Emily Thomes


**Reading these two posts there is a clear differencebetween the two. One is evidentiary of afalse conversion and the other is evidentiary of true salvation.





Amazing Grace, How sweet the sound

That saved a wretch like me

I once was lost, but now am found

T’was blind but now I see.

Wow. Wow, wow, wow.

This was four years ago today, before I knew the Lord and before I was able to understand how ridiculously flawed my reasoning was that kept me cozy and assured in my sin. I had no idea what I was talking about. I knew that I loved what the Bible deemed ‘sin’ but trusted that the problem couldn’t possibly be me. I refused to consider that I may not have actually been saved at all. I refused to examine my life in light of scripture actually said and instead twisted it so suit me. I was condemned and had a crowd of people supporting me as I stood in absolute opposition to the Creator who, by His grace alone, would one day save me from myself. He’d predestined to open my eyes to my sin and my own heart. He allowed me to see that I cherished everything before Him and that His holiness that demanded my total surrender. I don’t deserve the mercy He’s shown me. I don’t deserve for Him to love someone who made such a mockery of Him for so long. But God comes after His sheep. Praise Him for that, brethren. We were far off, but He brought us near. Continue sharing the gospel and the truth about sin, church. If He saved me, He can save anyone.

An Interview With Emily Thomes


God doesn’t “hate” homosexuals…he does, however, condemn them for PRACTICING their perversion in contradiction to his laws. Jesus never said anything DIRECTLY about homosexuality–other than his injunction to Mary Magdaline to “go and sin no more.” In other words, homosexuality–like adultery–is a sin to be avoided. One can desire someone of the same sex as long he or she doesn’t ACT on that desire. In THAT sense, homosexuals CAN also be good Christians just as long as they don’t ACT on their sinful thoughts.


I agree with most of this. Someone who is saved may still battle homosexuality and struggle with temptation as any Christian does with sin, other sins, throughout their lifelong sanctification. Their identity, however, is no longer in homosexuality as any Christian is no longer identified by their sin, because they have been forgiven and set free and are no longer slaves to sin, but slaves to God. Our identity now is in Christ.

In reference to the gay Christian in Emily’s post from four years ago is that she then believed one can continue actively in this lifestyle and be a Christian. This is similar to Matthew Vines’ position. He is the author of God and the Gay Christian. Emily realized, however, she needed to be obedient to God and is called to holiness. Emily makes a good point in the interview linked below that it is not a call from homosexuality to heterosexuality, that being with someone of the opposite sex is not the fix. The fix is in Christ, forgiveness and redemption, and we are called to holiness and obedience.

Calling Herself a Christian While Pursuing Homosexuality | 700 Club Interactive


I define homosexuality by the acts or harboring of thoughts (as opposed to thoughts occurring).


^ The actual definition includes simply having the desire:

Homosexuality | Define Homosexuality at Dictionary.com

"1.sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one’s own sex."

If our language doesn’t acknowledge this, then we’re being sophistic. No different than the left on racism.


There is a big difference between BEING a homosexual (desiring sexual contact with one of the same sex) and PRACTICING homosexual behavior.


Hogwash. Because the dictionary doesn’t acknowledge that we’re hetrosexual by design. Allowing for an exception for biodisorders (XXY), homosexuality is a perversion and a choice.

And one of the definitions in my MERRIAM-WEBSTER is a matter of action rather than nebulous feelings.


That’s a problem for the argument you’re making.

Since most people don’t have these desires, people who do have them are distinctly different from the rest. That difference needs a name.

Pedophilia is still Pedophilia, even if the person has never touched a child, and Heterosexuals are still heterosexuals, even if they’ve never had sex.

> And one of the definitions in my MERRIAM-WEBSTER is a matter of action rather than nebulous feelings.

Merriam Webster makes the desire the first definition, and action the second:

: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex * a homosexual man was involved in a homosexual relationship *
: of, relating to, or involving sexual activity between persons of the same sex homosexual acts


The difference already has a name: It’s called sin. One has a choice not to harbor the thoughts. I believe that we need to help of He who created us not to sin, but that choice is available to us to use our bodies as He designed.

Any sex sin is a matter of addiction; you let the thoughts have harbor, you’ve got a problem that’s tough to deal with.

If nebulous feelings were a logical definition (yes, I saw that other one in my Merriam-Webster, too), then one could, to borrow and adapt an expression by C.S. Lewis, say that one is a poached egg because one identifies as such.


No, even that word misses the mark.

Even if you don’t act on them, or ruminate on them, consistently having the desire is uncommon, and sets you apart from most of the human race.

There’s a necessity to distinguish that, especially if temperance and discipline is what you insist people should seek. Neither of those things can happen without understanding.

Scrutinizing pathology is at the heart of dealing with maldaptive desires.

> If nebulous feelings were a logical definition

Except the wider use case of life clearly shows you’re wrong.

Again, Heterosexuals are heterosexuals even if they don’t act on those feelings. Same to people who have neurotic sexual disorders.

By contrasting Homosexaulity with these terms, we see that simply calling it an “act” is both sophistic, and not consistent to our own language.

  1. No, the word is dead-bang right on target; God doesn’t tell us to do something and not provide the means to do it.
  2. A consistent desire for sex when one is not married doesn’t make one a fornicator; giving the thoughts harbor and/or pursuing sex outside of marriage does.
  3. Scrutinizing the sinful heart does that. I get the impression that you haven’t tried it (or if you have, only superficially). Otherwise, you would understand how powerful a factor it is.
  4. Except bull dookie.
  5. Heterosexuals were made that way; God made it screamingly OBVIOUS in the design of our bodies. Homosexuality is a choice to deviate from what our bodies advertise. And they’re still heterosexual in spite of their choice to use their heterosexual bodies in a perverse way.
  6. Hogwash for reasons given.


This isn’t addressing the point. This is intentionally avoiding the point, talking past it.

The point is:

A person is an heterosexual even if you don’t have sex, nor harbor thoughts.

A person is an autosexual even if you don’t have sex, nor harbor thoughts.

A person is homosexual even if you don’t have sex, nor harbor thoughts.

A person is asexual even if you [do] have sex, or harbor thoughts.

The point is that more than just the word homosexuality operates the way I described. Therefore, insisting that homosexuality has a different, more limited definition, is inconsistent.

All of these words are defined by the desire. This is how they actually function, in our actual language, to describe an actual thing that goes on in the human mind.

We have no reason to truncate just one of those words; to hold homosexuality itself in isolation. To do so is clear linguistic therapy; an invention of the Frankfurt school which deconstructs language not to make it function any better, but simply to attack whatever it is they don’t like. Even if that causes discussion to break down in the process. It’s a scorched earth tactic.


Hogwash again. With the exception of genuine biological disorders (XXY):

A person is heterosexual even if they don’t have sex.
A person is heterosexual even if they engage in homosexuality.
A person is heterosexual even if they engage in bisexuality.
A person is heterosexual even if they engage in beastiality.
A person is heterosexual even if they engage in autosexuality.
A person is heterosexual because the design of their body makes it so screamingly obvious that one has to bend over backward to deny the undeniable in order to excuse what God does not (note that I did not say unforgivable).

I spent most of my life with some depraved fantasy themes. As I alluded to above, most such things, as I alluded to above, can’t be beaten without God’s help. Such was the case with me; when I was finally ready to turn to God, He enabled me to quit cold turkey. It isn’t that thoughts of such things don’t occur anymore; but they’re easy not to harbor anymore.

All of which emphasizes something else that I said: It’s a SIN issue, not a case of it’s-just-the-way-I-am.


That seems similar to what Emily Thomes said in other posts. Thoughts occur, but she repents and does not harbor on those thoughts. She also points out it is not an issue of simple morality or doing what is right and making the right decisions based on morality. It is a matter of obedience. She points out it is also not a matter of going from homosexuality to heterosexuality and this being the fix. The fix is salvation, redemption, repentance and obedience. It is about being called to holiness.


Yet we can test this; we can see arousal in the brain, utilizing MRI machines:

We can then discern arousal, by presenting people different kinds of stumli, and seeing what lights up those centers in the brain, and what doesn’t.

This is a real, discernible difference between human beings. Nothing you say changes this.

> A person is heterosexual even if they don’t have sex.

Yes, I said this (go look at my post). It is factually true. Heterosexuality isn’t based on whether you’ve had sex, but what stimuli makes those portions of the brain light up.

Completely celibate people that have never had sex in their lives, will still be considered heterosexual based on where and how their brain lights up. Ergo, how attraction objectively works inside their head.

> It’s a SIN issue,

No; before anything has reached the level of sin, something has already occurred. An observable, repeatable pattern of hard-wired brain chemistry. You don’t have a word for this, and you’re destroying the English language to deny the list of words we use to describe it. For no discernible reason.

Quit the linguistic therapy game. It helps no one.

  1. Chicken, egg; a lot of choices aren’t terribly conscious, but they’re choices none the less.
  2. God said what He said. Nothing you say changes this.
  3. No, heterosexuality is based ON THE DESIGN of the parts. Homosexuality is based on the CHOICE of how to use the parts, or indulge imaginings thereof.
  4. No it hasn’t. Sin came first. You can quote chemistry till you’re blue in the face. I’ll quote God, thank you; He outranks you by more than a little bit in knowledge, wisdom, and authority.
  5. Quit the rationalizing of sin as it’s-just-the-way-I-am. You accused me of applying the liberal playbook in this debate; get the beam out of your own eye. And facing up to one’s sin helps EVERYONE.


We’re not talking about choices, we’re talking about attraction, which flows from unconscious design. Things humans have no more control over than their lower esophageal sphincter.

> 3. No, heterosexuality is based ON THE DESIGN of the parts.

But the part in question is the human brain, which can be wired to express the opposite sexuality, an overriding auto-sexuality, or even no sexuality.

It depends upon on how the brain was built. This isn’t simply a matter of just genes or chromosomes; environmental factors can also cause this, like too much estrogen running in the Mother’s bloodstream during pregnancy.

> 4. No it hasn’t. Sin came first.

Attraction isn’t conscious, it isn’t an action. This isn’t even a decision. Sin requires a will behind it, yet this is absent will and is simply reactive design.

People can choose to dwell it on, but they do not decide whether they have it in the first place.

> You can quote chemistry till you’re blue in the face. I’ll quote God, thank you;

God has not denied any of this, he has expressed no statement of what nature will or won’t do to a person.

The spectrum of neurotic disorders, of neurological disabilities, shows that nature can & will commit plug & play with other facets of the brain.

Sexuality is governed by the brain, and it’s no more “special” a task than the numerous other things the brain handles.

Memory, motor skills, facial recognition, color sensitivity, etc. the structure of the brain will screw with it all. It will swap faces, it will swap memories, it will swap colors, and yes, it will swap sexuality.

The fact that the human eye is supposed to see blue as blue, doesn’t mean people are “choosing” to be color blind when they see red in its place.

  1. You’re selling; I’m not buying.
  2. God didn’t wire us for sin; He wired us for free will.
  3. External factors can influence the choice; but it’s still ultimately a choice. I experienced that in the wake of the sexual abuse I suffered from my father.
  4. Harboring it is a choice. Again, been there, done that.
  5. “It” is nothing more than a temptation to sin. The choice is whether or not to act upon it.
  1. He HAS expressed that we have a CHOICE to sin or not.
  2. Not sure what you’re saying, but God is still sovereign over our physiology and psychology.
  3. Uhm, the parts, man…
  4. You sell, me not buy.
  5. Failing to see color is not a sin. Homosexual activity (or any other sexual activity outside of God’s will) is sin. Harboring homosexual thoughts is sin of the heart.


We are wired to sin due to the fall of man. It started with Adam, so now we are wired to sin due to sin nature, until regeneration. Although, once regenerated and saved, still having the flesh so still sinning, but we can choose whether or not to sin as we are no longer slaves to sin. When we sin, we are led by the Holy Spirit to repentance. Regarding free will, grace is irresistible to those who have been regenerated, yet, those who have not cannot adhere to God’s laws.


Will has to be involved for it to be a sin. But will is exactly what is lacking here.

It can be a sin if they act on the attraction, or harbor the attraction, but not simply for having the attraction to start with.

The attraction is a biological construct the same as hunger. It’s not a sin to feel hungry. Sin comes into what you let it drive you to do.

Hunger can lead you to sin if you let it drive you into gluttony, or let the thought of it drive you into committing harm to others, like stealing food. But hunger on its own is neutral.
Attraction is equally neutral; it’s not bad until you choose to do something with it that is inherently evil.

> 7. Not sure what you’re saying, but God is still sovereign over our physiology and psychology.

Yet he clearly didn’t prevent the mind from giving us neurologically atypical traits.

Our eyes, our sense of touch, our hunger, can all work in ways contrary to what they’re supposed to.

But you don’t call someone to be of sin for being color blind, or having Prosopagnosia, or SPD.

Thus, you still need a separate word to describe them. We need a way to address and categorize what is going on in the mind that causes these atypical traits.
There shouldn’t be argument over that.

> 8. Uhm, the parts, man…

Uh, human body man. The eye is supposed to work a certain way, but that doesn’t prevent disorders of sight from existing. It doesn’t prevent, in some people, their eyes from seeing things it shouldn’t.

An appeal to what body parts should do, is not evidence of disorders not existing. That equivocation just doesn’t work.