Messages By: tulseyjoe

Oh, I believe that everything is possible with God; but, God and/or Jesus, through the power of the Holy Spirit, does/do not choose to do all they have the power to do. 

I seriously believe that if God and/or Jesus wanted to change a person's sexual orientation, even to asexual (meaning having absolutely no physiological sexual attractions directed at anyone), it could be done. But, it is not probable that God would even want to do that. 

As I have mentioned several times in this discussion board "I'M GAY, OK?", since the latter 1970s, I have read hundreds of so-called ex-gay testimonies or testimonies of parents claiming their son or daughter became an ex-gay and everyone of those testimonies had loopholes in the which proved that there had been absolutely no change of sexual orientation in the first place. 

Actually, a guy who is exclusively homosexual in his sexual orientation does not have to abandon himself to experiencing physiological sexual attraction sensations directed towards other guys in nearby vicinity because those sensations just automatically occur on their own. 

Oh, the "early Church" which you mentioned was not the real early church in the 1st Century AD.  

Oh, was John Chrysostom called a saint before he died by members of his church denomination; or did he beome a "saint" by a committee after he was dead.  

Saints in the Bible whom were written to by various Epistle writers were all living. 

If you are a Believer in Jesus the Christ and have made a confession of that belief, making you a believer, you are already as saint, theologically speaking and literally speaking as far as the Scripture is concerned. 

Something I can't prove; but, being as old and as educated as I am, I really think that there are more people whose sexual orientation is bisexual than heterosexuals and homosexuals combined.  

In listening to people talk in person and reading lots of journal entries and books written by licensed and certified mental health professionals, I have come to the conclusion that the number of those who are exclusively heterosexual in their sexual orientation is very close to, or the same as, the number of those who are exclusively homosexual in their sexual orientation. 

Bisexuals fit into three major groupings:  

1) Those who experience more physiological sexual attractions towards members of the opposite sex than those of the same sex. [Some of those might only experience on such sexual attraction directed at a member of the same sex; and that is what makes them a bisexual. Anne Heche is a bisexual; because she mentioned experiencing an internal sexual attraction in her relationship with Ellen.] 

2) Those who experience more physiological sexual attractions toward members of their own sex than those of the opposite sex. [I used to correspond with a person who had experienced only one physiological sexual attraction toward a woman, whom he married and stayed with permanently; but, all of his attractions were towards guys only in all of his life. He was close to 70 when he told me about himself.] 

3) Those who experience physiologically sexual attraction sensations equally to both human genders. Those people are what are called in some professional circles as "omnisexual" and the definition is found in the Oxford English Dictionary, too. "Omni" is Greek for "all."  

Now there are people who are neither male nor female, but are Intersex (or Intersexual, which used to be called "aphrodites") and they experience physiological sexual attractions toward other Intersex persons, males and/or females.  

Intersex persons are not XX, as in female, nor XY, as in male, but, are XXY, XYY, XXYY, etc., according to their gender chromosomes.  

I have friends, and have been friends with, Intersex persons. And I have experienced physiological sexual attractions toward some of them. But, I have never experienced a physiological sexual attraction toward a woman who apparently was totally female as far as chromosomes are concerned.   

The catholic (with a small "c") Bible was not put together by members or leaders of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, it was the Eastern Orthodox's early church fathers who were the ones who officially collected the books put together to make a Bible. And that collection was finalized in 397 AD. As far as the Eastern group was concerned the Biblical canon was closed and no more books needed to be added, in their opinion, of course.  

Several years later, the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church issued a "Papal Bull" in which he declared the Canon of the Bible is now closed. And because of that Bull, pun sort of intended, Roman Catholics literally believe that their denomination compiled the original official canonized Bible.  

Oh, Jesus never said divorce was a sin; he said, in effect, remarriage after getting a divorce caused the divorced/remarried person to live in the continual sinful state of adultery.  

Jesus gave a reason for a couple to get a divorce; but, he never approved of remarriage of divorced persons; because, by interpretation and theological meditation (so to speak), Jesus said, in words to this effect, "Anyone who got remarried after a divorce would be continually committing the sin of adultery."  

And, what Paul was writing (in 1 Corinthians 7:1-16) about was, in reality, a restatement of what Jesus himself had already said to his listeners back then.  

You should not have "proof-texted" those two verses from 1 Corinthians; and you should have quoted the whole context which I gave.  

There are Christians, especially "TV" preachers and local/state/national US politicians, have been divorced and remarried who against any rights of any kind for those who are not exclusively heterosexual in their sexual orientation. 

Some of those preachers, while pastoring a church, divorced their wives so that they could marry another woman in the congregation. John Hagee of San Antonio, TX 's Cornerstone church certainly did that. Hagee's case is not gossip nor hearsay; it has been documented and backed up by his previous wife, too.  

Why should I "get merried," when I am already merry, aka "gay" as in happy, with my sexual orientation of exclusive homosexuality?  

In regard to the apostle, Saul, later known as Paul, and his writings, one should read his writings in the historical and cultural context in which they were written.  

Paul was NOT against women as preachers, pastors, and/or Bible teachers. In fact, such women offered him hospitality in their homes during his ministry. 

In regard to what Paul wrote to the Believers in the church at Corinth, those two Corinthian Epistles, sometimes Paul was writing, in words to thise effect, "When in Corinth, do as the Corinthians do."  

There is no scriptural command for people to wait until after they get a marriage license before they have sex. In fact, during Bible times, there were no marriage ceremonies at all. It was the act of sexual intercourse which made a man and a woman to be "husband and wife." In those days, if a man, married or not, had sex with a single woman who was not married nor pledged to be married, he automatically became her husband and she his wife.  [Oh, when Jesus turned the water into wine in Cana, it was not a marriage ceremony or wedding that took place; but, it was at a wedding/marriage banquet before the couple spent their first night together as a married couple.  

In Bible times, no official of the Jewish religion or even The Way, aka now as "Christianity," presided over a marriage ceremony. In fact, marriage vows were not even required back then either. [Oh, as far as having to say wedding vows in modern times in the USA, they are not required by local or state laws either.] 

Oh, I have always abstained from fornication in the literal sense. I have never had sexual activity with a prostitute. "Fornication" is a translation of the Greek word "Porneia" which is heterosexual type sexual activity with female prostitutes.  

I had previously written:  

***Oh, I believe that everything is possible with God; but, God and/or Jesus, through the power of the Holy Spirit, does/do not choose to do all they have the power to do.  

I seriously believe that if God and/or Jesus wanted to change a person's sexual orientation, even to asexual (meaning having absolutely no physiological sexual attractions directed at anyone), it could be done. But, it is not probable that God would even want to do that.  

As I have mentioned several times in this discussion board "I'M GAY, OK?", since the latter 1970s, I have read hundreds of so-called ex-gay testimonies or testimonies of parents claiming their son or daughter became an ex-gay and everyone of those testimonies had loopholes in the which proved that there had been absolutely no change of sexual orientation in the first place.**** 

In the 1960s, 1970s, and even in the early 1980s, I actually believed that God would change a person's sexual orientation if the Person asked God to do so and also had other agreeing with him in prayer for that change also. While I NEVER asked God to change my sexual orientation before 1970, up to that time, I just thought that what I experienced would eventually stop, beginning in the early 1970s and until I had an aloud conversation with God, my heavenly Father, in 1981, I had prayed and even had people, full of faith, pray that God would take away the physiological sexual attraction sensations that I had only experienced toward those who were also male.  

God answered their prayers for my other needs; so, I know that they were not lacking in faith as far as sexual orientation was concerned; and, God answered my prayers for their needs and their prayer requests, too. So, it was not a lack of faith on anyone's part.  

One Sunday evening when I was alone in my parents home in the early 1980s, I got several Bibles to open to the "Six Clobber Passages" where people claim that "The Bible claims 'homosexuality is a sin' and 'homosexuals are sinners'."  

I read them again, but not in the context in which they were written. And because I felt my calling to the ministry as an evangelist would be more effective if I no longer experienced sexual attractions to men at all, I prayed aloud and asked God to take away those feelings. 

He responded, like a father who is continually asked the same thing over and over, "Joe, I made you that way and I love you just the way you are." While I never told anyone about what God said to me, I knew that it was God; because He had spoken aloud to me before on other occasions in regard to my ministry for him. My own father had personal aloud conversations with the LORD and I remember hearing his voice and the voice of another person when no one else around where he was. My own mother heard two voices when Dad spoke with God in the milking parlor on the farm and she knew that no other human was with him and it was proved when she walked in to where he was.  

If your ex-gay friend also experienced a below-the-belt, behind-the-public-bone, in-the-area-of-his-prostate physiological sexual attraction sensation toward any of those pretty women whom he saw, he was not gay, i.e. homosexual, he was bisexual instead.  

I have always know a pretty girl or woman when I saw or see one; but, I have NEVER experienced a physiological sexual attraction toward a member of the opposite sex; even when I was dating women, one or more of whom might have been a perfect wife for a minister of the Gospel. 

"Gay tendencies?" Who made up that expression? The only gay tendencies would belong to those who are exclusively homosexual and out of the closet.  

When I was in denial of my homosexuality, I was NOT gay!  

Why? Because I was not happy about my sexual orientation! 

"Physiology" is "study of the physical body;" or "the science of living organism and their parts." The Greek word root "physio" refers to what is "natural." 

In the way that I use "physiologically," which is from the word "physiology," I am referring to what is in the body below the brain, not in in the brain itself. Don't confuse psychologically with physiologically.  

Of course, I tried to experience an attraction toward women on rare occasion and nothing happened at all, even when the woman was physically attractive as a beautiful woman. But, as far as my body was concerned, she was not sexually attractive on my part. Trying to entertain such thoughts for obvious visible outward sexual arousal on my part never worked anyway. It was more like my body was repulsed in having such an activity. UGH! 

Most of the women whom I dated in the 1960s and 1970s apparently found me attractive in various ways and they even made the first move to speak first.  

Every woman whom I actually dated after I became a man legally would have been a good wife for a man in the ministry. All of them had high Christian moral values. And, that is part of why I dated them.  

The Bible, literally and in translation states, "The fruit of the Spirit is;" it does not say "The fruits of the Spirit are."  

Those things like patience, love, etc., are qualities of only one fruit, spiritually speaking.  An individual grape IS a fruit; but, for it to be a good quality edible grape, it has to have a lot of recognizable characteristics.  

The Fruit of the Spirit is proof that a person is spiritually whole. If any of those qualities are not in a person's life as a believer, it is like he has no fruit at all.  

Some of the many sins listed in Romans Chapter 1 are slandering, being heartless, and unrighteousness. 'Unrighteousness" is "adikia" which is in translation, not being righteous.  The prefix "a" means "not" or "un."  

Well, the Greek word, dikia, translated as "righteous" is a legal term meaning doing what is correct according to the law. (Even the Hebrew word for "righteous" has the same original meaning.)  

Well, the law of the USA, aka the Constitution, in its original before amendments were added, literally grants equal rights to all citizens. And since we have also been discussing marriages in this particular message board forum, and the fact that every marriage license is a civil document, and not a religious document, people of the same gender should be allowed to get equal marriage rights under the Constitution of the USA.  

In one of the Proverbs in the OT, in the book with the same name, it is stated that God hates double standards. It is a double-standard not to give gays and lesbians the very same rights which heterosexuals take for granted.  

It is not "Narth!" It is NARTH! NARTH is the initials for the name of the pseudo-psychological organization which preaches that it can change a person's sexual orientation. I say "preaches" because they even use the Bible, in some cases, in their so-called change therapies. NARTH's people even have imperfect lives. One of their PhD psychologists has been divorced and married more than once and he has an openly gay son.  

As I have posted over and over in this forum, every case study or ex-gay testimony/ex-lesbian testimony that I have read in the past 20 plus years have/had loop-holes in them, proving that their sexual orientation did not change or they were not exclusively homosexual or even bisexual in the first place. And I have posted that I have read hundreds of such cases and testimonies.  

Modifying your lifestyle, that meaning how you act in public or when others are close by, is not proof of change of sexual orientation.   

Oh, it is easy for a homosexual to act heterosexual; they do that in show business all of the time. My friend, Victor, an actor who is gay, played a heterosexual man who picked up a hooker in a PBS series installment of American Playhouse back in the 1980s.  

In fact, most self-accepting homosexuals' public life is not any different from those who are exclusively heterosexual.  

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle; it is a condition of a sexual orientation.  

Heterosexuality is not a lifestyle; it is a condition of a sexual orientation.