DON’T know if homosexuality is harmful, so to voice your opinion is to be ignorant and unloving. You might feel you are doing the right thing, but the fact is, using words such as “lifestyle” or cherrypicking verses to infer upon God’s original intention does not help the lgbtq community. They wont change and can’t change! Imagine this, me using verses to tell you your relationship with your wife is sinful and that your love is not pure or real. How would you feel? Thats exactly how thousands of LGBTQ Christians feel when they hear, read, and see these things. I hope this makes sense.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

In short, live and let live. Everyone will have a chance in front of God at the judgement seat, according to most Christians. Only God is sovereign to decide. We shouldn't be casting any stones at this point. If he allows His agape love to accept love between two consenting adults who love God, I don't see the problem. But that is my view. And I hope from this thread that any church kids who are deep in the closet and are struggling with their sexuality feelings to know that it’s okay. God loves you all the same and don’t be scared to reach out to me or any of the sisters who shared about their experiences regarding this issue.

Ok, it sounds like this thread has more or less accomplished the purpose for which you started it. Let's keep it open for now. Those who want to contribute to the dialogue can do so at their leisure.
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I think “lean not onto your own understanding” is also something very personal. If you’ve never known how it’s like to be lgbtq, then you shouldn’t tell them how to live. Using scripture to voice one’s concerns that homosexuality is sin is “dead letter”, since it makes lgbtq people feel bad, unaccepted, unloved, uncherished. Of course, you would have to walk a thousand miles in my shoes to only understand the tip of the iceburg of what I experience day to day. The thing is, you DON’T know if homosexuality is harmful, so to voice your opinion is to be ignorant and unloving. You might feel you are doing the right thing, but the fact is, using words such as “lifestyle” or cherrypicking verses to infer upon God’s original intention does not help the lgbtq community. They wont change and can’t change! Imagine this, me using verses to tell you your relationship with your wife is sinful and that your love is not pure or real. How would you feel? Thats exactly how thousands of LGBTQ Christians feel when they hear, read, and see these things. I hope this makes sense.

Thanks for the reply!

It's too bad that it appears we are talking past each other. We both have accepted certain things, and now there is a complete mental framework built up around that, which we each think is true. And we now have feelings and experiences to back up each of our frameworks. This is how we humans are, and only the Lord, through His great love, mercy and grace can penetrate these kinds of things.

So I'm not sure what else can be said, if you do not think that homosexuality is something that is even a little "off the mark" in the Bible (like many other manifestations of the flesh that have brought up) . . and it is also thought that gayness is something God designed from the start and is even perhaps something being promoted by Him.

I'm thinking of starting another thread called "LGBTQ+ - Things Learned" so I can speak more freely, as I feel a little constrained due to wanting to be sensitive to feelings on this thread.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok, it sounds like this thread has more or less accomplished the purpose for which you started it. Let's keep it open for now. Those who want to contribute to the dialogue can do so at their leisure.
-

I want this thread closed since I was the one who started it. Nothing else can be accomplished with anymore bickering, as none of the lgbtq people will post anymore on this thread. I originally intended for this thread to be a space where ex LC church kids can share but it has become more polarity from both sides. Sons of Glory can start a new thread if wanted. Thanks

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I want this thread closed since I was the one who started it. Nothing else can be accomplished with anymore bickering, as none of the lgbtq people will post anymore on this thread. I originally intended for this thread to be a space where ex LC church kids can share but it has become more polarity from both sides. Sons of Glory can start a new thread if wanted. Thanks

I think I might start that new thread. And I have appreciated the discussion - sorry that you view the conversation as "bickering." I didn't see it that way and thought it was rather more mature than the previous one. Also sorry if any LGBTQ+ Christian on here felt like they couldn't respond any further - I do wonder what that is about . . .

Personally, I welcome fellowship from any who name Jesus Christ as their Savior, and that includes anyone with issues, because we all have issues because we're all swimming in the cesspool and we all have the flesh. God did not call perfect people into the ekklesia, just regenerated ones.

[TLFisher]

My question to heterosexual parents (with the LC view in mind), if your child comes out as gay, lesbian, or trans, does anything change?
If so, what?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

My question to heterosexual parents (with the LC view in mind), if your child comes out as gay, lesbian, or trans, does anything change?
If so, what?

Good point Terry. Finally, a voice of reason.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Terry

My question to heterosexual parents (with the LC view in mind), if your child comes out as gay, lesbian, or trans, does anything change?
If so, what?

Okay since this thread is still open, I will speak for my parents who are Chinese and who grew up in LC (my mother attended the FTTT and my father is an elder in one of the local churches).

The first year they found out I was dating a girl, my mom constantly prayed for my “gayness” to go away and had a lot of questions, some of them too intimate and embarrassing to put on here. My dad cried (more like sobbed for an entire night) and asked me why I “chose such a hard life” as if it was my fault.

Four years later, my mother asked my gf (who became my spouse) if she would love her daughter (me) forever. She told my dad that it wasnt such a bad idea if we (my spouse and I) took care of each other until we grew old. But there was some grief knowing they might not have grandkids from me, but I have two younger sisters, so thats all good b/c they are in the LC and will most likely marrying brothers. Now every time we come visit, my mom showers my spouse with home cooked meals, her garden plants, random groceries, tea and gifts and say that my spouse is like her “fourth daughter”. My dad says hi to her as well. They know we are living together.

My spouse’s family is Catholic. Her mom, a few months before she passed away, told one of my spouse’s aunts that she was proud that my spouse had found me. She claimed that I was a better person and that my spouse was in good hands, more than my spouse’s sister, who married a man twenty years older than her. Her dad on the other hand, knows we’re married and has been friendly to me on the few ocassions we met.

I’ve heard other church kids stories that are different. My parents took about ten years to grieve over the loss of me not being what they expected. Its like the stages for bereavement (denial, anger, bargaining, and acceptance) before they finally finally knew things werent going to change and they met my spouse for the person she is and treat us as any other loved one.

[UntoHim]

Moderator Note:

The past number of posts were moved off the open forum. I think that they were an insult to SerenityLives. She deserves better, and the treatment of this subject deserves better. Let's keep politics out of this thread...isn't it controversial enough without throwing that extra gas on the fire?

Let's let SerenityLives lead the discussion. Does anybody have anything to say about this last great and heartfelt post on 10/3?
-

[awareness]

But Serenity wanted this thread closed. And she told me that she's done with it. So if she leads the discussion there won't be any.

[UntoHim]

Harold, that was before she made this last post. Pay attention mate!
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Moderator Note:

The past number of posts were moved off the open forum. I think that they were an insult to SerenityLives. She deserves better, and the treatment of this subject deserves better. Let's keep politics out of this thread...isn't it controversial enough without throwing that extra gas on the fire?

-

But my post that was taken off from earlier today, had nothing to do with politics! (Ohio & awareness were at it again, and I got lumped in there I think . . .)

[Trapped]

I've been silent because I have no idea what's happening and don't want to waste time if things are going to be removed from the site or prevented from further discussion, which is antithetical to this whole site. I have plenty to say about the articles and claims that were made towards the end of last week, but where is the place to put those responses? Here seems logical since that's where the articles were posted. If SerenityLives is not going to be visiting (which I wish she would stick around) then I don't understand the issue with letting it continue - no one is forcing anyone to read it, and it's not like thousands of other discussions on the topic aren't all over the internet, and those are allowed to exist. However, StG's thread is more tolerant but yet it wouldn't be "things I've learned", but just a continuation of what keeps threatening to be cut off. Can we get some kind of final word on what's happening?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

But my post that was taken off from earlier today, had nothing to do with politics! (Ohio & awareness were at it again, and I got lumped in there I think . . .)

Why are all the events in our life considered as "politics?"

Why instead don't we outlaw these inflammatory links which awareness loves to post?

[awareness]

I'm with SerenityLives.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Okay since this thread is still open, I will speak for my parents who are Chinese and who grew up in LC (my mother attended the FTTT and my father is an elder in one of the local churches).

The first year they found out I was dating a girl, my mom constantly prayed for my “gayness” to go away and had a lot of questions, some of them too intimate and embarrassing to put on here. My dad cried (more like sobbed for an entire night) and asked me why I “chose such a hard life” as if it was my fault.

Four years later, my mother asked my gf (who became my spouse) if she would love her daughter (me) forever. She told my dad that it wasnt such a bad idea if we (my spouse and I) took care of each other until we grew old. But there was some grief knowing they might not have grandkids from me, but I have two younger sisters, so thats all good b/c they are in the LC and will most likely marrying brothers. Now every time we come visit, my mom showers my spouse with home cooked meals, her garden plants, random groceries, tea and gifts and say that my spouse is like her “fourth daughter”. My dad says hi to her as well. They know we are living together.

My spouse’s family is Catholic. Her mom, a few months before she passed away, told one of my spouse’s aunts that she was proud that my spouse had found me. She claimed that I was a better person and that my spouse was in good hands, more than my spouse’s sister, who married a man twenty years older than her. Her dad on the other hand, knows we’re married and has been friendly to me on the few ocassions we met.

I’ve heard other church kids stories that are different. My parents took about ten years to grieve over the loss of me not being what they expected. Its like the stages for bereavement (denial, anger, bargaining, and acceptance) before they finally finally knew things werent going to change and they met my spouse for the person she is and treat us as any other loved one.

Thank you. I have a cousin raised in the LC as I was. One of his daughters fell in love and entered into a same sex marriage. Nothing to get upset about. Just love your children. Many years I've considered how if one of my children came out gay? Nothing changes. They're still my children.
My wife and I have had a transgender living with us for a year and a half. Fearful of going through procedures for the transition. It helped me in my own employment when our team took transgender training.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Terry

Thank you. I have a cousin raised in the LC as I was. One of his daughters fell in love and entered into a same sex marriage. Nothing to get upset about. Just love your children. Many years I've considered how if one of my children came out gay? Nothing changes. They're still my children.
My wife and I have had a transgender living with us for a year and a half. Fearful of going through procedures for the transition. It helped me in my own employment when our team took transgender training.

Exactly, nothing changes if it’s your family or yourself. Im glad to hear you were supportive of that transgender person. They need love and acceptance as well, considering they get murdered and go through with suicide at higher rates than the rest of the lgbtq community.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I've been silent because I have no idea what's happening and don't want to waste time if things are going to be removed from the site or prevented from further discussion, which is antithetical to this whole site. I have plenty to say about the articles and claims that were made towards the end of last week, but where is the place to put those responses? Here seems logical since that's where the articles were posted. If SerenityLives is not going to be visiting (which I wish she would stick around) then I don't understand the issue with letting it continue - no one is forcing anyone to read it, and it's not like thousands of other discussions on the topic aren't all over the internet, and those are allowed to exist. However, StG's thread is more tolerant but yet it wouldn't be "things I've learned", but just a continuation of what keeps threatening to be cut off. Can we get some kind of final word on what's happening?

I understand the frustrations of everyone on here but I am at my emotional capacity to deal with anymore of this right now. We can continue on Sons of Glory’s thread for more political issues or biblical interpretations. I originally intended for this thread to be a space for anyone who were lgbtq church kids or family members with relatives identifying as lgbtq to share their experiences. Sorry if I wasnt clear on that. No one is forcing anyone to read this , yes, but I know for a fact that lgbtq church kids who are planning to leave the church will linger on here, since UntoHim’s website is unique and one of the few that exist for ex local church members. Thats why I wanted to end this thread on a good note and close this thread for being clean for those church kids. The other thread can be for more controversial topics related to being lgbtq and Christian in general.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I understand the frustrations of everyone on here but I am at my emotional capacity to deal with anymore of this right now. We can continue on Sons of Glory’s thread for more political issues or biblical interpretations. I originally intended for this thread to be a space for anyone who were lgbtq church kids or family members with relatives identifying as lgbtq to share their experiences. Sorry if I wasnt clear on that. No one is forcing anyone to read this , yes, but I know for a fact that lgbtq church kids who are planning to leave the church will linger on here, since UntoHim’s website is unique and one of the few that exist for ex local church members. Thats why I wanted to end this thread on a good note and close this thread for being clean for those church kids. The other thread can be for more controversial topics related to being lgbtq and Christian in general.

I'm with SerenityLives.

[UntoHim]

Ok Serenity, your wish is my command.

Where do you want to end this thread. Maybe back on your last post describing what happened with your parents. That would be a good ending!

Let me know here on the thread. I don't want everyone to know that you are the one closing out the thread and where you want to end it.

Thanks.

UntoHim.
-

[Trapped]

Just registering my utter frustration. Argh. I'm censoring myself a lot here and not saying most of what I want to unleash.

For anyone reading in the future, please visit the other LGBTQ+ thread started by Sons to Glory! for some continued responses to some of the things posted on this thread. (StG, if that's okay, of course).

UntoHim, can you give the participants some time between when you identify where the closing out will occur and when you actually close it out? What I'm getting at is there are some comments and articles I want to capture first in order to respond to them on the other thread where normal discussion is welcome, and just need a little time to be able to grab them if they will be lost in the closing out.....but I don't want to take the time to go back and copy stuff if the cutoff point won't cut them off. Thanks.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok Serenity, your wish is my command.

Where do you want to end this thread. Maybe back on your last post describing what happened with your parents. That would be a good ending!

Let me know here on the thread. I don't want everyone to know that you are the one closing out the thread and where you want to end it.

Thanks.

UntoHim.
-

He's with Serenity.

[awareness]

So how many out here can say "I'm with Serenity?" Cuz if we're with her then, her wish is OUR command, and maybe she'll leave it open for her desired ones, in and out of the LC, to come and find acceptance.

What say ye?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

So how many out here can say "I'm with Serenity?" Cuz if we're with her then, her wish is OUR command, and maybe she'll leave it open for her desired ones, in and out of the LC, to come and find acceptance.

What say ye?

I'm with Serenity on what matters - Christ in us, the hope of glory!

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok Serenity, your wish is my command.

Where do you want to end this thread. Maybe back on your last post describing what happened with your parents. That would be a good ending!

Let me know here on the thread. I don't want everyone to know that you are the one closing out the thread and where you want to end it.

Thanks.

UntoHim.
-

I think we can end it with Terry’s response to my parents’ experience. Even with this thread closed, it’s not completely deleted so others like Trapped can still copy and paste the needed discussions and links to the other thread is they want to discuss them further. Thank you all for your participation! I had a good time talking wih you all. I recently got a new job but will comment when I can on StG’s new thread

[ExChurchKid]

I'm not sure if this thread ended up being closed or not, and I know I'm late to the party, but I just wanted to add this description of how "men lying with men" in the Bible might actually be a mis-translation of a Greek word (arsenokoitai) that can be more accurately translated "men lying with little boys". I.e., child molestation was an issue in Greek and Roman times, and the writers of the Bible felt it needed to be addressed.



https://um-insight.net/perspectives/...-in-the-bible/

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ExChurchKid

I'm not sure if this thread ended up being closed or not, and I know I'm late to the party, but I just wanted to add this description of how "men lying with men" in the Bible might actually be a mis-translation of a Greek word (arsenokoitai) that can be more accurately translated "men lying with little boys". I.e., child molestation was an issue in Greek and Roman times, and the writers of the Bible felt it needed to be addressed.

https://um-insight.net/perspectives/...-in-the-bible/

That's an incredible link sis. Thanks. I sent to it a Southern Baptist cousin, that blew his Bible top when his son introduced his gay lover. He called his son an abomination to God, all because of the Bible.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's an incredible link sis. Thanks. I sent to it a Southern Baptist cousin, that blew his Bible top when his son introduced his gay lover. He called his son an abomination to God, all because of the Bible.

I thought God got rid of abominations when He flooded the world. But I guess he/she missed some.

I've heard of that interpretation before. Bro Trapped hasn't been able to get around to respond to me about those mistranslations. But he did ask me about divine inspiration.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I thought God got rid of abominations when He flooded the world. But I guess he/she missed some.

Sin was still in man and that only gets addressed effectively in Christ.

[ExChurchKid]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's an incredible link sis. Thanks. I sent to it a Southern Baptist cousin, that blew his Bible top when his son introduced his gay lover. He called his son an abomination to God, all because of the Bible.

Lol I'm glad my internet research will help in the crusade to get people to not call other people abominations just because a (fallible) book written by (fallible) men and translated by (fallible) people says something questionable in like one or two places, and in like a million other places talks about love and acceptance and all that good stuff (but that can be conveniently ignored, apparently).

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I thought God got rid of abominations when He flooded the world. But I guess he/she missed some.

I've heard of that interpretation before. Bro Trapped hasn't been able to get around to respond to me about those mistranslations. But he did ask me about divine inspiration.

Our little pea brains can't figure out God, or his inspirations, if they even happened or not. We just want to believe in inspiration, without any proof or evidence at all. Then we can use the Bible to clobber others.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ExChurchKid

Lol I'm glad my internet research will help in the crusade to get people to not call other people abominations just because a (fallible) book written by (fallible) men and translated by (fallible) people says something questionable in like one or two places, and in like a million other places talks about love and acceptance and all that good stuff (but that can be conveniently ignored, apparently).

Very well said XCK.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Sin was still in man and that only gets addressed effectively in Christ.

I don't get this 'sin in man.' I get that Adam and Eve sinned. But doesn't it violate our free will that we're imbued with it at birth? I chose against that.

It think it could be that it's easy to buy into from just observing our fellowmen, and the world out there.

But it's more likely explained, rather than by indwelling sin, that, we're just primates, acting like primates, and the sin of Adam has nothing to do with it, except that he and she were primates.

Maybe I'm missing something.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't get this 'sin in man.' I get that Adam and Eve sinned. But doesn't it violate our free will that we're imbued with it at birth? I chose against that.

It think it could be that it's easy to buy into from just observing our fellowmen, and the world out there.

But it's more likely explained, rather than by indwelling sin, that, we're just primates, acting like primates, and the sin of Adam has nothing to do with it, except that he and she were primates.

Maybe I'm missing something.

Why did Christ come?

[ExChurchKid]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't get this 'sin in man.' I get that Adam and Eve sinned. But doesn't it violate our free will that we're imbued with it at birth? I chose against that.

I'm with you here. I didn't eat any forbidden fruit. Why do I suffer because of them? Also, it seems like God didn't really set them up for success in the first place. Why not just leave out the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Because of free will? So free will causes us to want knowledge and that causes sin? It seems like sin isn't so bad if God created us with a curious nature.

[ExChurchKid]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Why did Christ come?

Perhaps because God failed in his creation of us, so he had to send Christ down to fix his mess. That's one way to look at it, anyway.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by ExChurchKid

Perhaps because God failed in his creation of us, so he had to send Christ down to fix his mess. That's one way to look at it, anyway.

Well, even if that's the case (made a mistake), Christ is still the "best show in town" in my book - Christ is the clearest picture we have of God.

[ExChurchKid]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well, even if that's the case (made a mistake), Christ is still the "best show in town" in my book - Christ is the clearest picture we have of God.

I currently prefer Odin, actually.


But seriously dude, with all due respect, your preaching would be more effective if you directed it towards people who were more interested in it. There's plenty of threads on the main forum that seem like prime praising-Christ spaces.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by ExChurchKid

I currently prefer Odin, actually.


But seriously dude, with all due respect, your preaching would be more effective if you directed it towards people who were more interested in it. There's plenty of threads on the main forum that seem like prime praising-Christ spaces.

You are mostly free to say what you want here on Alt Views, and so am I, therefore: Your anti-preaching preaching sounds most intolerant and preachy. (FYI - this IS a Christian forum . . .)

[ExChurchKid]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

You are mostly free to say what you want here on Alt Views, and so am I, therefore: Your anti-preaching preaching sounds most intolerant and preachy. (FYI - this IS a Christian forum . . .)

It isn't a Christian forum. Unless I'm missing something, it is a Local Churches forum. Also, it is a place for logical, productive discussion. You are neither being logical, nor participating in productive discussion.

Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one, and to be proud of it, but it isn't okay to whip it out in public and start waving it around, and it especially isn't okay to shove it down anyone's throat.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ExChurchKid

It isn't a Christian forum. Unless I'm missing something, it is a Local Churches forum. Also, it is a place for logical, productive discussion. You are neither being logical, nor participating in productive discussion.

Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one, and to be proud of it, but it isn't okay to whip it out in public and start waving it around, and it especially isn't okay to shove it down anyone's throat.

I'll say. That would mean that I'm gay and so is he. Keep that under sea creature away from me. My sexual identity is lesbian. I like girls.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by ExChurchKid

It isn't a Christian forum. Unless I'm missing something, it is a Local Churches forum. Also, it is a place for logical, productive discussion. You are neither being logical, nor participating in productive discussion.

Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one, and to be proud of it, but it isn't okay to whip it out in public and start waving it around, and it especially isn't okay to shove it down anyone's throat.

LC, Christian, whatever.

Nobody is shoving anything down your throat. You seem to have an extreme visceral and emotional reaction to anybody sharing anything of their faith. (If someone's faith is real to them, then wouldn't that just come out pretty naturally, openly and frequently?)

You are welcome to tune out things you see on here, and if you don't like what I say, then just ignore it and don't reply to me. Of course, maybe I can't see the speck in your eye for the huge log in my own . . . (or is it the other way around?)

In other words - lighten up and perhaps be a little less sensitive, okay?!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by ExChurchKid

It isn't a Christian forum. Unless I'm missing something, it is a Local Churches forum. Also, it is a place for logical, productive discussion. You are neither being logical, nor participating in productive discussion.

Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one, and to be proud of it, but it isn't okay to whip it out in public and start waving it around, and it especially isn't okay to shove it down anyone's throat.

Originally Posted by awareness

I'll say. That would mean that I'm gay and so is he. Keep that under sea creature away from me. My sexual identity is lesbian. I like girls.

I'm trying to determine which response was stranger (for lack of a better word) - his or yours!

[ExChurchKid]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I'm trying to determine which response was stranger (for lack of a better word) - his or yours!

Yours. Yours is the strangest, obviously. It's what started the derailment of the discussion in the first place. My response was not strange; it is a relevant and accurate comparison, and addressed your preachy insertion into the conversation. Now, unless you have an actual reason as to why religion is not like a penis in the way I described, or you would like me to continue to expound upon the topic of why religion is like a penis and you should stop molesting (which can be used to mean pester or harass, so what a good pun it is) us with it, please leave us to our productive discussion. Again, I am sure your contribution would be welcomed in the correct context, as plenty of threads in the main forum provide.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I'm trying to determine which response was stranger (for lack of a better word) - his or yours!

She was being humorous, and so was I. But her point is right. The things your are saying she's heard all her life. You're not speaking anything new.

And this IS LocalChurchDiscussions, which means exLCer's can express themselves out here. They're all welcomed. And not all of us have stayed religious ... besides, didn't they brag in the LC that they aren't religious?

One more thing. Odin is wonderful. You'd know that if you got to know him.

Wounded I hung on a wind-swept gallows
For nine long nights,
Pierced by a spear, pledged to Odhinn,
Offered, myself to myself
The wisest know not from whence spring
The roots of that ancient rood

They gave me no bread,
They gave me no mead,
I looked down;
with a loud cry
I took up runes;
from that tree I fell.
~~ Odin

[ExChurchKid]

Awareness and SerenityLives, and anyone else who wants to have a productive discussion: I vote we ignore StG and report his comments, as I have been doing. People like him get off on the responses they engender, and will always refuse respectful requests or reasonable appeals, so the worst punishment is to ignore them. If he gets particularly annoying, maybe throw in a Hail Satan or something to scare him away. Good plan?

[ExChurchKid]

Originally Posted by awareness

One more thing. Odin is wonderful. You'd know that if you got to know him.

Wounded I hung on a wind-swept gallows
For nine long nights,
Pierced by a spear, pledged to Odhinn,
Offered, myself to myself
The wisest know not from whence spring
The roots of that ancient rood

They gave me no bread,
They gave me no mead,
I looked down;
with a loud cry
I took up runes;
from that tree I fell.
~~ Odin

Excellent, maybe this will get the conversation back on track. Tell me more about how awesome Odin is!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ExChurchKid

Awareness and SerenityLives, and anyone else who wants to have a productive discussion: I vote we ignore StG and report his comments, as I have been doing. People like him get off on the responses they engender, and will always refuse respectful requests or reasonable appeals, so the worst punishment is to ignore them. If he gets particularly annoying, maybe throw in a Hail Satan or something to scare him away. Good plan?

rotflmao. We should still love him. He means well.

[ExChurchKid]

Originally Posted by awareness

rotflmao. We should still love him. He means well.

I respectfully disagree, but it doesn't matter. I just want to be able to have a productive discussion! I finally to the time to try to read this thread from the beginning, and holy Moses, it's a disaster of disrespect and name-calling and some of the most un-Christlike behavior I have ever seen, from the people on the forum who claim to be the most Christlike (I won't mention names, but I think you know who I'm talking about). Were the mods asleep during most of this thread? I don't understand how these people weren't banned long ago. There's a clear trend on various threads on this forum that when these specific people comment, civilized discussion goes out the window. THIS is what pushes people towards atheism. THIS is why the lovely Church of Satan exits; to balance the crazies that are high on judgmental holier-than-thou Jesus juice and act as a check when other religions get out of control. What the hell happened on this forum??

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by ExChurchKid

I respectfully disagree, but it doesn't matter. I just want to be able to have a productive discussion! I finally to the time to try to read this thread from the beginning, and holy Moses, it's a disaster of disrespect and name-calling and some of the most un-Christlike behavior I have ever seen, from the people on the forum who claim to be the most Christlike (I won't mention names, but I think you know who I'm talking about). Were the mods asleep during most of this thread? I don't understand how these people weren't banned long ago. There's a clear trend on various threads on this forum that when these specific people comment, civilized discussion goes out the window. THIS is what pushes people towards atheism. THIS is why the lovely Church of Satan exits; to balance the crazies that are high on judgmental holier-than-thou Jesus juice and act as a check when other religions get out of control. What the hell happened on this forum??

Well.. I was here beginning to end so yeah I agree with you. The mods have prejudice against some views (calling out pro lgbtq visitors to sign up- aka Love, while not monitoring Unregistered, anti-LGBTQ). And in fact, I think this is why a lot of the younger generation (I would say 3/4 of ex LC church kids) do become atheist or agnostic. This is a serious issue! And to deny their voices on this “Christian” forum is taking away more than half of the ex LCers church kids’ voices on this forum. Anyways, I would really like for my thread to get back on track to lgbtq issues. There were about 13-17 responses irrelevant to the topic at hand. Where were we? Oh yeah..The translation issue in some of the verses in the bible condemning homosexuality.

I’ve been doing a lot of ignoring lately to not feed into the negativity on here, but yes, ignoring tends to work. And taking breaks and deep breaths.

One more thing, I intended for this particular thread to be a space where ex LCers can share their experiences for being sexual minorities or knowing friends/family members who are LgBTq still in or out of the church. Lets continue on StG’s thread “Lessons Learned from LGBTQ” if we want to discuss with him regarding biblical or other religious interpretations related to LGBTQ.. He seems to be very interested with the LGBTQ haha

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

One more thing, I intended for this particular thread to be a space where ex LCers can share their experiences for being sexual minorities or knowing friends/family members who are LgBTq still in or out of the church. Lets continue on StG’s thread “Lessons Learned from LGBTQ” if we want to discuss with him regarding biblical or other religious interpretations related to LGBTQ.. He seems to be very interested with the LGBTQ haha

You three seem to be on the same "wavelength," which is certainly a little different from me (which is fine, BTW), so I really have little interest in continuing to be misunderstood and in getting beat up here. Therefore I'll unsubscribe from this thread.

So yes, if you want to converse with me, I'll be over on the other LBGTQ+ things learned thread, which I started.
(I can tell yer already missing me here - admit it now, you'll feel better . . . )

I don’t get it. Why are you guys so fixated on people’s sexual orientation when you should be worried about your lives passing by? Why do people isolate each other’s differences such as the color of their skin, their race, or love interest? Like what business do you have with that?

If being gay is a choice, then why can’t Ohio suck and kiss awareness all over?

The notion that just because a person has a choice whether to engage in gay sex and some made that choice, therefore homosexuality is a choice is just frankly a ridiculous conclusion that’s not backed by anything.

It’s not exactly false that same sex behavior is in cases a choice, but first, we must make the distinction between same sex behavior and same-sex attraction.

Even if sexual behavior is purely a choice, sexual orientation, which is the state of being gay and the impulses that they feel are certainly not choices, for the simple reason that we only choose to act and our actions are influenced by our own desires. Hence, sexual desire for one type of person is not chosen, but sexual behavior is.

And this is a viewpoint held by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Love

I don’t get it. Why are you guys so fixated on people’s sexual orientation when you should be worried about your lives passing by? Why do people isolate each other’s differences such as the color of their skin, their race, or love interest? Like what business do you have with that?

If being gay is a choice, then why can’t Ohio suck and kiss awareness all over?

The notion that just because a person has a choice whether to engage in gay sex and some made that choice, therefore homosexuality is a choice is just frankly a ridiculous conclusion that’s not backed by anything.

It’s not exactly false that same sex behavior is in cases a choice, but first, we must make the distinction between same sex behavior and same-sex attraction.

Even if sexual behavior is purely a choice, sexual orientation, which is the state of being gay and the impulses that they feel are certainly not choices, for the simple reason that we only choose to act and our actions are influenced by our own desires. Hence, sexual desire for one type of person is not chosen, but sexual behavior is.

And this is a viewpoint held by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association.

It’s the same thing as asking a straight person to not marry and have kids.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Love

I don’t get it. Why are you guys so fixated on people’s sexual orientation when you should be worried about your lives passing by? Why do people isolate each other’s differences such as the color of their skin, their race, or love interest? Like what business do you have with that?

If being gay is a choice, then why can’t Ohio suck and kiss awareness all over?

The notion that just because a person has a choice whether to engage in gay sex and some made that choice, therefore homosexuality is a choice is just frankly a ridiculous conclusion that’s not backed by anything.

It’s not exactly false that same sex behavior is in cases a choice, but first, we must make the distinction between same sex behavior and same-sex attraction.

Even if sexual behavior is purely a choice, sexual orientation, which is the state of being gay and the impulses that they feel are certainly not choices, for the simple reason that we only choose to act and our actions are influenced by our own desires. Hence, sexual desire for one type of person is not chosen, but sexual behavior is.

And this is a viewpoint held by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association.

The distinction between desire/attraction and actions is one I've made over and over on these two threads. I agree with you that it is ridiculous to conclude that just because homosexual sex is a choice, then homosexual attractions are also a choice. I am heterosexual and have attractions all day long, but don't jump into the actions. Attractions and actions are different things.

I totally agree that sexual desire for one type of person is not chosen, but sexual behavior is.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Love

I don’t get it. Why are you guys so fixated on people’s sexual orientation when you should be worried about your lives passing by? Why do people isolate each other’s differences such as the color of their skin, their race, or love interest? Like what business do you have with that?

If being gay is a choice, then why can’t Ohio suck and kiss awareness all over?

The notion that just because a person has a choice whether to engage in gay sex and some made that choice, therefore homosexuality is a choice is just frankly a ridiculous conclusion that’s not backed by anything.

It’s not exactly false that same sex behavior is in cases a choice, but first, we must make the distinction between same sex behavior and same-sex attraction.

Even if sexual behavior is purely a choice, sexual orientation, which is the state of being gay and the impulses that they feel are certainly not choices, for the simple reason that we only choose to act and our actions are influenced by our own desires. Hence, sexual desire for one type of person is not chosen, but sexual behavior is.

And this is a viewpoint held by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association.

It's so nice seeing you again.

The reason it has to be a choice is because it's believed that God judges it. So if God judges it it has to be a choice.

Now if you are talking sexuality that we're born with, then it's not a choice, and God can't judge what he makes. Not a sane God, that is.

Because think about this logically, why would you choose to be gay? Since gays are heavily discriminated against around the world. I mean seriously, who would be willing to put up with all the abuses associated with being true with your sexuality? If gay people can choose to stop being gay, they would have done so long ago.

It’s not a coincidence that so many people are homosexual, and heterosexual. It’s called natural selection people. There has always been variation within the world!

Originally Posted by Trapped

The distinction between desire/attraction and actions is one I've made over and over on these two threads. I agree with you that it is ridiculous to conclude that just because homosexual sex is a choice, then homosexual attractions are also a choice. I am heterosexual and have attractions all day long, but don't jump into the actions. Attractions and actions are different things.

I totally agree that sexual desire for one type of person is not chosen, but sexual behavior is.

No, bro. You don’t get it. I just said that it’s ridiculous to say that homosexual attraction is a choice. Really? If being homosexual is a choice, why don’t you just suck a guy’s crotch?

Yeah, but I’m not telling you to stop making love with your wife. Now who would ask that? Illogical people.

This is Trapped......I'm just adding this line to show that anyone who is not logged in can edit your posts if you post without a registered username.

[Trapped]

No, wait, Love, we are in agreement. I don't think you read carefully what I said....not sure. My statement was this: "I agree with you that it is ridiculous to conclude that just because homosexual sex is a choice, then homosexual attractions are also a choice."

I said that it's ridiculous to say that just because we can choose to have sex, means that we can choose who we are attracted to. I'm totally agreeing with you that attractions are NOT a choice. I don't know how much more clear to say it.

Thanks for the suggestion to suck things though. We are literally in 100% agreement.....not sure why you reacted that way.

Also, check your last post to me. I added a line to the end of your post. I noticed that if I am not logged in, then I (and ostensibly anyone) has the ability to edit your post. Your contributions are valuable; I think it would be great if you did register, if only just so no one can edit your posts and claim you said something you didn't say.

And by the way, you are talking to someone who hasn't had sex yet, for way more years than I thought I'd have to suffer through, and I think about that fact every morning when I wake up and every night when I go to sleep. I know exactly what is being asked.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Love

This is Trapped......I'm just adding this line to show that anyone who is not logged in can edit your posts if you post without a registered username.

Why dont you go and edit Unregistered’s posts, whom her ideas you agree with? Leave the anonymous alone. Some people dont want to get registered for multiple reasons.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Why dont you go and edit Unregistered’s posts, whom her ideas you agree with? Leave the anonymous alone. Some people dont want to get registered for multiple reasons.

SerenityLives, I have no desire to go around editing anyone's posts. I didn't change what Love said, just added to it so I could best show what I was trying to describe and what was possible. Don't tell me to "leave the anonymous alone" when I have only made the suggestion one time, and it was polite as can be.

I'm not harassing, I'm not berating, I'm not condemning her. I just noticed a strange glitch and just wanted to make sure she was aware of it in case it factored into her continued decision to stay unregistered. Please don't get into the weird vibe that's currently on the forum where everyone is taking offense at everyone. I don't understand what's going on, to be honest.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

SerenityLives, I have no desire to go around editing anyone's posts. I didn't change what Love said, just added to it so I could best show what I was trying to describe and what was possible. Don't tell me to "leave the anonymous alone" when I have only made the suggestion one time, and it was polite as can be.

I'm not harassing, I'm not berating, I'm not condemning her. I just noticed a strange glitch and just wanted to make sure she was aware of it in case it factored into her continued decision to stay unregistered. Please don't get into the weird vibe that's currently on the forum where everyone is taking offense at everyone. I don't understand what's going on, to be honest.

I know you have made the suggestion only one time, but others keep telling them to register. It’s her decision ultimately. Adding to others responses may seem innocuous but you are still changing it. Like adding verses to the bible. I’m just trying to protect the interests of the new younger sisters on here, because they havent been treated well by others, esp on the main forum. I’m sure we’re on the same page.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I know you have made the suggestion only one time, but others keep telling them to register. It’s her decision ultimately. Adding to others responses may seem innocuous but you are still changing it. Like adding verses to the bible. I’m just trying to protect the interests of the new younger sisters on here, because they havent been treated well by others, esp on the main forum. I’m sure we’re on the same page.

Adding to her post was not to antagonize, but to demonstrate what I was talking about. If I tried to tell someone that I could edit THEIR post, I would have sounded crazy. I thought I was going crazy myself when I saw the "edit" button show up for me on Love's post. Editing it was the only way I could see to demonstrate for her exactly what weird thing I'd stumbled across. Maybe that was the wrong way to go about it, but it's all I could come up with to show effectively. I totally agree it's her decision. I was only trying to give her all the information that would factor into that decision. It's pretty weird to be able to edit other people's posts!

I'm totally on the same page with you as far as trying to protect the new younger sisters here. I have written and re-written and then deleted so many posts where I'm yelling at everyone doing the mistreating I feel like it's all I've done all day today. I still don't get what's gotten into people the past few days. I'm pretty ashamed of much of what I've read "up there".

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Adding to her post was not to antagonize, but to demonstrate what I was talking about. If I tried to tell someone that I could edit THEIR post, I would have sounded crazy. I thought I was going crazy myself when I saw the "edit" button show up for me on Love's post. Editing it was the only way I could see to demonstrate for her exactly what weird thing I'd stumbled across. Maybe that was the wrong way to go about it, but it's all I could come up with to show effectively. I totally agree it's her decision. I was only trying to give her all the information that would factor into that decision. It's pretty weird to be able to edit other people's posts!

I'm totally on the same page with you as far as trying to protect the new younger sisters here. I have written and re-written and then deleted so many posts where I'm yelling at everyone doing the mistreating I feel like it's all I've done all day today. I still don't get what's gotten into people the past few days. I'm pretty ashamed of much of what I've read "up there".

hmmm maybe you have an advanced computer.. I'm trying to edit Love's post but mine won't let me. Thats so weird

[ExChurchKid]

I just want to mention, that I sympathize with the people who don't want to register. It gives certain other posters a target at which to lob their BS. Anyways, I'll move over the the other LGBTQ thread.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

hmmm maybe you have an advanced computer.. I'm trying to edit Love's post but mine won't let me. Thats so weird

Hmm...I can't anymore either. Maybe UntoHim saw us talking about the glitch and edited things on the back end to fix it. Hopefully so!

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by ExChurchKid

I just want to mention, that I sympathize with the people who don't want to register. It gives certain other posters a target at which to lob their BS. Anyways, I'll move over the the other LGBTQ thread.

Yeah, I assume the PM's are going crazy right now. Internet forums are killer because people forget they are interacting with an actual other person. They say things they would never say to their face otherwise. Arrrrrggghhhh.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Hmm...I can't anymore either. Maybe UntoHim saw us talking about the glitch and edited things on the back end to fix it. Hopefully so!

So you guys suddenly had an "Edit" button appear on the bottom right next to the "Quote" button? That's interesting! If I were you guys I would have immediately edited out all that stuff that UntoHim posts that you don't like! How cool would that be!

Happy Thanksgiving ya'll.
-

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So you guys suddenly had an "Edit" button appear on the bottom right next to the "Quote" button? That's interesting! If I were you guys I would have immediately edited out all that stuff that UntoHim posts that you don't like! How cool would that be!

Happy Thanksgiving ya'll.
-

Happy Thanksgiving to you and everyone else here!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So you guys suddenly had an "Edit" button appear on the bottom right next to the "Quote" button? That's interesting! If I were you guys I would have immediately edited out all that stuff that UntoHim posts that you don't like! How cool would that be!

-

You mean we could have edit wars?

[awareness]

I'm not feeling up to par today. But I had to present this :

Two Trump-appointed judges on the 11th Circuit recently made a pro-conversion-therapy ruling. In the first of a two-part series, LGBTQ survivors of the practice tell their stories.

On Nov. 20, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down bans on juvenile gay conversion therapy in South Florida. The majority votes in the 2-1 decision came from two Trump-appointed judges, who argued that the therapists’ practicing this mode of therapy—resoundingly condemned by every professional body in the field—were having their freedom of speech violated by being banned from practicing.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/gay-co...ut-its-torture

I find this appalling, harmful, and abusive.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm not feeling up to par today. But I had to present this :

Two Trump-appointed judges on the 11th Circuit recently made a pro-conversion-therapy ruling. In the first of a two-part series, LGBTQ survivors of the practice tell their stories.

On Nov. 20, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down bans on juvenile gay conversion therapy in South Florida. The majority votes in the 2-1 decision came from two Trump-appointed judges, who argued that the therapists’ practicing this mode of therapy—resoundingly condemned by every professional body in the field—were having their freedom of speech violated by being banned from practicing.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/gay-co...ut-its-torture

I find this appalling, harmful, and abusive.

This wont work at all, just up the suicide rates. Good job, America. On top of the pandemic, you have lgbtq killing themselves. I had a client who was gay, told me his Christian parents sent him to gay conversion therapy when he was sox years old. His therapist asked him insensitive questions like, “why do you like knitting so much”? (His grandmother taught him to knit) “why do you not like the violent games that the other boys are playing?” His response- “It’s not my nature to be violent; I like playing with the girls more, they’re kinder and more creative”. He remembered the exact questions the thp asked him- most of us dont remember therapy sessions when we’re six. This was a traumatic experience and burned into his psyche.

[awareness]

I thought this testimony from, The Ex Church Kids on LCD was worth bringing here for possible discussion :

Ex Church Kids (of Local Church) Ex Church Kids from Local Church of Witness Lee

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...63&postcount=2

Re: LGBTQ Church kids

SoCalChurchKid
Long-time lurker, first time poster with a username. Thank you, SL, for helping create a space on this forum where I feel like I can belong and speak my mind with a decent amount of anonymity.

Growing up I had pretty strict parents, members of the first FTTA graduating class, was homeschooled, etc. so I was very rigid in my CL upbringing. I knew all the words that made people emphatically say "Amen", I learned how to cry on command to add impact to my speaking, etc. I was a good church kid, never rebellious, a goody-two-shoes, but never a snitch. I had a good image with all the saints and elders in my locality and they respected my opinion.

At the early onset of puberty, deep down, I was realizing that I was bisexual. I didn't know how to label it, but I just knew that I was inherently attracted to both sides of the cis fence. A couple years afterwards, the Prop 8 initiative to eliminate the rights of same-sex marriage in California was in full-steam, increasing my awareness of the LGBTQ community. I finally had a label for what I was, which gave me some assurance for two main reasons:
Other people were like me
I go both ways so let me just suppress the part of me attracted to boys so that I can have a 'normal' life.

This mindset being so firm in my mind during my developmental years has influenced my current sexual identity to shift on the spectrum from baseline bisexuality being sexually bisexual, but strictly heterosexual romantically.

I used to be pro-Prop 8. I used to think that, since I was able to "make a choice", everyone could. That all changed in college when I accidentally saw some DMs open on my younger brother's phone. My brother, who was in high school at the time, was secretly sexting other boys/men online. My worldview shattered at that point; my brother, who was very intelligent, knows what this type of behavior means in the church and yet he still chose the "wrong" choice. How could this be? It was an event that urged me to look into the LGBTQ community more and hear what others' experiences were. This moment was the tipping point for me; I knew that:
You are who you are when you're born
Your sexuality is not a choice
According to Christian doctrine, all humans are sinners so if God can forgive and accept murderers, why can't he forgive two consenting adults as they are?

That's when I realized that the church's official stance was hypocritical and oppressive by nature. I also realized I needed to protect my brother. Due to the 'good church kid' image I had in my locality, I started slowly working my stance towards the LGBTQ community into my 1-1 conversations with others saints, asking straight saints when they chose to be straight, etc. When I was able to successfully make them question their worldview regarding the matter, I told them that I was bisexual and told them my experience. They saw that I was "exercised" and that I was "partaking of the enjoyment" or whatever, so that made them question if their biases were wrong and most of them were surprisingly receptive. Even children of coworkers asked me what to do if their kids turned out gay/etc. I told them all the same thing, "just love your kid man, they were the same baby you fell in love with in the delivery room and guess what, they were gay then too."

This experience is pretty rare from what I know in the LC, mainly due to my locality being in SoCal, the social views of the coastal areas tend to be more liberal than the middle-America localities. Sadly, my more positive experience probably stems from being a brother in the church rather than being a sister. Due to the inherent sexism in the LC culture, more often than not, a brother's speaking always held more weight than a sister's.

While I don't currently meet with any locality, I still maintain contact and friendship with many saints in the 'church' to help continue to foster an environment where parents will at least accept their children for who they are.