After Steve
Chalke and Rob Bell joined the ‘Accepting
Evangelicals’ Group in affirming faithful same-sex erotic
relationships earlier this year a new group of ‘post-gay’ evangelical Christian
leaders has emerged.
Their testimonies are clear, powerful, hugely encouraging and most welcome at a time when many young evangelicals are genuinely confused about the issue.
These are men in pastoral ministry who admit to feelings of
same sex attraction but who also see the Bible’s prohibitions on same-sex
relationships as non-negotiable.
The core of this new group, recently interviewed by Christianity
magazine, are Sam Alberry, a church leader in Maidenhead, Sean Doherty, a tutor
at St Mellitus College, and Ed Shaw, who helps to lead Emmanuel Church in
Bristol.
They are shortly to launch a website called ‘Living Out’,
aimed at helping others think through the realities of being same-sex attracted
while remaining committed to a biblical
sexual morality.
Doherty (pictured), who has experienced some degree of shift
in his sexual feelings and is now married, explains how his own church
experience helped him:
‘Church was a place of nurture and unconditional
acceptance, but at the same time the teaching was clear that I shouldn’t act on
those sexual desires. In an environment where young people were being
encouraged to experiment, I was really grateful that I had been kept from acting
on my feelings.’
He is reluctant to describe himself as gay and instead
adopts terminology adopted by blogger Peter
Ould who has a similar testimony:
‘I don’t speak of myself as an “ex-gay” person. I prefer
the term “post-gay”. You choose to move away from the label of “gay”
altogether, which has come to be associated with a certain lifestyle. I’ve
clearly experienced some change in my feelings so that I am attracted to my
wife. But it’s definitely not a 180-degree reorientation. All of us will continue
to have desires and feelings which aren’t right, until Jesus returns.’
Alberry and Shaw share Doherty’s perspective, but accept
that they will remain celibate if their orientation does not change.
Alberry
previously posted an article titled ‘How
can the Gospel be good news to gays?’ on the Gospel Coalition website,
where he takes a firm biblical stance on the issue but argues strongly and
compassionately that people with homosexual orientation need more grace and not
less.
Last year Vaughan Roberts, a leading conservative evangelical, spoke for the first time of his own struggle with same-sex attraction in an interview with Evangelicals Now. His testimony is clear, biblical, passionate and pastoral and well worthy of study.
Alberry, Doherty and Shaw's experience, and those of Ould and Roberts,
underline the fact that there is a
difference between experiencing same sex attraction and choosing to
participate in homosexual erotic behaviour.
The Bible is very clear that all sexual relations outside
marriage (a life-long exclusive monogamous heterosexual public covenant
relationship) are morally wrong (Leviticus 18:6-23, 20:10-21; Romans 1:26, 27;
1 Corinthians 6:9,10; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; 1 Timothy 1:9,10;
Revelation 22:15). This includes fornication, adultery, same-sex relations and
all other sorts of sex imaginable, even if you are deeply in love with
the other person.
Claiming that we are just ‘being true to our feelings’ in this area is just as wrong as claiming that our feelings justify any other form of sin. As Jeremiah put it ‘the heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure’ (17:9) It is God’s Word that must guide us, not our feelings.
So people who become Christians, who recognize that they experience same-sex feelings or have a homosexual orientation and/or identity, are in the same category as anyone who has opposite-sex feelings but is unmarried, divorced, widowed or in a marriage relationship where, for physical or psychosexual reasons, sex is not possible.
They must accept that not having sex is their only option. For those who recognize themselves to be exclusively of homosexual orientation this may well mean that the only course open to them is staying single. Sometimes sexual orientation may change over time, but often it doesn’t.
Jesus of course was unmarried and never had sex yet we know that he ‘was tempted in all ways as we are – yet was without sin’. This must surely have included the temptation to sexual sin.
Is it possible to live a full life without having sex? Well Jesus himself did just that. And he is able to help any Christian to do the same. Marriage is a great calling but so is singleness, and sex is neither compulsory, nor necessary, in order to live a fulfilled and fruitful life.
Sex is a wonderful gift but like any gift it is not granted to all. If for any reason you can’t have sex, then ask what other good gifts God has given you, and enjoy those instead.
Claiming that we are just ‘being true to our feelings’ in this area is just as wrong as claiming that our feelings justify any other form of sin. As Jeremiah put it ‘the heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure’ (17:9) It is God’s Word that must guide us, not our feelings.
So people who become Christians, who recognize that they experience same-sex feelings or have a homosexual orientation and/or identity, are in the same category as anyone who has opposite-sex feelings but is unmarried, divorced, widowed or in a marriage relationship where, for physical or psychosexual reasons, sex is not possible.
They must accept that not having sex is their only option. For those who recognize themselves to be exclusively of homosexual orientation this may well mean that the only course open to them is staying single. Sometimes sexual orientation may change over time, but often it doesn’t.
Jesus of course was unmarried and never had sex yet we know that he ‘was tempted in all ways as we are – yet was without sin’. This must surely have included the temptation to sexual sin.
Is it possible to live a full life without having sex? Well Jesus himself did just that. And he is able to help any Christian to do the same. Marriage is a great calling but so is singleness, and sex is neither compulsory, nor necessary, in order to live a fulfilled and fruitful life.
Sex is a wonderful gift but like any gift it is not granted to all. If for any reason you can’t have sex, then ask what other good gifts God has given you, and enjoy those instead.
For a list of helpful resources for those seeking an
evangelical Christian perspective on homosexuality see my earlier
blog.
Praise God I have never had the difficulty of having same sex desires, that said I am a married man with 2 grown children and a loving wife of more than 30 years (yes I am an oldie) however there is hardly a day goes by when I do not have to have Christ win the victory over the temptation of other women.
ReplyDeleteIt is only by Gods sovereignty that I have not yielded to the temptation over the years, this is and has been especially difficult for the last few years as my wife has MS which amongst other things has meant she has no real sexual desire to get close to me.
As someone who has enjoyed sexual relations since my late teens this has been hard for me humanly speaking, however by God's grace I have found I love my wife more and more each day but as I said earlier there is still a battle to be won, a battle which only with the Grace and Sovereignty of our God and the Lord Jesus can I overcome and have victory.
An honest and inspiring thought, AR. Thank you for that. by his grace and power alone can we overcome all forms of sexual temptation.
DeleteThanks. That's an encouraging post :-)
DeleteAR, I'm not trying to belittle your post. I'm a married man of 25 years myself, and I applaud your efforts to stay faithful under obviously very trying circumstances. But I just wanted to point out that coveting is a sin, and as such you have not won a victory at all. The fact that you can be tempted, means you have desires. Desiring anything is sinful, as per Exodus 20:17 and Deut 5:21
DeleteWhat are you on about Shane?
DeleteExodus 20:17
DeleteNew International Version (NIV)
17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
Deuteronomy 5:21
New International Version (NIV)
21 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor’s house or land, his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
cov·et
/ˈkəvit/
Verb
Yearn to possess or have (something).
Wanting something is sinful. To be victorious over the sin of temptation is not to be tempted at all ... to have no desire to have sex.
To put it another way, Jesus was not free from the sin of sex because he was a virgin but because he was not at all interested in sex, and thus free of the sin of coveting. Personally, I think anyone that has no desire to have sex can not really claim a moral victory of their virginity.
I think that the definition of how desires become sin is in the verse below. Obviously, with sinful natures, we have sinful desires, but it's when we act on them that we sin. Abstaining from acting on our desires rather builds character towards the place where we no longer even have that desire.
DeleteJames 1:13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
Yes, but I mean I don't understand the point your making. Are you saying that we can never be without sinful desires so we should just give up and give in to sinful desires? Please clarify?
DeleteRosy, I am saying that he can't claim a victory over the temptation of other women if he is still tempted. Wanting anything is sin. The only way to have a shot at living a sin free life is to want nothing.
DeleteAnonymous, you are incorrect. Coveting is a sin, and by definition it is a thought sin.
DeleteAlso James is wrong. God telling Abraham to kill Isaac is tempting him to sin.
Genesis 22
22 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
Also
Deuteronomy 4:34
34 Or hath God assayed to go and take him a nation from the midst of another nation, by temptations, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the Lord your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?
Matthew 6:13 entreats God to "Lead us not into temptation". Why? ... because otherwise God would lead people into temptation.
Well, I think you're allowed to want your own wife! But why does any of this matter to you? Are you on a quest to live a sin free life?
DeleteYes, having sexual desire for your wife is not sinful (if you don't have it, your marriage is in deep trouble) ... desiring someone ELSE's wife, well ...
DeleteShane: how does your comment: "To be victorious over the sin of temptation is not to be tempted at all" fit with Hebrews 4:15?
Delete"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to feel sympathy for our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are – yet he did not sin.
Jesus was tempted in every way, but was without sin. Therefore, to be tempted is not a sin.
Covetousness is the sin of desiring to possess what is not yours. While I agree that it is simpler to disentangle "being tempted to steal" from "stealing" than it is to disentangle "being tempted to covet" from "coveting" (because both the latter are things which happen solely in your head), we need to make the distinction if we are to believe the truth in Hebrews 4:15.
But Rosy, I "wanted" my wife before we were married.
DeleteAnd it matters me because this post is about denying basic human intimacy to a selection of the population, by singling out a line of text in an old book, when so many of the other lines of text are ignored. And whilst I'm thinking about intimacy, can I have a specific ruling on what's acceptable? Is kissing okay? Is holding hands all right? What about hugging? Can they give each other back or foot rubs as long as their hands don't go above the knee or below the waist? Where do you think you should draw the line on how people in love with each other should be able to show their affection? These questions are not just for you Rosy, but for anyone that thinks they deserve to have an opinion on how others lead their lives.
gerv, I possibly didn't word that as well as I should have. I didn't mean that there shouldn't be any external temptations but that there shouldn't be any internal temptation to give into the external one. For example if Satan tempts Jesus with riches and power and Jesus is at all interested in them he would be guilty of the sin of coveting. As he was sin free he did not want riches and power and therefore it was easy for him to turn it down.
DeleteI am intrigued by your notion of "being tempted to covet". I don't see how that could work. Trying to make someone want to want something?
This post isn't actually about that, Shane. It's about how *conservative Christians* are trying to live out their faith as they understand it. It's not saying anything about anybody else's life. People are free to disagree and live their lives as they choose.
DeleteIt seems like you're trying to be clever, and, to be honest, you're not impressing me.
I think this post is about "conservative Christians" trying to live out their faith as Dr Saunders understands it.
Delete"So people who become Christians, who recognize that they experience same-sex feelings or have a homosexual orientation and/or identity, are in the same category as anyone who has opposite-sex feelings but is unmarried, divorced, widowed or in a marriage relationship where, for physical or psychosexual reasons, sex is not possible.
They must accept that not having sex is their only option."
My replies are trying to point out that if people understand it in incorrectly then living out their faith is erroneous. As Dr Saunders says above
"It is God’s Word that must guide us, not our feelings."
but previously defined marriage as
"a life-long exclusive monogamous heterosexual public covenant relationship"
and as I point out, that is not defined in that way in the bible. I would posit that he himself is being guided by his own feelings and not God's word.
I don't care if you think I'm trying to be clever and I'm not interested in impressing you. I'm interested in honesty and truth and fact. I'm interested in affording all people the same respect, rights and privileges. I am interested in speaking out against someone who has the temerity to tell others how they should live their life.
Shane, your argument goes something like 'scripture says we all sin simply by wanting to commit adultery, therefore we're all sexual sinners, therefore it's ok for people to have sex with the same sex'. It's like me saying, 'Hey, last week i wanted a dress I couldn't afford in a shop window, so I'll teach my kids that it's ok to nick their friend's ipod'.
DeletePeople have been playing these kind of scripture games for centuries. 'So, scripture says I can divorce my wife and remarry, but when I die who is my wife then?', 'Hey, scripture says that Christ is glorified by His victory over my sin, so why don't I sin some more so that Christ can get more glory? Great! Always wanted to sleep with my mother-in-law!' Sound familiar?
You see, if you just said 'Peter, I disagree with you. I think all people, no matter what their sexual orientation, should be able to have sex with the person that they love, and I don't think it matters which sex that person is.' I would respect that. That would be honest and straight forward. That might even be the basis for a constructive conversation.
Rosy, that is not my argument. Not even close. And Peter doesn't care what I think. He cares what God thinks. So my argument can not be based on the rational argument that all people are free and equal and can therefore do anything they choose, so long as it doesn't impinge on another person's freedom, no matter how logical that argument is. My argument must come from scripture, as that is where Peter's argument comes from.
DeleteSo my argument is, "How do you justify cherry picking the parts of the bible you deem to be important?" Why the focus on the first part of Leviticus 20:13 and why ignore the second part that says we should put all men that have same sex relations to death? Focussing on that same chapter:
Leviticus 20:9 - Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.
Leviticus 20:25 - You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those that I have set apart as unclean for you.
Leviticus 20:27 - A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.
Next Chapter
Leviticus 21:5 Priests must not shave their heads or shave off the edges of their beards or cut their bodies.
Anyway, there are plenty of posts like this pointing out the laws set forth by God in the Old Testament that no-one follows now, or feels the need to inflict the harsh punishment set therein. How does anyone who uses the bible as a basis for a belief in anything justify picking the parts they want to use and/or ignoring the contradictions? You might think people that point these things out are playing games, but I would suggest it is because the people that use it as a building block for their own point of view are not taking it seriously either.
I'm sorry, but I just think you're wasting your time.
DeleteThe Church held a meeting in the Fist Century when they sat down and said to themselves 'These rules have proved impossible to keep. Which should we insist the Gentiles follow and which should we forget?' The rules of sexual conduct were amongst the ones they decided to keep because they believed that they were part of natural law that had been there from the beginning, rather than the ceremonial law that had been given specifically to the Jews. Of course, I'm not an expert on this stuff myself, but I know enough to know that simply picking out verses from the Leviticus and saying 'Look, you eat shell fish, don't you? Caught you out!' just makes you look kind of ill-informed and could be mistaken for trying to be clever (and perhaps I was mistaken - so I'm sorry).
You're certainly not likely to convince Peter with any of these arguments.
Rosy, imo asking questions is never a waste of time, especially if you are ill informed. How are people meant to learn if they don't go looking for answers?
DeleteSo a google search of church laws first century bought me eventually to Acts Chapters 10 to 15, culminating in Paul saying
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
Two more questions, why does Paul get to decide what laws to follow, and what constitutes sexual immorality?
I didn't mean to be rude when I said you could sound ill informed. There are a lot of subjects on which I'm ill informed. But it rather depends on the type of questions you ask. There are genuine questions asked by people who want to be better informed, and then there are 'clever' questions, like the ones the pharisees kept asking Jesus to try to trip him up or make him look foolish so that they could arrest him for blasphemy. Those kinds of questions can back-fire and make the questioner look foolish instead.
DeletePaul was an apostle sent by Jesus Christ to teach the Church - it was his job to make these kind of decisions. There were a lot of people at the Council of Jerusalem - it wasn't just Paul speaking. In fact, as far as I can see, it was actually James who said the words you quote, in response to what Paul had told them about the Gentiles. If you read the whole of Acts, it will tell you the story of the early church - it wasn't just one lone person telling everybody else what to do.
What constitutes sexual immorality is something more scattered across the whole of scripture. It's also something that theologians and Church councils have been discussing for 2000 years. I'm not sure exactly when the early debates over homosexuality occurred, or the issues discussed, but it was discussed in the early centuries of the Church. Orthodox teaching has always settled on natural law - that you can see God's design for sex from how our bodies are made and how they function. I know gay couples think that's all nonsense, but dissenters haven't yet been able to convince the Church to change its position.
Well getting past who was talking, how do we know these people are making the correct decision. It seems to me that Jesus spent a lot of his time schooling the disciples on what they were doing wrong. Paul never met Jesus while he was alive and he was alone when he had his revelation. Peter was also alone when he had his vision. How do we know that they are teaching the right thing?
DeleteAnd connected to that is the definition of sexual immorality. My whole point here, is that I'm much less interested in what the church thinks as opposed to what God thinks.
Yes, but marriage is more than sex – it’s about companionship, shared joys and sorrows, someone to wake up with and come home to, someone to tell your day to, someone who ‘gets’ you and your sense of humour.....
ReplyDeleteIf the gentlemen above wish to deny themselves a shared life with someone of the same sex then that is completely their privilege. But not everyone, straight or gay, is called to celibacy or singleness and in the Church we don’t make it mandatory. Also, there are many civil partnered couples in our communities we would like to invite to our churches and I can't help but feel our message is heard as ‘be celibate or don’t bother’ meaning we run the risk of undermining God’s wider kingdom purposes to see these people come to faith.
Thank God for inclusive churches, where none of this is an issue.
Just a thought.
Jane
DeleteWhat is this "God’s wider kingdom"? God caused Paul to write to the Corinthians:
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NKJV)
Sexual relations are for a husband and wife in the context of marriage and such mirrors the relationship of Christ and His Church. Other relationships mar that image in just the same way as a cruel or absent father.
But Martin, the bible also teaches blanket, unconditional forgiveness for all sins (save blaspheming the holy spirit), correct?
DeleteEnjoy your banquets with Hitler and Stalin (raised in the seminary, after all).
Hi Martin
DeleteThank you for your comment here.
This is the nub of the issue and why we have The Great Divide. Many of us view civil partnered couples as couples-committed-to-marriage-but-for-whom-marriage-is-unavailable and on this basis will accord them the same privacy, autonomy and respect that we currently extend to married couples in our congregations. Other Christians will view civil partnered couples as sinful (and certainly not deserving of privacy, autonomy and respect) and on this basis consider themselves justified in making them feel very unwelcome when they visit for family communion. God’s wider kingdom purposes involve these couples coming to faith, deepening discipleship, taking their place in the Body of Christ and completing those works that he has ordained for them to do – none of this may happen, if they find church membership untenable.
The issue is not about sex, the issue is about inclusion and we need to look very closely – not at what they are doing (the civil partnered couples) but at what we are doing (unwelcoming and judgmental congregations). God is perfectly able to convict of sin by the power of the Holy Spirit and while we insist on doing his job for him, we run the risk of undermining his ongoing work with specific people at specific times in specific churches.
It is not the temptation or the attraction to the same sex that determines whether someone should be labeled as Homosexual or gay. It is the accepting and giving in to that temptation and to accept that same sex activity as a lifestyle that determines someone as being gay or homosexual. When a Christian chooses to not give in to the gay lifestyle, Jesus' own perfect righteousness and perfect sinlessness is placed on that person and God sees him as being as perfect, as sinless and as normal as His Own Son Jesus.
ReplyDeleteA homosexual is someone who is attracted to the same gender. A heterosexual is someone attracted to the opposite gender. A man doesn't become straight or gay after he has had sex, depending on the gender of the person.
DeleteYes, God forgives, "All manner of sin and blesphemy," but He also said to the Woman caught in adultery after telling her, "Neither do I condemn you..." He said to her, "...go and sin no more." God forgives us and saves us from our sins but then He expects us to trust Him and in His power to keep us from going back to them. Some of us may struggle to stay away from those sins but if we return to God's forgiveness and power to deliver us, we will eventually experience complete victory and healing.
ReplyDeleteEnjoy your banquets with history's most ruthless, vicious and heartless dictators, then.
DeleteAnd did she sin no more? No, because that's impossible. Everyone sins every day, such is the nature of man. You can't escape it. Why are your sins better than their sins?
Delete"The Bible is very clear that all sexual relations outside marriage (a life-long exclusive monogamous heterosexual public covenant relationship) are morally wrong."
ReplyDeleteThe bible is anything but clear on that.
Exodus 21:10-11
New International Version (NIV)
10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
Deuteronomy 21:15-16
New International Version (NIV)
15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.
Leviticus 18:18
New International Version (NIV)
18 “‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
(So two wives is fine, just not sisters)
Numbers 31:17-18
New International Version (NIV)
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
There were laws in the Old Testament that God (via Moses,) set up because of Polygamy among His own people, that do not apply now to God's people via Christianity now polygamy is all but extinct except among some small sections of Mormonism.
DeleteAre you suggesting that Gods laws, and therefore what constitutes sin, has changed over time because of the actions/beliefs of people on earth?
DeleteYes, Shane, of course God’s laws have changed. You have only to read the Bible to see that. The Pentateuch is full of rules which are ALL presented as solemn commands of Yahweh. They cover not only what people may and may not eat, but prohibitions of wearing clothes made of mixed fibres, sowing two kinds of grain in a field, mating your cattle with those of another kind, rounding off your hair at the edges and trimming the edges of your beard, and all sorts of other bagatelles. These prohibitions are accompanied by repeated reminders that each and every one of these commands is to be rigorously obeyed and threats of dire punishment for anyone who infringes even one of them, whatever it may be (e.g. Lev. 18:29).
DeleteWhen we come New Testament times, God has clearly changed his mind. He has decided that, on reflection, he really isn’t that bothered about any of these things that he used to get so turned in about them.
With polygamy, on the other hand, we are told that it’s the other way round. When all those Old Testament “heroes” had several wives, God didn’t utter a single bleat of protest. The surest sign of approval of polygamy is God’s attitude to King David. David had several wives – it’s difficult to keep track of them all – but God only turned stroppy about the way that David got his hooks on Uriah’s wife Bathsheba, and even then he finally decided to punish the poor little baby boy whom David sired with her instead of punishing David himself. We are, in fact, told explicitly that “David did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, and did not turn aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite” (1 Kings 15:5). We’re now told, however, that after several centuries of cogitation God came to the conclusion that perhaps polygamy isn’t such a good idea after all and decided to forbid it. Actually even that isn’t quite so clear: the only explicit prohibition of polygamy in the New Testament is the command that bishops and deacons shall be “the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2, 12). It’s possible to interpret that as meaning that non-bishops and non-deacons are allowed more than one wife each. That’s obviously how Martin Luther understood it, since he wrote, “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture.” When Philip Landgrave of Hesse wanted to marry an additional wife, Luther said to him, in effect, “That’s OK, Philip old chap, if the Old Testament patriarchs can do it, you can do it too.”
Shane Fletcher, it is the, "deed," not the, "thought," or "desire," that determines the label one puts on a person. It is what a person chooses to do with a thought, feeling, or desire that should determine a label for that person. We are not slaves to our thoughts or feelings. If a person chooses to act out a homosexual thought and actually does it, then at that point, that person can be labeled as having committed a homosexual act. But if that person chooses to not act on such a thought or feeling but rejects it, how can anyone say that such a person is Gay when he or she never acted out the gay thought or feeling? Again, humans are not slaves to their thoughts or feelings.
ReplyDeleteNo, it is fact that determines the label. I am a bald man with blue eyes. No deed or thought on my part is going to change that. Desire is a fact. I desire/am sexually aroused by women, not men, so I am heterosexual. I could die a virgin at the age of 100 but that wouldn't change the fact that an image of a naked women gives me an erection, but an image of a naked man does not.
DeleteYou seem to be clinging to a label that someone could give another person. "He never slept with a man, so we can't call him a homosexual." An omnipotent God doesn't need any sort of outward sign of such proof, but knows what is truly in a person's heart. That's why coveting is a sin, as I said above. God knows what you and everyone thinks, and we are held accountable for it. Except for Abraham ... apparently He had to let him almost murder his son before He knew he was truly faithful.
Anonymous if you mean by God, then yes. He forgives everything. If you mean by people, then sometimes not. Often by people that use God as a motivation for their hate. And that's just very sad.
ReplyDelete