PDA

View Full Version : What makes people gay



Roelof
Jul 1st 2008, 07:49 AM
(I still believe that Jesus was crucified for all our sins and diseases.)

But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed. (Isa 53:5)


Are gay people born, or are they made?

The debate has raged since, well, since Oscar Wilde rubbed polite society's face in it.
Now, the world's largest study of twins has finally settled the matter: homosexual behaviour is neither a result of nature, nor a result of nurture: it's a result of a combination of factors. And there's nothing your mother could do to change that. AdvertisementWriting in the scientific journal Archives of Sexual Behaviour, researchers from Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, and Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm report that both genetics and environmental factors (which are specific to an individual, and may include biological processes such as different hormone exposure in the womb), are important determinants of homosexual behaviour.

http://www.health24.com/news/Sexuality/1-944,47036.asp

Scubadude
Jul 1st 2008, 09:38 AM
(I still believe that Jesus was crucified for all our sins and diseases.)

But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed. (Isa 53:5)


Are gay people born, or are they made?

The debate has raged since, well, since Oscar Wilde rubbed polite society's face in it.
Now, the world's largest study of twins has finally settled the matter: homosexual behaviour is neither a result of nature, nor a result of nurture: it's a result of a combination of factors. And there's nothing your mother could do to change that. AdvertisementWriting in the scientific journal Archives of Sexual Behaviour, researchers from Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, and Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm report that both genetics and environmental factors (which are specific to an individual, and may include biological processes such as different hormone exposure in the womb), are important determinants of homosexual behaviour.

http://www.health24.com/news/Sexuality/1-944,47036.asp


It may be possible that biological factors could play a part in predisposing someone to chose homosexual love. Over production of estrogen and minimal production of testosterone can creat some confusing emotions and physical manifestations. But, I'm no biologist. Millennia of the ravages of sin can have a biological effect.

godsgirl
Jul 1st 2008, 10:44 AM
The bottom line is that it's a choice--all of us are predisposed to sin-it's in our nature-but we choose.

Buzzword
Jul 1st 2008, 12:30 PM
I think it is precisely because the cause differs from person to person, not just of homosexuality but gender confusion and transexuality, we can't as a community just make some blanket statement telling everyone to "go hetero".

The cause of these impulses and behaviors differs with each person.
So should our witness.
Before saying ANYTHING, each of us should do what is necessary for them to open up and tell their story.

Only THEN are we capable of witnessing, because until then we're just shooting in the dark.


Example:
A few months ago, I met a lady with whom I became friends.
(At the time, I couldn't tell she wasn't born female)

Basically, she had been the only boy in a family of 8, raised by her aunts...as a girl.
She grew up wearing dresses, makeup, etc., and because she'd never known anything else, didn't know it was unusual for a boy to dress that way.
As a result, when "she" became an adult, and so many people were just yelling cliches at her ("you're an abomination!" "f**s go to hell!" etc) but without showing her any love or giving any real answers...she ended up getting a sex-change surgery to make her upbringing her adult life.

Not one of us (Christians) reached out to her.
Not one of us LISTENED and showed compassion.

As a result, she is now physically what she was forced to be psychologically by her aunts as a child.

HisLeast
Jul 1st 2008, 01:53 PM
The bottom line is that it's a choice--all of us are predisposed to sin-it's in our nature-but we choose.

The actions yes, the compulsions, no.

crawfish
Jul 1st 2008, 05:31 PM
The actions yes, the compulsions, no.

This is true.

There is no question that there is a genetic predisposition in many homosexuals. One source I read not long ago stated that about 3-4% of the population is homosexual, and about half of those had genetic predispositions. The rest were gay because of other factors. In essence, it is kind of like a sliding scale; some predispositions are so strong that the individual will have homosexual compulsions regardless of environment; in some, it is weak, and the environment will play a significant role.

Homosexuality isn't the only predisposed behavior. We are predisposed to assertiveness, shyness, depression, aggressiveness, and many other things. Some people are predisposed to have a very strong sex drive; some weak. It is not our predispositions, our compulsions, that lead us away from God, it is our actions. All of us must, at some point, turn away from the "thorns in our flesh" and choose to do the right thing.

Scubadude
Jul 1st 2008, 05:56 PM
This is true.

Homosexuality isn't the only predisposed behavior. We are predisposed to assertiveness, shyness, depression, aggressiveness, and many other things. Some people are predisposed to have a very strong sex drive; some weak. It is not our predispositions, our compulsions, that lead us away from God, it is our actions. All of us must, at some point, turn away from the "thorns in our flesh" and choose to do the right thing.

I don't think there is a comparison between homosexuality and assertiveness. But I think I get your point. Your saying that no matter what we feel, we are responsable for what we do with those feelings. Wright?

This issue is something that speaks to a mans sexuality. Lesbians, being women, live by a very different set of 'issues' regarding their struggle. Ultimately, I think men chose homosexuality out of contempt for their own sexuality, the way God made them. If it is true that we are created in God's image (and we are), than we, men and women, were made to reflect something unique about God that the other sex does not/ cannot. Male and female He made them. Homosexuality is shaking a fist at God and saying "I will not be a man! How dare you make me a man!?"

We all have struggles, but ultimately, they originate from a contempt for God and who he has made us.

crawfish
Jul 1st 2008, 06:03 PM
I don't think there is a comparison between homosexuality and assertiveness. But I think I get your point. Your saying that no matter what we feel, we are responsable for what we do with those feelings. Wright?

This issue is something that speaks to a mans sexuality. Lesbians, being women, live by a very different set of 'issues' regarding their struggle. Ultimately, I think men chose homosexuality out of contempt for their own sexuality, the way God made them. If it is true that we are created in God's image (and we are), than we, men and women, were made to reflect something unique about God that the other sex does not/ cannot. Male and female He made them. Homosexuality is shaking a fist at God and saying "I will not be a man! How dare you make me a man!?"

We all have struggles, but ultimately, they originate from a contempt for God and who he has made us.

Understand that "predisposed" doesn't mean that the individual will actually have the compulsion. It just makes the individual more likely to respond to their environment in a way that will produce the compulsion. Two brothers could grow up in the exact same environment with the exact same stimuli, and one turn out straight and the other gay. Because of their predispositions they responded to the environment differently.

The danger we Christians have had with denying predispositions is thinking that we can "cure" individuals of things like homosexuality. Like we can treat them and they'll no longer be attracted to the same sex. This does a huge disservice to the individual, as they will probably feel the compulsions their entire lives, never getting away form them. They would be better served to be told that it will be a constant struggle and they need to lean on God for support.

Scubadude
Jul 1st 2008, 06:29 PM
The danger we Christians have had with denying predispositions is thinking that we can "cure" individuals of things like homosexuality. Like we can treat them and they'll no longer be attracted to the same sex. This does a huge disservice to the individual, as they will probably feel the compulsions their entire lives, never getting away form them. They would be better served to be told that it will be a constant struggle and they need to lean on God for support.

You don't know that. A man who struggles with lust, hatred, lying, theft, adultery can find healing and significant change. Not only that, his weakness can become a powerful strength. Don't buy into the AA model of life, once an alcoholic always an alcoholic. Their is healing, and some struggles change over time. We can't "cure" anyone of anything, but homosexuality can be repented of.

Frances
Jul 1st 2008, 06:39 PM
Having met many Ho*o's in prisons (as a member of Prison Fellowship) and encouraging them to talk of their lives, I'm convinced the majority of males became H as a result of that kind of abuse as young boys or curiosity - females? because either they have never grown up out of the 'crush' stage most teenagers grow out of, or a desire to dominate.

Sin, however can be repented of and Forgiven by God

Scubadude
Jul 1st 2008, 06:45 PM
Having met many Ho*o's in prisons (as a member of Prison Fellowship) and encouraging them to talk of their lives, I'm convinced the majority of males became H as a result of that kind of abuse as young boys or curiosity - females? because either they have never grown up out of the 'crush' stage most teenagers grow out of, or a desire to dominate.


Women become gay because they haven't grown up? Are you saying most women are homosexual as teenagers?

light bread
Jul 1st 2008, 06:56 PM
The actions yes, the compulsions, no.

Thats not true, "every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed." I dont think one could blame it on sin nature either, since Rom 1 talks about how this sin is against nature. I struggle with many sins but lusting after another guy walking down the street isn't one of them because burning in lust toward a member of the same sex is not a natural thing.

Does anyone have a link to a publication the study or the data itself, its kind of hard for me to make sense of their thinking in the article?

moonglow
Jul 1st 2008, 07:02 PM
I think it is precisely because the cause differs from person to person, not just of homosexuality but gender confusion and transexuality, we can't as a community just make some blanket statement telling everyone to "go hetero".

The cause of these impulses and behaviors differs with each person.
So should our witness.
Before saying ANYTHING, each of us should do what is necessary for them to open up and tell their story.

Only THEN are we capable of witnessing, because until then we're just shooting in the dark.


Example:
A few months ago, I met a lady with whom I became friends.
(At the time, I couldn't tell she wasn't born female)

Basically, she had been the only boy in a family of 8, raised by her aunts...as a girl.
She grew up wearing dresses, makeup, etc., and because she'd never known anything else, didn't know it was unusual for a boy to dress that way.
As a result, when "she" became an adult, and so many people were just yelling cliches at her ("you're an abomination!" "f**s go to hell!" etc) but without showing her any love or giving any real answers...she ended up getting a sex-change surgery to make her upbringing her adult life.

Not one of us (Christians) reached out to her.
Not one of us LISTENED and showed compassion.

As a result, she is now physically what she was forced to be psychologically by her aunts as a child.

Is this a true story? I don't see how it would be possible for this to happen unless the aunt never let him out of the house or watch TV...or see a book or magazine where it shows boys dressed as boys. She would have had to keep him literally locked up. He couldn't have gone to school because he would have seen other boys dressed as boys, and kids learn pretty quickly why they are physically different from each other usually BEFORE they start school. I mean even if he went to school thinking he was a she....he would have figured out at a young age he didn't have the right parts to be a girl. And when health class came it really would have been confronted! Not too mention doctor check ups....the aunt couldn't hide his gender from the doctor for sure! I don't know if you were just trying to make a point or if this was suppose to be true or not...:confused I just don't see how it could be true...

I do agree with the point you are making...negative judging before we know anything helps no one...


God bless

crawfish
Jul 1st 2008, 07:20 PM
You don't know that. A man who struggles with lust, hatred, lying, theft, adultery can find healing and significant change. Not only that, his weakness can become a powerful strength. Don't buy into the AA model of life, once an alcoholic always an alcoholic. Their is healing, and some struggles change over time. We can't "cure" anyone of anything, but homosexuality can be repented of.

Huh? "Reptented of" and "cured" are two separate things entirely. The former implies that one admits one's sin and commits to leave that life. The latter implies that the compulsion to sin is no longer there.

The deeper implication behind "cured" is that the individual will never be tempted to re-enter the lifestyle again. That is just wrong. Too many "cured homosexuals" have lapsed back into their behavior, and it's because rather than admitting that this compulsion was a part of them, they deluded themselves to think it was gone.

moonglow
Jul 1st 2008, 07:29 PM
Thats not true, "every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed." I dont think one could blame it on sin nature either, since Rom 1 talks about how this sin is against nature. I struggle with many sins but lusting after another guy walking down the street isn't one of them because burning in lust toward a member of the same sex is not a natural thing.

Does anyone have a link to a publication the study or the data itself, its kind of hard for me to make sense of their thinking in the article?

Yea I would like to see it too...the thing is twin studies have been done before on this same issue and they were badly flawed.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2553

BAILEY AND PILLARD—
THE FAMOUS “TWINS” STUDY

One of the most frequently cited studies used in promoting the genetics of sexual orientation is a 1952 study by Kallmann. In this famous work, he reported a concordance rate (or genetic association) of 100% for sexual orientation among monozygotic (identical) twins (1952, 115:283). This result, if true, would prove nearly insurmountable for those people who doubt the biological causation of homosexuality. However, Kallmann subsequently conjectured that this perfect concordance was an artifact, possibly due to the fact that his sample was drawn largely from mentally ill and institutionalized men (see Rainer, et al., 1960, 22:259). But Kallmann’s research opened the door to twin studies in regard to sexual orientation.

Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard, researchers at Northwestern University and the Boston University School of Medicine, carried out a similar experiment, examining 56 pairs of identical twins, 54 pairs of fraternal twins, 142 non-twin brothers of twins, and 57 pairs of adoptive brothers (1991, 48:1089-1096). Bailey and Pillard were looking to see if homosexuality was passed on through familial lines, or if one could point to environmental factors as the cause. Their hypothesis: if homosexuality is an inherited trait, then more twin brothers would be expected to have the same orientation than non-twin or non-biological brothers.

Their Reported Findings

* 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were homosexual
* 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were homosexual
* 9.2% of non-twin biological siblings reported homosexual orientations (Bailey and Pillard, 1991, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation”)
* 48% of identical twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual
* 16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (Bailey and Benishay, 1993, “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation”)

Problems with Bailey and Pillard’s Study

While the authors acknowledged some of the flaws with their research, they still were quoted in Science News as saying: “Our research shows that male sexual orientation is substantially genetic” (as quoted in Bower, 1992, 141:6). However, the most glaring observation is that clearly not 100% of the identical twins “inherited” homosexuality. If there was, in fact, a “gay gene,” then all of the identical twins should have reported a homosexual orientation. And yet, in nearly half of the twins studied, one brother was not homosexual. In a technical-comment letter in Science, Neil Risch and colleagues pointed out: “The biological brothers and adoptive brothers showed approximately the same rates. This latter observation suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families” (1993, 262:2063). In fact, more adoptive brothers shared homosexuality than non-twin biological brothers. If there was a genetic factor, this result would be counter to the expected trend. Byne and Parsons noted:

However, the concordance rate for homosexuality in nontwin biologic brothers was only 9.2—significantly lower than that required by simple genetic hypothesis, which, on the basis of shared genetic material, would predict similar concordance rates for DZ [dizygotic] twins and nontwin biologic brothers. Furthermore, the fact that the concordance rates were similar for nontwin biologic brothers (9.2%) and genetically unrelated adoptive brothers (11.0%) is at odds with a simple genetic hypothesis, which would predict a higher concordance rate for biological siblings (1993, 50:229).

A more recently published twin study failed to find similar concordance rates. King and McDonald studied 46 homosexual men and women who were twins. The concordance rates that they reported were 10%, or 25% with monozygotic twins—depending on whether or not the bisexuals were included along with the homosexuals. The rates for dizygotic twins were 8% or 12%, again, depending on whether bisexuals were included (King and McDonald, 1992). Byne and Parsons commented: “These rates are significantly lower than those reported by Bailey and Pillard; in comparison of the MZ [monozygotic] concordance rate, including bisexuals (25%), with the comparable figure from Bailey and Pillard (52%)” (p. 230). They went on to observe: “Furthermore, if the concordance rate is similar for MZ and DZ twins, the importance of genetic factors would be considerably less than that suggested by Bailey and Pillard” (p. 230, emp. added). (more at the link)

God bless

Buzzword
Jul 1st 2008, 07:40 PM
Is this a true story? I don't see how it would be possible for this to happen unless the aunt never let him out of the house or watch TV...or see a book or magazine where it shows boys dressed as boys. She would have had to keep him literally locked up. He couldn't have gone to school because he would have seen other boys dressed as boys, and kids learn pretty quickly why they are physically different from each other usually BEFORE they start school. I mean even if he went to school thinking he was a she....he would have figured out at a young age he didn't have the right parts to be a girl. And when health class came it really would have been confronted! Not too mention doctor check ups....the aunt couldn't hide his gender from the doctor for sure! I don't know if you were just trying to make a point or if this was suppose to be true or not...:confused I just don't see how it could be true...

I do agree with the point you are making...negative judging before we know anything helps no one...


God bless

It is true, though I may have missed some details.

He was never given the CHANCE to dress/act like a boy, and his aunts literally treated him like a female (no puberty talk, etc.)

If I remember correctly, he was also homeschooled, so no help there.

markedward
Jul 1st 2008, 07:49 PM
People are naturally sinful.

Some individuals, because of their sin nature, lean towards violence.
Some individuals, because of their sin nature, lean towards greed.
Some individuals, because of their sin nature, lean towards hatred.
Some individuals, because of their sin nature, lean towards heterosexual immorality.
Some individuals, because of their sin nature, lean towards homosexual immorality.

Homosexuality is only as "natural" to a person as sin is natural to a person.

moonglow
Jul 1st 2008, 08:11 PM
It is true, though I may have missed some details.

He was never given the CHANCE to dress/act like a boy, and his aunts literally treated him like a female (no puberty talk, etc.)

If I remember correctly, he was also homeschooled, so no help there.

oh ok...I couldn't see how he could not know the difference unless they lived in a cave. Why would people do such a sick thing to a child? :( That is just awful...talk about abuse! :(

:cry:

Yes people need to not 'assume' someone is the way they are by choice..I don't know anyone that is straight that one day 'decided' to be straight...that they chose this ...the homosexual says the same thing...they didn't just one day think...'gee I think I would like to be gay'. (though sadly there are some that do this for the attention..mostly young teen girls in high school). By the same token I don't know anyone that thinks to themselves...I want to be a thief or a lair or an abuser either. They can find a gene for the drunk, for road rager, for the mentally ill...yet is God beyond being able to heal someone from any of these because they may have been born that way? No. Of course not. Our very nature...our genes are corrupted because of sin...so nothing surprises me anymore. No one says to a child born deformed, God made you that way. Its a result of a corrupted gene being passed down...yet its still not out of God's reach ...nothing ever could be outside of His reach!

God bless

Scubadude
Jul 1st 2008, 08:12 PM
Huh? "Reptented of" and "cured" are two separate things entirely. The former implies that one admits one's sin and commits to leave that life. The latter implies that the compulsion to sin is no longer there.

The deeper implication behind "cured" is that the individual will never be tempted to re-enter the lifestyle again. That is just wrong. Too many "cured homosexuals" have lapsed back into their behavior, and it's because rather than admitting that this compulsion was a part of them, they deluded themselves to think it was gone.

Thats a very interesting definition of "cured", but I don't think the word is biblical. Maybe we are saying the same thing in different ways. The distinction I'm trying to make is to never use the word "cured", because it is meaningless when talking about God the human soul. Of course no one can ever say that they will never struggle with an issue again. That's just foolish. Who knows what a day may bring, much less several years. But I'm getting the idea from what you wrote that if someone is gay, that's it. They will struggle with homosexual feelings for the rest of their life. But, you don't know that (if I'm understanding you). Are you trying to suggest there is no hope for significant change in someones heart? That if someone struggles with a thing (homosexuality, adultery, contempt) that they cannot overcome such things to the point of being freed? To the point of a weakness becoming a strength?

crawfish
Jul 1st 2008, 08:45 PM
Thats a very interesting definition of "cured", but I don't think the word is biblical. Maybe we are saying the same thing in different ways. The distinction I'm trying to make is to never use the word "cured", because it is meaningless when talking about God the human soul. Of course no one can ever say that they will never struggle with an issue again. That's just foolish. Who knows what a day may bring, much less several years. But I'm getting the idea from what you wrote that if someone is gay, that's it. They will struggle with homosexual feelings for the rest of their life. But, you don't know that (if I'm understanding you). Are you trying to suggest there is no hope for significant change in someones heart? That if someone struggles with a thing (homosexuality, adultery, contempt) that they cannot overcome such things to the point of being freed? To the point of a weakness becoming a strength?

We're actually not far off. Let me give an example: as a normal heterosexual male, I will ALWAYS be allured by the view of a scantily clad woman. My commitment to Christ and my commitment to my wife tell me that I will not commit adultery, and must do my best to not commit adultery with my eyes; so I choose to limit the situations where I am tempted. Like I said, I can't just "turn off" my male hormones; but I can choose to live a life where I don't let them rule me. If I tried to tell myself that I was "cured" of that, that I was only attracted visually to my wife and I COULD not be led astray, then I might not take the care necessary to keep myself pure.

Sold Out
Jul 1st 2008, 09:05 PM
The actions yes, the compulsions, no.

Everyone has his/her 'pet' sin.

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us" Heb 12:1

Scubadude
Jul 1st 2008, 09:35 PM
We're actually not far off. Let me give an example: as a normal heterosexual male, I will ALWAYS be allured by the view of a scantily clad woman. My commitment to Christ and my commitment to my wife tell me that I will not commit adultery, and must do my best to not commit adultery with my eyes; so I choose to limit the situations where I am tempted. Like I said, I can't just "turn off" my male hormones; but I can choose to live a life where I don't let them rule me. If I tried to tell myself that I was "cured" of that, that I was only attracted visually to my wife and I COULD not be led astray, then I might not take the care necessary to keep myself pure.



Oh! OK then. :cool:

LadyinWaiting
Jul 1st 2008, 11:51 PM
I think there is sufficient proof to believe that a brain malfunction is what creates homosexual tendancies in some. However, that (as someone else has said) is typically a hormonal or neural issue. If that is the case, it would be something similar to women who have a slightly higher level of testosterone taking hormones to even it out (and vice versa) in order to live more normal lives.

Some are born hyperactive, some are born with trisomy 18, some are born autistic...some of us are born with relatively normal health and so on and so forth. However, many of the things we have can be overcome through counseling and occasionally medication.

Yes, this sounds like it would give someone a cop out ("I was made this way"); however, think about the person who is bipolar or schizophrenic...they were made that way, too. However, it is not acceptable to allow that person to not be helped with their conditions. We make ways for them to have medical attention and counseling to appropriately monitor and alter their behaviors. People who have such disorders don't just accept them and decide to live by these disorders...especially since some involve harming oneself. The lifestyle of a homosexual is actually a harmful lifestyle psychologically and medically speaking. As such, no one should condone them to express their "true identity" - they should be encouraged to seek how to modify their behaviors to a normal life.

As far as it being "cured", without a source, it canot be cured. That's the same for alcoholism, drug addiction, porn addiction and many other things. It's a daily battle to live your life in the correct and appropriate way. Just because it cannot be "cured" doesn't mean that it's natural, desirable, or even the way that God wants them to act.

Think of the thorn in Paul's side. He asked and prayed for it to be removed and for him to be healed. It was, however, his cross to bear. It was something that was used by God to teach Paul who to rely on (God and God's strength). In my case, I have some minor physical disabilities that have taught me to rely on God to get me day to day and to rely on Him regarding my health when my husband and I start a family (I'll likely be on forced bedrest for it unless I'm very, very careful). I make adjustments to live life as normally as I can.

Similarly, someone who is in that small percentage of the population who is homosexual and has such urges and compulsions. If they are relying on the power of God to take them moment to moment, they, too, can live normal lives. I've seen those who used to be "gay" decide later to be "straight" and live happy, fulfilling lives with not one regret. If that is true, it means there is certainly a level of choice involved.

In human strength, it will always be "just the way they are" and science will try to explain it. In God's economy, it's a problem that needs His Grace and strength to overcome (just like the rest of us in all of our other sins).

Roelof
Jul 2nd 2008, 03:14 PM
Similarly, someone who is in that small percentage of the population who is homosexual and has such urges and compulsions. If they are relying on the power of God to take them moment to moment, they, too, can live normal lives. I've seen those who used to be "gay" decide later to be "straight" and live happy, fulfilling lives with not one regret. If that is true, it means there is certainly a level of choice involved.



Very true words !!!

mcgyver
Jul 2nd 2008, 03:28 PM
Since I am of the opinion that what we see "manifested" physically in this world has a spiritual underpinning, I'd like to interject a thought here...specifically relevant IMO to the spiritual battle that surrounds all of us:

First, we must understand that God loves us with a love that we can not begin to fully understand. The deepest, most passionate human love imaginable is but a pale shadow of the love that God has for us.

Second, Satan/the Devil hates God with a depth of hatred that we can not
ever plumb...and because human beings are the only order of creation formed in the very image of the living God...that hatred extends to us. Throughout history, Satan has done everything he can to destroy people and their lives...Satan comes only to steal, kill, and destroy...Satan tends to present his way as "the primrose path", and of course people are blinded by it. We all in the flesh have a tendency to want a "taste of the forbidden fruit" (what ever that is to us)...part of the fallen human condition.

Satan will use anything at his disposal to cause us grief...

Homos**uality is one of his most potent weapons, because it preys on two of the deepest of human needs and desires: The need for love and acceptance and the desire for physical intimacy. As such, one who succumbs comes under a terrible bondage...which will ultimately result in a horrible end...eternal separation from God in that place we know as Hell.

In the Old Testament, God prescribed death for those involved in this sin precisely because He knows how fast it could spread. Try to view it as a cancer which left unchecked would kill the whole body. God was trying to protect His people, the Jews and keep them away from this sin IMO.

In the New Testament, through the completed work of Christ; forgiveness and restoration are now possible to all people...but one must repent of (turn away from) sin. Without repentance, salvation is impossible...Which brings me now full circle to Homos**uality.

Those who are involved in it...don't want to repent of it (they would rather "justify" it)...and therefore are bringing destruction on themselves. It has been my observation in a half century of life that people do what people want to do, and will come up with anything possible to justify it. Doesn't matter what it is, Adultery, theft, murder...there is always a "reason".

As a society, we have to a large extent lifted any restraint that would otherwise cause someone to "think twice" about what they are pondering. We see that in all aspects of morality...just turn on the TV.

I think that in the final analysis that Homos***ality is a choice that one makes...

When society says that it's OK...Well, all I can say is that in the entire course of human history, changing the rules has never changed the truth!

And of course, the truth can only be found in God.

Just my thoughts...

apothanein kerdos
Jul 2nd 2008, 03:35 PM
To me, the question has always been an irrelevant one.

For instance, many researchers believe there is an alcoholic gene. Now, does this mean if a person is genetically disposed to alcoholism that the person is justified in getting drunk? Does this mean we hold "Alcoholic Pride" parades and celebrate it as an alternative lifestyle? Do we create cars that can accommodate for alcoholics and fight for "equal rights" for alcoholics who happen to drink while working?

Of course not - no one would argue for such an absurd proposition.

Thus, even if homosexuals are born with a genetic disposition to being attracted to their own gender (and the attraction is not the sin - it's the action and/or the lustful thoughts that are the sin) it doesn't mean they have to act on it. It would also mean that they're not stuck to just liking their own gender.

Just as an alcoholic can avoid being an alcoholic (i.e. he can see a beer without drinking it and, instead, choose to drink water), so a homosexual can choose not to act on his homosexuality by not lusting or engaging in sexual acts with his own gender. Likewise, he can choose to live a heterosexual life.

Thus, what causes homosexuality is irrelevant in that even if proven to be genetic, it wouldn't supply ample justification for living a homosexual lifestyle.

Scubadude
Jul 2nd 2008, 04:09 PM
For instance, many researchers believe there is an alcoholic gene.

Just as an alcoholic can avoid being an alcoholic (i.e. he can see a beer without drinking it and, instead, choose to drink water), so a homosexual can choose not to act on his homosexuality by not lusting or engaging in sexual acts with his own gender.

Thus, what causes homosexuality is irrelevant in that even if proven to be genetic, it wouldn't supply ample justification for living a homosexual lifestyle.[/quote]

Your presupposition is flawed. No one has ever proven there is an alcoholic gene. It's urban myth. Alcoholics Anonymous is not a Biblical model for helping someone struggle with homosexual urges (even if it mentions a higher power). It's a model for dealing with drug addicts (and not the best one) as it holds that "Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic". There is no real change, only management of the problem. Maybe under this AA approach to men, you can say that the cause is irrelevant. But, the discussion isn't about alcoholics. Tell someone who struggles with homosexual feelings that the cause (meaning, his life's development that brought him to this place) is irrelevant. Just telling someone they need to make different choses is not very helpful.

I've enjoyed reading some of your responses.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 2nd 2008, 04:12 PM
Your presupposition is flawed. No one has ever proven there is an alcoholic gene. It's urban myth. Alcoholics Anonymous is not a Biblical model for helping someone struggle with homosexual urges (even if it mentions a higher power). It's a model for dealing with drug addicts (and not the best one) as it holds that "Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic". There is no real change, only management of the problem. Maybe under this AA approach to men, you can say that the cause is irrelevant. But, the discussion isn't about alcoholics. Tell someone who struggles with homosexual feelings that the cause (meaning, his life's development that brought him to this place) is irrelevant. Just telling someone they need to make different choses is not very helpful.

You were a little quick on the trigger there mate. Look back at how I structured my argument. Notice how there were quite a bit of "if's" and and "many believe." I never came out and said "this so."

The reason is if alcoholic and genetic dispositions can be shown to exist, it still doesn't follow that it justifies either one as an adequate or functional alternative lifestyle.

It's a matter of looking at the entire argument, saying, "Even if I grant you this, it means nothing." Thus, it takes one of their main arguments - that homosexuality is caused genetically - away from them without even having to argue about genetics. It simplifies the argument and takes away their tool instead of saying their tool doesn't work.

Instead of showing why their toy shouldn't bring them any fun, we have simply taken the toy away.

light bread
Jul 2nd 2008, 05:33 PM
Just as an alcoholic can avoid being an alcoholic (i.e. he can see a beer without drinking it and, instead, choose to drink water), so a homosexual can choose not to act on his homosexuality by not lusting or engaging in sexual acts with his own gender.

Thus, what causes homosexuality is irrelevant in that even if proven to be genetic, it wouldn't supply ample justification for living a homosexual lifestyle.

Your presupposition is flawed. No one has ever proven there is an alcoholic gene.....



I agree with you that there is no alcoholic gene, but his argument is correct. Even if there were an alcoholic, thief, or murderer gene- it wouldn't change the fact that sodomy is wrong. Still though, I think the issue of whether people are born gay is of importance. Also, if there is no alcoholic gene why is there a gay gene? Why does the sin of sodomy need a gene and others don't?

The reason gay people think they were made or born this way is because God has given them up.(Rom 1:21 and on) So, in a round about way you could say they're right when they claim, "God made me this way." The important thing to realize is that they were the ones that first chose to serve their vain imaginations and vile affections and lusts.

This idea that genes determine everything from our looks to our personality traits and sins is heavily based in atheistic/evolutionist thinking. Yet, the bible is explicit in the fact that God is the one that makes us in the womb.(Job 31:15, 10:8 Psa 119:73) It is not determined by genetics, which the evolutionist wants to be the replacement for God. Why would God fashion someone to be gay? Would God not be tempting them? "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed."

light bread
Jul 2nd 2008, 05:43 PM
People are naturally sinful.

Some individuals, because of their sin nature, lean towards violence.
Some individuals, because of their sin nature, lean towards greed.
Some individuals, because of their sin nature, lean towards hatred.
Some individuals, because of their sin nature, lean towards heterosexual immorality.
Some individuals, because of their sin nature, lean towards homosexual immorality.

Homosexuality is only as "natural" to a person as sin is natural to a person.

People are also naturally good then because Rom chapter 2 talks about how the "gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in thee law." But it seems a little inconsistent to say:

People are naturally sinful so all sin is unnatural. (which is basically what you said)

Wouldn't all sin be natural to us if we have a sin nature?

But no other sin in the bible is described as unnatural in the bible other than homosexuality. I agree that we have a sin nature but being gay is not in it.

markedward
Jul 2nd 2008, 06:08 PM
People are inherently sinful (Paul says that because of Adam's sin all of mankind became sinful). What sins a person has tendencies for depends on the individual.


But no other sin in the bible is described as unnatural in the bible other than homosexuality.Homosexuality is called an "abomination." Sin is "unnatural" in that God didn't create us as sinners. Sin is "natural" in that it became a part of our nature.

Greed is not natural, but because of sinful nature, some people are greedy.

Violence is not natural, but because of sinful nature, some people are violent.

Homosexuality is not natural, but because of sinful nature, some people are homosexual.

No, I am not saying people are born homosexual, and no, I am not saying homosexuality is "okay." I'm only saying that, because people have natural tendencies to sin, certain individuals have tendencies to be homosexual just as certain individuals have tendencies to be violent or greedy.

Scubadude
Jul 2nd 2008, 08:26 PM
I have to confess that it has been difficult for me to read different opinions on homosexuality without my own opinions 'getting in the way'. Meaning, the subject is so big and personal that it is a very big temptation to find some way of thinking about all of this in a way that doesn't require me to continue thinking about it. Homosexuality isn't my struggle, but I (as I'm sure we all do) know those who struggle with this matter. There are many different approaches to understanding why someone finds homosexuality attractive and/or compulsive. And I think we all agree that it is a choice, weather biologically influenced or as a result of someones etiology. Since there is nothing that can be done if we are talking about biology, I tending to sway more towards talking in terms of etiology, and shunning a political view.

Understanding how or why someone became who they are today is very respectful, regardless of the issue. As I see it, it is the same thing as asking "Why has the Lord seen fit to bring you on your unique journey?" There is something to be learned about God by hearing peoples stories, stories that only that person can tell. It's those stories that hold nuggets of truth. We can no more distance ourselves from our past than we can distance ourselves from the Lord's involvement in our lives. Thinking about homosexuality or any sin should, if anything, draw us into an individuals life in a way that will humble us and require us to through ourselves on the Lord for mercy and grace. My point, I think, is that it is very difficult to discuss this matter on a forum like this without it seeming mostly intellectual. True understanding and repentance comes from getting involved in others lives in a way that will be messy. Maybe some of you feel this way too?

quiet dove
Jul 2nd 2008, 08:49 PM
People are inherently sinful (Paul says that because of Adam's sin all of mankind became sinful). What sins a person has tendencies for depends on the individual.

Homosexuality is called an "abomination." Sin is "unnatural" in that God didn't create us as sinners. Sin is "natural" in that it became a part of our nature.

Greed is not natural, but because of sinful nature, some people are greedy.

Violence is not natural, but because of sinful nature, some people are violent.

Homosexuality is not natural, but because of sinful nature, some people are homosexual.

No, I am not saying people are born homosexual, and no, I am not saying homosexuality is "okay." I'm only saying that, because people have natural tendencies to sin, certain individuals have tendencies to be homosexual just as certain individuals have tendencies to be violent or greedy.

I agree with you here, good way of putting it.

It seems also that love should be our greatest weapon. Like Scubadude said, even if it is not a personal battle, we know someone who has that personal battle.

Only the Holy Spirit can convict someone of anything in their life that needs to go. IMHO, it is our job to reflect the love of Christ, honestly, in love, teach. But first comes conviction of the Holy Spirit regarding Jesus Christ, then any changes that need to take place. If someone insist that thier lifestyle is ok, then all we can do is lovingly disagree and leave it to the Holy Spirit to convict their hearts

hope that came out right, did it in a hurry.

Scubadude
Jul 2nd 2008, 08:50 PM
I agree with you that there is no alcoholic gene, but his argument is correct. Even if there were an alcoholic, thief, or murderer gene- it wouldn't change the fact that sodomy is wrong.

I'm not suggesting that sodomy is wright. I am suggesting that why someone struggles with homosexuality is relevant. My reference to the AA model of understanding people is to point out that "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic" is not helpful when talking about a human soul. People can change, there is healing, hearts can be transformed, and weakness can become a strength. Speaking in terms of US vs THEM can distance people from helping others. There are those reading this thread who struggle with this matter.

cnw
Jul 2nd 2008, 09:06 PM
there are those who struggle with many sins. But God says do not do them. It isn't an option. We are shown throughout Scripture that choosing same sex for lust is wrong. It is lust because any sexual desire for one that is not your husband or wife is wrong. But what people don't get is it is listed with anger, murder, lying. It is sin. thats it. Thankfully, when we give our lives totally to Christ we can repent and be Spirit filled unstead of flesh driven. If it is something we are born with....we are born into sin, then whatever, but we have to see it as sin.

Scubadude
Jul 2nd 2008, 10:02 PM
there are those who struggle with many sins. But God says do not do them. It isn't an option. We are shown throughout Scripture that choosing same sex for lust is wrong. It is lust because any sexual desire for one that is not your husband or wife is wrong. But what people don't get is it is listed with anger, murder, lying. It is sin. thats it. Thankfully, when we give our lives totally to Christ we can repent and be Spirit filled unstead of flesh driven. If it is something we are born with....we are born into sin, then whatever, but we have to see it as sin.

These are all truisms. Are you suggesting that when talking to a man, all that is needed is to point out where he is sinning, then exhort him to just stop it? Confronting someone with scripture, proving where they are wrong is usually not very useful. You may feel justified to remind someone of there sin because the Bible say it is, but not taking into account how someone became who they are would be to miss them altogether, IMO.

God's word is intended to create community by leveling the playing ground.... our greatest need at every moment is repentance and forgiveness..... we all need a Savior. Not a harder biblical hammer. It is His grace that teaches us to say 'no' to fleshly desires.

cnw
Jul 2nd 2008, 11:47 PM
ya I think I mentioned that repentance thing, oh and God does not forgive without repentance, so yes it would be important to show them after a time what Scripture says, but really I was talking to those who think they are saved adn still living in this sin or not free of it.
the problem is most people don't show anything in love...it is pretty much in your face hate, but if the sinner is ready, God will speak to their heart.

light bread
Jul 3rd 2008, 05:38 AM
People are inherently sinful (Paul says that because of Adam's sin all of mankind became sinful). What sins a person has tendencies for depends on the individual.

Homosexuality is called an "abomination." Sin is "unnatural" in that God didn't create us as sinners. Sin is "natural" in that it became a part of our nature.

Greed is not natural, but because of sinful nature, some people are greedy.

Violence is not natural, but because of sinful nature, some people are violent.

Homosexuality is not natural, but because of sinful nature, some people are homosexual.

No, I am not saying people are born homosexual, and no, I am not saying homosexuality is "okay." I'm only saying that, because people have natural tendencies to sin, certain individuals have tendencies to be homosexual just as certain individuals have tendencies to be violent or greedy.

I understand what you are trying to say, but I'm not sure it is biblical. Ive never really thought about it, but calling all sin unnatural may just be a cliche that people throw around.

There seems to be a huge inconsistency in this way of thinking:

"Sin is "natural" in that it became a part of our nature."
but
"Greed is not natural, but because of sinful nature, some people are [naturally?] greedy."

It can't be natural and unnatural. I realize that it is not the way God intended but the bible never uses the term unnatural to mean 'not the way God intended' it is used to mean something is not in accord with the ordinary course of they way things are in nature.

For example, uncircumcision IS NATURAL(Rom 2:27) your are born that way. So, to say that a person chose to be gay becuase of compulsions they had as a result of the way they are born or their nature is not true.

Compulsions are under our control. The bible says, "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders......" But it also tells us to "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life." If the bible commands us to control our thoughts then we must be able to.

Buzzword
Jul 3rd 2008, 12:16 PM
If the bible commands us to control our thoughts then we must be able to.

Not alone, if ever.

The mind is like the tongue.
He who can keep his mind completely in check has no need for salvation.

None of us can say we're always in control of our thoughts (especially us ADD people...:bounce:)

Only the worst hypocrite would expect from others what he is unable to do himself.

light bread
Jul 3rd 2008, 04:12 PM
Not alone, if ever.


????? it says, keep thy heart with all diligence. Actually, the bible has ALOT to say about controlling your tongue, but the heart is greater than the tongue, it is out of the heart that lies, blasphemies, evil thoughts, deceit, and all things of life originate. It is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks.(matt 12:34)



The mind is like the tongue.
He who can keep his mind completely in check has no need for salvation.

None of us can say we're always in control of our thoughts (especially us ADD people...:bounce:)

Only the worst hypocrite would expect from others what he is unable to do himself.


If you can control your thoughts some of the time then you could control it all the time if you so choose. I'm not saying its easy, but it can be done.

Thou hast proved mine heart thou hast visited me in the night thou hast tried me and shalt find nothing I am purposed that my mouth shall not transgress.- Psalm 17:3

LadyinWaiting
Jul 3rd 2008, 04:44 PM
light bread - I think their point was that apart from God, we cannot control any of it. Unless under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the heart, tongue, and all else is not within our own power and control. The Bible is clear on saying that in our own strength we are nothing, but in God's strength we can do ALL things.

(I could be wrong, but that was the way I interpreted their statements.)

The deeper meaning is probably that without God, we couldn't in control of our own actions since we don't have the power of the Holy Spirit. So, those who are actively homosexual are not in control of the Holy Spirit and thus bound to sin until they surrender to God...only then will they really have the power to change their life because then they'll have His power.

To quote a song... "What this world needs is for us to care more about the inside than the outside. Have we become so blind that we can't see, God's gotta change her heart before He changes her shirt." (Casting Crowns)

We cannot expect a person to clean up their sins BEFORE coming to Christ, because they have no reason to do so. However, once they come to Christ, He will take care of the sin problem with the blood He shed on the cross.

light bread
Jul 3rd 2008, 05:56 PM
light bread - I think their point was that apart from God, we cannot control any of it. Unless under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the heart, tongue, and all else is not within our own power and control. The Bible is clear on saying that in our own strength we are nothing, but in God's strength we can do ALL things.

(I could be wrong, but that was the way I interpreted their statements.)

The deeper meaning is probably that without God, we couldn't in control of our own actions since we don't have the power of the Holy Spirit. So, those who are actively homosexual are not in control of the Holy Spirit and thus bound to sin until they surrender to God...only then will they really have the power to change their life because then they'll have His power.

To quote a song... "What this world needs is for us to care more about the inside than the outside. Have we become so blind that we can't see, God's gotta change her heart before He changes her shirt." (Casting Crowns)

We cannot expect a person to clean up their sins BEFORE coming to Christ, because they have no reason to do so. However, once they come to Christ, He will take care of the sin problem with the blood He shed on the cross.

Of course i would partly agree. But unsaved people aren't just robots that do nothing but sin. Even the lost have a choice not to sin and sometimes follow their conscious even though they are not regenerated.

The original statement that was made is that the compulsions are not controlled, people just cant help but have the compulsions. But no one becomes enslaved to sin overnight, it takes time for someone to become enslaved by alcoholism which makes them want to drink uncontrollably every day.

But they aren't born that way, and the first time they drink they make a choice, the consequences of that choice may drive them into deeper sin and enslave them.

Same thing with gay people. They make a choice reguarding their lust, and that lust may enslave them, thats part of the reason they think they are born that way i would assume. They may not be able to control it once God gives them up but they originally had a choice not just to sin but chose to have these "lusts of their own hearts." They were not born having them, its not natural.

People seem to be disagreeing with me based on a concept of our "sin nature." There seems to be some disagreement over what that exactly is. I admit i couldn't give you what would call a good definition of what that is, but based on everything i know in the bible i don't think its the uncontrollable desire to sin, or a set of sins that you are destined to struggle with. Maybe im wrong, but to change i would need verses; im willing to discuss it with an open mind.

light bread
Jul 3rd 2008, 06:14 PM
Sorry to double post, i just thought of a good way to explain what im saying about homosexuality.

Alot of sins may be linked to our sin nature (a desire to sin yet not uncontrollable) but homosexuality is not. There are only two men ever that were born without a sin nature: Adam and Jesus. Adam still sinned in the garden when he ate the fruit, but that sin was not a result of his sin nature becuase he did not have one yet, it was just based off a choice. I think its the same with homosexuality, not a result of our sin nature (its not natural) but a transgression as a result of a choice. Perhaps this is part of the reason God hates it so much.

DadBurnett
Jul 3rd 2008, 09:05 PM
To those of you who have said “they are not born that way”
I respect your right to believe what you believe, but belief is not and never has been proof of anything. I can agree that some homosexual people may be that way as a result of choice but certainly not all! And it has been my experience in working with such people that often that choice is driven by circumstances like sexual abuse …
I don’t expect my words herein to change anybody’s mind, but I feel compelled by my faith in God and Christ Jesus to speak to what I believe to be true, based on my research and my associations with “gays” in and out of church (and no, I am not gay). There are indeed those who are born with physical conditions and tendencies that some would associate with being gay. Transgendered human beings are a fact of life, people born with both male and female sex organs are a fact of life. People born with the physical sexual organs of one gender and mentality of the other gender are a fact of life. These abnormalities are no more rare than the other widely recognized birth defects and physical/mental conditions like autism, retardation and such things are not a matter of choice
Yes, the Bible, as we understand it, (some translations have deliberately emphasized - elaborated on the subject) homosexual behavior is condemned but, IMO there is nothing whatsoever in the Bible that clearly says that being homosexual (in any form) is solely a matter of choice.

White Spider
Jul 3rd 2008, 11:20 PM
Although circumstances and events and abnormalities may help lead to being gay I strongly believe it is a choice.

Saying it's due to physical or mental conditions is like saying it's ok for guys to masturbate because their genetic make up leads them to it.

Homosexuality is wrong and a choice one makes, it may be a choice some have difficulty with as who they are leans them in that direction and makes them feel a certain way, but it is still a choice to accept it.

I have a lesbian sister so it's not like I'm unsympathetic to the difficulties facing gays and lesbians, but it is a choice!

Roelof
Jul 4th 2008, 04:42 AM
I have a lesbian sister so it's not like I'm unsympathetic to the difficulties facing gays and lesbians, but it is a choice!

White Spider

I agree 120% !!

Even IF you are born with a desire to murder, steal, rape, watch porn, adultery, lie, it is your choice to commit it or not.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 4th 2008, 07:45 AM
White Spider

I agree 120% !!

Even IF you are born with a desire to murder, steal, rape, watch porn, adultery, lie, it is your choice to commit it or not.

Exactly. Which is why I think it would do Christians a great service to argue, "It doesn't matter if you're born with a certain disposition or not - you still have a choice to act on that disposition."

In a hypothetical situation, what are we to do if they do discover a homosexual gene? If we have wasted our time saying it doesn't exist, we look like we have lost ground. If, however, we have argued all along that it wouldn't matter, then we would be fine.

The nice spot about this position is that you can remove the argument while still holding onto Biblical ground - you literally sacrifice nothing with this argument.

Born gay or not is irrelevant - you have a choice to act. If they say that we have no choice in the action, then they must say that all other potentially genetically predisposed conditions - alcoholism, pederasty, rape - also lack the choice on action. If this is the case, it makes no sense to encourage these people to stop while encouraging the homosexuals to engage in their acts. It puts those in the pro-homosexual camp in a Catch 22.

Scubadude
Jul 4th 2008, 10:18 AM
White Spider

I agree 120% !!

Even IF you are born with a desire to murder, steal, rape, watch porn, adultery, lie, it is your choice to commit it or not.


Can we all concede the fact that at some point, nature or nurture, homosexuality is a choice?


Let's all say it together, "Homosexuality is a choice!"


OK. Now what? This does not answer the question of WHY some people are homosexual. Yes, yes, yes, everyone is responsible to God for the path they choose. But, why do some men chose homosexuality over heterosexuality. What makes people gay? What is that 'something' in a man that makes homosexuality attractive? What is the goal of such behavior?

Buzzword
Jul 4th 2008, 01:31 PM
Now what? This does not answer the question of WHY some people are homosexual. Yes, yes, yes, everyone is responsible to God for the path they choose. But, why do some men chose homosexuality over heterosexuality. What makes people gay? What is that 'something' in a man that makes homosexuality attractive? What is the goal of such behavior?

Curiosity?

Feeling completely rejected by the other half of the race?

Hormone imbalance?

Being sexually abused as a child and growing up thinking it's the natural order of things?

Wanting attention?

Wanting to push the limits of social taboos?


Ask an individual, and learn their story, all in an attitude of LOVE, not condemnation or criticism.

DadBurnett
Jul 4th 2008, 05:49 PM
Can we all concede the fact that at some point, nature or nurture, homosexuality is a choice?


Let's all say it together, "Homosexuality is a choice!"


OK. Now what? This does not answer the question of WHY some people are homosexual. Yes, yes, yes, everyone is responsible to God for the path they choose. But, why do some men chose homosexuality over heterosexuality. What makes people gay? What is that 'something' in a man that makes homosexuality attractive? What is the goal of such behavior?
I know that you sincerely believe that ... but ... where in scripture or science is your proof? I suggest that there is none and that such a belief is based on a choice people have made. Choice and the resultant belief is not proof of anything.
One last point, if there has ever been one man or one woman for whom it was not a choice, blanket condemnation of all is erroneous.
Finally, If this is such an important issue ... why didn't Jesus specifically address it? And why is it such a burning issue for straight people?

White Spider
Jul 4th 2008, 06:06 PM
I know that you sincerely believe that ... but ... where in scripture or science is your proof? I suggest that there is none and that such a belief is based on a choice people have made. Choice and the resultant belief is not proof of anything.
One last point, if there has ever been one man or one woman for whom it was not a choice, blanket condemnation of all is erroneous.
Finally, If this is such an important issue ... why didn't Jesus specifically address it? And why is it such a burning issue for straight people?

I'm not sure, maybe this isn't what you meant, but it seems you said the Bible doesn't address homosexuality?

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. - Leviticus 20:13

I don't think it's a burning issue for straight people either . . . it's more an issue for Christians and people of morals . . .

- - - - - - - -

As for why people become gay, their are an indefinite number of reasons . . .

apothanein kerdos
Jul 4th 2008, 06:34 PM
I know that you sincerely believe that ... but ... where in scripture or science is your proof? I suggest that there is none and that such a belief is based on a choice people have made. Choice and the resultant belief is not proof of anything.
One last point, if there has ever been one man or one woman for whom it was not a choice, blanket condemnation of all is erroneous.
Finally, If this is such an important issue ... why didn't Jesus specifically address it? And why is it such a burning issue for straight people?

Well I posted earlier that one can be a homosexual in the technical sense (have an attraction to their gender) without sinning. This could be caused by genetics or biology, who knows.

At the same time, they do have a choice when it comes to acting on that impulse. To say they don't have a choice means we are not morally culpable
for any sexual sins committed, since it would simply be blamed on genetics. Genetic predisposition doesn't mean we have to act on that disposition.

As for Jesus not dealing with homosexuality - He also didn't deal with rape, incest, pederasty, or a whole host of other sins. Does this mean they aren't a big deal?

The entirety of the New Testament is infallible - the words of Paul are just as truthful as the words of Christ, John, Matthew, Peter, and other authors. The reason is the same Spirit guided all of them - neither trumps the other. In light of this, Paul did deal with homosexuality and did say it was a sin.

Now, I don't believe Christians should elevate it to this horrible thing that they do while at the same time ignoring other sins. It makes no sense why Christians would protest gay pride parades, but then willfully shop at a WalMart or some other corporation that is the epitome of greed (another sin). We should be straight faced when we discuss sin and realize that homosexuality is a sin, but so are a lot of other things that we let slide by.

Scubadude
Jul 5th 2008, 02:35 AM
I know that you sincerely believe that ... but ... where in scripture or science is your proof? I suggest that there is none and that such a belief is based on a choice people have made. Choice and the resultant belief is not proof of anything.
One last point, if there has ever been one man or one woman for whom it was not a choice, blanket condemnation of all is erroneous.
Finally, If this is such an important issue ... why didn't Jesus specifically address it? And why is it such a burning issue for straight people?

Thank you for your question. I intend to attempt an answer, but I want more time to give your question some thought.... and it's the 4th. Time to be light and fluffy and shoot of some fire works.

One question: "if there has ever been one man or one woman for whom it was not a choice, blanket condemnation of all is erroneous." Are you suggesting that because there may be one man in this world for whom homosexuality was not a choice, then God's condemnation would be unjust? Romans 1:18 talks about God's wrath being reveled because of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. No one has any excuses for ungodliness, ever, because God has made His divine nature evident to all.

If scripture is to guide our thoughts on this matter, then the 'scientific and scriptural proof' is in the word "suppress". Suppression carries the idea of holding a large beach ball under watter. It requires a tremendous amount of energy to sustain suppression. Rom 1:18 (and all Rom 1) discusses wickedness being the 'energy' used to suppress the truth. Because of this (and, when you are devoting your heart to suppression, there is little energy to consider anyone else but yourself) God has given them over to a darkened mind, to do the things they ought not to. I think the reason homosexuality is mentioned in this passage is because wickedness degrades who we have been made to be, men and women. Our sexuality reflects something of God. Each sex holds tremendous authority and privilege to reflect something of the Creator that, without the other, would not be seen.

I am sorry to quit at this point. I'll keep my eyes peeled for your response.

Aloha

Scubadude
Jul 5th 2008, 02:50 AM
OK. One more thought. Most men are very good at avoiding responsibility for one thing or another. I think the reason many people can't get past the "Is it a choice or not?" issue is because saying it is not a choice sounds too much like crying victimization. Americans are good at that one. Freud made some big problems in the court system when he helped come up with the insanity defense. Most people have a justified knee jerk reaction when you say, "It wasn't my fault. It was God's". Sounds a bit reflective of Adam saying, "The woman YOU made gave me some, and I ate."

Now I'm really going to go have fun. My wife is pulling on my arm, it isn't me. :D

DadBurnett
Jul 5th 2008, 07:15 AM
Okay people, I misspoke, was not entirely clear in my last post. I am not arguing for or against God’s judgment of homosexuality. My position is simply this; homosexuality is not in all cases a choice. Let me be absolutely clear, I do not mean that homosexuals do not have choice, of course they do. The can choose to engage in or abstain from sexual acts just as so-called straights can.
I’ve acknowledged that circumstances may cause or contribute to SOME becoming gay - some, BUT NOT ALL. And, I am not placing the blame on God for someone being gay … that makes no sense – just as being born with any physical or mental abnormality is not God’s fault. My disagreement is with anyone who says that homosexuality is a choice and results from nothing other than choice.
My question clearly was, I thought, about the cause of homosexuality, not the judgment of homosexual acts. My question for the forum was and is about there being scriptural text supporting the assertion that BEING homosexual is entirely/only the result of choice.
Note to Scubadude … the comments about “suppress” went over my head. I’ve read and read it and fail to understand the point you were making. And, I’m not sure of its relevance to what I’ve said above.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 01:36 PM
Okay people, I misspoke, was not entirely clear in my last post. I am not arguing for or against God’s judgment of homosexuality. My position is simply this; homosexuality is not in all cases a choice. Let me be absolutely clear, I do not mean that homosexuals do not have choice, of course they do. The can choose to engage in or abstain from sexual acts just as so-called straights can.
I’ve acknowledged that circumstances may cause or contribute to SOME becoming gay - some, BUT NOT ALL. And, I am not placing the blame on God for someone being gay … that makes no sense – just as being born with any physical or mental abnormality is not God’s fault. My disagreement is with anyone who says that homosexuality is a choice and results from nothing other than choice.
My question clearly was, I thought, about the cause of homosexuality, not the judgment of homosexual acts. My question for the forum was and is about there being scriptural text supporting the assertion that BEING homosexual is entirely/only the result of choice.
Note to Scubadude … the comments about “suppress” went over my head. I’ve read and read it and fail to understand the point you were making. And, I’m not sure of its relevance to what I’ve said above.

The idea of being a homosexual (via attraction to the same gender, not necessarily in actions) is a late 20th century concept, thus there wouldn't be any scripture supporting it.

We can only assume, however, that a person can have that temptation in attraction without sinning since the Bible doesn't expressly forbid it. It makes sense to me that some people are born with this attraction to their own gender - after all, how else could a person be tempted to lust after their own gender unless the attraction was already there?

Thus, I have no problem accepting that some cases of homosexuality might be genetic or biological. I don't see how this would ever contradict Scripture and, in light of this, I think Christians should be a bit more sensitive in dealing with homosexuals. Counseling them and telling them that they can change their preference overnight, when it might be that they simply can't, will lead to depression.

I often council them and tell them that the attraction may never go away, but they can certain lead celibate lives (both in action and thought) and, God willing, a heterosexual life (I believe Christ is that powerful). I don't encourage them to rush into a heterosexual life, but to wait and see what God has in store for them.

Scubadude
Jul 5th 2008, 04:22 PM
Note to Scubadude … the comments about “suppress” went over my head. I’ve read and read it and fail to understand the point you were making. And, I’m not sure of its relevance to what I’ve said above.


Don't worry about it. I'm not sure my thoughts were understandable to anyone but myself. And even then.....

Aloha

light bread
Jul 5th 2008, 08:50 PM
I’ve acknowledged that circumstances may cause or contribute to SOME becoming gay - some, BUT NOT ALL. And, I am not placing the blame on God for someone being gay … that makes no sense – just as being born with any physical or mental abnormality is not God’s fault. My disagreement is with anyone who says that homosexuality is a choice and results from nothing other than choice.

Rom 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature...

Rom 1:26 for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature

People are uncircumcised by nature- they're born that way. It is against nature that someone is homosexual. Therefore, homosexuals are not born with an attraction to the same gender, and are that way as a result of choice.



In a hypothetical situation, what are we to do if they do discover a homosexual gene?
Not worried about it.



We can only assume, however, that a person can have that temptation in attraction without sinning since the Bible doesn't expressly forbid it. It makes sense to me that some people are born with this attraction to their own gender - after all, how else could a person be tempted to lust after their own gender unless the attraction was already there?


Hard for me to tell what you mean here, But we don't have to assume someone is born with it in order to be tempted with it. Man was created without a sin nature, yet was still tempted and sinned in the garden of eden. This sin could only be a result of choice that was given by God.

Also, if we say that homosexuality is a biological disorder because you must be born with the desire to be tempted to lust, then bestiality is also a biological disorder. What kind of hormones does the baby need to be bathed in to make it lust after animals?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 09:41 PM
Also, if we say that homosexuality is a biological disorder because you must be born with the desire to be tempted to lust, then bestiality is also a biological disorder. What kind of hormones does the baby need to be bathed in to make it lust after animals?

I'm willing to concede that bestiality is genetical or biological. This wouldn't bother me one bit if they proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt tomorrow.

Just because one is born with the propensity to be attracted to animals does not mean one has to act on that desire. Likewise, just because one is born with an attraction to the same sex does not mean one has to act on those desires.

Scubadude
Jul 5th 2008, 10:37 PM
To those of you who have said “they are not born that way”
I respect your right to believe what you believe, but belief is not and never has been proof of anything.

You've said this a few times, and I have been assuming that I understood what you are saying. But now I'm wondering what you mean. You say that you respect my beliefs, then you say that they are meaningless? Or baseless?


You believe that homosexuals are born with the desires they struggle with. But that's no proof, just because you believe it. So far you haven't attempted to prove anything. Prove homosexuals are born with their struggle. The request is not a genioun one, because it doesn't help the discussion.

Belief is proof of belief. And what a person believes in points to how they know God. Prove you believe in Christ, prove God exists, prove you work with others. Jesus seemed to think that belief was pretty important, and that it has and always will be proof of something. The homosexuals in Romas chapter 1 no longer saw fit to acknowledge God as God. They suppressed the truth with their wicked behavior. They became foolish in their darkened minds because life became all about what they wanted and felt. Loving someone in a counseling situation doesn't involve helping such a man to find peace with his sexual urges by suggesting he was born that way. You need a strong picture in your mind, first, of what redeemed masculinity looks like. Then try to move in that direction.

How does asserting that belief is not and never will be proof of anything make your point? What is your point?

Scubadude
Jul 5th 2008, 10:51 PM
I'm willing to concede that bestiality is genetical or biological. This wouldn't bother me one bit if they proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt tomorrow.

Just because one is born with the propensity to be attracted to animals does not mean one has to act on that desire.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but did I read white breads comments correctly? I don't think he was asserting that bestiality was genetic or biological. I think the point was meant to sound absurd.

So, it wouldn't bother you one bit if bestiality was 'proven' to be biological tomorrow? That sounds a wee bit on the hopeful side. Is there something you want to tell us? :D

White Spider
Jul 6th 2008, 12:57 AM
If homosexuality is a gene why does it take so long for them to become gay . . . I know of no one that was gay from birth . . .

My sister had many boyfriends before becoming lesbian . . .

Every guy and girl I know who is now gay/lesbian has been heterosexual at some point, then slowly became gay/lesbian over time, some simply become bisexual . . .

It's always a realization in ones teens or later that they are homosexual . . .

If it was a genetic thing why don't they know from a very young age say five or six when most people start having an innocent liking to the other sex. Are there any studies of children that young finding the same sex attractive?

It's a choice . . . an undeniable choice . . .

How can it be a gene? I don't know a gays/lesbians who came from homosexual parents . . . :rofl:

apothanein kerdos
Jul 6th 2008, 03:11 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did I read white breads comments correctly? I don't think he was asserting that bestiality was genetic or biological. I think the point was meant to sound absurd.

So, it wouldn't bother you one bit if bestiality was 'proven' to be biological tomorrow? That sounds a wee bit on the hopeful side. Is there something you want to tell us? :D

:lol:

What I'm saying is everyone is setting up a false dichotomy. They think that if it's genetic or biological then it means the person HAS to act on that attraction.

What I'm saying is that the entire debate on if it's genetic or not is absurd because they still don't have to act on it. Your genes merely state your traits, but they cannot force you to act. Assume for a second that there is a gene that makes one person love ice cream more than other people (no such gene exists, but this is a hypothetical). A person with that gene, however, can still choose not to eat the ice cream. Though they have a craving for it, they can also choose not to partake in it.

Similarly, assume that theory is correct that alcoholism is a gene. In fact, in society, most people simply assume and take for granted the idea that alcoholism is a gene. Most people that support homosexual behavior likewise believe alcoholism is caused by our genes. With this in mind, why even try to disprove this when we can make the argument much easier?

Assuming alcoholism is caused by our genes, does it then justify an alcoholic that drinks at work? I mean, if it's in his genes, doesn't this mean we should allow them drinking time at work in the pursuit of equal rights? Of course not - there isn't a single person out there that would advocate that. Instead, everyone is going to argue that if alcoholism is caused by our genes, then people with such a gene should avoid alcoholic beverages - thus they admit that a person can have a genetic 'craving' for something without indulging in it.

With that in mind, why do they turn around and say that because someone has a homosexual 'craving' they're unable to control themselves? Why do we assume that a genetic alcoholic can somehow avoid alcohol, but a genetic homosexual cannot avoid homosexual activity? This simply doesn't make any logical sense - it's a contradiction.

In conclusion, that is the point I've been trying to make. There is no point in trying to disprove that it's a gene - that merely complicates the argument and gets us no where. Instead, grant the other side that it's genetic (even with their lack of evidence) and then ask them why it follows that homosexuals have to partake in homosexual activity? Follow it up by asking that if homosexuals get to partake in homosexual activity, why can alcoholics drink to their heart's content?

Does that clarify what I've been trying to say?

Scubadude
Jul 6th 2008, 03:27 AM
:lol:



I'm just glad you heard the humor in that post.

Ecumaniac
Jul 6th 2008, 11:53 PM
If homosexuality is a gene why does it take so long for them to become gay . . . I know of no one that was gay from birth . . .

Even if homosexuality were purely genetic in basis (which I doubt it is), there are several reasons it would not be detectable at birth.

At what age did you start taking notice of the opposite sex? I mean, really taking notice of them, i.e. in a sexual way? I guess that it wasn't when you were four, right? Eight? Ten? Twelve? Older, even? I didn't start having such thoughts until about sixteen! Most people don't really start feeling strong sexual attractions until some time after the onset of puberty, which means that no one is going to know if they're gay until at least ten.

Further, remember that homosexuality is generally seen as a bad thing. Children derisively describe anything untoward as "gay". Parents react with varying degrees of discomfort towards anything which seems gay. Churches and special interest groups opine that homosexuality is one of the great evils of the world. As a result, people who find themselves attracted to the same sex often experience crippling guilt, shame and fear. A general defence mechanism against seeing oneself as a bad person is to simply ignore any evidence to the contrary; and indeed, many gay people manage to deny their sexuality for years. Even after admitting to oneself that one is gay, one can still disguise one's sexuality; many gay people have even married opposite-sex partners, even have children, as part of a generally fruitless attempt to change.

Given this, I'd say that it would be easy for a homosexual to keep their sexuality under wraps for, oh, a good ten or twenty years after discovery? One gay relative managed to keep his sexuality hidden from his mother for the better part of twenty years, even going so far as to find girlfriends to enhance the illusion; I suspect that my grandmother died without ever knowing that there was a single gay member her family, when there are at least two. One acquaintance immediately disowns any friends who put his secrecy at risk. There is even a phrase to describe the state of being gay, but hiding it: one is "in the closet".

Given your views on homosexuality, I find it doubtful that anyone would "come out" to you until they were pretty much out to everyone else. This probably enhances the illusion you have that these people just suddenly "turned" gay. Most gay friends I know say that their sexuality should have been obvious from a young age—one knew when he was only eleven!


It's a choice . . . an undeniable choice . . .

That's an odd comment. What do you mean by choice? If there was some sort of form we were meant to fill in to decide if we were gay or straight, I must have missed it. :D

Seriously, who would choose to be gay? I know plenty of people who hated realising that they were gay. It took them a long time to realise that they were, in fact, not irredeemably evil, and deserved to be loved like everyone else.

Ecumaniac
Jul 6th 2008, 11:58 PM
Regarding the question asked in the OP: there is inconclusive data to speculate on the aetiology of homosexuality. A simple genetic hypothesis is insufficient to account for individual differences (e.g. as evidenced by twin studies). However, there is good evidence that homosexuality—especially male homosexuality—is significantly influenced by genetic predisposition, and very strong evidence that it is seldom possible to change sexuality through therapeutic means.

White Spider
Jul 7th 2008, 02:39 AM
Even if homosexuality were purely genetic in basis (which I doubt it is), there are several reasons it would not be detectable at birth.

At what age did you start taking notice of the opposite sex? I mean, really taking notice of them, i.e. in a sexual way? I guess that it wasn't when you were four, right? Eight? Ten? Twelve? Older, even? I didn't start having such thoughts until about sixteen! Most people don't really start feeling strong sexual attractions until some time after the onset of puberty, which means that no one is going to know if they're gay until at least ten.

I don't know about that, I'd say age 6-8 is when most kids start "liking" the opposite sex at least from my personal experiences in public schools . . . My question is why don't they know then?


Further, remember that homosexuality is generally seen as a bad thing. Children derisively describe anything untoward as "gay". Parents react with varying degrees of discomfort towards anything which seems gay. Churches and special interest groups opine that homosexuality is one of the great evils of the world. As a result, people who find themselves attracted to the same sex often experience crippling guilt, shame and fear. A general defence mechanism against seeing oneself as a bad person is to simply ignore any evidence to the contrary; and indeed, many gay people manage to deny their sexuality for years. Even after admitting to oneself that one is gay, one can still disguise one's sexuality; many gay people have even married opposite-sex partners, even have children, as part of a generally fruitless attempt to change.

And then they choose to be gay, being gay is not having an attraction, I can say a guy is hot and attractive without being gay. What makes one gay is the indulgence of sexual acts with the same sex. And that is a choice one makes.


Given this, I'd say that it would be easy for a homosexual to keep their sexuality under wraps for, oh, a good ten or twenty years after discovery? One gay relative managed to keep his sexuality hidden from his mother for the better part of twenty years, even going so far as to find girlfriends to enhance the illusion; I suspect that my grandmother died without ever knowing that there was a single gay member her family, when there are at least two. One acquaintance immediately disowns any friends who put his secrecy at risk. There is even a phrase to describe the state of being gay, but hiding it: one is "in the closet".

Given your views on homosexuality, I find it doubtful that anyone would "come out" to you until they were pretty much out to everyone else. This probably enhances the illusion you have that these people just suddenly "turned" gay. Most gay friends I know say that their sexuality should have been obvious from a young age—one knew when he was only eleven!

I don't think they suddenly turn gay, I know it happens over time, usually because of past experiences, not because of their genes . . .


That's an odd comment. What do you mean by choice? If there was some sort of form we were meant to fill in to decide if we were gay or straight, I must have missed it. :D

Seriously, who would choose to be gay? I know plenty of people who hated realising that they were gay. It took them a long time to realise that they were, in fact, not irredeemably evil, and deserved to be loved like everyone else.

What do I mean by a choice, :hmm:

I'll put it this way . . . I like soda, but let's take it a step further and say I like alcohol (not 21 so I don't know if I do but this illustration works better).

Ok so I like alcohol, am I an alcoholic? Liking alcohol doesn't make me an alcoholic.

Now I choose to drink constantly . . . Now I'm an alcoholic.

Now let's say I like men, and have a sexual attraction to them . . . I'm not gay yet though.

Now I choose to have sexual relationships with men . . . Now I'm gay.

Therefore being gay is an undeniable choice!

And yes they deserve to be loved, but openly committing sinful acts and choosing to continue a sinful lifestyle and making excuses for it is not alright in my book.

You can't rationalize committing sin . . . can you :confused

(I've always thought robbing banks would be fun since seeing Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and Bonny and Clide, since I want to and I like it and I don't think I can control myself, I'm going to go rob a bank, it's alright if I do with that reasoning, it's not my choice anyways, it's in my genes . . . :rolleyes: . . . :rofl:)

Scubadude
Jul 7th 2008, 05:15 AM
I agree that we should not be talking about genetics. It isn't a useful direction. What, then? What makes people gay? If not genetics, then what? (please don't answer, "It's a choice.")

apothanein kerdos
Jul 7th 2008, 05:21 AM
I agree that we should not be talking about genetics. It isn't a useful direction. What, then? What makes people gay? If not genetics, then what? (please don't answer, "It's a choice.")

Again what causes people to have an attraction - as I have been stating yet it has somehow gone almost ignored - is a fruitless argument. It doesn't matter what makes people gay. It could be genetics, biology, choice, or radio active elephants from Alpha Centauri - no matter what makes a person have a physical attraction to his or her gender, the person has the choice to act upon this attraction.

Roelof
Jul 7th 2008, 05:29 AM
It could be genetics, biology, choice, or radio active elephants from Alpha Centauri - no matter what makes a person have a physical attraction to his or her gender, the person has the choice to act upon this attraction.

Support you 100%

LadyinWaiting
Jul 7th 2008, 01:15 PM
Precisely my points as well.

As far as what makes a person want to make that choice? The thought that "this is the way I was made, I should just be who I am" has a lot to do with it. The thought that "I deserve love, and I don't want to hide my true self" probably has a lot to do with it as well.

We have a culture where those who are openly and actively homosexual have a safe environment to "come out" in...people who support, idolize, and enjoy having them run counter to the culture.

I, as a heterosexual woman, cannot fathom WHY someone would want to engage in those sort of activities. Being a happily married woman, I just don't understand why someone wouldn't want the loving, happy, fulfilled lifestyle my husband and I have.

Some people I adore have decided they need to be true about who they are (felt that way since a young age). They haven't been in any relationships with the same sex...but think they could one day. I'm thinking that when the time comes and he realizes some of what he has to do and what he puts himself at risk for through acting that way...I think he may change his mind.

Many don't just because people keep telling them it's natural, it's biological, it's exactly who you are and you should behave the way you were made. Unless we can get back to a place where they don't keep continuing to claim this is a civil rights issue (equating it with the African-American struggle to be seen as full humans with rights in the US...which I think really downplays what that culture went through) and we start seeing it for what it really is, encouraging and sanctioning...even protecting...sin in our country, we can't hope to get people to realize they have a choice.

Roelof
Jul 7th 2008, 01:48 PM
I, as a heterosexual woman, cannot fathom WHY someone would want to engage in those sort of activities. Being a happily married woman, I just don't understand why someone wouldn't want the loving, happy, fulfilled lifestyle my husband and I have.

...sin in our country, we can't hope to get people to realize they have a choice.

You stated it 100% !!!

Ecumaniac
Jul 7th 2008, 02:03 PM
I don't know about that, I'd say age 6-8 is when most kids start "liking" the opposite sex at least from my personal experiences in public schools . . . My question is why don't they know then?

To be clear: you mean that they start sexually liking the opposite sex at ages six to eight? Seriously? I must have been a very late bloomer! :)

However, to test the hypothesis, I did some research to see if it is universally true that all gay individuals experience an attraction to the opposite sex at a young age which is later subverted. However, the few accounts I've found indicate otherwise; one man states that he first desired same-sex intimacy at age six (http://www.fallwell.com/exgay.html)! (I've personally verified that this link is safe, and does not link to graphic content.)


And then they choose to be gay, being gay is not having an attraction, I can say a guy is hot and attractive without being gay. What makes one gay is the indulgence of sexual acts with the same sex. And that is a choice one makes.This is incorrect; being gay is about attraction. If a teenager says, "I think I'm gay," it doesn't mean that he has performed sexual acts with someone of the same sex; it means that he is experiencing sexual attraction exclusively towards individuals of the same sex.


I don't think they suddenly turn gay, I know it happens over time, usually because of past experiences, not because of their genes . . .Why would "past experiences" be the only causative factor in homosexuality? There are plenty of gay individuals with no history of the supposed correlates noted by some ex-gay psychiatrists (childhood abuse or trauma, absent father, early homosexual experiences). There is also significant evidence that genetic factors influence sexuality. Likely, a combination of biological and psychological factors is responsible to different degrees in each individual.


Now let's say I like men, and have a sexual attraction to them . . . I'm not gay yet though.

Now I choose to have sexual relationships with men . . . Now I'm gay.

Without wishing to be blunt, White, you are already incorrect. Sexual orientation is not the same as sexual conduct. Sexual orientation is determined by who you are attracted to; sexual conduct is determined by the sexual acts you engage in. If you have a sexual attraction to men alone, you are gay. You can be celibate and still be gay.


And yes they deserve to be loved, but openly committing sinful acts and choosing to continue a sinful lifestyle and making excuses for it is not alright in my book.I'm not just talking about gay people who engage in homosexual behaviours. In another thread, I've mentioned a gay friend who doesn't even masturbate for religious reasons—yet even he was accused of complacency and a lack of faith. :sad:

apothanein kerdos
Jul 7th 2008, 02:12 PM
Many don't just because people keep telling them it's natural, it's biological, it's exactly who you are and you should behave the way you were made. Unless we can get back to a place where they don't keep continuing to claim this is a civil rights issue (equating it with the African-American struggle to be seen as full humans with rights in the US...which I think really downplays what that culture went through) and we start seeing it for what it really is, encouraging and sanctioning...even protecting...sin in our country, we can't hope to get people to realize they have a choice.

Telling them that it is possible that their attraction is biological doesn't give them the license to act on that attraction though. Just as telling an alcoholic that his struggle might be genetic doesn't give him a license to get drunk, telling a homosexual their attraction might be genetic doesn't give them the license to go sin. Even if it is genetic, it does not follow that they are forced into the action of homosexuality - that, no matter what - is a choice.

LadyinWaiting
Jul 7th 2008, 03:32 PM
apothanein - with due respect, please read the ENTIRE post before you make the "choice" argument.

I stated repeatedly that it is a CHOICE in several posts.

What the OP asked was what makes a person CHOOSE to ACT upon those urges. My post is in response to that. When you're convinced that it's okay to act upon "who you really are" then you feel comfortable in your sins.

I didn't negate the choice. I was explaining my theory as to why people are CHOOSING to follow that path.

Make sure you read before you keep pushing the "it's a choice" thing when the vast majority of the people in the thread are agreeing with you that it IS a choice...we are simply trying to come up with theories as to what makes someone MAKE that choice.

No one disagrees that it's unethical and immoral or a sin.

Scubadude
Jul 7th 2008, 06:03 PM
Again what causes people to have an attraction - as I have been stating yet it has somehow gone almost ignored - is a fruitless argument. It doesn't matter what makes people gay. It could be genetics, biology, choice, or radio active elephants from Alpha Centauri - no matter what makes a person have a physical attraction to his or her gender, the person has the choice to act upon this attraction.

Oh, bummer. You said it. You said it was a choice. Choice, choice , choice. I've posted my thoughts on choice, you've posted your thoughts on choice, everyone else has posted their thoughts on choice. And yet saying that someone choses something brings no more understanding to why someone would choose a thing. I think understanding why someone feels compelled towards homosexuality moves us out of intellectualizing the subject. It becomes a little more personal, maybe even closer to home.

So many answers to the OP on "What makes people gay?" have become answers to the question "Who is responsible for homosexuality?". If it is personal choice, than the homosexual must take responsibility for his behavior and repent (although no one can say what repentance would look like or how it should be attained, aside from "Just stop it"). If it is genetic or biological then the homosexual cannot be (fully) held responsible for his behavior. Does this sound close? What makes someone tick? That's how I hear the OP. Not, is choice involved? Of course it is. I wonder what this thread would sound like if we were not allowed to use the word. What other things would be discussed? For some I imagine it would be the end of the conversation.

Wow! I'm falling asleep from a night shift. Good night all.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 7th 2008, 06:39 PM
Oh, bummer. You said it. You said it was a choice. Choice, choice , choice. I've posted my thoughts on choice, you've posted your thoughts on choice, everyone else has posted their thoughts on choice. And yet saying that someone choses something brings no more understanding to why someone would choose a thing. I think understanding why someone feels compelled towards homosexuality moves us out of intellectualizing the subject. It becomes a little more personal, maybe even closer to home.

So many answers to the OP on "What makes people gay?" have become answers to the question "Who is responsible for homosexuality?". If it is personal choice, than the homosexual must take responsibility for his behavior and repent (although no one can say what repentance would look like or how it should be attained, aside from "Just stop it"). If it is genetic or biological then the homosexual cannot be (fully) held responsible for his behavior. Does this sound close? What makes someone tick? That's how I hear the OP. Not, is choice involved? Of course it is. I wonder what this thread would sound like if we were not allowed to use the word. What other things would be discussed? For some I imagine it would be the end of the conversation.

Wow! I'm falling asleep from a night shift. Good night all.

Along with LadyinWaiting's post:


apothanein - with due respect, please read the ENTIRE post before you make the "choice" argument.

I stated repeatedly that it is a CHOICE in several posts.

What the OP asked was what makes a person CHOOSE to ACT upon those urges. My post is in response to that. When you're convinced that it's okay to act upon "who you really are" then you feel comfortable in your sins.

I didn't negate the choice. I was explaining my theory as to why people are CHOOSING to follow that path.

Make sure you read before you keep pushing the "it's a choice" thing when the vast majority of the people in the thread are agreeing with you that it IS a choice...we are simply trying to come up with theories as to what makes someone MAKE that choice.

No one disagrees that it's unethical and immoral or a sin.

My apologies to both. I just quite a few people were saying that its a choice to even be attracted to the same gender, which may or not be true.

In dealing with what makes a person do it - what makes any person sin? Selfish pride. Autonomy. A desire to fulfill your own desires and ambitions. What makes a man sleep with multiple women? What makes a woman get drunk? What makes a person murder? Pride.

LadyinWaiting
Jul 7th 2008, 11:14 PM
You're very right...pride and that little thing of being selfish have everything to do with each sin we commit.

Scubadude
Jul 7th 2008, 11:31 PM
The purposes of a man's heart are deep waters, but a man of understanding will draw them out.

I was expecting more of a response.

Scubadude
Jul 7th 2008, 11:53 PM
Precisely my points as well.

As far as what makes a person want to make that choice? The thought that "this is the way I was made, I should just be who I am" has a lot to do with it. The thought that "I deserve love, and I don't want to hide my true self" probably has a lot to do with it as well.

We have a culture where those who are openly and actively homosexual have a safe environment to "come out" in...people who support, idolize, and enjoy having them run counter to the culture.


Lady, I'm glad you brought this up. I believe the question "Who am I" is at the root of every sin. Do you think that society has helped in answering that question? There has been a plethora of propaganda coming from every angle, telling the world what to believe regarding sex and sexuality. Maybe the church has abandoned it's responsibility of guiding when it comes to this subject because no one wants to be politically incorrect?

LadyinWaiting
Jul 8th 2008, 01:21 AM
Well, in the US, a lot of people go to churches that preach a feel-good gospel. They're all about the love, but neglect the responsibility of actually giving up one's life and following Christ.

There are some countries where Christian pastors have actually been sued...AND LOST...due to their saying homosexuality is a sin. One pastor was even told he could no longer say it was wrong (not in the US...I think it was our neighbor to the north).

Many have been dropped by the idea that we must water down the gospel to get them in. We need to continue to reach out in love, but we cannot forget the fact that our God is a just God...and a God of wrath.

I'm glad my pastor is politically incorrect. I respect him much more for it.

Scubadude
Jul 8th 2008, 02:32 AM
Well, in the US, a lot of people go to churches that preach a feel-good gospel. They're all about the love, but neglect the responsibility of actually giving up one's life and following Christ.


I've seen that, too. Some people have said that the church has become feminized because of the very thing you are talking about. How many times have I heard women in church saying "Where are all the men?". The challenge for men (and I am a man) is to stay involved. Boys learn what manhood is by observing a man being a man.

Bottom line, men are responsible. God made us to enjoy the strength of moving into very difficult situations and trying to bring life from it. If we neglect that authority, we fail as men. I'm glad to hear your pastor is politically incorrect. Takes a lot of courage. He sounds like a good man.

Roelof
Jul 8th 2008, 04:21 AM
Well, in the US, a lot of people go to churches that preach a feel-good gospel. They're all about the love, but neglect the responsibility of actually giving up one's life and following Christ.



I think it is part of the Emerging Church.

White Spider
Jul 8th 2008, 05:26 AM
It's past experiences that make a person act on being gay . . . none of it has to do with biological genes . . .

Yes some may not have the "typical" backgrounds related to homosexuality . . . but then Ted Bundy didn't have your typical background for a serial killer . . .

I don't understand how people can even consider biology playing a part in it . . .

I like to spend time to understand myself, I know why I am who I am, I know it's because of the life I've lead and the lives of those around me. I grew up with parents who were no longer in love from the time I was about 5 on, recently divorced, but because I never saw them kiss or or anything like that now in my relations I'm not a real physical guy, more emotional love . . . I kinda have the typical women's feeling in a relationship . . . but again it's because of past experiences and choices I make, not my genes . . .

I'm sure you could look at every homosexuals life and see all the different things that lead them to that decision . . .

Like my sister, who is lesbian . . . my dad was often angry at her (for doing drugs, partying, etc.) . . . so she turned to my mom, a female presence . . . She had several bad relationships with guys, (two of them robbed us afterwards) . . . she had a guy friend who was gay . . . so for most of her life men were a disliked figure and she had a friend who was gay making it more alright for her to decide hey I can be gay . . . She also went to school in Santa Cruz, I'm sure the liberal status of the culture up there influenced her as well . . . She now lives in San Francisco and is being married in two weeks . . .

But again it is not biological . . . for anyone!!!

- - - - - - - -

Why when alcoholics realize they are alcoholics they more often seek to subdue their desire

and gays when they realize they are gay seek to fulfill their desires?

crawfish
Jul 8th 2008, 01:42 PM
It's past experiences that make a person act on being gay . . . none of it has to do with biological genes . . .

Yes some may not have the "typical" backgrounds related to homosexuality . . . but then Ted Bundy didn't have your typical background for a serial killer . . .

I don't understand how people can even consider biology playing a part in it . . .

I like to spend time to understand myself, I know why I am who I am, I know it's because of the life I've lead and the lives of those around me. I grew up with parents who were no longer in love from the time I was about 5 on, recently divorced, but because I never saw them kiss or or anything like that now in my relations I'm not a real physical guy, more emotional love . . . I kinda have the typical women's feeling in a relationship . . . but again it's because of past experiences and choices I make, not my genes . . .

I'm sure you could look at every homosexuals life and see all the different things that lead them to that decision . . .

Like my sister, who is lesbian . . . my dad was often angry at her (for doing drugs, partying, etc.) . . . so she turned to my mom, a female presence . . . She had several bad relationships with guys, (two of them robbed us afterwards) . . . she had a guy friend who was gay . . . so for most of her life men were a disliked figure and she had a friend who was gay making it more alright for her to decide hey I can be gay . . . She also went to school in Santa Cruz, I'm sure the liberal status of the culture up there influenced her as well . . . She now lives in San Francisco and is being married in two weeks . . .

But again it is not biological . . . for anyone!!!

- - - - - - - -

Why when alcoholics realize they are alcoholics they more often seek to subdue their desire

and gays when they realize they are gay seek to fulfill their desires?

There is all sorts of fact that indicate you are wrong. There is a significant biological factor in deciding if someone will be gay. Now, that's not true for everyone, and may not be true for your sister - a good estimate is that 3-4% of the population is gay and only half of those have the biological imperative. But to deny it exists is to deny reality.

light bread
Jul 8th 2008, 05:33 PM
There is all sorts of fact that indicate you are wrong. There is a significant biological factor in deciding if someone will be gay. Now, that's not true for everyone, and may not be true for your sister - a good estimate is that 3-4% of the population is gay and only half of those have the biological imperative. But to deny it exists is to deny reality.


Regarding the question asked in the OP: there is inconclusive data to speculate on the aetiology of homosexuality. A simple genetic hypothesis is insufficient to account for individual differences (e.g. as evidenced by twin studies). However, there is good evidence that homosexuality—especially male homosexuality—is significantly influenced by genetic predisposition, and very strong evidence that it is seldom possible to change sexuality through therapeutic means.

Id still really like to have an answer to how the bible says they're not born that way: Rom 2:27 & Rom 1:26... uncircumcision by nature- homosexuality against nature..... born uncircumsized- not born gay.....

I really like how people keep claiming over and over again that there are all these facts but dont say what they are.... besides until you answer those verses who am i supposed to believe? you or God???

White Spider
Jul 8th 2008, 05:59 PM
There is all sorts of fact that indicate you are wrong. There is a significant biological factor in deciding if someone will be gay. Now, that's not true for everyone, and may not be true for your sister - a good estimate is that 3-4% of the population is gay and only half of those have the biological imperative. But to deny it exists is to deny reality.

To say it exists (which it doesn't) is to say it's alright to sin . . . but even if it does exist they still have the choice to commit the sin as an alcoholic has a choice to drink.

But as there are so many facts to prove me wrong . . . where are they??? Please give me links or quotes or something besides "there are facts that disprove me."

If it was truly biological wouldn't there be a lot more than 3-4% . . . I mean homosexuals have been around since before Christ . . . I'd think there'd be more by now . . . and if you look at the percentages in America, it's gone up as being gays become more socially acceptable . . . again another sign it's CHOICE . . .

Scubadude
Jul 8th 2008, 06:03 PM
a good estimate is that 3-4% of the population is gay and only half of those have the biological imperative. But to deny it exists is to deny reality.

Would please site your sources. I am very curious to know where you learned this from. At first blush, this sounds like the typical liberal propaganda that gets repeated over and over. The rule of the media, say something enough, and the masses will believe. Reality, as you put it, is what we are told it is.

Roelof
Jul 8th 2008, 06:23 PM
. . . and if you look at the percentages in America, it's gone up as being gays become more socially acceptable . . . again another sign it's CHOICE . . .

White Spider

Do you think it is possible to get gay % before 1986/87 and after ?

White Spider
Jul 8th 2008, 06:25 PM
White Spider

Do you think it is possible to get gay % before 1986/87 and after ?

I think that should be doable . . . I will certainly try . . .

Scubadude
Jul 8th 2008, 06:47 PM
Id still really like to have an answer to how the bible says they're not born that way: Rom 2:27 & Rom 1:26... uncircumcision by nature- homosexuality against nature..... born uncircumsized- not born gay.....

I really like how people keep claiming over and over again that there are all these facts but dont say what they are.... besides until you answer those verses who am i supposed to believe? you or God???

Is that a rhetorical question? :)

Let consider the beginning of sin and how it was handled by the first humans. Adam, the man, when being questioned for his failure, responds by shifting the blame, speaking of himself in the passive voice, using contempt by blaming God for his flawed creation.

Gen 3:12 - "The woman YOU put here with me - SHE gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."

There are a ton of implications in this passage pointing towards how men use contempt and blame shifting. In other words, if God had either done a better job with the woman, or if He had never put her in Adams life, Adam would have not had this problem to deal with. It was everyone's fault but his. With his argument, Adam was trying to minimize his sin (because God created the situation), and was making God (and the woman) out to be the problem.

When you say "Homosexuality is a biological reality, genetic.", you repeat Adam, shifting the blame for his failure as a man, speaking in the passive voice as a victim. "God made me this way, I can't be held accountable".



Id still really like to have an answer to how the bible says they're not born that way: Rom 2:27 & Rom 1:26... uncircumcision by nature- homosexuality against nature..... born uncircumsized- not born gay.....

I'd really like to hear how you interpret this to be saying men are born homosexual. You might has tried earlier, but I don't see it. Or, I'm not seeing it very clearly.

crawfish
Jul 8th 2008, 07:11 PM
To say it exists (which it doesn't) is to say it's alright to sin . . . but even if it does exist they still have the choice to commit the sin as an alcoholic has a choice to drink.

The SIN is in the choice, not the compulsion. Compulsions are natural, and blindly following them will lead us into sin.


But as there are so many facts to prove me wrong . . . where are they??? Please give me links or quotes or something besides "there are facts that disprove me."


There is a measurable difference in brain size and usage with homosexuals. There are instances of fraternal twins who grew up with the same environment, but only one became homosexual. There have been studies showing that sexual orientation in some can be detected very early in life. They have detected that gay brains work like a woman's, and lesbian brains work more like men's. Trends show that homosexuality is most likely for the youngest males in large families.

There is an environmental factor in homosexuality as well as a biological one. It's definitely not like skin color, which is decided before birth; it's more like personality makeup, where internal genetic factors make it more likely that the person will generate certain traits.


If it was truly biological wouldn't there be a lot more than 3-4% . . . I mean homosexuals have been around since before Christ . . . I'd think there'd be more by now . . . and if you look at the percentages in America, it's gone up as being gays become more socially acceptable . . . again another sign it's CHOICE . . .

Bad logic. First, the term "homosexual" implies that they will be less likely to have children, and thus, less likely to propagate their biologic traits to subsequent generations. I would imagine the percentages of people with the compulsion has sat at a pretty steady percentage through the ages; but that's tough to prove because the social stigma leaves it unreported.

Scubadude
Jul 8th 2008, 07:49 PM
The SIN is in the choice, not the compulsion. Compulsions are natural, and blindly following them will lead us into sin.


You equivocate between 'natural' and 'normal'. The examples you give (all be it, unsupported) only show that homosexuality is normal in that it is repeated over many years. To say something is natural means it was intended by the Designer. Romans ch1 discusses how homosexuality and sin in general is a progression of a refusal to acknowledge God by suppressing the truth through wickedness (and therefore becoming darkened in their minds). When God says His wrath is being expressed towards anything, He is saying that something is 'unnatural' to His design, and in punishment there is hope for repentance.

I would agree that blindly following a compulsion will lead to an act of sin, but compulsions are normal and reinforced by the act. To say compulsions towards homosexuality is natural, you need to show that it was a part of the original designers plan. Still haven't heard anything in that vein except common liberal rhetoric. TV and politics are not the best source for Biblical conviction.

crawfish
Jul 8th 2008, 08:24 PM
I would agree that blindly following a compulsion will lead to an act of sin, but compulsions are normal and reinforced by the act. To say compulsions towards homosexuality is natural, you need to show that it was a part of the original designers plan. Still haven't heard anything in that vein except common liberal rhetoric. TV and politics are not the best source for Biblical conviction.

So you're suggesting that you won't believe in such a thing unless scripture spells it out for you? The bible is silent on a very large number of things, and genetics is one of those things.

We all have natural compulsions towards sin. It is a struggle for most people to remain celibate or monogamous. Some people have highly addictive natures and can become alcoholics, chain smokers and drug addicts fairly easy, while some (like me) are highly resistant to such things. There is NO QUESTION that we are born with tendencies in many different things; that each individual is subject to a unique set of personal struggles based on their biology.

Paul had a thorn in the flesh - we don't know exactly what it was, but it seems to indicate that it was physical. God did not remove the thorn for His glory - to see someone overcome a disability, or a compulsion, and live a pure life is a testament to His power and ability to affect our lives. When you deny the plain facts, you not only hurt the chances that we can reach those with homosexual compulsions because of that lack of understanding, but you also put up a barrier to allow them to display God's glory through their choices.

Scubadude
Jul 8th 2008, 09:41 PM
So you're suggesting that you won't believe in such a thing unless scripture spells it out for you? The bible is silent on a very large number of things, and genetics is one of those things.

I'm just saying that the source for your opinions seem to be based on present day morality and politics. What is common dose not imply what is natural. I think the logic in your argument is in err because you equivocate between 'normal' and 'natural'.


We all have natural compulsions towards sin.

This is my point. Sin was not intended as a part of our design. It is an aberration of nature and will one day be made right. It is not natural, it is normal. We are all born into sin, but that was not how Adam and Eve were created. God said "It is good."


It is a struggle for most people to remain celibate or monogamous.

Here you are comparing a heterosexual (natural) struggle with a homosexual struggle. It is understandable that you make this jump in thought if you believe the two are natural. They are not comparable struggles, though both are sinful.


Some people have highly addictive natures and can become alcoholics, chain smokers and drug addicts fairly easy, while some (like me) are highly resistant to such things.

These normal (common, persistent, typical) struggles in no way suggest, much less prove, anything related to a natural expression of who God created us to be. Some people find a sense of life in addictions, but thats the closes you can come to saying these things are natural.


There is NO QUESTION that we are born with tendencies in many different things; that each individual is subject to a unique set of personal struggles based on their biology.

HUGE jump in logic. How do you make the connection between having tendencies for many different sins, and that these struggles are based in biology? I don't think you have come close to proving anything related to biology. Or, to the nature of people for that matter.


Paul had a thorn in the flesh - we don't know exactly what it was, but it seems to indicate that it was physical.


So now what you call natural, you are now calling it a thorn in the flesh? I really am confused with where you are going with your thoughts.



When you deny the plain facts, you not only hurt the chances that we can reach those with homosexual compulsions because of that lack of understanding, but you also put up a barrier to allow them to display God's glory through their choices.

I have no idea what plane facts you are talking about. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that homosexuality is natural (even a little natural makes God responsible for homosexuality), and suggest it is something that should be repented of.

light bread
Jul 8th 2008, 10:00 PM
Is that a rhetorical question? :)

Gen 3:12 - "The woman YOU put here with me - SHE gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."

There are a ton of implications in this passage pointing towards how men use contempt and blame shifting......

I'd really like to hear how you interpret this to be saying men are born homosexual. You might has tried earlier, but I don't see it. Or, I'm not seeing it very clearly.

I would agree with the blame shifting part, even Eve tried to shift the blame when she said, "the serpent" which God of course made "beguiled me."

But, i think you may be misunderstanding me, Im saying biology has NOTHING to do with homosexuality.

Romans talks about how things happen in nature, or naturally. Natural could not mean "the way God intended" because natural or nature is often used pejoratively in the bible. Paul says uncircumcision is by nature meaning thats the way men are born, thats the way they are by nature. There are people in teh OT that God wanted to be circumcised but they were still born uncircumcised by nature. He also said earlier that homosexuality is against nature. This would mean that people are not be born homosexual, it would have to be all nurture.

The reason I mentioned Adam earlier was because someone made the comment that it would be impossible to tempt someone with homosexuality unless they were born with a predisposition to it. This is false, because Adam and Eve were created without a sin nature and were still tempted. The fact that they tried to pass the buck, while true, doesnt enter into the argument. They were tempted and fell by choice alone. Much in the same way that no one is born gay, but some are still that way by choice alone.

crawfish
Jul 8th 2008, 10:07 PM
I have no idea what plane facts you are talking about. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that homosexuality is natural (even a little natural makes God responsible for homosexuality), and suggest it is something that should be repented of.

Our bodies are naturally sinful. They lead us, compel us, to do things that we should not do. Since you admit heterosexuality and sexual attraction is natural, do you think that God is leading us into sexual sin? We are not created perfect; we are a load of physical flaws and shortcomings.

Again, we repent of our ACTIONS, not our compulsions. I feel sexually attracted to a woman who is not my wife; that is a compulsion, and is natural. I choose not to act on that compulsion; I choose not to lust over the woman. That is me choosing not to sin. Either God created those things that cause us to sin, or he didn't create everything; you simply cannot have it both ways.

humblefollower
Jul 8th 2008, 10:18 PM
I have known gay folks who say that they knew they were gay from a very early age and I know folks who "became" (for lack of a better word) gay after suffering a traumatic sexual experience and I know folks who chose the lifestyle after experimenting. I think it varies.

Scubadude
Jul 8th 2008, 10:24 PM
But, i think you may be misunderstanding me, Im saying biology has NOTHING to do with homosexuality.



My bad. I did misunderstand you.


The reason I brought up the Gen3 verse was to add some biblical meat to the discussion. We have an example of how sin first expressed itself, contempt and blame shifting. Making God out to be the creator of a thing which leads us to sin is saying he is not good, and his creation is not good... contempt. You could argue, Adam being given authority to lead his wife, that she was copying his lead. The sad part of her blame shifting was that all she had to blame was a snake. Adam betrayed her and made her out to be responsible for his foolishness. She could have said "Hang on, buddy. God mad you the man. Why didn't you stop me. You were there." Men are very good at making their wives responsible for the problems in the relationship, but God holds them accountable. The process continues today.

light bread
Jul 8th 2008, 10:45 PM
Our bodies are naturally sinful. They lead us, compel us, to do things that we should not do. Since you admit heterosexuality and sexual attraction is natural, do you think that God is leading us into sexual sin? We are not created perfect; we are a load of physical flaws and shortcomings.

Again, we repent of our ACTIONS, not our compulsions. I feel sexually attracted to a woman who is not my wife; that is a compulsion, and is natural. I choose not to act on that compulsion; I choose not to lust over the woman. That is me choosing not to sin. Either God created those things that cause us to sin, or he didn't create everything; you simply cannot have it both ways.

But you can't lump homosexuality in with our naturally sinful bodies, its against our nature. And God calls us to repent of even the thought of lust, "Lust not after her beauty in thine heart."Prov 6:25

And of course in matthew 5 Jesus about lusting with our eyes to lust in our hearts says to pluck out our eyes if they cause us to sin. Thats an extremely strong statement demanding repentance toward compulsion.

crawfish
Jul 9th 2008, 01:10 AM
But you can't lump homosexuality in with our naturally sinful bodies, its against our nature. And God calls us to repent of even the thought of lust, "Lust not after her beauty in thine heart."Prov 6:25

And of course in matthew 5 Jesus about lusting with our eyes to lust in our hearts says to pluck out our eyes if they cause us to sin. Thats an extremely strong statement demanding repentance toward compulsion.

Can you just shut off your compulsion to lust by telling yourself to? Or do you have to control your situations, control your eyes, control your thoughts to keep them from wandering? I've never cheated on my wife in 20 years of marriage, but I'll fully admit that if I let myself I could still feel sexually attracted to women around me, and I could let my thoughts wander to the wrong place. It is only my commitment to the purity of my marriage that keeps me pure; my body fights it constantly. I CANNOT be "cured" of it.

To deny that homosexuality has a physiological component is not only to deny evidence, but to deny the internal conflict that goes through the mind of the homosexual who desires a behavior that he or she cannot control must not succumb to. It does not justify the behavior at all; we ALL have internal compulsions that try and lead us to sin. But it is very real.

LadyinWaiting
Jul 9th 2008, 01:46 AM
Someone was refusing all connections to biological basis...

http://www.stanfordu.edu/dept/news/pr/95/950310Arc5328.html
^ Sort of recaps the biological connection of several studies.

Basically, it boils down to a correlation, not a causation. A gene does not mean you have to live that lifestyle. However, when the brain functions in a way that is contrary to the normal for your gender (ex. there was a recent study released in which homosexual men's brains appeared on MRI's like a heterosexual woman's - and vice versa.) Now, the homosexual camp would have that be proof that they were "just created this way" and therefore what they do is normal and natural.

However, on top of the study being NO WHERE near representative nor conclusive, there is also the fact that the mind of a serial killer is different from the norm. However, we don't allow them to go out and kill! Just because there's this abnormality does not mean that it allows a person to do whatever the abnormality makes them. It would be akin to allowing an autistic person to never recieve treatments and continue to act out rather than learn to deal with emotions in a constructive way (this would be for the slightly autistic, not those who are disconnected entirely from reality) in order to live in the normal world.

It does, however, allow us as Christians to say "yes, something is different about you, and you feel a certain pull to act and be a certain way. Yet, you don't want to do that because you know it's wrong. God loves you and wants you to follow Him, which means you will have to struggle to not be what you feel a pull towards. He will give you the strength, and we as your Christian brethren will help you and love you through to success over what the devil intends for evil."

markinro
Jul 9th 2008, 02:22 AM
Our bodies are naturally sinful. They lead us, compel us, to do things that we should not do. Since you admit heterosexuality and sexual attraction is natural, do you think that God is leading us into sexual sin? We are not created perfect; we are a load of physical flaws and shortcomings.

Again, we repent of our ACTIONS, not our compulsions. I feel sexually attracted to a woman who is not my wife; that is a compulsion, and is natural. I choose not to act on that compulsion; I choose not to lust over the woman. That is me choosing not to sin. Either God created those things that cause us to sin, or he didn't create everything; you simply cannot have it both ways.

No - that's adultery.

light bread
Jul 9th 2008, 05:25 AM
Someone was refusing all connections to biological basis...

http://www.stanfordu.edu/dept/news/pr/95/950310Arc5328.html
^ Sort of recaps the biological connection of several studies.

Basically, it boils down to a correlation, not a causation. A gene does not mean you have to live that lifestyle. However, when the brain functions in a way that is contrary to the normal for your gender (ex. there was a recent study released in which homosexual men's brains appeared on MRI's like a heterosexual woman's - and vice versa.) Now, the homosexual camp would have that be proof that they were "just created this way" and therefore what they do is normal and natural.

However, on top of the study being NO WHERE near representative nor conclusive, there is also the fact that the mind of a serial killer is different from the norm. However, we don't allow them to go out and kill! Just because there's this abnormality does not mean that it allows a person to do whatever the abnormality makes them. It would be akin to allowing an autistic person to never recieve treatments and continue to act out rather than learn to deal with emotions in a constructive way (this would be for the slightly autistic, not those who are disconnected entirely from reality) in order to live in the normal world.

It does, however, allow us as Christians to say "yes, something is different about you, and you feel a certain pull to act and be a certain way. Yet, you don't want to do that because you know it's wrong. God loves you and wants you to follow Him, which means you will have to struggle to not be what you feel a pull towards. He will give you the strength, and we as your Christian brethren will help you and love you through to success over what the devil intends for evil."

I would go further and say that not only is it not conclusive, its not even evidence at all. Not good evidence anyway. Plus, studies using brain scans to "prove" biological differences are buying into a naturalistic philosophy of mind which states that the mind is nothing more than the physical tissues of the brain and is "the end of the line." This is contrary to the biblical definition. The bible would teach that man's mind is actaully the "heart" or spirit and the origin of thoughts, imaginations, feelings, etc... making the brain likely just a relay for the natural and spiritual. As John Eccles said, the brain is "a machine that a ghost can operate."

The whole idea of genetics and nature (as in nature vs nurture) having a large role in our personality, traits, abilities, you name it... is strongly based in faulty evolutionary thinking. This plus the search for one to blame by people like homosexuals and the obese for their dispositions is the only reason people are looking for a "gay gene" "fat gene" for crying out loud even a "murderer gene." Genes have very little control in opposition with "nurture." Many studies (real ones, as opposed to the fallacious gay gene studies) are showing that gene expression can be changed by exercise.

Again, however, who should I believe: atheistic researcher looking for the "gay gene" or the Bible?

crawfish
Jul 9th 2008, 12:50 PM
No - that's adultery.

No, that's biology. Sexual attraction is not (necessarily) lust. It is in a man's physical makeup to be visual in his sexuality, and a man doesn't naturally differentiate between his mate and other women. It has to be a conscious decision. Lust is taking the natural attraction to the next step and letting the thoughts invade our mind.

LadyinWaiting
Jul 9th 2008, 12:51 PM
However, I think of my husband's brother, who thinks he is gay (has not yet acted on it). He was raised the same exact way as my husband. My husband is quite obviously heterosexual. His brother has felt an attraction to boys since he was about 12 (and attending church several times a week with his mom and my husband).

How does one explain that besides an abnormality in hormonal reflexes when he was raised without a single homosexual in his life?

The Bible doesn't make a reference to the fact that the attractions may not be physically based. It says that the homosexual acts are an abomination. Let's be very careful to not put something in the Bible that isn't there.

The Bible doesn't explain why some lie, cheat, steal, etc. It just says those things are wrong and sinful.

And again, just because there's a rationale behind WHY it happens doesn't mean it's an excuse for WHAT happens. For example, alcoholism runs in my family. I was raised not to drink because it was evil. In college, I drank for a bit, then decided to stop because I could feel the way it affected my brain and could feel the way that I was starting to feel a pull to drink often. So, rather than become addicted to a substance, I stopped. However, it is something that is based in my genetics.

There are some things that we don't understand that make us who we are. Some have hormonal imbalances that lead towards depression, bipolarism, anger issues, and even a tendancy to be more or less outspoken. Some of these things are more biologically based (the first 2) and some of these are more nuture based (the latter ones), however, all are engrained in us. We (with God's strengt) can overcome these bends in our sinful, natural bodies. Just as a drug addict breaks his addiction, a depressive person climbs out of their pit or someone with a structural deformity overcomes limitations in order to live normal lives, God can and does help those who are homosexual overcome these urgings towards people of the same gender.

And, by the way, not all those who look for the biological basis of an abnormality are atheists. Some would like to find the biological basis in order to say "this can be stopped. You don't have to be this way" much like we were able to figure out a biological cause for a number of psychological disorders in order to better help those people live normal lives.

You seem to think the only reason would be to justify sin. Reasonably, some may do that. However, in the larger picture I'd support research into it in order to help better prove that they don't HAVE to live that way, that it's merely an abnormal mind pattern and is more like a disorder than a harmful, dangerous lifestyle.

There is no one trying to justify the choice they make. It's wrong, it's sinful, and it's quite frankly pretty nasty. However, what is going to be more effective in Christendom? Being able to convince people who think it's just in their nature, just they way God made them that they're wrong because it's a proven abnormality or having no one research it and going head to head with a stone? Sometimes science CAN work to the advantage of Christians who are trying to promote a moral life.

By the way, it's very poor argumentation to ask for proof because without it you will refute the claim, then to turn around and say you don't accept the proof because it's not done by a person you want. (By the way, how do you KNOW the people who conducted the reasearch were atheists? I don't know their religious stance nor their soul's status. Passing judgement without even knowing them based on a piece of research conducted really doesn't help out your position any.).

crawfish
Jul 9th 2008, 12:55 PM
Again, however, who should I believe: atheistic researcher looking for the "gay gene" or the Bible?

That's a strawman argument. Nobody is suggesting that there is a "gay gene" - there is no evidence of that. What we are suggesting is that there are biological conditions that increase the likelihood that someone will become gay - a predisposition. And your misuse of scripture to say this isn't so invalidates the argument entirely.

Ecumaniac
Jul 9th 2008, 05:30 PM
Id still really like to have an answer to how the bible says they're not born that way: Rom 2:27 & Rom 1:26... uncircumcision by nature- homosexuality against nature..... born uncircumsized- not born gay.....

I really like how people keep claiming over and over again that there are all these facts but dont say what they are.... besides until you answer those verses who am i supposed to believe? you or God???

Since you asked, Romans 1:26 is a very interesting verse. However, looking at only one verse out of context is unhelpful. Remember that when Paul was writing, he didn't use chapters and verse numbers—those came much later, and serve only to make it easier to look up particular passages in an otherwise continuous text. In particular, the beginning of Romans 2 continues directly—indeed, makes no sense without—Romans 1. This will become important in the (unfortunately, rather lengthy) explanation which follows. Also, part of this is copied from an older thread, so it may seem familiar to anyone who participated there.



The English word “natural” is a very ambiguous word. Just look it up in the dictionary, and you will generally find a number of (sometimes conflicting) definitions. Which of these definitions was Paul using in the Bible? Well, the Greek word used is “physikos,” which is also used in 2 Peter 2:12—“But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.”

We often consider that the word “natural” implies that something is intrinsically more moral, or correct, than the alternatives. But in this verse, it clearly has the opposite meaning: acting in accordance with one’s instincts, or nature, is boorish and incorrect. In many respects, behaving unnaturally should be considered the highest praise to a good Christian if it means overcoming bad habits or instincts. It seems odd, therefore, to consider that Paul intended to convey precisely the opposite sense by using the exact same word—which indicates that something less straightforward is going on.

Going against one’s instincts is considered praiseworthy because it demonstrates both self-control and submission to God. This is key to understanding this passage: the sense of bridling our nature and handing the reins to God. In this passage, people have similarly bridled themselves, but who holds the reins?

Perhaps now you see the horrible truth. In this passage, we see men and women acting against their own instincts by engaging in homosexual acts. These men and women are not merely ignoring God because they have a homosexual disposition; they are actively rebelling against Him, even if that means acting out of accordance with their own desires. We now have a word for individuals who are naturally attracted to their own sex: heterosexual.

This meaning becomes even more obvious if you read the preceding verses. In this context, we read about a progression of separation from God, ending in absolute and active rebellion. First, they practised idolatry. Then, in Romans 1:25, Paul tells us, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator…”

Homosexual activities were not even the culmination of their evils. Verses 28–31: “Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”

I emphasised that particular item because it reinforces Paul’s point that these people are not merely ignorant, but actively disobedient. And in verse 32, he makes this explicit: “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”

Finally, Paul drops his bombshell in Romans 2:1—”You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgement on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgement do the same things.” His audience may have felt complacent, even self-righteous, as they listened to Paul enumerating the crimes of idolatry and homosexual rituals. Perhaps they started to feel uncomfortable when he went on to more common sins, sins which they themselves may have committed. But now they cannot escape the force of his condemnation; they, too, are guilty.

An exclusive reading of Romans 1:26 as a verse applying only to homosexuals, and not as an illustration of wilful rebellion, seriously weakens the impact of Paul’s message. By no means was Paul excluding homosexuals from his admonitions; but it is important that Paul was using the word “natural” to imply that the individuals under discussion were performing homosexual acts in direct opposition to their natural inclinations. This verse, therefore, doesn't at all preclude a naturalistic aetiology for homosexuality—if anything, it strengthens the hypothesis by implying that sexual orientation is a naturalistic phenomenon.

light bread
Jul 9th 2008, 05:40 PM
That's a strawman argument. Nobody is suggesting that there is a "gay gene" - there is no evidence of that. What we are suggesting is that there are biological conditions that increase the likelihood that someone will become gay - a predisposition. And your misuse of scripture to say this isn't so invalidates the argument entirely.

I know... my challenge to those that claim that: prove it. There is not a verse in the bible that says homosexuality is part of our nature, in fact as ive mentioned repeatedly it is against nature.

Plus id really like to have an explaination to how im misusing scripture, rather than just an accusation with no proof.


How does one explain that besides an abnormality in hormonal reflexes when he was raised without a single homosexual in his life?

The Bible doesn't make a reference to the fact that the attractions may not be physically based. It says that the homosexual acts are an abomination. Let's be very careful to not put something in the Bible that isn't there.


Let's also be careful not to take something out or ignore it. If the act and the compuslion are both called adultery in the bible why isnt the act and compulsion of homosexuality both called homosexuality?

People seem to want to define homosexuality as just the act so they can say that people are born with the attraction and still be able to have a choice to be a homosexual even if they're attracted to the same sex. What sense does this make?

Jesus said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Why would it be any different with homosexuality? As if a man could go around being sexually attracted to men all day and still not commit homosexuality.

Im sure the question was never "what causes people to commit outward homosexual acts?" Obviously its because they lust after the same sex, and those lusts "bringeth forth sin." The question was likely what makes someone homosexual as in the preference or desire.

Ecumaniac
Jul 9th 2008, 06:16 PM
There is not a verse in the bible that says homosexuality is part of our nature[.]

There is also no verse in the Bible which confirms the mass-energy equivalence of special relativity. Just because something is not mentioned in the Bible does not mean it's false, light.


Jesus said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Why would it be any different with homosexuality? As if a man could go around being sexually attracted to men all day and still not commit homosexuality.Let's look at this analytically, light. Jesus said that not only is heterosexual adultery sinful, but furthermore, lustful heterosexual thoughts are sinful. No one, certainly not Jesus, concludes that this means that having a heterosexual orientation is sinful.

You legitimately substitute homosexuality for heterosexuality in this passage: not only is homosexual adultery sinful, but so are lustful homosexual thoughts. However, you then seem to draw a further conclusion which is neither analogous nor Biblical: that a homosexual orientation is sinful.

This simply does not make sense. Going by this verse, if it is OK to be heterosexual if one does not lust or fornicate, then it is also OK to be homosexual if one does not lust or fornicate.


PS: Whenever I call you "light," I hear it pronounced like it is in a Japanese series with a character of the same name. Anata wa totemo kakkoii desu ne! :)

LadyinWaiting
Jul 9th 2008, 07:25 PM
Light bread, another reason your verse regarding adultery doesn't fit with the idea of the "urge" versus the act is this:

To look at someone and think, "he/she's attractive" or "I'm attracted to him/her" does NOT equal lust. To look at someone AND lust would be to imagine them being in a sexual relationsip with you.

Just because you're attracted to something doesn't mean you lust after it. Lust is defined as an intense sexual attraction OR appetite (people can lust or have an intense appetite for chocolate or money).

Just because you find someone attractive doesn't mean you lust. And just because you think someone is attractive doesn't mean you want to be with them. Along the same lines, you may find yourself attracted TO someone but refrain from sexual thoughts which would be refraining from lust.

You need to really separate a simple thought from a lust from an action.

IF someone lusts, it doesn't matter their orientation - they've committed adultery plain and simple.

If they are merely attracted to a certain person, but do not dwell or act on it, they have committed no sin.

There is nothing in the Bible that condemns a person for finding another of either gender attractive (Ex. I find that several women in my life are absolutely beautiful or very attractive - it does NOT make me a lesbian in any way shape or form.).

Scubadude
Jul 9th 2008, 07:48 PM
No, that's biology. Sexual attraction is not (necessarily) lust. It is in a man's physical makeup to be visual in his sexuality, and a man doesn't naturally differentiate between his mate and other women. It has to be a conscious decision. Lust is taking the natural attraction to the next step and letting the thoughts invade our mind.

So? Is it because you see both heterosexuality and homosexuality as natural (or maybe said differently, the difference is relative) that you keep trying to make this point.

I understand that you think you are fighting for the homosexual in this discussion, but trying to minimize the wickedness of sin through naturalizing the compulsion is not how scripture handles the matter. I have some experience being involved in others lives when they wanted to address this sin (I don't think I'm unique in this). For some men I'm sure, as you said earlier, it is their thorn in the flesh.

The thorn is there to humble the thornee, as God says "My grace is sufficient for you". Someone who is acting out of something natural, like being sexually attracted to their wife, is not thinking in terms of thorn in their flesh (But, there is a definite biological response. ;) ) Paul was asking the Lord to remove this struggle, or probably the suffering he experienced as a result of this thorn. If God has caused or allowed homosexuality to become a biological sin, then what ever hypothesis we might have, God did it in order humble that person, and to use that man to reveal His glory.

Can we agree on this much? I hope we can continue the conversation without it getting too frustrating for everyone. Sounds like we are getting to that point.

OK everyone, deep breath! Shake it off! Group hug! :lol::lol::lol:

Scubadude
Jul 9th 2008, 08:18 PM
There is also no verse in the Bible which confirms the mass-energy equivalence of special relativity. Just because something is not mentioned in the Bible does not mean it's false, light.

You're wrong! There is a passage which confirms the mass-energy equivalence of special relativity. It's in Hezekiah 32:12. OOps! Just because the book isn't mentioned in the bible, does not mean it is false, maniac.


You legitimately substitute homosexuality for heterosexuality in this passage: not only is homosexual adultery sinful, but so are lustful homosexual thoughts. However, you then seem to draw a further conclusion which is neither analogous nor Biblical: that a homosexual orientation is sinful.


Going by this verse, if it is OK to be heterosexual if one does not lust or fornicate, then it is also OK to be homosexual if one does not lust or fornicate.

legitimately substitute homosexuality for heterosexuality..... homosexual adultery...... lustful homosexual thoughts.... homosexual orientation...... it's also OK to be homosexual..........

I don't think (i could be wrong) that this discussion is about how homosexuality should be viewed as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. Perhaps I misunderstood the OP. When asking what makes a person gay, I was assuming the question was considering homosexuality a perversion from God's desires. I'm asking the moderators to judge on this one. The subject seems to have gone by the way of political agenda and homosexual justification.

light bread
Jul 9th 2008, 08:27 PM
To look at someone and think, "he/she's attractive" or "I'm attracted to him/her" does NOT equal lust.

What?! are you saying its ok for a man to look at another man and think, "im attracted to him." is ok?

crawfish
Jul 9th 2008, 08:33 PM
I know... my challenge to those that claim that: prove it. There is not a verse in the bible that says homosexuality is part of our nature, in fact as ive mentioned repeatedly it is against nature.

Plus id really like to have an explaination to how im misusing scripture, rather than just an accusation with no proof.

Actually, the onus is on you to prove that scripture DOES indicate that homosexuality cannot be a predisposition. If the scripture is silent on the matter, and science has an indication, then we should have no problem with that indication.

The bible is silent on a lot of things. Just because it doesn't discuss the internal combustion engine, should we assume that such an engine cannot exist? THAT is how you're misusing scripture - by making it say something that you want it to say (and through silence, no less).

light bread
Jul 9th 2008, 08:35 PM
Going by this verse, if it is OK to be heterosexual if one does not lust or fornicate, then it is also OK to be homosexual if one does not lust or fornicate.

You have completely misunderstood the argument. The comparison was meant to show the physical act is not what is condemned but also the thought. We could take any sin... murder, for example: You dont have to commit the physical act to be a murderer, Jesus said the thought of hatred was to commit murder.

People have been making the statement that you can be attracted to the same sex and not be a homosexual; you have to actaully commit the physical act. This makes no sense, especially when we are talking about a genetic cause for it.


Actually, the onus is on you to prove that scripture DOES indicate that homosexuality cannot be a predisposition. If the scripture is silent on the matter, and science has an indication, then we should have no problem with that indication.

The bible is silent on a lot of things. Just because it doesn't discuss the internal combustion engine, should we assume that such an engine cannot exist? THAT is how you're misusing scripture - by making it say something that you want it to say (and through silence, no less).

You're wrong, the bible is not silent, it says: homosexuality is "against nature" and uccircumcision is "by nature." Ive provided this biblical support long ago and no one has responed to it, other then to claim i was misusing it without actual proof.

crawfish
Jul 9th 2008, 08:39 PM
So? Is it because you see both heterosexuality and homosexuality as natural (or maybe said differently, the difference is relative) that you keep trying to make this point.

I understand that you think you are fighting for the homosexual in this discussion, but trying to minimize the wickedness of sin through naturalizing the compulsion is not how scripture handles the matter. I have some experience being involved in others lives when they wanted to address this sin (I don't think I'm unique in this). For some men I'm sure, as you said earlier, it is their thorn in the flesh.

I am fighting for the truth. I'm not defending homosexuality in any way; I believe that it is a sin to behave in that fashion. Just as with any other sin, some people will be tempted by it, and others will not. If drunkenness is not a temptation for me but someone else, does that make me better than them? No! I have sins I struggle with that are not that person's struggles - we are equal (both sinners) in the sight of God. For some reason, we want to set homosexuality as a "worse" sin than other sins - I suppose because it makes us uncomfortable.


The thorn is there to humble the thornee, as God says "My grace is sufficient for you". Someone who is acting out of something natural, like being sexually attracted to their wife, is not thinking in terms of thorn in their flesh (But, there is a definite biological response. ;) ) Paul was asking the Lord to remove this struggle, or probably the suffering he experienced as a result of this thorn. If God has caused or allowed homosexuality to become a biological sin, then what ever hypothesis we might have, God did it in order humble that person, and to use that man to reveal His glory.

Can we agree on this much? I hope we can continue the conversation without it getting too frustrating for everyone. Sounds like we are getting to that point.

OK everyone, deep breath! Shake it off! Group hug! :lol::lol::lol:

I think you've got it right, there.

light bread
Jul 9th 2008, 08:49 PM
For some reason, we want to set homosexuality as a "worse" sin than other sins - I suppose because it makes us uncomfortable.


Or perhaps because God demanded the death penalty in the OT for it or because he destroyed whole cities with fire because of it.

Some sins are worse then others. As james says it only takes one sin no matter the size to condemn someone to hell, but to say all sin is equal (if thats what you're saying) is crazy. The whole principle of different punishments for different sins is that some are worse than others.

I know you think homosexuality is wrong, but the reason some people in the discussion think you are defending them is because you keep repeating the same rhetoric used by people pushing the gay agenda.

Scubadude
Jul 9th 2008, 08:51 PM
I am fighting for the truth. I'm not defending homosexuality in any way;

Sorry for the miss communication. I wasn't trying to say you were trying to justify it. What I meant to say is that I am paying attention to what you are saying, and that I believe your heart is to help homosexuals in their struggle.

I now can see how

"I understand that you think you are fighting for the homosexual in this discussion"

sounded more like an accusation. My bad. :B

LadyinWaiting
Jul 9th 2008, 10:59 PM
Do I agree with their attraction to it? No. I'm heterosexual.

However, have they SINNED by it? No.

I'm attracted to shiney things (Stay with me here...I have a point). From time to time, it flashes through my mind how unbelievably easy it would probably be to just grab something, stick it in my pocket and leave. However, I have the Holy Spirit there saying basically "what the heck are you thinking?! You wouldn't steal." And I don't, and never have.

To flip your argument around, if I say that another woman is exceptionally attractive, does it mean I had a homosexual thought? If a guy admires another man's physique and says, "he has a good body" WITHOUT it being a sexual comment, have they committed a sin? Is that any different?

There are very handsome men in the world. From time to time, a guy walks by me and I may think, "Wow, he's handsome." (My husband's better though.) Did I commit a sin of lust or adultery? I didn't have a sexual thought about anyone. I did not commit any act of adultery.

We are not the thought police. God allows us to have the freedom to have thoughts. The struggle is to keep our thoughts on Him.

So, in reference to your adultery/lust comments - I find your argument faulty and wanting because stating the obvious that someone IS attractive or have the thought of a fleeting moment of attraction (or a pull) towards something is not lust and it is not adultery since both are VERY clearly defined scripturally and morally.

What *I* find appropriate is inconsequential unless there's a scriptural backing. And since we don't have the ability to see into someone's heart and mind...I'm going to refrain from passing judgement on someone for something I don't know. God sees the heart and thoughts of us all. He knows when something is an innocent, fleeting, POTENTIALLY dangerous thought, and He knows when it crosses the line to being lust or mental adultery.

White Spider
Jul 9th 2008, 11:16 PM
Wow, 3 new pages in such a short time . . . really took off . . .

Just going to say the sin is in the choice to act on the urge whether the urge is influenced by biological means or by life experiences . . .

I think I'll leave it at that because if it's biological or not it doesn't matter, giving in to the sexual attraction wherever it comes from is a sin and should not be done.

(Though I will ask if it's biological for guys to masturbate? I would say no, a guy who's never done it doesn't really ever have the urge to do it . . . it starts out of curiosity mostly I think as I believe homosexuality does, once one gets into it they like it and it becomes hard to stop. But I don't believe either are biological.)

LadyinWaiting
Jul 10th 2008, 12:24 AM
BTW - I'm for the calming group hug, too! ;-)

Ecumaniac
Jul 10th 2008, 09:18 AM
You're wrong! There is a passage which confirms the mass-energy equivalence of special relativity. It's in Hezekiah 32:12. OOps! Just because the book isn't mentioned in the bible, does not mean it is false, maniac.

:confused I'm a little lost about what you're trying to say, Scuba?


I don't think (i could be wrong) that this discussion is about how homosexuality should be viewed as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. Perhaps I misunderstood the OP. When asking what makes a person gay, I was assuming the question was considering homosexuality a perversion from God's desires. I'm asking the moderators to judge on this one. The subject seems to have gone by the way of political agenda and homosexual justification.

Sorry… "lifestyle"? I'm talking about the constitutional state of being sexually attracted to the same sex, not the "homosexual lifestyle". :) Nor am I talking about homosexual acts.

Similarly, we know that aggressive behaviour has biological correlates. In most cases, removing the amygdalae produces flattened emotional affect, including reduced aggression. Disorders which cause temporal lobe damage—e.g. temporal lobe epilepsy, rabies—often cause heightened aggression.

Knowing this does not justify aggressive behaviour, nor entertaining aggressive fantasies. However, just because aggressive thoughts or actions are a sin does not mean that one cannot be biologically predisposed to it, nor that it is a sin to be so predisposed. It's OK to have a biological predisposition to aggression so long as one can keep aggressive urges under control, avoid committing aggressive acts, and abstains from an "aggressive lifestyle".

Now, read the above paragraph and substitute homosexuality for aggression. That's what I'm saying. Nothing about a homosexual "lifestyle"!

Ecumaniac
Jul 10th 2008, 09:19 AM
BTW - I'm for the calming group hug, too! ;-)

Definitely! [:hug: to all involved]

Ecumaniac
Jul 10th 2008, 09:26 AM
You have completely misunderstood the argument. The comparison was meant to show the physical act is not what is condemned but also the thought. We could take any sin... murder, for example: You dont have to commit the physical act to be a murderer, Jesus said the thought of hatred was to commit murder.

But I don't think that's what Jesus was saying. Being straight makes one predisposed towards heterosexual adultery, by simple expedient of one possessing an innate sexual appreciation of the opposite sex. But being straight is not sinful; only lustfulness is sinful. To say more would extend this verse far beyond Jesus' stated parameters.


People have been making the statement that you can be attracted to the same sex and not be a homosexual; you have to actaully commit the physical act. This makes no sense, especially when we are talking about a genetic cause for it.

I agree, light! :) "Homosexual" is an unfortunately versatile word, but when used of a person it describes a constitutional state, not acts or lustful thoughts.


You're wrong, the bible is not silent, it says: homosexuality is "against nature" and uccircumcision is "by nature." Ive provided this biblical support long ago and no one has responed to it, other then to claim i was misusing it without actual proof.

Read back a bit, and you will see that I've responded already. :)

Ecumaniac
Jul 10th 2008, 09:28 AM
[God] destroyed whole cities with fire because of it.

Which cities are you talking about? The only cities I can think of being destroyed with fire are Sodom and Gomorrah, and they weren't destroyed for homosexuality. Unless Ezekiel got it wrong?

Scubadude
Jul 10th 2008, 05:26 PM
Someone was refusing all connections to biological basis...

http://www.stanfordu.edu/dept/news/pr/95/950310Arc5328.html
^ Sort of recaps the biological connection of several studies.

Basically, it boils down to a correlation, not a causation.

Correlation is never causation, but this piece of work is meaningless in that it doesn't even show correlation. It was a speach given by Dora B. Goldstein, and sponsored by Standford Medical Center's Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual Community. Thanks for the unbiased report. Was this suppose to make your argument that homosexuality is natural?

White Spider
Jul 10th 2008, 07:02 PM
Why are there still people who think it's natural/genetic/etc . . .

Very very few behaviors are genetic . . .

Smiling when you're happy, frowning when you're sad, crying when you're upset . . . and a few other things like that . . .

Even the attraction to the opposite sex is somewhat learned . . .

The argument that anyone can be born gay is a waste of time as it should be beyond obvious that is not possible.

You can't be born smart, you can't be born a serial killer, you can't be born an athlete . . . It's all learned . . . You can argue that certain traits lead to being gay, but you just won the argument for me . . . They lead to being gay, they don't make one gay. Just as people with certain traits are more likely to be serial killers, but it does not make them serial killers.

The problem is attraction seems so natural it seems logical to say it's genetic etc. but in reality it only becomes naturalistic . . . like a sixth sense . . . it becomes a part of you and you do it without even thinking . . . like people who can type without looking at their keyboard, it becomes natural as most would say. Being gay is that kind of natural . . .

LadyinWaiting
Jul 10th 2008, 07:35 PM
Well, scubadude...my apologies for not taking an hour to search for the history behind every single thing on the internet. WHY the speech was given, if you're in fact right...which I don't doubt, does that change any of the information in it? (BTW - I haven't said it is NATURAL to be homosexual. My argument is that it may have a biological link that, if isolated, could help us COMBAT it. Don't make me out to claim things I didn't. If it came across that way, my apologies. I think it is unnatural - meaning it is not the way God designed us to live. I just think that the research is showing that there's something in the brain that may make someone more likely to develop homosexual tendancies, and that needs to be figured out so that we can help combat this illness of perception and life.)

Some are predisposed to being easily angered because there are issues with their brain. Depression runs in families and has a hormonal cause.

I used to be from the "choice only" camp until I really examined how illogical it really is. If you're predisposed to something, you do not HAVE to become it. If it's based on a hormonal imbalance or a neural misfire, it's something that can be CORRECTED so that the behavior doesn't follow the issue.

What White Spider said (at one point) is the SAME point many of us have been trying to make. Many homosexual people have traits which LEADS them to that lifestyle. The traits on their own don't make them homosexual, it LEADS to it (correlation).

Attractions, like tastes, are things that we don't really control too much. As much as I'd love to try certain foods...I'm repulsed by textures. I didn't learn to find them disgusting because I was never taught it.

While I don't believe that biology makes ANY behavior excusable (including the ADD students I teach), to deny that it is a factor is to deny psychological facts.

The problems I have with biological arguments would be 1) denying responsibility or blaming because biology doesn't make someone a serial killer - it's makes it easier for some people to be drawn to it by their traits, and 2) the idea that "I'm made this way by God" because I just don't buy that God would create something that he hates.

However, allowing the idea that traits lead to certain paths that create behaviors is what *I* am basically trying to get across. It doesn't CAUSE the behavior, it allows the behavior to be more likely to happen. To think that a person just wakes up one morning and says "gee, what can I do today? I know, I'll be gay and get a boyfriend/girlfriend" is a little irrational.

Being homosexual is NOT natural in the same way depression is NOT natural. However, both states can be manipulated through prayer, habit changes, and (for depression) medication. If we can figure out what misfires in the brain or which hormones create the potential for homosexual tendancies, we could manipulate it like we do depression in order to prevent it.

Some can beat depression without medication. But, no one would rationally say that a person chooses depression. If there's a biological reason for that, why is it so irrational to think there's a biological pre-disposition towards homosexuality?

Ecumaniac
Jul 10th 2008, 08:16 PM
You can argue that certain traits lead to being gay, but you just won the argument for me . . . They lead to being gay, they don't make one gay.

You seem to think that we're saying there are a few genes which are 100% responsible for homosexuality; we're not. Neither is genetic predisposition the only root for biological change, nor even the only type of influence beyond one's control.

No one knows exactly which genes, hormones, childhood experiences or other maturational influences give rise to a homosexual phenotype, nor in what proportions. All we know is that it exists, in humans and some other mammals, and is extremely resistant to change even in the most motivated individuals. Understanding this is the first step to sensibly and compassionately ministering to gay individuals; dogmata such as "you can't be a gay Christian" (as has been said on other threads) and "being gay is a choice" are seriously damaging and hurtful to gay people, who honestly didn't just sit down one day and decide that they wanted to experience sexual attraction to the same sex. :)

Scubadude
Jul 10th 2008, 09:19 PM
WHY the speech was given, if you're in fact right...which I don't doubt, does that change any of the information in it? Don't make me out to claim things I didn't.

Being homosexual is NOT natural in the same way depression is NOT natural. However, both states can be manipulated through prayer, habit changes, and (for depression) medication. If we can figure out what misfires in the brain or which hormones create the potential for homosexual tendencies, we could manipulate it like we do depression in order to prevent it.



I don't think you are trying to advance the gay agenda, or relieve anyone of their responsibility before God. In fact, your writing strikes me as very gracious and deeply considerate. And, for the most part, we are in agreement. The speech you gave as a reference was held in support of advancing homosexuality to become more acceptable in society. Why a speech is given does change the information. But, if someone says "There is a biological reason for something" then give subjective data ALONE (there is a place for subjective data), without reproducible scientific evidence, than they haven't proven anything (in fact, it weakens the argument). A large body of biologists need to agree on a finding before the thought is even considered as possibly a valid theory. The majority of the scientific society in the world think the idea of a gay gene is implausible. Impossible to prove.

The statement is very subtitle in it's effect, but significant. Because we hear it over and over again, in many different ways, and see and hear people being punished for their 'homophobic' statements, the tendency is to start getting comfortable with agreeing.... regardless of the profound lack of evidence other than hearing about it over and over again.

I'm realizing from this thread that in an effort to get something concrete in the way of information, I am perpetuating the very thing that creates the problem of the lie. I think the reason I want to refute this genetic notion is because it is not the point. My thought is, "So what?" We can't manipulate a gay gene, no one can. How does thinking we can help us know God? Which homosexual is going to go through gene therapy? The entire discussion is a smoke screen, diverting our attention from something far more important.

The ultimate reality of the universe is relationship, not truth. Knowing things doesn't give us power to change a human heart.... in any issue. Only in the context of community can someone struggle with a thorn in the flesh and find grace and forgiveness. WE show God's love by being in the kind of relationships that are willing to get messy in the struggle for redemption. All this biological mumbo jumbo is just a smoke screen, leading no where.

The problem with homosexuality is that it mars the image of God and harms the relationships that were originally intended to be a reflection of His caracter. God created man and woman, then called them good. Why? Because each of them reflected something of His image. When a man feels compelled towards homosexuality, it is out of contempt for his sexuality, the image of God in him and the responsibility it implies. The effect is that he is crippled as a man. Saying "I am gay" caries with it an insidious effect on the relationships this man is in. It is like having a very big log that needs to be moved. you want a strong man to do the job. The gay man is saying "I have a broken arm. Don't look hear for strength." In a relationship with women, he is seen more as a buddy, a pal, where no sexual tension exists. One of the girls. Repentance for the homosexual will look similar to any man (because as men, we sin as men), aside from difference in specific behaviors.

This is my attempt to change the subject a little, and hopefully continue it if people aren't weary from the conversation, yet.

Scubadude
Jul 10th 2008, 09:22 PM
All we know is that it exists, in humans and some other mammals, and is extremely resistant to change even in the most motivated individuals.





Are you just repeating what you heard? You don't know.

Who is "we"?

Ecumaniac
Jul 10th 2008, 09:54 PM
Are you just repeating what you heard?

I'm citing the conclusions I've reached from the data points I have available, if that's what you mean. And I credit myself for having examined this particular issue in some depth and from a number of angles before drawing a conclusion.


You don't know.What an odd thing to say! How could you know what I know better than I do myself? :confused Am I misunderstanding you, Scuba?


Who is "we"?Going strictly by the semantics of the sentence, it would mean "anyone who agrees that homosexuality exists, and is hard to change". Regarding my intentions for using the first person plural, I was hoping to encourage a degree of consensus through inclusive language so that the discussion could move forward. If you believe that homosexuality does not exist, or that it is not difficult to change, you're free to take exception, but I confess that I thought these to be fairly uncontroversial premises for agreement! :)

Scubadude
Jul 10th 2008, 10:10 PM
I'm citing the conclusions I've reached from the data points I have available, if that's what you mean. And I credit myself for having examined this particular issue in some depth and from a number of angles before drawing a conclusion.

What an odd thing to say! How could you know what I know better than I do myself? :confused Am I misunderstanding you, Scuba?

Going strictly by the semantics of the sentence, it would mean "anyone who agrees that homosexuality exists, and is hard to change". Regarding my intentions for using the first person plural, I was hoping to encourage a degree of consensus through inclusive language so that the discussion could move forward. If you believe that homosexuality does not exist, or that it is not difficult to change, you're free to take exception, but I confess that I thought these to be fairly uncontroversial premises for agreement! :)


:pray::pray::pray::pray::hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm:: pray::pray::pray::pray:

Rullion Green
Jul 10th 2008, 10:19 PM
People are inherently sinful (Paul says that because of Adam's sin all of mankind became sinful). What sins a person has tendencies for depends on the individual.

Homosexuality is called an "abomination." Sin is "unnatural" in that God didn't create us as sinners. Sin is "natural" in that it became a part of our nature.

Greed is not natural, but because of sinful nature, some people are greedy.

Violence is not natural, but because of sinful nature, some people are violent.

Homosexuality is not natural, but because of sinful nature, some people are homosexual.

No, I am not saying people are born homosexual, and no, I am not saying homosexuality is "okay." I'm only saying that, because people have natural tendencies to sin, certain individuals have tendencies to be homosexual just as certain individuals have tendencies to be violent or greedy.


i think this is a good way although simplified to look at the topic, good insight i thought along the same lines before actually putting it into words as you have. i agree :)

LadyinWaiting
Jul 10th 2008, 10:27 PM
In fact, your writing strikes me as very gracious and deeply considerate.

Pardon me while I blush (and remove my foot from my mouth...just in case).

Let me further clarify that I don't think there's a "gay gene" like we have genes for eye color. I think there's a psychological misfire, neurons disconnected or hotwired, or something hormonal (or all three) that causes the tendancy towards it. Those things can be fixed or remedied.

(After all, if it was truly a "gay gene" that did it...it would have died out quickly! Instead, there's more-or-less a steady percentage of people who claim it...which sounds more like a tendancy or predisposal than something you're forced to endure under genetics.)

Ecumaniac
Jul 10th 2008, 10:29 PM
:pray::pray::pray::pray::hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm:: pray::pray::pray::pray:

Um…? :confused Do excuse me, but what are you saying? Did I not explain something? What are you praying for? I am quite lost now, Scubadude! :sad:

White Spider
Jul 11th 2008, 12:42 AM
You seem to think that we're saying there are a few genes which are 100% responsible for homosexuality; we're not. Neither is genetic predisposition the only root for biological change, nor even the only type of influence beyond one's control.

No one knows exactly which genes, hormones, childhood experiences or other maturational influences give rise to a homosexual phenotype, nor in what proportions. All we know is that it exists, in humans and some other mammals, and is extremely resistant to change even in the most motivated individuals. Understanding this is the first step to sensibly and compassionately ministering to gay individuals; dogmata such as "you can't be a gay Christian" (as has been said on other threads) and "being gay is a choice" are seriously damaging and hurtful to gay people, who honestly didn't just sit down one day and decide that they wanted to experience sexual attraction to the same sex. :)

Some are saying there are genes, or at least come across that way.

Others seem to think there is a high likelihood if someone is a certain way or raised a certain way.

With those to arguments some say it is "natural" and uncontrollable . . .

My argument is that is controllable, despite being difficult to control, it is controllable.

I am also arguing that it is not natural . . .

If gays find it hurtful when I say it's a choice, they need to get over it . . .

Now the choice I am talking about is the act of having sexual relations with the same sex not the attraction towards the same sex . . .

Yes I know many argue the thought is just as bad, but to me it's only bad if it's lustful, lustful, but just a "they're sexy" thought is fine. I find plenty of guys attractive, but the controllable parts, the sin, the homosexuality comes into play when the thoughts become lustful and sexual.

Heterosexuals struggle with it too, it's a sin for them as well . . .

My argument is it's unnatural to look at every pretty girl or guy and imagine them naked and so on . . . whether one is gay or straight. And it is a choice one can make to subdue those thoughts. And a much more obvious choice to actually engage in the acts. Unnatural acts.

Ecumaniac
Jul 11th 2008, 08:56 AM
The problem, White Spider, is that you have redefined the word "gay" (as applied to people) to mean, "one who commits sexual acts with someone of the same sex," whereas the actual definition is simply "one who is subject to exclusively same-sex attractions".

If you still don't see the distinction, think about it this way: would you be happy having a sexual relationship with a same-sex partner if you didn't hold your current religious beliefs? Would often think lustful thoughts about the same sex? Rather, do you think you would still be happier with an opposite-sex partner, and only struggle with lustful thoughts towards the opposite sex? If so, you are heterosexual, aka "straight". This is not because you sat down and chose to be straight; it is purely a matter of luck. Of course, that does not excuse you from lustful thoughts; it is simply useful to know that your particular weakness is for the opposite sex.

Similarly, a gay person does not struggle with lustful thoughts towards the opposite sex; they only ever have such thoughts about the same sex. That does not excuse them from lust, either, no matter how "natural" their attractions are.

Regarding how "natural" the aetiology homosexuality is: the very word "natural" is impossibly vague and useless. Considering that we are currently having an unnatural forum conversation in which we sent unnaturally-edited messages to each other using thoroughly unnatural means (the Internet, TCP/IP), messages which we composed by unnaturally distorting our hands to perform the unnatural operation of "typing" at our unnatural keyboards, these messages finally being displayed via unnatural light produced by our unnatural monitors, I don't see how pointing out that something is "unnatural" conveys any moral authority! :)

Besides which, from the way that Paul uses the word "natural" in his letters, it is clear that he sees no moral advantage to behaving in an unnatural manner when what is "natural" is so often contrary to God's will.

Scubadude
Jul 11th 2008, 07:00 PM
I think there is a distinction that need to be made between Natural and natural.

Natural, with a capital "N", means 'the way we were originally created'. Before the Fall, God had made us without all the underpinnings of wickedness that now plague humanity. There was an original design that was perfectly suited to worship God. That is Natural.

natural, with a small "n" is what we have today. Some passages call it the fleshly nature, or living in darkness. It is that nature that is hostel to God in all things. the natural man is not well suited to worship God. He needs to be borne again of the Spirit in order to have strength to resist the natural man (small n) and in order to be seen as Natural before God once more.

Scubadude
Jul 11th 2008, 11:54 PM
Pardon me while I blush




:)



If the subject is interesting to you, there is a thread in the Bible Chat on Manhood. A womans perspective is most welcome!

White Spider
Jul 12th 2008, 12:57 AM
You may think I have redefined the word, but I haven't . . .

Is someone who thinks about getting drunk a drunkard? I think not, it's the act that makes a person what they are.

You can think about bringing the world to Christ, but you haven't done anything. You may think sin is gone, but it's still there. Go ahead, just try to think yourself a million dollars. Didn't work now did it?

:B This modern day philosophy of thinking is doing is moronic in my opinion.

Yes the Bible states one who has looked at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in their heart. Importance on in their heart . . . committing an act in your heart and physically is different if you ask me.

And how do you know one is gay if they never commit the act, to society they are no longer gay if they stop having sexual relations with the same sex.

And your question of would I have a sexual attraction and relations with men if I wasn't religious? I really don't know, I make sure I don't let those thoughts in and when they do, I let them right back out. I'd say without Christ I might be gay, or at least bi-sexual; I can't say I wouldn't be . . . I'd probably be a lot of unrighteous things without Christ in my life.

Ecumaniac
Jul 12th 2008, 10:02 AM
I think there is a distinction that need to be made between Natural and natural.

Natural, with a capital "N", means 'the way we were originally created'. Before the Fall, God had made us without all the underpinnings of wickedness that now plague humanity. There was an original design that was perfectly suited to worship God. That is Natural.

natural, with a small "n" is what we have today. Some passages call it the fleshly nature, or living in darkness. It is that nature that is hostel to God in all things. the natural man is not well suited to worship God. He needs to be borne again of the Spirit in order to have strength to resist the natural man (small n) and in order to be seen as Natural before God once more.

That's a useful distinction.

By "Natural," then, you mean the pre-Fall state of things, and by "natural" you mean the inevitable consequences of living in a corrupted, disordered world. So leukaemia, depression, homosexuality and the common cold would be "natural," but not "Natural," correct?

If so, then I think we are more closely aligned. I almost never use the word "natural" in the philosophical, big-N sense, but almost always to describe the current state of things (little-n). (In fact, I don't think I ever refer to the pre-Fall state as "natural," since a universe perfectly regulated by God is about as far from what is "natural" to fallen human beings as one can imagine!) I don't know if Paul used it this way, either; I somewhat suspect that he didn't, considering how he uses the word without preface in one sense which is unambiguously base, and in another which is merely descriptive. I'd probably tend to use words like "ideal" or "regulated" instead of "Natural" to describe the perfected state of affairs under God. :)

PS: On reflection, I think the phrase "in a perfect world" is most often how I prefix such descriptions.

Ecumaniac
Jul 12th 2008, 12:09 PM
You may think I have redefined the word, but I haven't . . .

[…]

And how do you know one is gay if they never commit the act, to society they are no longer gay if they stop having sexual relations with the same sex.

OK, White—here's a thought experiment for you.

A teenage girl says, "I think I might be gay." Does she mean:


…she thinks she might be currently engaging in sexual acts with other girls?
…she thinks that she only feels sexually attracted to girls?

If you look at a dictionary, White, you will see that the words "gay" and "homosexual" mean different things depending upon whether you're talking about people or actions. When used of people, they don't refer to the things those people do. Instead, they signify that an individual experiences sexual attractions exclusively directed towards the same sex.

Without wishing to lower the tone of the conversation: there exist heterosexual individuals (men or women who are attracted to the opposite sex) who will engage in homosexual activities for money, status or publicity—for well-known examples, just look at Britney Spears and Madonna! There are also gay individuals (men or women who are attracted to the same sex) who marry opposite-sex partners, thinking that this might magially "turn them straight"—i.e. render them sexually attracted to women. From the accounts I have read, it almost never changes their sexuality, and often has disastrous consequences for both partners. :(

Realising what sort of sin your fleshy nature (thanks, Scuba!) predisposes you towards is not a bad thing. If you know that you are only attracted to women, you will be vigilant against this temptation. Like Joseph, you will know to flee when Potiphar's wife comes for you. Ditto if you know that you are attracted only to men, or indeed to both. (Gosh, that must be tough!) It's not an admission of defeat, it's a realisation of fact which can be used to strengthen one's defences against evil. Like the age-old mandate states, "know thyself".


:B This modern day philosophy of thinking is doing is moronic in my opinion.

Yes the Bible states one who has looked at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in their heart. Importance on in their heart . . . committing an act in your heart and physically is different if you ask me.

That's why I'm surprised that you call it a "modern day philosophy". In terms of physical consequences, I agree that doing something "in one's heart" is different from doing it physically. I also agree with James 2:20 ("[… F]aith without works is dead"), and with Jesus in Matthew 7:16 ("By their fruits you shall know them"). So to an extent, I agree that thoughts committed "in one's heart" are different from acts committed "in the flesh".

However, I believe that the message that James was communicating is that one cannot believe what is in one's heart if there is no evidence of that in how one conducts one's life. So what is in one's heart is still important; the fruits of that faith (or sin) are merely evidenced by one's actions, not consummated. Sin still corrupts in one's heart; that's why Jesus went on to say immediately afterwards: "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out!"

Homosexuality itself is neither a sin of the heart nor a sin of action, any more than heterosexuality is. It is a state of nature (little-n).


And your question of would I have a sexual attraction and relations with men if I wasn't religious? I really don't know, I make sure I don't let those thoughts in and when they do, I let them right back out. I'd say without Christ I might be gay, or at least bi-sexual; I can't say I wouldn't be . . . I'd probably be a lot of unrighteous things without Christ in my life.

I have a few atheist friends; one of my housemates last year, for example. (Apparently, his father studied under Richard Dawkins, who praised him as "[his] best student".) Most of them are quite firmly straight, and think it highly unlikely that they would consider homosexual activities in the future.

It's wise and praiseworthy to restrain your thoughts, and I don't advise against it; you should be proud of your self-control! :) But with regards to sexual orientation, most straight people—regardless of their religious affiliations—do not have trouble avoiding homosexual thoughts. To them, such attractions don't come naturally. I also know some Christians who are gay—one in particular has struggled for years to change his sexuality, to no avail. In short, I believe that if you are not gay with Christ, it is safe to assume that you would not be gay without him.

light bread
Jul 13th 2008, 10:29 PM
Which cities are you talking about? The only cities I can think of being destroyed with fire are Sodom and Gomorrah, and they weren't destroyed for homosexuality. Unless Ezekiel got it wrong?

Ezek. specifically says the reason for their destruction was for their abominations in 16:51:

"And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Lev18:22

Jude: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

Its clear...why they were destroyed. What sins do we specifically see happening there right before it was destroyed??? Lying, Stealing, Idolatry, human sacrafice??? No, a bunch of male sodomites wanting to have sex with a couple angels who they thought were men.


Read back a bit, and you will see that I've responded already. :)

I must be missing it.


But I don't think that's what Jesus was saying. Being straight makes one predisposed....

Neither I nor Jesus ever said anything about predispositions or any of that. People were teaching you were only an adulterer if you physically committed adultery, or only a murderer if you physically committed murder. He corrected them, saying that if you even think it you have committed them. The same teaching would correct people that have said you aren't gay until you commit the physical act. Why God want us to be gay all we want while refraining from homosexuality? Its like saying hate all you want just dont kill anyone. It makes no sense. The commandments are not just against the physical acts, but the thoughts and desires behind them.

You have already said otherwise, so this argument doesn't even disagree with anything you have said. You have just been making a straw man out of it for whatever reason.

Im going to repeat my main point again as plain as possible;

Natural vs Unnatural

Rom 2:27 - And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

Uncircumcision is by nature, its natural, people are born that way.

Does natural mean the way God wants or intends? Obviously not because natural is often used in a negative sense in the bible (the natural man, natural brute beasts, ect.) Also people in the OT were also uncircumcised by nature, and God wanted them circumcised. But all men are born uncircumcised, so the bible can say it is by nature.(just like "the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit" or no man is born receiving them they must be regenerated)

Things by nature are not necessarily wrong.

John 9 - And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

Its not a sin to be blind. And not all blindness is by nature So you will not find a statement calling it natural since not every man is born this way. Some people run with scissors and some aren't blind at all.

But this man was born blind. So to say something is natural or by birth has nothing to do with right or wrongness, just the way in which people are born.

In Rom. 1:26 - "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature For And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

That which is against nature is sodomy. You cant separate the desires/orientation from the physical act. Even this verse is talking about their affections not just the act. Think about it if you're sexually attracted to the same sex that makes you a sodomite.(if theres going to be discrepancy over wordly terms such as "gay" then ill just restrict my usage to the biblical terms for such people) Both biblically and common-sensical thinking tell you that.

If by nature means born that way, then against nature can not mean born that way. Thus, people are not born with biological problems that make them think, "hey, i like______."

In fact, it would be to go against the way people are born to have those thoughts and feelings. It would be like saying, "I found a gene that makes a natural man able to receive the things of the spirit." It's impossible and it violates scripture.

LadyinWaiting
Jul 13th 2008, 10:50 PM
Just one thing that caught my eye regarding the nature (meaning born with) statement above.

What about biological imbalances that create depression, bipolarism, schizophrenic, or any of the hosts of psychological issues?

Why is it so far from those to think that there may be a psychological problem that leads to people's attractions? Many people I know fight the feeling, but have no help in doing that. Most people also fight depression, manic episodes, etc., but when they seek help, there's a way for it.

I'm just not sure I can agree with you about it violating scripture in order for there to be some sort of hormonal or neural factors that lead to the mentality. It would be like saying we can't blame our sinful urges to lie, cheat or steal on the sin nature that happened as a result of the fall since it wasn't the way we were designed.

Of course we weren't designed that way. We were designed to be perfect embodiements of God. Thanks to Adam and Eve, all of human-kind became prone to sin - against the very nature and intention for which we were created. However, from the very moment we're born we're inherently selfish (not caring for our mothers' need of sleep...we have no conception of others), we lie without being taught what a lie is from the age of a toddler as well as stealing, and by the time we're adults...well...you know the world we live in. None of that is according to the nature God created us to have...but it IS in our sin nature.

The same nature predisposes some to be pathological liars (compulsion to lie...psychological problem). It really doesn't seem that far of a leap of logic to believe that due to the original sin we all bear by the fact that we're human there may be something that is psychologically, neurally, hormonally (all of which boil down to biologically or organically) wrong that would pre-dispose someone to that sort of thought pattern.

Like I've said before - the choice to follow through on those thoughts is fully their choice (just as those who are prone to schizophrenia or depression can choose to remain in that state with those thoughts - which is a state contrary to our own "normal" nature - or they can seek help to control them by whatever means necessary). They are responsible for their own choices.

*Oh, also remember that whenever homosexuality is mentioned (like with Sodom, Gomorrah, and others) it usually makes some sort of reference to giving someone over to their lustful desires...which would mean that the desire or thoughts were there prior, but they gave in to them (but there's nothing that says the thought that was being FOUGHT was a sin).

Roelof
Jul 14th 2008, 04:23 AM
Just one thing that caught my eye regarding the nature (meaning born but have no help in doing that. Most people also fight depression, manic episodes, etc., but when they seek help, there's a way for it.



You made a very good point. One must 1st realize that you have a problem, then seek professional help (including the help of the Lord in prayer)

apothanein kerdos
Jul 14th 2008, 04:54 AM
Just one thing that caught my eye regarding the nature (meaning born with) statement above.

What about biological imbalances that create depression, bipolarism, schizophrenic, or any of the hosts of psychological issues?

Why is it so far from those to think that there may be a psychological problem that leads to people's attractions? Many people I know fight the feeling, but have no help in doing that. Most people also fight depression, manic episodes, etc., but when they seek help, there's a way for it.

I'm just not sure I can agree with you about it violating scripture in order for there to be some sort of hormonal or neural factors that lead to the mentality. It would be like saying we can't blame our sinful urges to lie, cheat or steal on the sin nature that happened as a result of the fall since it wasn't the way we were designed.

Of course we weren't designed that way. We were designed to be perfect embodiements of God. Thanks to Adam and Eve, all of human-kind became prone to sin - against the very nature and intention for which we were created. However, from the very moment we're born we're inherently selfish (not caring for our mothers' need of sleep...we have no conception of others), we lie without being taught what a lie is from the age of a toddler as well as stealing, and by the time we're adults...well...you know the world we live in. None of that is according to the nature God created us to have...but it IS in our sin nature.

The same nature predisposes some to be pathological liars (compulsion to lie...psychological problem). It really doesn't seem that far of a leap of logic to believe that due to the original sin we all bear by the fact that we're human there may be something that is psychologically, neurally, hormonally (all of which boil down to biologically or organically) wrong that would pre-dispose someone to that sort of thought pattern.

Like I've said before - the choice to follow through on those thoughts is fully their choice (just as those who are prone to schizophrenia or depression can choose to remain in that state with those thoughts - which is a state contrary to our own "normal" nature - or they can seek help to control them by whatever means necessary). They are responsible for their own choices.

*Oh, also remember that whenever homosexuality is mentioned (like with Sodom, Gomorrah, and others) it usually makes some sort of reference to giving someone over to their lustful desires...which would mean that the desire or thoughts were there prior, but they gave in to them (but there's nothing that says the thought that was being FOUGHT was a sin).


This is an excellent post and explanation.

light bread
Jul 14th 2008, 05:46 AM
Just one thing that caught my eye regarding the nature (meaning born with) statement above.

What about biological imbalances that create depression, bipolarism, schizophrenic, or any of the hosts of psychological issues?


Just like being born blind, there are no doubt other things that may occur.



Why is it so far from those to think that there may be a psychological problem that leads to people's attractions? Many people I know fight the feeling, but have no help in doing that. Most people also fight depression, manic episodes, etc., but when they seek help, there's a way for it.

The big difference is none of the other host of biological/psychological imbalances and issues (to my knowledge) are said to be against nature by the bible.

There may be a lot of sins that are by nature. Lying is one that comes to mind.(psalm 58) I have no problem agreeing that there are certain sins that come with our nature. I do have a problem with sodomy being one because the bible specifically says it is not.



whenever homosexuality is mentioned.....it usually makes some sort of reference to giving someone over to their lustful desires (but there's nothing that says the thought that was being FOUGHT was a sin).

Correct me if im wrong but the only one talking about giving them up is romans1. But more important is the idea that the thoughts are not wrong. The bible says, "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts" So thoughts can be evil.

So are homosexual thoughts evil? Lets see what God gave them up to: "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts"

It calls their affections vile. "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections" Does it sound like their affection(which is a pretty mild form of attraction) for the same sex was a good thing?

"God gave them over to a reprobate mind" A reprobate mind with reprobate thoughts? It sure seems like the thoughts are being condemned just as much as the action.

LadyinWaiting
Jul 14th 2008, 01:20 PM
The other things aren't mentioned in the Bible most likely because of the fact that there was no term for it until modern centuries. You cannot deny that over time we have discovered names for things that were not mentioned in the Bible, it doesn't mean there are not applications from the Bible or that they aren't able to be used as proof of a problem simply because they couldn't describe it.

You keep saying that it can't be truth because it's not in our nature since the Bible says it's unnatural. But all of those other things are STILL unnatural from our original natures given by God. You dismiss them merely because they aren't mentioned in the Bible.

And, again, (I feel like I'm beating a dead horse) no one is denying that sodomy is an abomination of a sin. However...sodomy is the item listed as an abomination. Sodomy is an ACTION, not a thought.

Both of those verses in Romans INCLUDE homosexuality but are not limited to that.

Prior to both verses you quoted would be the reason they were given up to those lusts...
From Romans 1
"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. " (verses 21-23)


"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." (Verse 25)

In neither of those verses are the people listed for already having homosexual thoughts or attractions. They were given over to all of their sin nature, which is why the semantics indicate such by verses explaining the perversity of the human heart and sin nature (in verse 24 it says they were given up to dishonor their bodies between them which includes all forms of sexual misconduct since those are the only ones included as sins against our own body; in verse 26, it says that they were given up to their vile affections; EVEN the women... which indicates there were other things that happened in addition to the women and men defiling themselves in homosexual ways.

Verse 28 - about the reprobate mind - again is not limited to the sin of homosexual acts. These are verses 28 - 32


And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Things that are not convenient isn't equivalent to homosexual acts or thoughts. It does indicate a mind full of sin due to the fact that they refused to retain God and gave themselves up to their own devices and sinful nature (no sin specifically indicated here...but read on to the clarification of those "inconvenient" things they were given over to do...


Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Notice that nothing in there actually mentions homosexuality or sodomy (both of which are clearly indicated earlier). There are a host of other sins that are given as a result of the "reprobate mind".

Also, any time affection is used, you must put it in context. Just as in English we only have one word for love, there are many different types of "affection". In both the cases of Romans 1:31 and 2 Timothy 3:3 my concordance translates that as being "hard hearted," not as in sexual affections but in terms of relational affections for human-kind. It's not given a sexual connotation based on Strong's. It's a derivative of a word used in linking to a close union or bond, but is not mentioned as a sexual kind of it (much like not all words for "love" boil down to sexual love).

apothanein kerdos
Jul 14th 2008, 02:05 PM
One thing to keep in mind -

To say that a sin is part of the nature of man means that, in order to be a human, one has to participate in these types of sins. To say, "it is part of our nature" is to say that it is necessary to engage in these activities in order to be human. If this were the case, then Christ would have either engaged in these activities, or He wasn't human.

All sin and physical deformities go against our intended nature - this is why they're sin and this is why we are destined to Hell without Christ. Though these things are part of our sin nature, they are not a part of who we are as humans.

light bread
Jul 14th 2008, 03:22 PM
One thing to keep in mind -

To say that a sin is part of the nature of man means that, in order to be a human, one has to participate in these types of sins. To say, "it is part of our nature" is to say that it is necessary to engage in these activities in order to be human. If this were the case, then Christ would have either engaged in these activities, or He wasn't human.

All sin and physical deformities go against our intended nature - this is why they're sin and this is why we are destined to Hell without Christ. Though these things are part of our sin nature, they are not a part of who we are as humans.

Jesus had no sin nature because he did not have an earthly father. Besides that, that wouldn't mean everyone would have to commit it; you can choose to go against your nature. Adam and Eve had no sin nature and they sinned.

The problem is you guys keep wanting to play both sides of this natural thing. It seems no one can decide whether natural is good because they're natural as in the way God intended or they are bad because natural is according to our sin nature.

Please, if your going to say the word natural means "the way God intends" find a verse that uses it that way. Its not a sin to be blind! Its not a sin to have a deformity! Find me the verse that says, "thou shalt not be blind." OFcourse this is where this thinking of natural would take you.

Psalm 139 talks about how God makes individuals in their mother's womb. The way people are made isnt the result of random gene selection and accident. God makes each person the way he wants them, "and in thy book all my members were written which in continuance were fashioned." So if someone is born with a deformed hand or something that does not change the fact that they are made in the image of God. It doesnt matter if you have some kind of handicap that the world looks at and says is unfortunate or negative. The guy in the gospels that was born blind was that way on purpose. Jesus said the reason he was born blind was, "that the works of God should be made manifest in him." Not because someone sinned, or because it was punishment. don't think that your somehow better than someone else because they're crippled or mentally challenged. Each person is equally made in the image of God, even if you don't understand how their "disposition" is part of God's plan or why God made them that way.

LadyinWaiting
Jul 14th 2008, 03:30 PM
Each person is equally made in the image of God, even if you don't understand how their "disposition" is part of God's plan or why God made them that way.


So, why can't a person be born with feelings towards something unsavory and have God glorified by their overcoming of such a problem? How is that not providing a place for the works and glory of God to be manifest in them by trusting Him to get them through and past a certain stumbling block?

Isn't that the example that Job gives us? People overcoming issues that seem insurmountable without blaming of God...in all things worshipping Him and trusting that He will get you through and then beyond any handicap, problem, torture, or tendancy that is the result of the devil or our sin nature?

White Spider
Jul 14th 2008, 04:19 PM
OK, White—here's a thought experiment for you.

A teenage girl says, "I think I might be gay." Does she mean:


…she thinks she might be currently engaging in sexual acts with other girls?
…she thinks that she only feels sexually attracted to girls?


No, if she thinks she is gay, she already feels the attraction and is now accepting it and saying she thinks she's ok with having relations with girls. By saying she is gay she is saying she is willing to or has had relations with the same sex.

Now if she said she thinks she might be attracted to girls . . . she wouldn't yet be gay in my opinion. She is unsure if she has an attraction, but by saying she thinks she is gay, she has accepted the fact she has an attraction and is now deciding if she is willing to have relations with girls, or to be gay . . . commit the acts . . .


Realising what sort of sin your fleshy nature (thanks, Scuba!) predisposes you towards is not a bad thing. If you know that you are only attracted to women, you will be vigilant against this temptation. Like Joseph, you will know to flee when Potiphar's wife comes for you. Ditto if you know that you are attracted only to men, or indeed to both. (Gosh, that must be tough!) It's not an admission of defeat, it's a realisation of fact which can be used to strengthen one's defences against evil. Like the age-old mandate states, "know thyself".

It's more of a nurture thing than a nature thing.

Up until a hundred years ago chubby pale brunettes were the thing as it showed the woman was well fed and wealthy, didn't have to work in the sun, etc.

Today the general figure is a quite skinny, nicely tanned, light haired girl.

And in some ancient cultures the longer the hair the more beautiful the girl.

Or some African cultures, longer necks are considered more attractive.

If it was truly by nature fads like this wouldn't exist. It's what you grow up on.

Say we grew up in a society of all gays, and heterosexual activities were only done to reproduce . . . it's likely almost everyone would be gay. Not because they all naturally feel that way, but because they were raised that way. And the feelings are implanted in someone.

Just like feelings of racism, a child from a KKK member will likely be racist. That same kid instead raised in a largely black or hispanic or asian community or a well mixed community with non-racist parents wouldn't likely be racist.

The reason most of us are heterosexual is because most of our lives we see heterosexual relationships, before we really even know what gay is we use it as being negative. On and on and on . . .

It's not a natural feeling to be straight or gay . . . it's a nurtured feeling . . .

LadyinWaiting
Jul 14th 2008, 05:19 PM
White Spider - So what about those people who were raised to be heterosexual...to believe homosexuality is wrong, evil, sinful, etc? There are a good many people IN the church who were raised that way, but still confess to having those urges and attractions. Are you suggesting they were secretly raised and nurtured to be homosexual?

(I don't say this as hypothetical...I know a good dozen or more cases of this, first-hand.)

David Taylor
Jul 14th 2008, 06:27 PM
What makes people gay

The choices they make.

Just like what makes people mean, or what makes people killers, or what makes people drunks, or what makes people thoughtful and kind.

Too many people in today's society, regardless of the vice or characteristic, want to be absolved of personal responsibility for their choices and actions; and blame the results of their choices on someone other then themselves for making them.

light bread
Jul 14th 2008, 06:41 PM
Isn't that the example that Job gives us? People overcoming issues that seem insurmountable without blaming of God...

Exactly, without blaming God. But to by saying they were born that way not only blames God for their sin, but violates rom 1.


I don't crave heroine. You know why? because Ive never taken it. If i did; I would. Same with alcoholism. No one is born an alcoholic or born craving alcohol. They have to drink it first. Sin is addictive, it has nothing to do with someone having an "addictive gene." Same with homosexuality.


[/b]The choices they make.

Just like what makes people mean, or what makes people killers, or what makes people drunks, or what makes people thoughtful and kind.

Too many people in today's society, regardless of the vice or characteristic, want to be absolved of personal responsibility for their choices and actions; and blame the results of their choices on someone other then themselves for making them.

Exactly, "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."

apothanein kerdos
Jul 14th 2008, 06:50 PM
Jesus had no sin nature because he did not have an earthly father. Besides that, that wouldn't mean everyone would have to commit it; you can choose to go against your nature. Adam and Eve had no sin nature and they sinned.

The problem is you guys keep wanting to play both sides of this natural thing. It seems no one can decide whether natural is good because they're natural as in the way God intended or they are bad because natural is according to our sin nature.

Please, if your going to say the word natural means "the way God intends" find a verse that uses it that way. Its not a sin to be blind! Its not a sin to have a deformity! Find me the verse that says, "thou shalt not be blind." OFcourse this is where this thinking of natural would take you.

Psalm 139 talks about how God makes individuals in their mother's womb. The way people are made isnt the result of random gene selection and accident. God makes each person the way he wants them, "and in thy book all my members were written which in continuance were fashioned." So if someone is born with a deformed hand or something that does not change the fact that they are made in the image of God. It doesnt matter if you have some kind of handicap that the world looks at and says is unfortunate or negative. The guy in the gospels that was born blind was that way on purpose. Jesus said the reason he was born blind was, "that the works of God should be made manifest in him." Not because someone sinned, or because it was punishment. don't think that your somehow better than someone else because they're crippled or mentally challenged. Each person is equally made in the image of God, even if you don't understand how their "disposition" is part of God's plan or why God made them that way.

Why do I have to find a verse that says "nature" means "the way God intends?"

For one, we don't have to validate everything we do or say by Scripture - some things are just open to interpretation. Should I fly Southwest or American Airlines to New York? I don't know, find scripture that gives me an answer.

Secondly, we cannot say that these deformities aren't a result of sin. They certainly aren't the direct result of sin and God will use these people in His own way, but they are the indirect result of sin (via the fall of humanity). It's not what God intended.

Third, if a mother drinks alcohol or uses drugs while carrying a child, the child is born addicted to the substance. This means he has a biological addiction, or a predisposed desire toward alcohol or a drug. Are we to say this is what God intended? Is the child sinning in his desire? The answer to both is no - he only sins when he gives into his desire at a later age.

There are numerous cases where our biology predisposes us to certain desires to sin. This fits with Scriptures teaching that we desire sin before we even leave the womb (did God cause that?). It is our choice, however, to act on these predispositions.

Finally, you need to stop creating a straw-man. We're not arguing that because there might be a biological predisposition to a certain sinful activity that God is to blame. Our sin nature is to blame. The fall is the blame. Furthermore, we don't have to act on that predisposition. We are extremely capable of saying not to it - so if we act on this predisposition, it certainly isn't God's fault. It's our own fault for choosing to act on it. Natural predispositions do not have to be acted on.

LadyinWaiting
Jul 14th 2008, 09:56 PM
apothanein beat me to most of what I was going to say.

Additionally...

I don't crave heroine. You know why? because Ive never taken it. If i did; I would. Same with alcoholism. No one is born an alcoholic or born craving alcohol. They have to drink it first. Sin is addictive, it has nothing to do with someone having an "addictive gene." Same with homosexuality.


I never had sexual intercourse until I was married...did I crave for that intimacy? You bet! I abstained though knowing I wanted to honor God.

My aunt never experienced anything with a woman before she divorced my uncle to choose her own path. So, how could she fit into your package of how we crave sin because we do it first?

Our sin nature makes us crave to be disobedient. The same way you don't have to be taught how to lie. Trust me...toddlers figure that one out completely on their own Have you been around a destructive 2-year-old who just learned how to be defiant? No one taught him that, it was in him long before he took his first breath. I doubt that they learned those things from their parents. I know people who are very agreeable and happy, rarely disagree, never raise their voices to each other who have had beastly defiant 1st borns. It's that sin nature cropping up.

Also, could you please stop referencing a "sin gene" as no one has really supported the argument that there's an isolated gene. The things in our genes are irreversible. Trisomy 18, cystic fibrosis, some cancers...there ARE genes for those. They're not going to change as we cannot change our genetic code.

Something can be biological in terms of our make up (the way neurons fire and hormones) that are not related to our genes...they're related to problems while our bodies were forming or a failure of a normal bodily function.

Your use of that term really muddles things up. I just don't want someone popping in thinking we're saying it's the will of God someone is homosexual in a way that is beyond their control. We are saying that they were allowed to be predisposed to a behavior for a reason...but that their sinful choices make them continue and act upon that predisposition.

light bread
Jul 15th 2008, 05:18 AM
Natural predispositions do not have to be acted on.

Neither do unnatural dispositions. Which Romans 1 and other passages say sodomy is.


Why do I have to find a verse that says "nature" means "the way God intends?"

Because thats the way you want to interpret it. When it benefits you that is. Of course, when it benefits you that "nature" is a negative thing (as in sin nature) you interpret it that way too. Is a sin nature the way God inteded it?

Its your and ladyinwating's use of terms that muddles things up. I have been consistent and given scripture to support my definition of nature.

Earlier you challenged my comments by saying the bible was silent, I've shown that it isn't and press for an answer to my verses and you reply with we dont have to find bible verses??? you must be joking.

What the bible says is not something you can just take however you want and make claims. You have to use the words the way the bible uses them.

White Spider
Jul 15th 2008, 05:56 AM
White Spider - So what about those people who were raised to be heterosexual...to believe homosexuality is wrong, evil, sinful, etc? There are a good many people IN the church who were raised that way, but still confess to having those urges and attractions. Are you suggesting they were secretly raised and nurtured to be homosexual?

(I don't say this as hypothetical...I know a good dozen or more cases of this, first-hand.)

We are all raised to believe killing is bad but people do it . . .

Well as I've said before, life experiences come into play as well, (which every experience plays into the nurture of one.)

I'm not saying this is what happened in any of the cases you are talking about but things like molestation as a child, whether from a church hierarchy member, family member, or neighborhood friend of the family, etc. can have a psychologically traumatizing affect.

Also things, even though raised to think heterosexually, even as little as being an only child or a child with a large amount of siblings, especially if they're the only male or female of the kids with several siblings of the opposite sex. Single children are often given excessive freedom and allows for more experimentation.

There's many things that could cause it . . . seeing a movie at a young age with something in it . . . just playing on the web and coming across the wrong site . . . a horrible heterosexual relation, or several, and the same sex being there to comfort them . . . there's millions of things . . . but by no means is it ever genetic . . . (of course that's my opinion)

I like serial killers and they have problems too, which make them serial killers, not a rare gene . . . same with gays . . . if being gay is genetic so is psychotic serial killing :P ;)

It's a good question, thank you for it . . .

LadyinWaiting
Jul 15th 2008, 05:41 PM
However, there have been studies on serial killers...and there ARE psychological problems with them (most are sociopaths). It's a diagnosed psychological issue, not merely a choice.

Are they responsible? By all means. There are typically warning signs over that sort of behavior, and it can be turned around if appropriately dealt with and caught.

Similarly, those exhibiting the issues that predispose them to a homosexual lifestyle can turn their lives around when they recognize the issues/problems and take strides to fix it.

Again, you refer to it as genetic. There's a difference between genetic and biological (as I've pointed out repetitively). Genetic means you are bound to it (blue eyes, green eyes, cystic fibrosis, etc.) We're saying there's a biological (neural/hormonal) problem. Those are things that are typically fixable under treatments.

I'm not playing both sides of the "nature" thing. I've been referring to "nature" as our sinful nature which leads us to choices. That's the only thing that truly makes a person gay (when they choose to act upon something ELSE - the organic/biological issue that is the undercurrant for the source).

What I've been saying is that there are natural (meaning not outside our human bodies...natural meaning senses, neurons, hormones, etc. that make up these human things we call bodies) causes that make a predisposition because there's a physical problem. There are only so many words in the English language. I'm not to blame for that. Read things in context and it's obvious what everyone is saying.

1) God does not anyone to carry out homosexual acts or have homosexual lusts.

2) God would not create someone to be gay.

Those are immutable facts.

What SOME of us are saying is that our sinful natures mean we do not need to be taught to sin. We don't need to get "addicted" to it...we do it from a young age because that's due to the fall of mankind in the Garden. What those same people say is just as some are born with hormonal imbalances that lead to things like depression or other psychological disorders, there are some things that are problems in our brains or the hormonal relay controls in our body that create feelings most humans don't normally have (just as depression and bipolarism isn't the correct order for the brain to work). Those misfires or problems CAN be corrected in most (not all) psychological issues. Based on recent research, there may be truth to the fact that there are hormonal issues that make the brain of a homosexual organically (meaning on its OWN) function differently from a heterosexual of the same gender. IF we can isolate what causes that, there could be a chance of curing the underlying problem that leads people to choose that (just as curing the hormonal problems that lead people into depression helps them not feel they need to choose suicide).

You did not address the scriptural truths I posted on the previous page regarding the scriptures you used (basically a commentary about the uses of the words and the semantics of the verses).

Saying that there's something that leads someone into that path doesn't excuse their behavior and it doesn't change the fact that it's both an abomination and a sin in God's sight. What it means is that, like with a drug addict, if we can help break that problem...recovery and a return to normal working order of the brain MAY be established.

Friend of I AM
Jul 15th 2008, 06:03 PM
(I still believe that Jesus was crucified for all our sins and diseases.)

But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed. (Isa 53:5)


Are gay people born, or are they made?

The debate has raged since, well, since Oscar Wilde rubbed polite society's face in it.
Now, the world's largest study of twins has finally settled the matter: homosexual behaviour is neither a result of nature, nor a result of nurture: it's a result of a combination of factors. And there's nothing your mother could do to change that. AdvertisementWriting in the scientific journal Archives of Sexual Behaviour, researchers from Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, and Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm report that both genetics and environmental factors (which are specific to an individual, and may include biological processes such as different hormone exposure in the womb), are important determinants of homosexual behaviour.

http://www.health24.com/news/Sexuality/1-944,47036.asp

Same thing that causes people to engage in other sins, the sinful flesh. Fortunately, by the grace of God and our Lord Jesus Christ, we can overcome the temptation to engage in this sexual sin and other sins as well.

ChristianKnight
Jul 15th 2008, 06:05 PM
I would think Satan does since it would work to his side since most gays are not christians.

White Spider
Jul 15th 2008, 07:24 PM
All those problems in serial killers arise from their childhoods and upbringings, which I have said (life experiences) can lead a person in a certain direction.

Everything is a choice though, all serial killers know what they are doing is wrong and they make the choice to do it anyways . . . there is no way to argue a serial killer can't control his or her actions when they go to such great planning and put so much effort into getting away with murder . . . They choose to kill . . . yes almost all have some sort of psychological disorder, and some of those interfere with the ability to distinguish right and wrong . . . but it is still an undeniable choice they make to commit the act.

As it is for gays . . . again life experiences which I fully acknowledge as playing a huge role can and do lead people to be who they are, but everyone still has a choice to act or not to act.

Jeffrey Dahmer, a gay serial killer came to Christ and changed his ways . . . if he could change, a gay can handle the change . . .

God gave us all choice, that's what separates us from every other animal on the planet . . . we are the only animal that truly has choice . . . God does not take that away from anyone, without it we cannot choose to serve Him . . . Choice is never taken away from us, and because of that, no matter how hard it may be it is still a choice to be gay.

(Let me clarify that when I say it is a choice to be gay, I mean a choice to be openly and actively gay and engaging in relationships with the same sex. The thoughts are another story, though still controllable by choice, I am only speaking of acts.)

LadyinWaiting
Jul 15th 2008, 10:08 PM
White Spider - that's where we're differing (and why it seems we're talking in circles).

I'm referring to the factors that create the breeding ground for such thoughts. Like I said, when fleeting thought becomes ACTION, the choice to sin has occurred. I've said multiple times, like you...almost until we're blue in the face...that CHOICE is what makes someone openly, actively (usually happily) gay. Again, no one is denying that - so we're in agreement on that topic. :) The choice to act = conscious choice and sin

(The part that most are sticking on is the fact that I'm proposing there are biological problems that predisposes a person do certain traits. They can choose to follow through on what those traits make them feel/think or they can choose NOT to. Jeffery Dahmer is a prime example. He showed all the trademarks early on in life for the potential to be a serial killer - the harming small animals, lack of remorse, etc. Those things are usually relegated to being psychological issues that can be dealt with. He dealt with it! And now, God can be glorified as a result of him overcoming those predisposed thoughts. I'm sure he dealt with the struggle daily.)

White Spider
Jul 16th 2008, 03:55 AM
Yes, we are in total agreement on everything . . . :hug:

Certain things can predestine a person to be "lead in a certain" direction . . . but they still have the ability to go with their flow or swim against their current . . . most straight guys have to swim against their current . . . gays can too . . .

My argument is with those who make it seem gays can't swim against their current . . . and have a right to be happy . . . and lead their lives the way they were "made." :rolleyes:

light bread
Jul 16th 2008, 05:05 AM
You did not address the scriptural truths I posted on the previous page regarding the scriptures you used (basically a commentary about the uses of the words and the semantics of the verses).

you said, "They were given over to all of their sin nature, which is why the semantics indicate such by verses explaining the perversity of the human heart and sin nature..."

The verse never says they were given over to their sin nature, it says they were given up to their "vile affections" which were said to be "against nature." This is where you are taking liberties with the term natural, which is what i was addressing in most of my previous posts.

You make it mean "sin nature" or "way God intended" whenever you like. So in this verse you have them being given up to a sin nature that is against nature. This makes no sense... an unnatural nature???

Furthermore, natural is never used to mean "the way God intended." If thats how you guys want to interpret the term in this verse there needs to be a scriptural basis for interpreting it this way.

Im actually kind of confused at your statemnt in your last post where you said:


1) God does not anyone to carry out homosexual acts or have homosexual lusts.

2) God would not create someone to be gay.

Those are immutable facts.

because when a sodomite says, "this how I'm made." They obviously don't mean they were born committing the act. They mean they were born attracted to the same sex. Which is my understanding of what you think happens due to some biological mishap. So they would be correct in saying they were made gay.

Im confused as to what significance you saying "God does not create gay people" could have when you think people are people created with a biological imbalance leading to same sex attraction. Or how that biological imbalance could follow from the first point.

LadyinWaiting
Jul 16th 2008, 01:56 PM
You make it mean "sin nature" or "way God intended" whenever you like. So in this verse you have them being given up to a sin nature that is against nature. This makes no sense... an unnatural nature???


In the English language there are multiple uses for the word "nature". Simply because Scripture doesn't have a verse which uses it in that way doesn't mean that we're saying something wrong. There were far more words in the Greek language for expression than there are in English.

We are born with a sinful, fleshly nature that is bound to sin.

We then become inhabited by the Holy Spirit, which helps filter the desire to sin since it has divine nature.

The reason the word "nature" also describes "the way God originally intended" is because we were NOT supposed to have the sin nature. That was created as a result of the Fall back in Genesis 3. We were SUPPOSED to have a flawless relationship with God, no sin, no evil, simply perfect. That was our original nature before sin entered the world. There is no other way to describe that state in the English language simply without calling it our original or intended nature. God created us in HIS image...meaning with sinless nature.

No one has been flipflopping on what any of the terms mean. If read in context, it's pretty obvious what is meant.

1) God did not and does not want us to sin. Therefore, he does not create us to or tempt us to sin. (INTENDED nature)

2) That does not prohibit the way our flesh/sinful nature operates.

3) Having a defect that occurs "naturally" (meaning it happened without someone having committed a sin, as you said regarding deformity or blindness) happens.

4) If that defect means you defame the name of God, blaspheme, or choose to act against the "natural order" or instinct of humans (normal or natural instinct is to be heterosexual...just as "natural order" is to be able to see, hear, etc.) then you have chosen to sin. It's no different than someone cursing God for making them blind, deaf, or depressive.

Just because you were born with a certain problem (biologically it is yours...no matter what form it takes) doesn't mean that you HAVE to sin as a result of it.

You're looking at this as "nature" having only one meaning when it in fact is being used differently. It's not being misused in any way. If it's confusing, I'm sorry. I try to be as clear as I can, but when we aren't on the same wavelength in terminology, then it will be confusing. I've tried to explain along the way. If I've failed in that, I'm sorry. There aren't enough words to describe every single item in our language (which is why I'd much prefer the "old languages" where things like "love" had several words, all with separate meanings in order to avoid confusion like this).



Im actually kind of confused at your statemnt in your last post where you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyinWaiting
1) God does not anyone to carry out homosexual acts or have homosexual lusts.

2) God would not create someone to be gay.

Those are immutable facts.

because when a sodomite says, "this how I'm made." They obviously don't mean they were born committing the act. They mean they were born attracted to the same sex. Which is my understanding of what you think happens due to some biological mishap. So they would be correct in saying they were made gay.

Im confused as to what significance you saying "God does not create gay people" could have when you think people are people created with a biological imbalance leading to same sex attraction. Or how that biological imbalance could follow from the first point.

When they say that, they say they were born to be and participate in a homosexual way. That is incorrect. Just because there's a hormonal or neurological imbalance does NOT mean they were meant to be that way. It means they were given, like all of us, issues they must overcome in their life. Again, if there was something that would FORCE them to be gay, it would mean that God created them TO sin. God does not lead us into evil. A hormonal imbalance doesn't mean you are SUPPOSED to be that way. Having something that MIGHT lead someone into that lifestyle doesn't mean that it WILL. (How many of us have the same thing with depression or anxiety? I have ALL the hormonal issues that COULD cause it. I sometimes have to consciously CHOOSE to be happy and lay all my cares at Christ's feet in order to calm the anxiety or pull myself out of that pit with His strength. That's where CHOICE comes in, as with all sin. It is in our very flesh the desire to sin. We choose to do it or NOT to do it. It doesn't change what we were given at birth due to the fall of Adam.)

An attraction (something we don't really have all that much control over...sparks occur on a date or an outing, if you don't "date", or they don't. You cannot FORCE yourself to be attracted to someone emotionally.) is something we're sort of hotwired with. Under the natural order (the way things are supposed to happen under natural laws), we're supposed to be attracted to those of opposite sex. If signals or hormones are messed up, that attraction doesn't happen as it should (under normal, or natural instincts). It doesn't mean that a person must remain that way as problems can be solved.

Lust is controllable (no matter the person or item being lusted after). Hence why God doesn't CREATE lust in us. God does not create someone to lust. God does not create someone to sin. That is our choice.

Here is where we divide. You say that the thought of "I'm attracted to..." is lust. Lust is defined very clearly scripturally as thnking of someone in sexual terms as if you were engaging in an act with them (OR as in the unnatural desire for something material...lust of money, etc.) I don't see, and there is no Biblical status of "attraction" being sinful, just lustful thoughts and actions. I'm a woman. When I met my husband, I was very attracted to him. I did not LUST after him. Until a thought crosses the line into lust, no sin was committed. Until it invades the thoughts, no sin is committed.

If the initial attraction is dealt with in an appropriate way, God gives us the strength to keep us from getting into the sin step, will protect us from it. If someone does not have the Holy Spirit (or refuses to listen to that voice), then the next step will be taken and the sin will occur.

However, the initial feeling is something that is not listed as a sin for any gender at any time to my knowledge. That's the tool that Satan uses to lie to us in order to drag us into sin.

(** I'm attempting to write this while under a medication for my cold. So if it's a little choppy and not as flowy as my normal posts, it's because full thoughts are hard to come by right now.**)

light bread
Jul 17th 2008, 01:05 AM
The reason the word "nature" also describes "the way God originally intended" is because we were NOT supposed to have the sin nature. That was created as a result of the Fall back in Genesis 3...........meaning with sinless nature.

The problem is the bible never uses the term "nature" to refer back to our pre-fall conditions. This is the idea that im challenging- that nature refers to "how God wants/wanted it."

Most of the time you define nature as sinful as in our "sin nature." But looking at nature the way you are, you have to create a definition like this[God's intention] because "nature" is not always used negatively in the bible. "Gentiles which have not the law do by nature the things contained in the law." 2 Tim 3:3, "Without natural affection" in this case its good to have natural affection, how so if our nature is sinful?

Again the problem is nature is never used to refer to God's pre-fall intentions, but just refers to the way things naturally are, the way they are by default; ie. uncircumcisions is by nature and gentiles do by nature the things in the law because they are born with God's law written in their hearts.

Please, quote a verse using nature to mean "the way God origianlly intended" if thats how you want to use it.

Also i think you're stretching how gay people are using "made this way"
I doubt they use their state of birth to infer the act. Im pretty sure they mean they were created with the feelings, although i have no way to prove this.


Lust is not defined as thinking in sexual terms. If my memory is correct most of the time lust is used it is not related to sex whatsoever. That definition of lust breaks down as soon as the first time its used in the bible:

Exo 15:9 - The enemy said, I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil; my lust shall be satisfied upon them...

psa 97 - And they tempted God in their heart by asking meat for their lust....They were not estranged from their lust. But while their meat was yet in their mouths.....

I doubt israel was thinking sexual thoughts toward quail in numbers11. Israel wanted meat to eat, to lust means to desire. If you sexually desire someone you have lusted, you don't have to play out any scenario in your mind.

ProjectPeter
Jul 17th 2008, 01:28 AM
There is a biblical answer if one is interested in what the Bible says. ;)

Romans 1:18 *¶For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 *because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 *For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 *For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 *Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 *and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 *¶Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them.
25 *For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 *¶For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 *and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 *¶And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29 *being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30 *slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 *without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32 *and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.


It begins with their rejection of acknowledging God as God and it snowballs from there. Ultimately God gives them over and this sort of thing is the result. From there... it worsens.

manichunter
Jul 17th 2008, 01:53 AM
sin makes people gay

ProjectPeter
Jul 17th 2008, 02:06 AM
sin makes people gay
In a nutshell... that's it.

amazzin
Jul 17th 2008, 02:47 AM
They make themselves that way through the lust of their sexual immoral sins

amazzin
Jul 17th 2008, 02:48 AM
sin makes people gay

Amen!!!! short and to the point

LadyinWaiting
Jul 17th 2008, 03:25 AM
You've repeatedly said this:

Please, quote a verse using nature to mean "the way God origianlly intended" if thats how you want to use it.

You're picking apart something that doesn't even really matter.

We were NOT created to sin. We WERE created to be holy. Our sin nature causes us to sin.

NONE of those facts are being disputed by anyone.

You are having an issue with semantics and verbage because you don't agree with a point. If you don't agree, you don't have to agree. We agree to disagree and move on. Bickering over the use of terminology does not do anything. From now on, I'll use your terminology and play your way rather than using what is easiest in order to avoid such miscommunications.

So far as I can tell...here's the issue...
The only thing you disagree with is that something biological (meaning something that happens to cause a misfire or incorrect hormones) may be something that ALLOWS the attraction to take place (because of an improperly firing neuron or hormonal control).
You have no Scripture to back up the fact that this could not be the case (as they did not understand hormonal imbalances). You said that the homosexual attraction is a sin, and yet you also cannot back that up with scripture. There is nothing in there about finding someone attractive being a lustful thought (or improper desire...desire does not equal lust, it's the IMPROPER desire for something). There is where Christ discusses the idea that if you look upon someone WITH lust it's as if you have already committed the sin of adultery (which applies for either relational case).

So, the idea of mere attraction (much of which we do not control) being a sin cannot be true. There were many men I felt myself attracted to as a single girl, but I did not lust after them.


I doubt they use their state of birth to infer the act. Im pretty sure they mean they were created with the feelings, although i have no way to prove this.

Here again you're using the feeling to condemn without having a basis for saying that attraction (which is different from lust on even an heterosexual basis) is sinful in and of itself. It's the choice to act upon that momentary hormonal jump that causes an attraction by either letting it consume your thoughts and dwell on it or actually acting upon it. Once that conscious choice is made, sin has occurred.


Lust is not defined as thinking in sexual terms. If my memory is correct most of the time lust is used it is not related to sex whatsoever. That definition of lust breaks down as soon as the first time its used in the bible:

Also, please fully read what is said before having knee jerk reactions...
I first said:

Lust is controllable (no matter the person or item being lusted after). Hence why God doesn't CREATE lust in us. God does not create someone to lust. God does not create someone to sin. That is our choice.
BEFORE going on to address sexual lust in detail and STILL clarified that lust does not = sexual sin only


Lust is defined very clearly scripturally as thnking of someone in sexual terms as if you were engaging in an act with them (OR as in the unnatural desire for something material...lust of money, etc.)

I still stand by the idea or premise that hormones or brain functioning DOES play into this. It is illogical to believe that someone just chooses it due to the number of teens and young adults who are depressed over not understanding why they cannot be "normal" and why they have feelings they do not want. I do not believe that these people WANT to have those attractions at all. Unless we help them see that they don't HAVE to obey the attractions by battling it with appropriate psychological help (and perhaps one day medication if we can understand the controls that trigger those sort of thoughts) you are going to relegate them to being forced to CHOOSE heterosexuality (which means still having those problems with no hope for learning how to cope) or choose to embrace those problems and live an openly homosexual life.

Obviously, we do NOT want them to live that life, we want them to come to a saving knowledge of Christ and learn how to appropriately curb said problems.

Just as God uses a whole host of problems (deformity, mental illness, disease, etc.) to show us his glory, those who have these "attractions" since they were younger could get control over them and fight them WITH God's providence and help can show the rest of the world that God is the answer. It isn't always an easy path (afterall, God never did remove the thorn from Paul's side...he fought that every single day) but it is one of success. Those with that success story can reach out into the homosexual population and say "You were upset you had those feelings. You're only doing this because you feel you have no choice...but with Christ you DO have a choice. Follow his lead. Follow God."


Side Note:

"Without natural affection" in this case its good to have natural affection, how so if our nature is sinful?


In both the cases of Romans 1:31 and 2 Timothy 3:3 my concordance translates that as being "hard hearted," not as in sexual affections but in terms of relational affections for human-kind. It's not given a sexual connotation based on Strong's. It's a derivative of a word used in linking to a close union or bond, but is not mentioned as a sexual kind of it (much like not all words for "love" boil down to sexual love).

That verse relates "without natural affections" to being "hard-hearted" when translated. "Natural affections" would refer to being without love entirely...meaning phileos most likely; perhaps agape. If you look at it with the appropriate translation, those verses make more sense (and don't relate to sexuality at all). It relates more to common courtesy and love of your fellow man (and more than likely your God, as well).

The NIV Translates 2 Timothy 3:1-5 as:

1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

KJV Translates it as:

1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

light bread
Jul 17th 2008, 04:11 AM
It begins with their rejection of acknowledging God as God and it snowballs from there. Ultimately God gives them over and this sort of thing is the result. From there... it worsens.

I would completely agree with that statement. Its actually on this very basis that i would reject that it is the result of a biological mishap.



So far as I can tell...here's the issue...
The only thing you disagree with is that something biological (meaning something that happens to cause a misfire or incorrect hormones) may be something that ALLOWS the attraction to take place (because of an improperly firing neuron or hormonal control).

If you think that happens naturally or without their consent, yep, thats what im disagreeing with. And I'm disagreeing on the basis that the bible says it is against nature;, therefore, you can not say this is due to biology stemming from our sin nature.



You have no Scripture to back up the fact that this could not be the case (as they did not understand hormonal imbalances). You said that the homosexual attraction is a sin, and yet you also cannot back that up with scripture. There is nothing in there about finding someone attractive being a lustful thought (or improper desire...desire does not equal lust, it's the IMPROPER desire for something). There is where Christ discusses the idea that if you look upon someone WITH lust it's as if you have already committed the sin of adultery (which applies for either relational case).

First of all, im sure that God, who wrote the bible, has a very good understanding of hormonal imbalances. Especially if they were to be the result of Him giving them up to it.

also, this is not true scripture backs up my position very nicely since romans says, "for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature."

To get out of this people have been saying that its against nature b/c God didn't intend it to be that way. This, unfortunately, is not how the bible uses the term nature. I've asked for a bible verse to support this usage and no one has provided one. As for lust, ive provided scripture. Ive provided scripture for everything and the way people have responded is by tweaking the meaning of words to allow for their opinion to fit. Even if you were to define lust as an "improper desire" a male having a desire for another man sexually is improper. A sexual desire for anyone other than your husband or wife is lust.


Here again you're using the feeling to condemn without having a basis for saying that attraction (which is different from lust on even an heterosexual basis) is sinful in and of itself. It's the choice to act upon that momentary hormonal jump that causes an attraction by either letting it consume your thoughts and dwell on it or actually acting upon it. Once that conscious choice is made, sin has occurred.

Also, please fully read what is said before having knee jerk reactions...
I first said:

BEFORE going on to address sexual lust in detail and STILL clarified that lust does not = sexual sin only

you defined lust in terms of sexual sin as, "thnking of someone in sexual terms as if you were engaging in an act with them" This is not true. Lust is to desire, if you desire someone in a sexual way (which is what homosexuals do to the same sex) you have lusted, you do not have to act out the situation in your mind as you stipulated with "as if you were engaging in the act." With that statement you effectively made lusting in a sexual sense a much different thing than lusting after a material thing.

LadyinWaiting
Jul 18th 2008, 12:58 AM
You defined lust in terms of sexual sin as, "thnking of someone in sexual terms as if you were engaging in an act with them" This is not true. Lust is to desire, if you desire someone in a sexual way (which is what homosexuals do to the same sex) you have lusted, you do not have to act out the situation in your mind as you stipulated with "as if you were engaging in the act." With that statement you effectively made lusting in a sexual sense a much different thing than lusting after a material thing.

Lust means to desire inappropriately (ANYTHING). I said that effectively and purposesly that it was for both sexual reference AND material reference (see below).

Lust is defined very clearly scripturally as thinking of someone in sexual terms as if you were engaging in an act with them (OR as in the unnatural desire for something material...lust of money, etc.)

That view of sexual lust is verified by Christ's statement in Matthew 5:27-28:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

My concordance lists the use of "lustfully" in that verse as "to set the heart upon" or "covet". To covet is to improperly desire according to my dictionary, which is generally applicable throughout the Scriptures.

Now, do we agree with the thought that some guy walking by another guy might have a momentary attraction (meaning they're tempted or enticed)? Most of us would instantly think "ew, gross". And that's fine. But it is not a sin. Temptation and enticement aren't sins.

Christ was tempted in the desert, but He stood fast against the wiles of the Devil. Christ warns his disciples to watch and pray so they would not fall into temptation (if it were a sin I am sure that it would have been clearly put out, as in the rest of Scripture). Now, it does mean that we have a choice with temptations when they arise, to give into them or not. It also means that prayer can help prevent temptation from leading them into sin. 1 Corinthians actually has a verse that says temptation seizes us all, but that God provides a way that we can stand up under it. The KJV version of James 1:1-3 actually says to count it JOY when we are tempted (The NIV says when we face troubles.).

Attraction or temptation does NOT equate lust. And also does not equate sin.



also, this is not true scripture backs up my position very nicely since romans says, "for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature."

No, actually that verse refers to actual homosexual ACTS. It does not back up your idea that someone's attraction or impulse (not lusting) is a sin.


To get out of this people have been saying that its against nature b/c God didn't intend it to be that way. This, unfortunately, is not how the bible uses the term nature.[QUOTE]

It's against the natural order. We've clarified that hundreds of times since those verses are referring to the ACTS of homosexuals...the people were given over as a result of their disobedience and hard hearts to all of their sinful nature which included the homosexuality. I went in depth with the Romans 1 passage on a previous page and have encouraged you to look back to a few times.

It is ALSO against the way our bodies are supposed to be biologically knit together for imbalances of any kind to occur. However, they do happen. I've said this hundreds of times; an imbalance does NOT mean a person is "gay" from birth. It means they have been born with an abnormality which makes them prone to thinking a certain way. As in the verses used above, they can stand up under it (as many who are "reformed" homosexuals are able to do...typically though intense counseling and prayer in learning how to deal with the underlying issues - be they biological or physically induced by neglect or molestation).

"Gay" is a state where people accept these feelings as they way they were intended to feel, embrace it and actively engage in the lifestyle (dating, flirting, etc.). Prior to that point where they live the lifestyle, all they are would be people who find themselves attracted to (but possibly not lusting after) certain people for no reason that they understand...and many people do NOT want that to be the case. If hundreds of people feel they do NOT want to be that way and would change if they knew how...don't you think they would? Unless they understand what does it...they cannot overcome it. And unless they have Christ, they never will since they'll be trying to overcome sin's strongholds in their own strength.

[QUOTE]I'm disagreeing on the basis that the bible says it is against nature; therefore, you can not say this is due to biology stemming from our sin nature.

Clarification - I did not say the biology stems from our sin nature to my knowledge. Sin nature is a quality of the heart. Biology is physical. You make that to be my premise since you (faultily) consider an attraction a sin. I, however, have not said that.

Your premise is: that nature
just refers to the way things naturally are

I hope I'm correct on that, otherwise the rest of this won't matter.

The verse you use 2 Tim 3:3 - again refers to being "without natural affections" (meaning, again, hard-hearted). This would mean our natural inclination under your definition of "natural" is to be tenderhearted. However, this is not true. We are naturally selfish creatures, and have to work to be "tender hearted". Plus, without Christ, we cannot be truly tender hearted (which that portion of Scripture does go on to say that people who fit all those negative qualities are without Christ).

Your theory of being naturally occurring doesn't work in the light of reality. Additionally, commentary on that section reveals that the Romans often left their infants outside to die and neglected their elderly, so "natural affections" could also be referring to the nature they recognized as normal and natural, which was to love and cherish all life.

Additionally, 1 Corinthians 11:14 uses the term nature in this way:

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Now, nature under your usage means that this is the way it's "just supposed to be" - however, doesn't the natural order of things make the hair grow longer day by day? So, they would be asking people to do something counter to the way things naturally occur in order to fit with "nature" (which refers to the way one should behave in this case). However, that's a cultural commentary since "nature" teaches us that our hair continuously grows.

Ephesians 2:3 makes the comment that we "were by nature children of wrath" meaning that we were by nature worthy of God's wrath due to our habitual and almost normal following of the world's paths and fulfilling our own desires.

This gives justification for saying we have a sin nature.


Please, quote a verse using nature to mean "the way God origianlly intended" if thats how you want to use it.

If we have a "sinful nature" as part of who we are...by nature children who would receive the wrath of our father...then there has to be the contrary form, something that existed before sin, as the original way we were intended to be.

Simply because the term isn't used doesn't mean it doesn't logically follow that anything that is "as it is supposed to be" (your version of "nature" or "natural") HAS to be "the way God intended it to be" otherwise, who says it's supposed to be that way? Obviously you garnish that knowledge from the fact that our God is a God of order and created the world and people to behave in an orderly way from the beginning (until of course humans fell...then sin entered and our "orderly way" was skewed by sin). OUR human nature changed and we became bound to sin (Romans 7:7-25 clarifies this point through Paul). The natural world itself didn't really change which is why we have the ability to point at some things and say "that is right, that is the way God really intended it to be" (or "that is right, that is natural").



God allows some things to happen naturally in us that are thorns for us to overcome. For some, they will battle depression daily for their entire lives. Others will struggle with a physical deformity. More will struggle with psychological issues. ALL of these can be overcome (although, not all of them will be fixed just as Paul's wasn't ...overcoming means turning it into something positive for the Glory of God).

You say that any attraction someone has for someone of the same gender is a sin. There isn't anything that would say that is so from what I can tell. All Scripture condemns is lust and actions in this case unless you can point out some place where an attraction or a temptation is considered sin...I will stand by my points (especially given the verses which actually say to count it joy when we are tempted and that when we're tempted as all will be that God will help us from being led into sin due to it).

light bread
Jul 19th 2008, 04:33 AM
No, actually that verse refers to actual homosexual ACTS. It does not back up your idea that someone's attraction or impulse (not lusting) is a sin.

To get out of this people have been saying that its against nature b/c God didn't intend it to be that way. This, unfortunately, is not how the bible uses the term nature.


It's against the natural order.

Not if the natural order is sin... "But these as natural brute beasts made to be taken and destroyed..." You've just switched to an unscriptural definition of sin. It doesnt make sense... we have a sin nature that is against nature because didnt intend it that way? How could we have a nature that is against nature, adding that definition in totally contradicts the concept.

I realize God craeted the world a certain way, but the bible doesn't use the term nature to describe that. It wouldnt make sense if it did. So when you get to Rom1 and try to apply that definition to get out of the pickle you are mis-defining it.

I'm still waiting on a verse for it.



"Gay" is a state where people accept these feelings as they way they were intended to feel, embrace it and actively engage in the lifestyle (dating, flirting, etc.). Prior to that point where they live the lifestyle, all they are would be people who find themselves attracted to (but possibly not lusting after) certain people for no reason that they understand...and many people do NOT want that to be the case. If hundreds of people feel they do NOT want to be that way and would change if they knew how...don't you think they would? Unless they understand what does it...they cannot overcome it. And unless they have Christ, they never will since they'll be trying to overcome sin's strongholds in their own strength.

Do you think alcoholics want to spend thier whole paycheck on booze? You think they want to drink first thing in the morning, have their wife and kids leave them, lose their job? No, but sin has taken its hold. God has given sodomites up to their sin. If this "sob story" is largely what your basing the idea that people are born that way then that doesn't make any sense at all.

You've completely lowered the moral bar on lust. Lust is desire. "I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Covet means to desire. In Deut. 5 the tenth commandment is repeated and desire is used interchangeably with covet in Exo 20.

And i hate to break it to you, but the work improper isnt in front of it in Deut. But what would make a desire improper? if you desire something that isnt yours? Becuase if you are sexually attracted to someone your not married to you commit lust. You've desired something that doesn't belong to you. It doesnt matter if you go through a specific scenario in your mind.

Theres lust of the flesh and lust of the eyes.(1Jhn 2:6) Jesus in Matt is in reference to the lust of the eyes. This is a sin. His remedy was to pluck out your eyes, it wasn't to change what you were thinking when you looked. It was the act of looking that was wrong. Just like lots wife was told not to even look back at sodom, or not to look at wine in prov23. The command isnt to look and think a certain thing its to look.

Saying you can look and be attracted is like saying its ok to make idols as long as you dont worship them. First of all, the commandment says "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" And second, if you dont make idols you sure won't bow to them. Jesus's command was to not desire, and to stop the sin before it starts.

Furthermore, their affections are called vile in romans. An affection sure isnt an act or thought. Rom1 condemns the attraction or lust just as well as the action.


Clarification - I did not say the biology stems from our sin nature to my knowledge. Sin nature is a quality of the heart. Biology is physical. You make that to be my premise since you (faultily) consider an attraction a sin. I, however, have not said that.

It was implied since you group it with things like blindness and depression and such that came into the world as a result of the corruption of sin just as our sin nature.

Its not faulty to consider attraction sin in this case. The attraction in question is sexual attraction. Its not like were talking about "I like the way these cabinets look" or "i like shiney things" This attraction is a sexual attraction to another individual.

Im sorry if the world says, "its ok to look as long as you dont think anything dirty" this is wrong. If your sexually attracted to someone your not married to your lusting. How could you be attracted in this sense without the person playing on the onlookers physical desire?


Your theory of being naturally occurring doesn't work in the light of reality. Additionally, commentary on that section reveals that the Romans often left their infants outside to die and neglected their elderly, so "natural affections" could also be referring to the nature they recognized as normal and natural, which was to love and cherish all life.

Additionally, 1 Corinthians 11:14 uses the term nature in this way:


Now, nature under your usage means that this is the way it's "just supposed to be" - however, doesn't the natural order of things make the hair grow longer day by day? So, they would be asking people to do something counter to the way things naturally occur in order to fit with "nature" (which refers to the way one should behave in this case). However, that's a cultural commentary since "nature" teaches us that our hair continuously grows.

The verse doesn't say that mans hair is short by nature or that it will be. It says nature reveals that its shameful for man to have long hair. Verses (i think in Deut. or lev.) talk about how there should be distinction between the fashion of men and women and later Cor. chapter says long hair is for women's glory not mans. If i were to wager a guess on how nature confirms this i would say its by baldness. But it could be something else like its hard to work with long hair since biblically men are supposed to be the bread winners.



If we have a "sinful nature" as part of who we are...by nature children who would receive the wrath of our father...then there has to be the contrary form, something that existed before sin, as the original way we were intended to be.

Simply because the term isn't used doesn't mean it doesn't logically follow that anything that is "as it is supposed to be" (your version of "nature" or "natural") HAS to be "the way God intended it to be" otherwise, who says it's supposed to be that way? Obviously you garnish that knowledge from the fact that our God is a God of order and created the world and people to behave in an orderly way from the beginning (until of course humans fell...then sin entered and our "orderly way" was skewed by sin). OUR human nature changed and we became bound to sin (Romans 7:7-25 clarifies this point through Paul). The natural world itself didn't really change which is why we have the ability to point at some things and say "that is right, that is the way God really intended it to be" (or "that is right, that is natural").

So... i take it you dont have a verse?

Again im not disputing that God origianlly created us sinless with other intentions, but the term nature is never used in reference to that intention.

And that is what the decision really comes down to, because if term natural doesn't refer to "the way God intended" theres no other answer to Rom1 other than isn't part of our sin nature and they aren't born that way.

When interpreting you have to compare spiritual things with spiritual.(1cor2:13) You can't apply your own (or a commentary's) definition to nature and form a doctrine off of that, you have to see how the bible uses the term, and NEVER does the bible use the word nature to describe "God's original intentions." This isnt an argument over semantics but over interpretation.



You say that any attraction someone has for someone of the same gender is a sin. There isn't anything that would say that is so from what I can tell.

Thats because what your calling lust and what the bible is calling lust is not the same thing.

White Spider
Jul 19th 2008, 06:31 AM
Who cares where what is used how . . . if Lady in Waiting uses NATURE to mean that's the way God intended that's what it means.

If it would make you happier, substitute NATURE with, "the way God made the world before sin entered it" and wallah, the confusion is gone . . . :pp

If I write a sentence, "A dog bit his owner joyfully" and then told you in that sentence bit means licked, it means licked. It doesn't matter what you think it means or if it was ever used that way before. I am saying bit means licked so it does.

Lady in Waiting is saying "N"ature when she uses it is used to describe the state of mankind before the fall so it does.

Done. Period. Finito. :)

LadyinWaiting
Jul 19th 2008, 05:43 PM
To get out of what? Their choice being a sin? Of course they do. That negates none of my points.

You are still ignoring exactly what I am saying. I am saying that there is still the choice to act upon an impulse or not. Acting upon an impulse implies conscious thought. An impulse that is uncontrolled cannot be, in and of itself, sinful unless one is then acting upon it. Otherwise we’re going to have to start saying what one dreams is a sin as well since those are uncontrolled factors of our brain. Now, if we act out what we dream, then the conscious thought has been made to act upon it.

By the same token, there are biological and neurological processes that can make one predisposed to a host of sins. It does not make them victim or helpless against those sins. It means they have a choice to sin or notto sin.


Not if the natural order is sin... "But these as natural brute beasts made to be taken and destroyed..." You've just switched to an unscriptural definition of sin. It doesnt make sense... How could we have a nature that is against nature, adding that definition in totally contradicts the concept.

As human offspring after the fall, we are bound (meaning chained) to sin until God freed us through the sacrifice of his son.

Nature is used to define concrete, natural order, and the quality of a spirit. God is described with “divine nature”. There is no actual use of “sin nature” in scripture. We use that as a phrase which describes the state Paul describes in Romans.

Spiritually speaking, we have a nature of sin due to the fall, we are chained, enslaved to sin. Once we accept Christ, we are no longer chained to sin – we’re supposed to be free from that and bound to Christ. However, the spirit is willing, the human body is weak. Our human-ness bounds us to temptation. Our fleshly lusts make us want to satisfy them; our spiritual nature makes us want to satisfy God.

Then there’s also a “natural order” – which is what you describe. Male and female are designed to go together, trees reproduce after their own kind, the sun rises and the sun sets.

Homosexuality is “against nature” meaning it is “against the way that things are organized” (the way you define the concept). This is due to the fact that its violating the way we’re supposed to act as determined by the natural order God set and the cultural norms society sets. If it doesn't violate God's intended way - it cannot be a sin.

It doesn’t mean it’s against our “sin nature” (the nature we have due to the fall).

If we use nature as you declare it should be used (“the way things are supposed to be”) then all sin is against nature, since we are not supposed to sin.So, there must be a split definition, meaning that it addresses different things..

Under that split definition, we are sinful (because of the fall) and some of those sins are of a subset that make unnatural sins…meaning sins that violate appropriate use of something like our bodies. This also give appropriate frame of reference to see not all fornication as equal since homosexual fornication is seen as an abomination, but heterosexual fornication is a sin against one’s own body.

Unless you make it have separate meaning under the verses (as the words in the original language do), then none of it makes sense at all to be relegated to “the way things are supposed to be.”


If your sexually attracted to someone your not married to your lusting. How could you be attracted in this sense without the person playing on the onlookers physical desire?

Being “sexually attracted” doesn’t mean you’re sinning as it doesn't mean you're lusting. There aren’t even verses listing “sexual attraction” as being a sin since the phrase isn’t even listed in the scripture. However, "attraction" is listed, and it is NOT listed as a sin.

Deuteronomy 21:11

if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife(NIV)


And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; (KJV)

*Obviously, desire or attraction is NOT equated to lust. Otherwise they wouldn’t be giving this directive.

One verse in Isaiah makes reference about our Savior and Lord not having anything that would make us attracted to him or to desire him as such when he was in human form. Now, since those clearly do not relate to sexual attraction or lust (since you say to “desire” is to lust), attraction and desire to be near or around a person obviously cannot be merely sexual. So, that being said, it is possible to be drawn to someone without having sexual thoughts or lust.



And i hate to break it to you, but the work improper isnt in front of it in Deut. But what would make a desire improper? if you desire something that isnt yours? Becuase if you are sexually attracted to someone your not married to you commit lust. You've desired something that doesn't belong to you. It doesnt matter if you go through a specific scenario in your mind.

Stong's concordance says the word covet in Deut means "to delight in" and is referencing beauty, calling something "greatly beloved", a delectable thing, etc.

Looking up the word in a dictionary, in the English language it means "to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others; to wish for, esp. eagerly; to have an inordinate or wrongful desire."

Furthermore, of course it doesn't have "improper" in front of it in Deuteronomy. The term itself means improperly desiring, so it doesn't need to be called "improper" since it simply IS.


So when you get to Rom1 and try to apply that definition to get out of the pickle you are mis-defining it.
I used commonly accepted commentary on that part, and basic Biblical studying skills through use of a concordance and basic understanding of the English grammatical marks that were added in order to make it make sense to those of us who read this in English. It wasn't faulty, it was based on the actual words and the original Greek they were written in. You may not like it because it changes the way you see it, but that is Scripture (and trust me, I spent hours cross referencing to make sure I wasn't looking at the wrong lines in my books).



This is a sin. His remedy was to pluck out your eyes, it wasn't to change what you were thinking when you looked. It was the act of looking that was wrong. Just like lots wife was told not to even look back at sodom, or not to look at wine in prov23. The command isnt to look and think a certain thing its to look.

You're adding things to Christs words that he did not put there. The verse says if you look at a woman to lust after her then you've committed adultery. Thus, if you are simply drawn to her you have not sinned by doing so.

THEN he goes on to say if your eye makes you sin, cut it out; if you hand causes you to sin, cut it off. Simple looking and acting isn't sinful. It's the intention and the condition of the heart.

If you put the section into its appropriate context, then you'd see he's telling people to control their thought life (the lust) and about allowing what you see to lead you into sin.

It's like David. If he'd just seen Bathsheba bathing and walked away he may have been aroused but if he didn't continue to stare at her, he wouldn't have lusted.


And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king's house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon. (KJV)

The first glance brought about his biological reactions (arousal), but the thoughts he had afterward led him to sin. In this, the first view was an accident and not a sin. The continued watching and lusting was the sin.

Lot's wife:

As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, "Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!" *They = the angels who were with them.

They were commanded not to look back. She disobeyed the angels, messengers of God. She was punished. I won't address it farther since it doesn't fit our discussion.

I'm assuming you're using Proverbs 23:31. "Look" in that case means to regard, approve, etc. Solomon is warning about drunkeness. It has nothing to do with actually viewing the wine being a sin.



Thats because what your calling lust and what the bible is calling lust is not the same thing

According to Easton's 1987 Bible Dictionary:


Lust = sinful longing; the inward sin which leads to the falling away from God (Rom. 1:21). "Lust, the origin of sin, has its place in the heart, not of necessity, but because it is the centre of all moral forces and impulses and of spiritual activity."

The concordance and scriptures back up that definition.

I really wish that you would truly examine why you feel so strongly against the proposition rather than focusing on saying “this word isn’t in the Bible this way, you can’t use it that way.” After all, Sodomite is only used where the people were actively engaging in that lifestyle (otherwise, there would be no knowledge of it since the people of the Bible weren’t mind-readers, neither are we).

Wit all that said, I’m pulling from this argument. Just so you know, I’m not leaving out of anger, resentment, or pride. I’m leaving the thread because my husband has asked me to do so since it has consumed time that I should have been dedicated to being with him in our evenings together rather than engaging in conversation with others.

So, thank you for the discussion. I feel more firm than ever in my claim and I’ve been forces to search my heart and the scriptures for what I truly believe. I would have gone on without that had this thread not come up. So, for that I’m happy. However, my husband takes priority over the forums…so, I respectfully pull out at this point.

light bread
Jul 20th 2008, 12:42 AM
You are still ignoring exactly what I am saying. I am saying that there is still the choice to act upon an impulse or not.

No one could disagree with that. Thats not the point of disagreement, the point is whether or not people are born with the sexual attraction to the same gender.



Nature is used to define concrete, natural order, and the quality of a spirit. God is described with “divine nature”. There is no actual use of “sin nature” in scripture. We use that as a phrase which describes the state Paul describes in Romans.

The divine nature of which we are made partakers, is not something that we originally had, and certainly isn't what you refer to when something is "the way God intended." I'm using the term "sin nature" as a convenience since no one disagrees we have a sin nature and since the word nature is used to describe it in the bible.



Homosexuality is “against nature” meaning it is “against the way that things are organized” (the way you define the concept). This is due to the fact that its violating the way we’re supposed to act as determined by the natural order God set and the cultural norms society sets. If it doesn't violate God's intended way - it cannot be a sin.

It doesn’t mean it’s against our “sin nature” (the nature we have due to the fall).

If we use nature as you declare it should be used (“the way things are supposed to be”) then all sin is against nature, since we are not supposed to sin.So, there must be a split definition, meaning that it addresses different things.

I'm not saying nature refers to "the way things are supposed to be" but the way things are, period. In romans 2 when paul says uncircumsision is by nature, he doesnt just mean thats the way men are supposed to be born but some aren't. He means thats the way they are born.



Under that split definition, we are sinful (because of the fall) and some of those sins are of a subset that make unnatural sins…meaning sins that violate appropriate use of something like our bodies. This also give appropriate frame of reference to see not all fornication as equal since homosexual fornication is seen as an abomination, but heterosexual fornication is a sin against one’s own body.

Unless you make it have separate meaning under the verses (as the words in the original language do), then none of it makes sense at all to be relegated to “the way things are supposed to be.”

Again, not relegating to "... supposed to be." In fact thats the definition ive been saying is unscriptural. Natural is just the way things are...

We are sinful by nature... thats just the way we are born. We are homosexual against nature... thats not the way we are born.

Its really simple, i dont know why people find this so hard to grasp. I guess just because they wish to beleive people are born that way.



Being “sexually attracted” doesn’t mean you’re sinning as it doesn't mean you're lusting. There aren’t even verses listing “sexual attraction” as being a sin since the phrase isn’t even listed in the scripture. However, "attraction" is listed, and it is NOT listed as a sin.

*Obviously, desire or attraction is NOT equated to lust. Otherwise they wouldn’t be giving this directive.

The word attraction isnt even in the bible. But affection is, and in the case of homosexual affections the bible calls them vile.



One verse in Isaiah makes reference about our Savior and Lord not having anything that would make us attracted to him or to desire him as such when he was in human form. Now, since those clearly do not relate to sexual attraction or lust (since you say to “desire” is to lust), attraction and desire to be near or around a person obviously cannot be merely sexual. So, that being said, it is possible to be drawn to someone without having sexual thoughts or lust.

Thats actually exactly what the verse is saying! it says:

"He hath no form nor comeliness and when we shall see him there is no beauty that we should desire him."

again... psalms: " Lust not after her beauty in thine heart"

Lust=Covet=Desire (all synonymous)

lust=covet

"for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. " rom7:7

covet=desire

thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife Exo20<
thou shalt desire thy neighbour's wife Deut 5:21 <the terms are used interchangeably because they mean the same thing.




Stong's concordance says the word covet in Deut means "to delight in" and is referencing beauty, calling something "greatly beloved", a delectable thing, etc.

Looking up the word in a dictionary, in the English language it means "to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others; to wish for, esp. eagerly; to have an inordinate or wrongful desire."


Furthermore, of course it doesn't have "improper" in front of it in Deuteronomy. The term itself means improperly desiring, so it doesn't need to be called "improper" since it simply IS.

It doesnt matter how strongs defines it. Desire means desire... It has no implacation of proper or improper in the verse, its wrong to desire period.

Plus, that def. wouldn't make any sense at all because then the commandment would only be against the improper desire of your neighbors wife. And there IS NO proper way to desire your neighbors wife She isn't yours so its wrong to desire her at all.

If covet WAS defined as "improper desire" only then we have a real problem in Corinthians:

" But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way."

"Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues."

" Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. "

I find it really hard to believe that Paul's command is for the corinthians to improperly desire spiritual gifts.



I used commonly accepted commentary on that part, and basic Biblical studying skills through use of a concordance and basic understanding of the English grammatical marks that were added in order to make it make sense to those of us who read this in English. It wasn't faulty, it was based on the actual words and the original Greek they were written in. You may not like it because it changes the way you see it, but that is Scripture (and trust me, I spent hours cross referencing to make sure I wasn't looking at the wrong lines in my books).

Commentaries are often wrong, no matter how commonly accepted they are.

I apologize if I wont accept a commentary (especially one with such a great definition of desire in Deut.) as installable proof like its scripture. That seems to be where alot of your evidence is coming from not only for defining lust but for defining nature and other things as well.

The bible defines itself, such as the case above with lust being defined as desire. This is why the bible tells you to "compare spiritual things with spiritual" because the wisdom of what man teaches(commentaries) often does not line up with what the holy Ghost teaches.


You're adding things to Christs words that he did not put there. The verse says if you look at a woman to lust after her then you've committed adultery. Thus, if you are simply drawn to her you have not sinned by doing so.

THEN he goes on to say if your eye makes you sin, cut it out; if you hand causes you to sin, cut it off. Simple looking and acting isn't sinful. It's the intention and the condition of the heart.

Then Jesus' remedy is wrong. Why would He tell them to pluck out their eye if their "condition of heart" was the problem.


It's like David. If he'd just seen Bathsheba bathing and walked away he may have been aroused but if he didn't continue to stare at her, he wouldn't have lusted.

exactly and he sinned once he continued to stare, not when he actaully thought about being with her which is why Jesus says to not even look, because once you do you have already lusted in your heart. the first look was accidental, the 2nd look was in order "to lust after her in his heart" which is what Jesus is condemning- the looking.

Same as Lot's wife, she looked back because she desired to return, not because she wanted to be destroyed but because she loved that wicked city.



I'm assuming you're using Proverbs 23:31. "Look" in that case means to regard, approve, etc. Solomon is warning about drunkeness. It has nothing to do with actually viewing the wine being a sin.

Oh and all my life i thought look meant to look. Good thing we have commentaries.