Gay Christians who choose celibacy.....

[revolutionist90]

As Rush would say "Words mean things.". In that vein, would you say that you are a male christian? a woman christian? a white christian? a  black christian? a drunk christian? a thieving christian? a murdering christian? or is it OK just to say you are a 'gay christian' and it does not mean anything more than a thieving, murdering, drunk christian? The word we use to describe ourselves is something of which we are proud. So in that respect, what does a celibate christian mean? If they are proud of the fact that they were gay ( a word I resent because it meant something happy and has been sullied) then they have not changed and the Word of God is clear on where they stand in His eyes. If they have been forgiven and no longer have any desire for that life choice and are forgiven I cannot condemn. If they still harbour a desire then they are lost and given over to the reprobate lifestyle - not by me - but by God.

I completely agree!!

[Fez]

 

 

Simply put, if we think that all the things that have been with us for years and years will suddenly just vanish we are deluded.

 

If one allows certain sinful acts or attitudes to stick around for years and years without allowing the Lord dominion over them, then one is deluded.

 

So you are now perfect? No wrong thoughts, no dubious desires, no envy, pride ........? I don't think many of us have attained that state!

 

Agreed. No one (except Jesus) has, nor can mortal man achieve such a state.

[Floatingaxe]

 

 

Simply put, if we think that all the things that have been with us for years and years will suddenly just vanish we are deluded.

 

If one allows certain sinful acts or attitudes to stick around for years and years without allowing the Lord dominion over them, then one is deluded.

 

So you are now perfect? No wrong thoughts, no dubious desires, no envy, pride ........? I don't think many of us have attained that state!

 

 

No, I will never be perfect until I finally meet my Jesus face to face.

 

Every born again believer who is serious about their walk with God has the odd wrong thought or has to make an adjustment in their thinking or attitude about one thing or another in life, but when a person has been PLAGUED with perversity----THAT needs to be dealt with swiftly and once and for all! Jesus died for that, and it needs to be GONE. We have our spiritual, mental and physical healing in hand---so we must take hold of what Jesus died to give us, or remain in bondage and at a level that will keep us from having all that God wants us to have.

[revolutionist90]

 

But Shiloh also noted that you were misunderstanding his point. Instead of claiming that someone must obvious be misunderstanding maybe it is because the internet sucks when trying to articulate difficult matters. If we were talking face to face it might be easier. I understand what you were talking about with Paul. Also you state misunderstanding when sometimes a person might just disagree . 

 

You misunderstand me. Or disagree with me, idk.  I never said that both do not begin with desire. I'm actually certain I did not say anything about desire or one being better/worse than the other. And the point that I was trying to make is that celibacy for homosexuals is not biblically correct. Though both have lust it is the homosexual that is completely a sin- celibacy or not. 1 Corinth 6:9 does not have anywhere that heterosexuals(in totality) will not make it to the gates of heaven but it does state that homosexuals will not. You are equating homosexuals behavior and identity to the sin of adultery which to me is like comparing apples and oranges. Homosexuality in entirety is a sin while heterosexuality is not even though there are sins that heterosexuals commit. Homosexuals, though, are already in a state of sin. IF they don't think their homosexuality identity is a sin and only think homosexual behaviors are a sin then their celibacy is still meaningless. But for a heterosexual to claim heterosexuality and claim celibacy then they are okay...and if they wanted to married it is equally okay because heterosexuality, in and of itself, is not a sin. 

I understand that God sees all sin the same but in terms of comparing adultery to homosexuality with the sake of abstinence is a strange comparison. If an adulterer abstains they would have to abstain from the other person and not from their married spouse. A fornicator could remain celibate and focus on God but what if they have the completely natural desire to marry? If a homosexual is celibate but have the desire to marry that is sin so no matter how they spin the argument they are forever in sin if they are homosexuals. And again there is no actual method for trying to keep from sinning because it is already a sin so even if they are celibate if they in their hearts do not believe that their homosexuality is wrong (and just believe homosexual sex is wrong) then their celibacy is for naught. I don't think anyone can simply pray away their sins. They do have to put some effort into it but I think the first step for homosexuals is not to claim celibacy but to state that their homosexuality is a sin and that they want to choose to not be a homosexual anymore. They will falter of course but they at least know that what they are doing is wrong.  

As of now we don't know how the men in the OP think about their homosexuality. Do they believe homosexuals (in totality) and not just behaviors are sin? Some do not believe homosexuality is a sin (think of the Catholic church) but that the acts are the sin. I disagree in that I think the entirety of homosexuality is a sin. 

 

Me and Shilohs matter have nothing to do with your complete disregard for what I said.  If you don't misunderstand what I said then you are just bearing false witness.  You did state that I don't believe what Paul said.  Those where your words.  I made it very clear and even chalked it up to you misunderstanding my point.  I would think that would be simple enough. But if not then your are knowingly making a false charge.  I would rather just believe that you misunderstood my point and thought I didn't believe what Paul was saying because you misunderstood.  

 

-"I understand what you were talking about with Paul." I stated that in my last post which means that I understood what you were saying about Paul after you clarified your post. I disagree with your premise for the rest of your belief regarding homosexuality. You brought up the two scenarios but then stated that maybe we don't really know what Jesus was talking about and my response to that was Jesus didn't really say anything about homosexuals. 

 

-"Me and Shilohs matter have nothing to do with your complete disregard for what I said"  Whoa! I did not disregard what you said. I paid close attention and read your post. In the end I disagreed!!!! Just because I disagree with you does not mean I am being rude. And you brought up Shiloh in your last post! "Now, because I had this talk with Shiloh just recently I am thankful that you are still misrepresting my post. " There is your comment!

-I was stating that both you and Shiloh were misinterpreting each other. But thanks for stating that I disregarded you when I did not. 

 

-Okay... I don't know if it is the internet but this post was unnecessary and seriously bordering on rude. You stated that you will try to make things clearer so you seem to have noticed that your post might have been worded poorly.. I later stated after your post that I understood what you meant about Paul but I disagree with the rest of your post. But disregarding the apostle for a moment. 

 

"If you don't misunderstand what I said then you are just bearing false witness".

 

-And now with the name calling. So basically if I disagree with you I am doing the horrible wrong of bearing false witness? Proof? You sound very arrogant. I disagree with what you were saying on this topic and even after your clarification about Paul I still disagree with your interpretation. That is not bearing false witness and I would like proof of how I am bearing false witness by simply disagreeing with you. 

Are you talking about the Paul comment or are you talking about your interpretation of homosexuality. At first I thought you were talking about your part of the discussion about homosexuality...in which I I would take you "false witness" comment as an insult. If you are talking about the Paul comment then please read the beginning of my post. 

 

Again, you seem to have missed the point.  The fact is Paul was speaking to saints that had these desires.  Now Paul did not disqualify them based on the desire, and told them before this thing becomes more then you should be married so it does not destroy your fellowship with Jesus.  Likewise should we not do the same for those that have believed in Christ and have had homosexual relationships.  Should we not say that hey, it is better to not get into those relationships than to burn.  The thing about these ones in the OP is they understand that they have this with them.  Yet, it is the condemnation of the saints that will often cause those to dump it.   

 

-Where does it say that Paul was talking to specifically saints with these desires? And why does that make a difference to what you are trying to say. But if the men do not claim that homosexuality is a sin then there is no difference. That is the point that I am making if homosexuality in entirety is a sin then just stopping the behavior is not enough they must renounce the sin of homosexuality. I understand that we can sin and not even know but I do believe their are some sins that you know are wrong. No one commits adultery, theft, lying, or cheating without knowing what they are doing. You don't just slip and fall and commit adultery. The same with homosexuality. 

Again where does it say Paul was only talking to the Saints? Was he actually condemning the saints or was he explaining how to live? I am specifically thinking about 1 Corinth 6:9 I am unsure which scriptures you are coming from...

 

-And I'm not misunderstanding you. I am disagreeing with you about homosexuality (I get your comment about Paul but there are other things I disagree with). There is a difference and I am not lying (bearing false witness) because I disagree with you. We are literally going around in circles. I disagree with your view on homosexuality. That is not bearing false witness. And I have already stated (more than once) that I understand your comment about Paul. 

 

What i find even more disturbing is that we big up the saints of old despite their numerous failures and issues.  We would call them brothers despite these issues.  Yet because these ones have this issue we tend to be less compassionate.  We will quickly level disdain and our opinion on if they are saved, have repented, or whatever else we do.  Is Homosexuality a sin...yes, I believe that it is.  But I also believe that God in His mercy will deal with the hearts of these ones despite their misunderstandings.  This is why I say is Jesus disqualifies us because of the desire or does He want us to understand that we are corrupt to the core, and its not just our actions that are the problem.  

 

-I am not less compassionate about homosexuals. I am talking about them now because that is the point of the thread. And the OP did ask our opinions about homosexuals who are celibate. My posts were not in disdain and it is true that it is important for such a sin to be realized. Due to the nature of the OP question I think it is natural to question the stance of the men on homosexuality ( behavior and identity) and if you think that is disdain then we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I get your trying to make sure that we are not ignorant of our own arrogance but the point of the post was to talk about homosexuality. If the post was about other sins I think we would have been equally as harsh. 

 

-We bring up the Saints because they are in the Bible and they were apostles. They let the Holy Spirit guide them through their writing and your opinion of the Saints is what led me to question your view of Paul in the first place. If you think talking about the Saints is disturbing then that is your opinion...I disagree. 

I would also ask have you read the article that is the topic of discussion?

Yes. Have you?

 

Also I didn't answer the last question in your last post: 

I have stated many times that one can fight sin (not completely vanish) through Jesus but his words about homosexuality were not recorded. I think it is interesting that he was confronted with the sins of heterosexuals but not with homosexuals. Jesus did die on the cross for our sins but homosexuals will still not enter the gates of heaven. Heterosexuals though who suffer from homosexual temptations, realize those temptations are sinful, repent and with the help of God fight is a different story. I have stated (I don't think you read that) that labeling is important and is what creates the kink with these celibate homosexuals.

Edited June 21, 2013 by revolutionist90

[revolutionist90]

My responses are in order of your response:

 

1. Great! The comment about Paul is now aside. When I first read the post I was really confused and bit miffed but then I thought for a minute and concluded that you were talking about the misunderstanding with Paul's comment (or I hope you were referring to the comment).

 

 

2. Good we are on the same page concerning Paul. I understood that you were using an analogy instead of an actual statement. 

 

3.While I do try to keep track of the posts when they get to page 10 and onward I lose track of what people are saying. But while I cannot state if they are Christians or not if they do not see their homosexual attraction as sinful then that is still a problem and I think the celibacy does not help. They are stopping a symptom of the sin which is actual sexual acts instead of confronting the sin itself which is homosexuality in general. 

 

4.By disagreement I was still confused about the bearing false witness and if that was in regards to Paul's comment or my own comment with homosexuality. Sorry I misunderstood.I think we do have a disagreement about how homosexuality pertains the group in the OP. But I will clarify that I do not question if they are Christians but I do question if they doing the right thing to tackle their homosexuality in that they don't seem to be confronting the root of the problem which is the sin but only the symptom which is active homosexual behavior.

 

5.Cool. Understanding is always good.

 

6. Okay I understand what you are saying with that comment about the apostles. 

 

7.Good we both have read the article

 

8.Just to clarify I don't think heterosexual sins are worse than homosexuality and I'm sorry if I made it sound like a hierarchy. I guess what I was trying to say was: heterosexuality is like a healthy tree but it does sprout mutated branches that yields no/bad fruit (i.e fornication and adultery). Homosexuality is seen as an infection. It can corrupt a normal, healthy tree until no matter what branches spring up they are always corrupted. A heterosexual tree can cut off all the branches (acts of sin) and fight off the infection (sin) through Christ. A homosexual tree no matter how many branches are cut off will never become normal and healthy. So if the heterosexual tree cut off the branch of adultery, though, the germs of lust is still inside the tree it knows it is there and fights it off to become healthy but if a homosexual tree has no branches at all it is still unhealthy. At the root heterosexuality is normal and good but homosexuality is never good and is a corruption of heterosexuality. The only way to fight off homosexuality is through Christ so treating the infection of the tree. I hope that makes more sense.

 1 Corinth does state that homosexuals will not enter the gates of heaven then something must change for those who still claim homosexual identity. Yes Jesus died on the cross for our sins but yet I do believe one must embrace him to go through him to get to heaven. With looking solely at homosexuality in this OP group they still claim their identity even though they have given up the sexual behavior. Since it does specifically state that homosexuals will not enter I would think a renouncement of the label and behavior is a better direction. Claim ex-gay status and become celibate. 

Maybe I am misunderstanding: Do you think homosexuality is a corruption of heterosexuality like a branch of sin? Or a part of an identity in that a persons identity is that of a homosexual?

[Floatingaxe]

 

I have stated many times that one can fight sin (not completely vanish) through Jesus but his words about homosexuality were not recorded. I think it is interesting that he was confronted with the sins of heterosexuals but not with homosexuals.

 

This is one ridiculous comment. Jesus is the Word. Whatever the scriptures state about homosexuals, He has plainly spoken.

[SevenOp]

 

God doesn't make people gay. Studies have shown that many gay people have been molested as children and were exposed to sexual sin in the early stages of their sexual development.

I'm skeptical of that claim. Could you provide a link to one of these studies?

Do you think the fact that the Catholic view implies that God does make people gay is evidence against the plausibility of that view?

 

 

Science can be wrong. Science thought that Haley's comet was a chunk of ice. They were wrong. It's elecromagnetic. Now science thinks that cause people have certain genes that it makes them homosexual. They could be wrong again and I think they are. I've been taught that it's sexual orientation but it doesn't add up. And yeah, I thought they were just wired wrong too but this changed that up.

 

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 10:9

I am the door: by Me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

John 6:40

And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

 

In those scriptures, He says "whosoever", "any man", and "every one". If He created gay people then he wouldn't say it that way. He woulda said "whosoever that I didn't make gay", "any man I didn't make gay", and "every one I didn't make gay.".

Shiloh's post lists the scriptures that say that homosexuality is a sin. So no, I don't believe He created sinners.

 

About the OP. What's really important is for them to be filled with the Holy Spirit cause that's what transforms people. Jesus is the way, not us and it's really not a chore, it's just all about being willing to be saved. The trees, the sky, all the animals, and everything else were created by God. I think that through Jesus Christ, all things are possible, even losing the gay lifestyle. I mean, if He can raise the dead then he can definitely fix them too.

 

Matthew 7:7-8

7 Ask, and it shall be given you, seek, and ye shall find, knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

8 For every one that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

 

Edit. If they seek to be filled up with the Holy Spirit then they will learn that homosexuality is a sin. They can't fix it till they understand.

Edited June 22, 2013 by SevenOp

[Floatingaxe]

 

 

God doesn't make people gay. Studies have shown that many gay people have been molested as children and were exposed to sexual sin in the early stages of their sexual development.

I'm skeptical of that claim. Could you provide a link to one of these studies?

Do you think the fact that the Catholic view implies that God does make people gay is evidence against the plausibility of that view?

 

 

Science can be wrong. Science thought that Haley's comet was a chunk of ice. They were wrong. It's elecromagnetic. Now science thinks that cause people have certain genes that it makes them homosexual. They could be wrong again and I think they are. I've been taught that it's sexual orientation but it doesn't add up. And yeah, I thought they were just wired wrong too but this changed that up.

 

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 10:9

I am the door: by Me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

John 6:40

And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

 

In those scriptures, He says "whosoever", "any man", and "every one". If He created gay people then he wouldn't say it that way. He woulda said "whosoever that I didn't make gay", "any man I didn't make gay", and "every one I didn't make gay.".

Shiloh's post lists the scriptures that say that homosexuality is a sin. So no, I don't believe He created sinners.

 

About the OP. What's really important is for them to be filled with the Holy Spirit cause that's what transforms people. Jesus is the way, not us and it's really not a chore, it's just all about being willing to be saved. The trees, the sky, all the animals, and everything else were created by God. I think that through Jesus Christ, all things are possible, even losing the gay lifestyle. I mean, if He can raise the dead then he can definitely fix them too.

 

Matthew 7:7-8

7 Ask, and it shall be given you, seek, and ye shall find, knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

8 For every one that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

 

Edit. If they seek to be filled up with the Holy Spirit then they will learn that homosexuality is a sin. They can't fix it till they understand.

 

 

 

Yep.

[revolutionist90]

 

 

I have stated many times that one can fight sin (not completely vanish) through Jesus but his words about homosexuality were not recorded. I think it is interesting that he was confronted with the sins of heterosexuals but not with homosexuals.

 

This is one ridiculous comment. Jesus is the Word. Whatever the scriptures state about homosexuals, He has plainly spoken.

 

I'm going to go and say you probably didn't read all of my other posts. And maybe a simple "I don't understand your statement" would have suffice instead of immediately calling everything ridiculous but again I don't think you read the rest of my post. But anyway, there is no specific about how homosexuals should act in regards to if they should be celibate or not...that is what I meant about his words on homosexuality were not recorded. Since there was no specific ruling regarding how homosexuals should act in relationships or just in general their lifestyle these homosexuals who are celibate in the article do not have scripture to back them up on if they are doing the correct thing. My next sentences ties into the first in that since Jesus specifically talked about heterosexual sins and how heterosexuals should not indulge in homosexual sin so homosexuality itself and not just the behavior is the sin. So one must confront homosexuality in totality and not just confront the sexual behaviors of homosexuality. Since the men in the OP still claim they are homosexuals they are just treating the behavior and not sin since homosexuality in entirety must be confronted as explained before in this posts. My statement before was tying into my previously stated ideas in regards to if the homosexuals who claim celibacy were on the right track. So basically I don't think the homosexuals who are celibate are on the right track because it does not seem like they are confronting the identity of homosexuality (they still call themselves gay) and instead are confronting the sexual behavior. Since there is no scripture about how a homosexual should act in regards to celibacy or abstinence the scripture sees homosexuality in entirety a sin and thus a corruption of heterosexuality the celibacy of these men could be all the for naught. 

 

I stated that the Bible is the word before in my post (me and another poster and a serious misunderstanding in regards to a comment about Paul) so I agree that Jesus is the word and I agree that everything is pretty plain to understand. I was just trying to decipher between homosexual acts and the entirety of homosexual sin since I thought that was a contingency in regarding many of these posts. 

[MorningGlory]

Homo acts, homo sin...the defining point here is that one chooses to identify as a __________ Christian.

 

I think it was said earlier, that Gay Christian is an oxymoron; said surely by someone who is not interested in an individual's orientation, at least until they choose to attempt to tack it on in front of Christian. Wadr, at least to all those homos who are not Mr Garrisons, could (you) please take a look at that? You have made a choice, in IDing with the term Gay (which you also are not; my grandmother is gay, and she is married to my grandfather), even though many/most/all are not interested in who you are sleeping with, and are thinking TMI as you are professing this.

 

Am I judging? Nope--you have judged yourself here, verbally or in writing, when you attempt to qualify Christian with anything. I am a sinner, too, and it is not hard to perceive the reason why a homo would strive (strive, strive) so diligently in this area (any protestations that it is for equal rights be damned); to justify their sin, and gain attention for themselves. Self, self, self. I find  the sin of being a homo to be no worse than any other sin; but they do not see a sin at all, in their behavior, celibate or not, and refuse to contemplate that their homoness derives from immaturity, wadr.

 

The sharp decline in those claiming Gay in the older demographic--a time when one typically is considered more secure in themselves, and less likely to "closet" themselves out of fear of their peer's opinions--speaks for me here. In volumes.

 

While I agree with you that a Christian cannot be gay.....I believe it's up to God to decide if those who identify as a 'gay Christian' but choose to remain celibate are repentant.  I also believe that using the term 'homo' is derogatory.  Words DO matter and a demeaning attitude toward those needing deliverance from homosexual thoughts and desires will not, in any way, help them.  I';m positive that some reading this thread, and others, are in that group. That being said; welcome to Worthy.