Leaving the Gay Life Behind

bob_2 · 09-22-09 8:22 pm

Worship artist B. David had an abusive childhood and ended up in a homosexual lifestyle. But an encounter with God changed him forever. <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/interviews/2009/bdavid-sep09.html" target=_top>http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/interviews/ 2009/bdavid-sep09.html</a> The story continues - nature or nurture?

cadge · 10-29-09 7:53 pm

I wonder if Gayness is just another abnormal urge like this story tells of. Just a personality disorder. <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/images/service_sun.gif" target=_top>http://www.foxnews.com/images/service_sun.gif</a> Doctors Remove 78 Forks, Spoons From Woman's Stomach A woman obsessed with eating cutlery had to go under the knife to remove 78 forks and spoons from her stomach. Doctors said every time Margaret Daalman, of Rotterdam, Holland, would sit down for a meal, she would ignore the food and "eat" the silverware instead. The 52-year-old eventually went to hospital complaining of a stomachache and was rushed into surgery after an X-ray revealed the dozens of forks and spoons clanking inside her. "I felt an urge to eat the silverware. I could not help myself," Daalman told doctors. Rotterdam was eventually diagnosed with a "borderline personality disorder." She has since made a full recovery and is responding well to therapy.

elaine · 10-29-09 9:52 pm

Why not try exocism to change homosexuals? <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/uhoh.gif" border=0>

elaine · 10-29-09 9:55 pm

One anecdote does not mean the same affect on others. Most gays did not have an abusive background, either. How many gays have you known? How many parents of gays have you known personally? What are their stories?

jag · 10-29-09 11:02 pm

Elaine, I'm sure you know that many denominations do try exorcisms too!

elaine · 10-30-09 12:46 pm

Yes, the Roman Catholics have been the main users of exorcism, as well as other denominations. Like the TV evangelists "healings" how can success be determined?

cadge · 10-31-09 1:56 am

"How many gays have you known?" I used to live in Northampton MA. There exists there a very sizable Gay population. I know a lot of them,including some wonderful members of the business and academic communities. I was never accosted, or propositioned by any of them, nor was I ostracized or berated for being a Christian. I treated them with the same mutual respect. "How many parents of gays have you known personally?" I don't recall having ever met any of their parents. I was invited and did attend a couple of dinners and mellow parties, and a house warming once also. I was glad to attend. They have some pretty talented cooks amongst them. The ones I associated with kept their houses, and even their cars spotless. Well decorated too! Ha, they were a good example to me in that way. Being that it was in the mid eighties, and there were a lot of Gays still in the closet, I do know that many Gays that I conversed with were estranged from their families. Sometimes just their fathers though. What are their stories? Well, I don't normally go around asking people their business, but a friend, Michael, related to me how his father was talking with great disdain towards him at a family holiday get together. Michael then exposed to his family at that time that if it weren't for his older brother's youthful engagements with him, that things might have turned out different. His father threw him out. He used to have to meet his mother away from the house. His father would no longer have anything to do with him. It's too bad. Michael is a very kind, intelligent and thoughtful person. Then, about twelve years ago I heard that my cousin was a lesbian. Her mother, my aunt, is an educator, and her father, a superior court judge; both devout,very involved, Catholics. That must have gone over real big, at first! They have come to terms with it since then. But, then again, how couldn't they? The big exposure on the sexual exploits of the *Catholic clergy must serve to temper ones thoughts towards forgiveness and understanding. That's what Christians are supposed to do, aren't they? I mean, after they repent of course. *(Aside: I wonder if the celibacy thing was the Catholic Church's attempt to fulfill the prophecy of '144,000 virgins'?) God tells us in the first two chapters of Romans to not judge them, but that He is capable of that, and for us to not forget that it was the revelation of His goodness to us that led us to repentance. But I can't see anywhere biblically, where we are supposed to condone it though. Apparently the eternal society does not permit such associations. Anyhow, I was attending a little church in Florence MA. It was the week of the annual Gay Parade in Northampton; a stones throw down the street. I was taken aback at the words and spirit amongst the members in the way that they spoke of the Gays. It was more of a hateful spirit than one that understood the powers that can control the members of society. Where was the love, I wondered. Had we all forgotten the deliverance of traits and habits that we experienced? Where was the patient and hopeful prayer? Where was the love? If you knew that someone was headed for the lake of fire, should you be glad about that, or should you hate them, or should you, having the mind of Christ, sincerely pray for their deliverance? Well, of course, we pray for them and hope for them, and look for opportunities to influence them. I just spoke to a fellow a short while ago that I met when he was struggling with his homosexual tendencies. I met him in 91 and he has been free from the power that held him since then. So, My friend has been delivered. B David has been delivered. My friend Michael believes that he learned his habits from his brother. So whether you inherited it or developed it from the worlds influences, just like any other Godless habit/practice, through the grace of God one can become a new man or woman. So, we don't need to be introducing the, "I'm OK, You're OK" on homosexuality, method to the elementary school students. We need to introduce Jesus the heterosexual Saviour, with love. Cadge

elaine · 10-31-09 10:45 am

Jesus the heterosexual Saviour" is an unverified assumption. There is nothing written about Jesus that would conclude that he was other than asexual. How could He have been either hetero or homo if He is also God? There was nothing about him that indicated his sexuality. The gays I know, have been better known through their parents, and I can assure you that, unlike the ones you knew, there was nothing in their background that "caused" their gayness. Only someone who is gay really knows what it is like. All the other talk is objective. Unless you are black, do you have any experience that allows you to speak for the black experience? Yet more heterosexuals "think" they know all about why gays are not heterosexuals.

don · 10-31-09 1:21 pm

How could He have been either hetero or homo if He is also God? Jesus was clearly of the male gender, as reported by the Gospel writers. God can represent Himself in humanity as He chooses, of course. For this next segment, please excuse my crazy, never before tried, logic, <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/crazy.gif" border=0> Imagine: What if Jesus, having taken on the sins of all humanity, carried the sin of homosexuality? Yet, he did not sin. Now go one step further: When questioned about marriage, Jesus spoke of a unity between a man and a woman:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Jesus replied. Mark 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>This Jesus, whose sexual orientation is wondered about, advocated a heterosexual ideal. My pastoral counsel would go something like this: Jesus understands your situation. He loves you. But, He does not endorse the homosexual lifestyle. Remind yourself that Jesus carried the sins of the whole world, even homosexual sins. Be like Jesus and continue to advocate the heterosexual ideal. It is a heavy cross to bear. He will help you. Afterall, IF he was a homosexual, as some (erroneously, IMO) contend, he still promoted the ideal of heterosexual marriage. (Message edited by Don on October 31, 2009)

elaine · 10-31-09 4:50 pm

If sexual sins are as evil as the Bible says, why was Jesus not tempted by Satan to sin sexually? Yes, the Gospel writers, as well as the Hebrew Bible all call God and Jesus a male. Is that to be considered conclusive if humans, male AND female are made in God's image? In a patriarchal society, women were not seen as anything but possesions so it is inconceivable that Jesus or God would be represented as anything but a male. The ideal for humans was, according to the Bible story, established in Eden. We know that from then on, few have reached that ideal. Even the Israelites allowed men to divorce their wives, while not condemning polygamy. Trying to live by the biblical ideal is an impossibily, unless one single human can be demonstrated who reached that perfection state. Homosexuality, like all the other abnormalities (meaning less than normal), should be recognized, rather than labeled "sin." Is it the physical intimacy that is homosexuality between two same-sex persons, or is it not love that draws people of either sex to desire to be in a monogamuous relationship? Usually, it is the physical act that has been deplored, but no good opposite gender marriages could last long if sex was the only factor; just so those who chose same-sex monogamy. David and Jonathan's love is described in the Bible as surpassing his love for women. So, because we have no details of that love, other than kissing, was it sinful? The Bible never says so, and David was only reprimanded for other sins, nothing said about his preferred love for Jonathan. All his other wives or concubines, even Bathseba, were rewards for being king, but the polygamy was not reprimanded, only the adultery (which was taking another man's wife) and killing of Uriah. If those today wish to use the Bible to condemn sins, why are some considered so much worse than others? When to love someone, simply because he or she is of the same sex, is condemned, how does that square with the Bible's consistent message of love, which is reiterated so much more often than the sins which have been preached? The Bible writers knew nothing about homosexuality as a condition; the Greek and Roman customs were what was being deplored in the NT; and in the OT, homosexual acts are equated with bestiality. The real question: what should the church's action or reaction be toward those who clearly state that they remember no time when they weren't attracted to the same sex? Tell them they are wrong and sinners? Remember, exclusion was practiced by the Hebrews for all sorts of things. Is today's church no different? Should they be asked to leave the church? Go to a "conversion" program for homosexuals? These have such limited successes it should be criminal to advise them.

elaine · 10-31-09 4:56 pm

Don, can you possibly imagine a land where heterosexuality is condemned? If it were, would you appreciate someone telling you that it is your cross to bear and you must not sin by acting on your heterosexuality? How is that not the same to ask someone to do something you would not also be prepared to do, if you were in their shoes? It sounds so self-righteous: "I can't do what I'm expecting you to do." In their shoes, asking someone to maintain a life of celibacy, is what often drives him into a promiscuous lifestyle. If legitimacy were given for same-sex marriages, that would not the only resort; just as if there were no legal opposite sex marriage, promiscuity would even be much worse than it currently is. Give me one reason that homosexual marriages would be detrimental to yours, or anyone's heterosexual marriage. Unless that can be shown, why protest for others wanting the same rights and privileges you enjoy: choosing the person with which they wish to share a life?

elaine · 10-31-09 5:04 pm

David, I believe the condition is called "pica" of the woman who ate the cutlery. It has a code: DSM-IV-TR. Homosexuality has not been a psychiatric disorder for many years. Only religion has labeled it a "sin." Sins have been variously labeled since the origin given from Eden. It is an inconsistent category, just as is demons and witches.

don · 10-31-09 11:29 pm

can you possibly imagine a land where heterosexuality is condemned? Such a land would be self-limiting. In a very short time they would be extinct without newly landed immigrants. If it were, would you appreciate someone telling you that it is your cross to bear and you must not sin by acting on your heterosexuality? Once they convinced me that heterosexuality endangered the survival of the species, I would carry my cross proudly. Only religion has labeled it a "sin." Perhaps this is why Christianity remained apart from society in its early days. The Greeks and Romans just couldn't understand why having homosexual partners was so bad. They couldn't fathom their social practices to have affected the very society where they lived. Certainly, humanists, even those who don't bring God into their thinking, can see the abnormality to homosexuality. Even animals are trained by sexual stimulation, aren't they? Don't sexual experiences affect the inner being? Isn't this why sexual abuse of children is consider so heinous? Cadge has mentioned a friend who felt that his sexual orientation was "set" by early experiences. Christians believe that God's will can be known, to a great extent, by the study of nature. Certainly a study of sexual physiology and sexual psychology should raise alarm bells regarding the social effects of homosexual behavior. (I am not unmindful of the social ills of misguided heterosexual behavior.) This issues relates to the very survival of the human race. (Message edited by Don on October 31, 2009)

elaine · 11-01-09 12:33 pm

Of course, it was only hypothetical trying to illustrate the condition of those who are different as being sinners and prohibited from sexual experiences. Studying the Greeks and Romans, there is no record of persons who were homosexual, only those exhibiting bisexual behavior. It was most common for a Roman patrician to have a wife and children, while at the same time having a "boy lover." This was considered a mark of privilege for the elites. Paul was most aware of this as it was common in the Greco-Roman world. It was not considered abhorent at all, indicating that social customs are movable and transitory. Which is why the first chapter of Romans is speaking of the pagans, then he begins in the 2nd chapter: "So no matter who you are, if you pass judgment you have no excused. In judging others you condemn yourself, since you behave no differently from those you judge....He will repay each one as his works deserve." God, not man is the judge. It is well known that many animals behave in homosexual ways, so humans and mammals have some of the same propensities. As to "alarm bells" and the "social effects of homosexual behavior" Perhaps you can list those and how they impact on the much larger number of heterosexuals in society. It was only a few short years ago, which I can well remember, when there was social taboo of whites and blacks attending schools together, using the same drinking fountains, eating at the same restaurants, staying at the same hotel (few were available at all for blacks), and intermarriage only became legal in the late 60's. How has this nation and individuals been harmed by righting such wrongs? How will anyone be harmed by allowing gay marriage? Whether the church does not accept it is not relevant. If even the Roman Catholic Church has changed centuries-old rules of no married clergy, all things are possible. What harm would result from gay couples attending, even becoming members of the church you or I attend? Is their behavior contagious? What is to be feared? As for calling it "sin" we both know that "sins" have been variously described from Bible times that are no longer considered sin by any church.

cadge · 11-01-09 6:11 pm

Sensual satisfaction is not all encompassing of love. The sensual gratification of love is only a portion of the blessing that God gave to his created beings of man and wife. We are not to lower ourselves to the animal kingdom. We were made in His image for a special purpose, and in and for that purpose we were to be fruitful and multiply. We were to inhabit many places throughout the universe with His spirit dwelling in His created vessels,us. This blessing was given to man and woman. Not man and man nor woman and woman. To understand God we have to understand order. There can only be confusion otherwise. In the eternal society that exists, all that are of His Spirit co-operate in willing obedience to the established order. It's design is all encompassing of a giving and sustaining heart; an ever expanding expression of a true Love that only gives. Those that dwell there recognize that life can not exist without a submission to this grand design and they willingly take on their appointed tasks knowing full well that as they perform their labors it perpetuates the life of all others as all needs are fulfilled by the employment of their talents. This system of order is a co-operative system, a co-dependent system even, (a term which Satan has caused selfish beings to look upon as evil), which can only survive in the one entity. It was a jealous and enviable spirit that rebelled against this order and caused all the havoc that we see both in this world today and in it's history. This evil spirit sought to be independent of the order of life and love and his spirit of independence has permeated the corrupted societies of men throughout the world. We are under a terrible veil of evil here and are close to the termination of all things as we know them. In the order of heaven there is a chain of command of those that serve in various capacities to maintain the system. We see two winged angels, six winged ones, covering cherubs or archangels, chief princes, etc. Our Heavenly Father gave a system of order here also; Bishops, Deacons, Pastors, families etc. He also said that a woman would not hold authority over a man in the Church. He said that a woman was saved in childbirth in the Book of Timothy. That's motherhood or child rearing in right principles. Not all women can bare children, but all can become involved in the blessing of nuturing them in righteousness while conducting themselves in the same light. These are things of order. No system can survive without order. If we can rearrange the order then then it brings confusion and destroys the system that gives life to the purpose of its existence. That is what Satan sought to do. It didn't work. It never could. His spirit of jealousy was evidenced when he said in his heart that he wanted to be like God. Michael means like God. He wanted to be the one chosen to be like God and assist in the creating processes as Michael was appointed and empowered to. He did not like the system, the order. Maintaining the co-dependent co-operative system is all important to the sustaining of life on this earth and away from it. Especially in the home is the order important, because like Paul said, it is representative of the order of the eternal society. That was the "mystery" that he spoke of pertaining to marriage. The reason that the divorce rate is so high is because of this spirit of independence; the selfish refusal to submit to the order. And even when heterosexuals engage in the practice of anal or oral sex, they war against the order that our Creator designed for us. When we do such things we give tacit approval to homosexuality, for in lowering the standard it tends to make what was to be a holy design one of just sensual gratification. It becomes more of a sport than what it was truly created to be. It separates from the holiness that it was meant for. The recognition and submission to these and other admonitions given us by the Spirit through His Word are all tenets of "The Way" which if seen and received as loving instruction will perpetuate life. I'll guarantee, Elaine, that no Holy Spirit showed up as you laid out those words in defense of the lifestyles of those that have fallen under the deception of the enemy of all that is Holy. I mean no personal attack towards you, as I am a benefactor of many things that you share with us on this site, and I am truly grateful for that, but in your trying to defend the things that you do on this subject, I believe that you are seriously mistaken. Cadge

elaine · 11-01-09 8:34 pm

Cadge, many people have said of others' positions that they are seriously mistaken, which is their prerogative. Those are all personal opinions, as we can find plenty who also agree with our positions. What "order" are you referring to if not the husband as head and the wife as submissive? This model from patriarchal times, and supported in the Bible, allowed men to divorce their wives whenever they wished, and choose a second wife and the first wife must "submit" to him as the head of the house. Most women today would not turn back the clock to those times, and if men do, it only demonstrates their fear of loss of total control over a wife that prevailed at one time. Today, with women becoming more financially independent, she no longer must submit, as in some Middle Eastern countries to such conditions, and thank God, when such women are in an abusive or intolerable marriage, they can walk out, which is an option only afforded in recent times. It is a great improvement. The reason that the divorce rate is so high is simply because women refuse to submit to an arbitrary "order" that is an ancient and cultural tradition not possible today. And perhaps because men have a much higher rate of philandering than females who, in the past, had to simply put up with such behaviors; now they can kick the guy out, as well they should. BTW, the divorce rate for evangelical Christians is the same as non-religious people. The SDA rate is probably not much different. If all the SDA members who have been divorced or remarried were disfellowshipped, the numbers would instantly decrease. Do you deny there is sensual pleasure between heterosexuals? Is the sensual "sin" only when the partner is of the opposite sex? That's a most novel reason, solely based on personal opinion (or perhaps on a certain lady with the initials of EGW who wrote about "solitary vice" as causing most of the ills of mankind). How is that medical advice working today? Same as the phrenology and wig advice?

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 09-22-09 8:22 pm

Leaving the Gay Life Behind

#2 10-29-09 7:53 pm

Re: Leaving the Gay Life Behind

#3 10-29-09 9:52 pm

Re: Leaving the Gay Life Behind

#4 10-29-09 9:55 pm

Re: Leaving the Gay Life Behind

#5 10-29-09 11:02 pm

Re: Leaving the Gay Life Behind

#6 10-30-09 12:46 pm

Re: Leaving the Gay Life Behind

#7 10-31-09 1:56 am

Re: Leaving the Gay Life Behind

#8 10-31-09 10:45 am

Re: Leaving the Gay Life Behind

#9 10-31-09 1:21 pm

Re: Leaving the Gay Life Behind

#10 10-31-09 4:50 pm

Re: Leaving the Gay Life Behind

#11 10-31-09 4:56 pm

Re: Leaving the Gay Life Behind

#12 10-31-09 5:04 pm

Re: Leaving the Gay Life Behind

#13 10-31-09 11:29 pm

Re: Leaving the Gay Life Behind

#14 11-01-09 12:33 pm

Re: Leaving the Gay Life Behind

#15 11-01-09 6:11 pm

Re: Leaving the Gay Life Behind

#16 11-01-09 8:34 pm

Re: Leaving the Gay Life Behind

Board footer