Nope.
You are wrong on this one.
1st off I never grew up.
Secondly a good Godly family has parents who have lots of open communication with their children without fear of recriminations for discussing feelings and thoughts.
Oops, the Deacon's Son is Gay
- Thread starter Arthur81
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are wrong on this one.
1st off I never grew up.
Secondly a good Godly family has parents who have lots of open communication with their children without fear of recriminations for discussing feelings and thoughts.
As far as I know a homosexuality is one who loves emotionally a person of the same sex, including sexual acts while a sodalite is one who performs sexual acts for their gratification.
Do not judge according to appearance but judge righteous judgment
Bible Gateway passage: John 7:24 - King James Version
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
If any action goes against the Word of God then it is righteous judgment _ agree or disagree?
In your scenario you had the young man saying what his preferences was. In your scenario you had the young man saying that God has not spoken against his preferences which is an untrue statement.
It seems to me that there are actively more gays on Christian sites and creating their own so-called Christian sites, and they are always bringing up their lgbtq rights and denial of scripture than there are Christians actively seeking them out.
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
It isn't that easy. Let me pull back the curtain...
I have a step-son who is gay. And to be honest, I knew this was likely the case well before he did - from the time he was about 10 years old, before he was even aware of being sexually attracted to anyone.
While he lived at my house, we had a good relationship. Communication was open. I HAD that conversation with him when he was 17. But even well before that my wife and I already knew... and steered him away from that as much as possible. A point was made to keep him engaged elsewhere, to give him goals, to keep him engaged in a community. That all worked - he graduated high school the salutatorian of his class, student body president, lettered in 3 sports, was captain in two. He held age-appropriate part-time jobs and learned to work and spent significant hours volunteering in the community.
But once he moved out of our house, once his parents no longer scheduled his life, he found a boyfriend and 'came out.' By any other measure, he remains a successful man - he recently earned his BS in biochemical engineering from a prestigious university on a full-ride scholarship, he's now pursuing a Master's. He remains connected to his old schools, teachers and friends to the extent that they haven't rejected him for being gay.
Even now, our relationship is not bad. It isn't quite what it was when he lived here, but that's pretty normal for someone in their early 20's who's moved into their own place. I care about him. I haven't cut him out of my life... though he knows that I don't approve, and he can't bring his boyfriend to my home.
I guess I'm rambling... maybe I just needed to vent. But there's a point I set out to make... having THAT CONVERSATION doesn't change those feeling and thoughts. It isn't something you can TALK somebody out of... it isn't necessarily a choice they made. Certainly for some they would have chosen differently if possible.
I used to think differently. I don't anymore. It is as much a matter of nature as it is nurture. I've seen it.
I'm not discounting what you saw....
But you as much admitted the issue with his being a step son.
Imagine, if you will, that children are kinda like buckets of paint. You need a whole lot of blue paint to turn a bucket of red paint blue again....and in many cases its not possible especially when all of society is telling him things counter to what you are saying.
When a child's foundational pillars crumble their whole world does. And when everyone is telling them lies....their parents (who fight constantly) are not considered any different from everyone else.
I'm not saying that you didn't try...or that you specifically caused this by introducing lots of extra sin into the child's life....Paul explains things in much broader environment than specifically any one action. And that's why I rely upon Paul.
I'm from a similar generation BUT one with a huge difference that said specifically that you don't listen to the whole world telling you what you think or feel. Where a guy can enjoy needlepoint without it turning into a sexual orientation. Strange, but lived out specifically in front of us.
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
His natural father died when he was a toddler. I don't know that he has any memories of the man. I met his mom when he was 5, we started dating a year later, and he was about 7 when we married. It's hard to imagine the problem originating with some sin when he was so small.
Well, there was a vacuum in his life for a while....it's not like he wasn't affected by his father's passing and being raised solely by his mother....or that his mother wasn't an emotional wreck by losing her husband and some of that somehow got twisted by him into being affeminate....then you as a new dad were not completely comfortable in the role of a father to this child that wasn't yours but you took responsibility for with your eyes wide open. Again, I'm not saying that you didn't try to do the right things...not in the least. You did the best you could. But somehow it wasn't enough. Because since the 80's you had the entire world telling children that "affeminate" males are homosexuals regardless of anything else they might think. It's a form of brainwashing....but I'm not a psychologist nor do I play one on the internet. They could probably tell you more about it if the whole psychology industry wasn't so insistent on creating homosexuals to begin with. There are so few that don't preach homosexuality as a viable sexual preference.
I still believe Paul....I can't not.
Christian Soldier
Well-Known Member
Before the word "homosexual" was invented around 200 years ago, the only word used to describe two men in an unnatural sexual relationship, was "Sodomites"
The word is still used to this day, I saw a news article where a president of an Islamic country was charged with "Sodomy" that word is synonymous with unnatural sex. I'm not going to specify the act it refers to but I thin k everyone knows.
We don't find any other examples of entire cities being destroyed with fire and brimstone, due to Gods wrath against the sin of Sodomy.
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
The psychology is interesting... although psychology isn't the right word. It's physiology.
Prior to birth, the brains of male fetuses are exposed to the hormone progesterone in a way that female's brains are not. It causes a physical change to how the two halves of the brain communicate. Specifically, it impairs communication between them, which allows men to think with either the (logic-dominated) left half or the (creatively-oriented) right half, independent of the other.
Since female fetuses do not endure this brain-damage, then think with both halves of their brain, together, at all times. As men age, the connected between the two halves increases, so that by the time we're old, men and women think basically identically.
But young men are a different thing. We (can I still include myself in that group?) have the capacity to think in extremes - either in a logical/abstract way that borders on detachment from the physical world, or in a mode of creative/materialistic thinking that... well, that I don't understand. I'm not that. Most men tend towards one side or the other.
Virtually all gay men tend towards right-brain dominance. Correlation is not causation, though. Plenty of right-brain men are also straight. But it is especially worth noting that right-brain dominance is NOT similar to female thinking.
I'm not a doctor either... not even on the internet. But I did have a reason to do a good bit of reading on the subject.
BlessedPeace
Well-Known Member
True. Though in my view Lot lost his righteous man standing when offering his virgin daughters to be gang raped by the townsmen instead.
The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were many. What God judges abomination, Homosexuality, is but one offense.
The idiom, know, as in, to know, is yada in Hebrew. And is the same idiom applied when Adam has sex with Eve in Genesis 4.
Many homosexuals deny the so called clobber verses in scripture actually are of God.
So committed to the idea in fact they invented a book that omits them. And in turn condones and approves their sin as of God.
What is the Queen James Bible? | GotQuestions.org
What is the Queen James Bible? Are any of the changes made by the Queen James Bible’s editors plausible?
www.gotquestions.org
Christian Soldier
Well-Known Member
I love the so called "clobber verses", as they instantly destroy false interpretationsTrue. Though in my view Lot lost his righteous man standing when offering his virgin daughters to be gang raped by the townsmen instead.
The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were many. What God judges abomination, Homosexuality, is but one offense.
The idiom, know, as in, to know, is yada in Hebrew. And is the same idiom applied when Adam has sex with Eve in Genesis 4.
Many homosexuals deny the so called clobber verses in scripture actually are of God.
So committed to the idea in fact they invented a book that omits them. And in turn condones and approves their sin as of God.
What is the Queen James Bible? | GotQuestions.org
What is the Queen James Bible? Are any of the changes made by the Queen James Bible’s editors plausible?www.gotquestions.org
Yes, let us go back 200 years, and that puts close to the definitions found then, as stated in the 1828 Webster's English Dictionary.
"ABU'SER, n. s as z. One who abuses, in speech or behavior; one that deceives; a ravisher; a sodomite. 1 Cor 6."
You see that an abuser, a deceiver, a ravisher is a "sodomite". That certainly does NOT define homosexual! What about "ravisher" -
"RAV'ISHER, n. 1. One that takes by violence. 2. One that forces a woman to his carnal embrace."
Here you see that a "sodomite" is involved with violence, force, rape! Paul uses the same word in 1 Tim. 1:10 where the word "defile" is added to the meaning of a "sodomite"...
DEFILE, v.t.
" 5. To corrupt chastity; to debauch; to violate; to tarnish the purity of character by lewdness. Schechem defiled Dinah. Gen 34."
Again, you see that rape is connected to a "sodomite". That is Not a definition of a homosexual.
When I see people equate the biblical word "sodomite" as the old biblical word for "homosexual", I see very ignorant people parroting the LIE of evangelicals and fundamentalists. When I wish to know the old definition of "sodomite", if find by searching the 1828 Webster's.
In my scenario, I said absolutely nothing of "preference". Of course, the proper word is "orientation" anyway.Do not judge according to appearance but judge righteous judgment
Bible Gateway passage: John 7:24 - King James Version
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.www.biblegateway.com
If any action goes against the Word of God then it is righteous judgment _ agree or disagree?
In your scenario you had the young man saying what his preferences was. In your scenario you had the young man saying that God has not spoken against his preferences which is an untrue statement.
It seems to me that there are actively more gays on Christian sites and creating their own so-called Christian sites, and they are always bringing up their lgbtq rights and denial of scripture than there are Christians actively seeking them out.
BlessedPeace
Well-Known Member
OK.
Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Sodomite
Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Sodomite
Sodomite
SOD'OMITE, noun
1. An inhabitant of Sodom.
2. One guilty of sodomy.
Sodomy
SOD'OMY, noun A crime against nature.
Christian Soldier
Well-Known Member
I'm sure there are other dictionaries apart from Websters, which would define the word "Sodomite" as Homosexual.
I can't see how anyone can deny that the men and boys of Sodom, came to "sodomize" the Angels who were visiting Lot. Notice they rejected Lots daughters, instead insisting to sexually penetrate the Angels, who were in the form of men.
The term "Sodomize" is still used by many to describe the unnatural sex act between two men. I don't see any particular problem with using the word Sodomite to describe a Homosexual. It doesn't contradict the Bible and it is wieldy accepted.
You said a lot - sorry I didn't read it all because you are totally on the wrong track.Do not judge according to appearance but judge righteous judgment
Bible Gateway passage: John 7:24 - King James Version
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
If any action goes against the Word of God then it is righteous judgment _ agree or disagree?
In your scenario you had the young man saying what his preferences was. In your scenario you had the young man saying that God has not spoken against his preferences which is an untrue statement.
It seems to me that there are actively more gays on Christian sites and creating their own so-called Christian sites, and they are always bringing up their lgbtq rights and denial of scripture than there are Christians actively seeking them out.
Instead of you understanding it for what it means you felt it had an ulterior motive even to the point where you seem to indirectly accusing me of being gay (it caught my eye).
Now I say it in my words if the judgment is righteous then judge accordingly.
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
I think you are jumping to some false conclusions/accusations about the topic starter.
- hates the truth and embraces corruption? (nope)
- liberal pervert? (nope)
- espouses unnatural affections? (nope)
- espouses the taking of the lives of unborn children? (nope)
- Satan has blinded? (nope)
- joyously following the highway to hell? (nope)
Wrong on all counts. (false witness?)
Welcome to the forum. (sigh)
[
This is always going to be an emotive subject to debate, please can you discuss the subject/ scenario rather than making personal comments to one another or to groups of people in general.
One question about the beginning of the OP - Genesis was quoted ‘ It is not good for man to be alone ‘ I don’t really see how that is applicable here. Adam was completely alone apart from the animals , so God was communicating that it was not good for Adam to have no other human contact. So to use that as an argument seems a bit odd to me, given that we are surrounded by people. God had given Adam responsibility over his creation and God recognised that he could not do it alone. He provided him with a helpmate.
Just to add context to my own views, I do not like all the judgments that are often made , as a mother to a son who is bi sexual it is something that I have personally had to work through- God worked In my sons life, knowing this fact about him.
One question about the beginning of the OP - Genesis was quoted ‘ It is not good for man to be alone ‘ I don’t really see how that is applicable here. Adam was completely alone apart from the animals , so God was communicating that it was not good for Adam to have no other human contact. So to use that as an argument seems a bit odd to me, given that we are surrounded by people. God had given Adam responsibility over his creation and God recognised that he could not do it alone. He provided him with a helpmate.
Just to add context to my own views, I do not like all the judgments that are often made , as a mother to a son who is bi sexual it is something that I have personally had to work through- God worked In my sons life, knowing this fact about him.
Ah, no offense intended, certainly, but I say you are reading at least that one thing in Genesis 2 that far too shallowly. Marriage is a high calling; God created woman for man, brought her to him, and called her to be with him, even as one flesh, and yes, his helper. But that word 'helper,' although used in a lesser sense, of course, is the same word (in Hebrew) that Jesus uses (in Greek) for the Holy Spirit in John 14. We all need each other, certainly, and that's why He gave us each other ~ for the common good, regarding gifts of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). But the relationship between man and wife is far above that; it is (should be, anyway) a covenant between God and man and wife.
You know, this whole thing about judgments... And this goes to the OP, too...
Man's sin, and propensity to it ~ his knowing it ~ is a result of the fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. This sinful nature in man manifests itself in all individuals in individual ways; individuals have specific propensities toward particular sins ~ even sexual sin, of which homosexuality is but one.
Regarding 'judging' in particular, we can and should make judgments ~ according to God's Word, of course ~ regarding what sin is and therefore that it (sin) is wrong, and to both keep ourselves from it (the sin, not the sinner) and to try to lead others from it, although this is ultimately a work of the Holy Spirit, Who, according to the will of God, in His kindness, leads us to repentance (Romans 2). But no man (or woman, of course) can possibly judge in the way God does ~ in the sense of administering judgment or pronouncing condemnation upon any man or woman who dwells in his or her sin. If he or she does, then that itself is sin... presuming to sit in the Seat that only God, our Creator, can possibly occupy.
Lastly, all sin can be repented of. As believers, we should continually pray for the repentance of ourselves as well as others... that God, in His kindness, would, by the work of His Spirit, work this repentance in us, give us a deep and lasting repentance. One great day, we know ~ thanks be to God; all His promises are 'yes' and 'amen' in Christ Jesus ~ that every tear will be wiped from our eyes, and that there will be no more sin.
Grace and peace to all.
No offence taken @PinSeeker , I just thought it was a weird starting point for what followed in the OP that’s all xx
I felt that the whole reason for saying that because it’s not good for man to be alone , it then goes on to justify why two people who love each other should be together. As far as I can see they are two different issues. I mean my husband had affairs, he ‘ was in love ‘ with the other women, but I doubt Genesis 1 could be used in that situation. That’s what I meant about them being different issues.
Not sure I have explained that properly
I felt that the whole reason for saying that because it’s not good for man to be alone , it then goes on to justify why two people who love each other should be together. As far as I can see they are two different issues. I mean my husband had affairs, he ‘ was in love ‘ with the other women, but I doubt Genesis 1 could be used in that situation. That’s what I meant about them being different issues.
Not sure I have explained that properly
Last edited:
Similar threads
