Antipas, you give excuse for those that don't have a choice, I beg to differ, God is going to judge mankind based upon his choice. I do not see any reason why men couldn't make the choice to abstain from the behavior. The chemical imbalance thing isn't going to work standing before God. Just as poor behavior because of road rage isn't going to work when standing before a traffic judge; what would the judge say to the perp when he says "sorry judge, I have a chemical imbalance whenever I'm on the highway and someone does something to set me off"? Do you think the judge will let him off the hook because there was nothing he could do about the chemical imbalance? Especially if he harms or kills someone,Dude, get real.
I think you’re misinterpreting my position. I fully agree with you, one’s biology doesn’t absolve them of the choices they make. But it does give us a context with which to aid us in how we deal with these individuals. My flesh is hardwired for sin also (though not this sin). I’m responsible to God for my choices to give into those urges. However, no one expects me to stop being who I am. I can’t just choose to be something I’m not. My point is that neither can these individuals. They have a biological or genetic (i.e. fleshly) predisposition or propensity toward this kind of behavior. Knowing that this is a condition that isn’t a “choice”, I’m led to have far more compassion on them and patience with them. I realize that without a miracle that changes their biology they will have these attractions for most of their lives. I can accept the fact that no degree of Christian pop-psychology will change them. I also understand that it would be unwise to condition them to claim to be straight and encourage them to marry to “fix” their problem, knowing that this will most likely end in broken homes as they realize that they are what they are. I won’t demand that they cease being who they are through efforts to “change” themselves. I can admit that their change can only come from a miraculous touch from Jesus. I can advocate self control. I can advocate that they not engage in these behaviors and that they accept a life of celibacy. This doesn’t mean they have to cease having these feelings (they can’t stop these feelings anyway). It does mean that they not act out on them with others. Like anyone who is called to a life without marriage we call them to purity in their current state. In the ancient world they would be admitted to the class of eunuchs and allowed to function in a single, unmarried, individuals. No one would expect them to change and be straight. All that would be expected would be a life of purity and an acceptance of living as a single human being.
I know this position might bother some of our liberal friends and brethren who might even advocate that they be allowed to dwell in monogamous civil unions. I am not yet convinced that the ancient cultural code of the Bible would allow for civil unions or binding covenants between two individuals of the same gender. Though on a political level the only value with civil unions would be in creating a culture in which intercourse, rather sanctioned by Scripture or not, is expected to be kept within the bounds of a social contract. This is what some liberals call the, “Golden Standard of Marriage.”
Why do some people steal and some do not? Why do some people commit adultery and some do not? Why do some people kill and some do not? It is because certain people have certain weaknesses that are there temptations to fight. One doesn't choose to be gay because of his strength to be straight, one chooses to be gay because of a weakness. Just as some people who do not have an issue with not stealing, and not committing adultery, and not killing, and not.......... well, you get my point.
Anyone who has ever worked with the handicapped or the mentally retarded knows that genetics and biology can be a factor in violent and/or irrational or psychotic behavior. This isn’t always a “choice” nor is it a “spirit”. It’s a part of our fallen human biological condition. Down through the centuries the church has believed that nearly every physiological ailment (for example the palsy) was the result of an unclean spirit. But today we in the church know that some cases are spiritual in nature and others are biological. Why couldn’t this also be truth of this condition? Certainly some may have “chosen” this behavior later in life as a result of abuse or unchecked lust (as Paul condemns). However, there may also be those who have struggled with this since they were the smallest of children. These individuals may indeed be bound by their biology and in need of more compassion that we are offering.
The Bible never addresses how we are to deal with those who have been this way from birth or their earliest years. For these individuals this isn’t a “lust” it’s a condition. Paul’s condemnation was aimed at those of the same gender who burned in lust one toward another and abandoned their previous natural interests as a result of their pagan godlessness. But what about a person who was never attracted to the opposite gender? Are these individuals to be viewed as abominations or people struggling with a condition?
My point is that there may be a distinction between those who give themselves over to homosexual lust for the sake of pleasure and those who have never felt heterosexual. No doubt one would even take advantage of the other. I feel saddened at how this can open up the one struggling with this to abuse. For example I’ve heard stories about how a young man might open up to his pastor about this struggle he’s had all his life…and then the pastor seeks to take advantage of him by propositioning the young man. Who’s the sinner? The young man who has never felt straight and is battling this; r the pastor who has been straight for most of his life, is married, but now preys upon this person struggling with this condition?
There may be a difference. I don’t have the answers…I’m just asking the questions.
Anyone who has ever worked with the handicapped or the mentally retarded knows that genetics and biology can be a factor in violent and/or irrational or psychotic behavior. This isn’t always a “choice” nor is it a “spirit”. It’s a part of our fallen human biological condition. Down through the centuries the church has believed that nearly every physiological ailment (for example the palsy) was the result of an unclean spirit. But today we in the church know that some cases are spiritual in nature and others are biological. Why couldn’t this also be truth of this condition? Certainly some may have “chosen” this behavior later in life as a result of abuse or unchecked lust (as Paul condemns). However, there may also be those who have struggled with this since they were the smallest of children. These individuals may indeed be bound by their biology and in need of more compassion that we are offering.
The Bible never addresses how we are to deal with those who have been this way from birth or their earliest years. For these individuals this isn’t a “lust” it’s a condition. Paul’s condemnation was aimed at those of the same gender who burned in lust one toward another and abandoned their previous natural interests as a result of their pagan godlessness. But what about a person who was never attracted to the opposite gender? Are these individuals to be viewed as abominations or people struggling with a condition?
My point is that there may be a distinction between those who give themselves over to homosexual lust for the sake of pleasure and those who have never felt heterosexual. No doubt one would even take advantage of the other. I feel saddened at how this can open up the one struggling with this to abuse. For example I’ve heard stories about how a young man might open up to his pastor about this struggle he’s had all his life…and then the pastor seeks to take advantage of him by propositioning the young man. Who’s the sinner? The young man who has never felt straight and is battling this; r the pastor who has been straight for most of his life, is married, but now preys upon this person struggling with this condition?
There may be a difference. I don’t have the answers…I’m just asking the questions.
Sorry dude! There is ZERO conclusive evidence that there is a genetic or biological predisposition. You are making an argument from a "straw man." It is something that is against God's creative order for His creative purpose.
I have dealt with homosexuals and EVERY single one I have dealt with, it was a learned behavior. It may have been learned very young in the absence of a male figure in their lives but it was learned.
Their same sex attraction may come from a heart "wound" a disappointment or just being around females more than males or the opposite if they are female. Yes, it is a choice to follow the perversion of God's created order or walk the other direction. NO sin that we have become accustomed to is easy to leave behind. There must be a deliverance and a dependence.
My predisposition to become an alcohol/drug addict was learned behavior from my Mother. I learned it, perfected it, got delivered from it and now have a dependency on the King of Kings. I was, but now I am not.
The only way one is chained to their sin is to believe that is who they are. One says, "Oh, well, I'm just attracted to little boys. I can't help myself. I shouldn't be held accountable because that is just who I am. It's not my fault. The internet made me that way. My uncle Ernie made me this way."
On and on and on the excuses for sin go. The excuse is irrelevant. The cure is the same. There is NO chain which Jesus can't break!!!!!!
__________________
"Those who go after the "Sauls" among us often slay the Davids among us." Gene Edwards
Research states that some men are born with effeminate qualities because of the lack of a hormone. There is no research that states anyone was born homosexal.
Research does confirm that with women it is a choice and the primary reason is due to abuse sufferred by males or females when in their formative years.
Participation in any type of sin is a choice.
Blessings, Rhoni
Rhoni,
You state that some men are born with effeminate qualities due to a hormone imbalance, which clearly is not a choice.
Based on your research and logic, how can something that someone is born with (effeminate qualities) and does not choose (hormonal) disqualify them from inheriting the kingdom of god as is stated in the bible when it says that the effeminate shall not inherit the kingdom of god.
You claim they have effeminate qualities that they are born with. Not a choice.
You claim it is caused by a hormonal imbalance. Not a choice.
Following your research and reasoning, an effeminate man does not have the choice of not participating in being effeminate because he was born with those qualities. You state that participation in any type of sin is a choice. You have clearly established that effeminate qualities are not a choice and consequently one does not have a choice to participate in or not participate in being effeminate, yet the bible says it will keep you out of the kingdom.
I believe that just as you have stated concerning being born effeminate, some are born homosexual. I'd like to mention too that not all effeminate men are homosexual just as not all homosexual men are effeminate.
Attempts at changing one's makeup that they are born with are frought with failure, to include being born effeminate and being born homosexual. If you are to believe that being effeminate will keep you out of heaven and believe as you stated that it is hormonal and something that you are born with, then the church needs to start some serious hormone therapy programs.
True! I can't show scripturally, but I don't accept that the Bible is 100% infallible and inspired, anymore.
One of my reasons for this is the realization that way too many things don't make sense. Spent decades believing it, but finally got tired of the contortions we all had to go through to turn contradictions into "apparent" contradictions, etc. Every error in the Bible can be explained away if you work at it. But why work at it?
There are also a lot of "apparent" broken promises. The promises of healing are almost never fulfilled. As with the contradictions, there are always explanations. They didn't have "enough" faith, or there is sin, or they didn't follow the instructions. Sorry, but I don't think God is so nasty that he will let someone's child die because of loop holes. It's much more likely that God didn't have anything to do with inspiring the words "And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up". It was wishful thinking.
Have you ever witnessed a miracle? Ever seen a faith healing?
Have you ever witnessed a miracle? Ever seen a faith healing?
Lots of blatant fakes and unverifiable ones ("my back pain is gone!"), but no, not an undeniably supernatural miracle, that I know of. If I had, it wouldn't prove the Bible is infallible and inspired. It might prove that God sometimes intervenes, but even that would be iffy. Was it God, or was it some other supernatural phenomenon, or even a "natural" thing, as yet unexplained? Plenty of unexplained things still happen in the world.
For a promise to be considered broken, it only has to be broken once, by the way. Sure, I understand, nobody here will consider a failed healing to be a broken promise (and find something/someone else to blame), but as I see it, that's because they cling to their beliefs no matter what. Because they are told to believe, no matter what. That it is required of them! "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"! "Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." See the problem? The very same commands could be attached to any religion or cult, and the followers would have no choice but to obey.
If the Bible says if you do X God will do Y, then if you do X and Y doesn't happen, what would that be called, if not a broken promise? And the cliche that God always answers prayer and it's sometimes "no" doesn't change that. In fact, it's equivalent to admitting that God does, in fact, break promises.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
I think you’re misinterpreting my position. I fully agree with you, one’s biology doesn’t absolve them of the choices they make. But it does give us a context with which to aid us in how we deal with these individuals. My flesh is hardwired for sin also (though not this sin). I’m responsible to God for my choices to give into those urges. However, no one expects me to stop being who I am. I can’t just choose to be something I’m not. My point is that neither can these individuals. They have a biological or genetic (i.e. fleshly) predisposition or propensity toward this kind of behavior. Knowing that this is a condition that isn’t a “choice”, I’m led to have far more compassion on them and patience with them. I realize that without a miracle that changes their biology they will have these attractions for most of their lives. I can accept the fact that no degree of Christian pop-psychology will change them. I also understand that it would be unwise to condition them to claim to be straight and encourage them to marry to “fix” their problem, knowing that this will most likely end in broken homes as they realize that they are what they are. I won’t demand that they cease being who they are through efforts to “change” themselves. I can admit that their change can only come from a miraculous touch from Jesus. I can advocate self control. I can advocate that they not engage in these behaviors and that they accept a life of celibacy. This doesn’t mean they have to cease having these feelings (they can’t stop these feelings anyway). It does mean that they not act out on them with others. Like anyone who is called to a life without marriage we call them to purity in their current state. In the ancient world they would be admitted to the class of eunuchs and allowed to function in a single, unmarried, individuals. No one would expect them to change and be straight. All that would be expected would be a life of purity and an acceptance of living as a single human being.
I know this position might bother some of our liberal friends and brethren who might even advocate that they be allowed to dwell in monogamous civil unions. I am not yet convinced that the ancient cultural code of the Bible would allow for civil unions or binding covenants between two individuals of the same gender. Though on a political level the only value with civil unions would be in creating a culture in which intercourse, rather sanctioned by Scripture or not, is expected to be kept within the bounds of a social contract. This is what some liberals call the, “Golden Standard of Marriage.”
Then why are we arguing? You obviosly misrepresented my words as well.
Sorry dude! There is ZERO conclusive evidence that there is a genetic or biological predisposition. You are making an argument from a "straw man." It is something that is against God's creative order for His creative purpose.
You’re assuming that things are just as perfect as they were in the Garden of Eden. Today MANY things are the result of biological problems that go against God’s creative order for his creative purpose. You have people born with both male and female reproductive organs and estrogen/testosterone imbalances that wreak absolute havoc in regards to their gender, attractions, behaviors, and sense of gender identity.
I’ll do a little research on this and pull up some studies on this subject for us to consider. There are studies ranging mapping genetics of individuals struggling with this to blind pheromone tests to detect hormonal reactions in individuals to male or female hormone. All tests appear to indicate a definite biological factor.
Quote:
I have dealt with homosexuals and EVERY single one I have dealt with, it was a learned behavior. It may have been learned very young in the absence of a male figure in their lives but it was learned.
I’ve also known a few individuals with this problem but their backgrounds differ. You have an individual from a broken home (possible gender identity issue), one that was abused by an older boy (possible abuse issue), and two that were Apostolic preacher’s kids, where did these parents go wrong? I’m sure they’d love to know. I think most don’t realize that when we say it’s a learned or conditioned behavior via abuse or environment we are placing a considerable amount of responsibility on parents who are doing the best they can. Some have done an exemplary job…and still their kids turn out to be gay. Where did they go wrong? Is it fair to place that kind of guilt on them? Am I to believe that these Apostolic preachers abused their sons? How do we explain the numerous individuals who were abused and didn’t turn out this way?
Quote:
Their same sex attraction may come from a heart "wound" a disappointment or just being around females more than males or the opposite if they are female.
Get real! There are far more who have had “heart wounds” and who have been raised by females more than males who have turned out just fine. If this were true we’d see far more gay people today than you’d ever imagine. Remember, in the ancient world, women raised the children and men rarely involved themselves until the young men were well of age to be men. I don’t buy this one bro.
Quote:
Yes, it is a choice to follow the perversion of God's created order or walk the other direction. NO sin that we have become accustomed to is easy to leave behind. There must be a deliverance and a dependence.
Is sin a “choice” or is it a condition that is part of our very nature as fallen creatures? The point is that we as human beings are fallen, flawed, and have no choice…we sin rather we like it or not. Sure, we get saved and learn to walk in the Spirit. Most of the time this means that we “sin less” not that we are “sinless”.
Quote:
My predisposition to become an alcohol/drug addict was learned behavior from my Mother. I learned it, perfected it, got delivered from it and now have a dependency on the King of Kings. I was, but now I am not.
Actually research shows that some people have a tendency toward being genetically predisposed to addiction. My doctor briefed me on it when we discussed the benefits of red wine and heart health.
Quote:
The only way one is chained to their sin is to believe that is who they are. One says, "Oh, well, I'm just attracted to little boys. I can't help myself. I shouldn't be held accountable because that is just who I am. It's not my fault. The internet made me that way. My uncle Ernie made me this way."
Again, you miss the point. No one is saying that one shouldn’t be held accountable for illegal actions or be held morally accountable for sinful actions. What we are saying is that there is an underlying root cause rooted in some folks genetics (flesh). Understanding this will influence us to more properly address the issue with various individuals. For example, let’s say we are dealing with an individual who has had same gender attraction their whole lives and it may indeed by genetic. Do you beat them over the head with a Bible demanding they “repent” of their condition, forcing them to try to “change” by “choosing” to be straight…or do you pray for forgiveness if sin was committed and pray for their “healing”? Sometimes we beat them down demanding they “repent” when what they need is a “healing”. Understanding the problem opens up more options in relation to how we deal with the issue.
Quote:
On and on and on the excuses for sin go. The excuse is irrelevant. The cure is the same. There is NO chain which Jesus can't break!!!!!!
Amen. But is that chain a “choice” or part of a genetic condition predisposing toward a given behavior? Then do we pray that Christ break that chain by giving them strength to choose or do we break it by praying that Christ heal their fallen condition?
Sorry dude! There is ZERO conclusive evidence that there is a genetic or biological predisposition. You are making an argument from a "straw man." It is something that is against God's creative order for His creative purpose.
I have dealt with homosexuals and EVERY single one I have dealt with, it was a learned behavior. It may have been learned very young in the absence of a male figure in their lives but it was learned.
Their same sex attraction may come from a heart "wound" a disappointment or just being around females more than males or the opposite if they are female. Yes, it is a choice to follow the perversion of God's created order or walk the other direction. NO sin that we have become accustomed to is easy to leave behind. There must be a deliverance and a dependence.
My predisposition to become an alcohol/drug addict was learned behavior from my Mother. I learned it, perfected it, got delivered from it and now have a dependency on the King of Kings. I was, but now I am not.
The only way one is chained to their sin is to believe that is who they are. One says, "Oh, well, I'm just attracted to little boys. I can't help myself. I shouldn't be held accountable because that is just who I am. It's not my fault. The internet made me that way. My uncle Ernie made me this way."
On and on and on the excuses for sin go. The excuse is irrelevant. The cure is the same. There is NO chain which Jesus can't break!!!!!!
Lots of blatant fakes and unverifiable ones ("my back pain is gone!"), but no, not an undeniably supernatural miracle, that I know of. If I had, it wouldn't prove the Bible is infallible and inspired. It might prove that God sometimes intervenes, but even that would be iffy. Was it God, or was it some other supernatural phenomenon, or even a "natural" thing, as yet unexplained? Plenty of unexplained things still happen in the world.
For a promise to be considered broken, it only has to be broken once, by the way. Sure, I understand, nobody here will consider a failed healing to be a broken promise (and find something/someone else to blame), but as I see it, that's because they cling to their beliefs no matter what. Because they are told to believe, no matter what. That it is required of them! "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"! "Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." See the problem? The very same commands could be attached to any religion or cult, and the followers would have no choice but to obey.
If the Bible says if you do X God will do Y, then if you do X and Y doesn't happen, what would that be called, if not a broken promise? And the cliche that God always answers prayer and it's sometimes "no" doesn't change that. In fact, it's equivalent to admitting that God does, in fact, break promises.
I can't show scripturally, but I don't accept that the Bible is 100% infallible and inspired, anymore. 
Linear Mode
