1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is Homosexuality Biological?

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Martin, Jan 6, 2006.

Top Posters
Page 3 of 6
  1. standingfirminChrist

    standingfirminChrist New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    3
    Helen,

    we have answered. Martin just does not want to accept the answer. I have answered according to scripture, and from what I saw, Joseph did too. He may have been a little harsh on the heresy statement, but other than that, he answered the question
     
    #41 standingfirminChrist, Jan 6, 2006
  2. Martin

    Martin Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,229
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
     
    #42 Martin, Jan 6, 2006
  3. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    Are you two saying, then, that without any outside influences a person just decides to be a homosexual?
     
    #43 Helen, Jan 6, 2006
  4. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you telling me that bad things don't happen for the purpose of bringing glory to God? Is it not possible that God caused it for his glory...including birth defects?
     
    #44 Joseph_Botwinick, Jan 6, 2006
  5. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope. I am saying that it is not genetic. It has everything to do with the spiritual condition and nothing to do with genetics.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
    #45 Joseph_Botwinick, Jan 6, 2006
  6. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    God causing it, and God allowing it because He can use it are two entirely different things, Joseph.
     
    #46 Helen, Jan 6, 2006
  7. standingfirminChrist

    standingfirminChrist New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    3
    Helen,

    I have stated earlier, the only outside influence is spiritual wickedness in high places. not flesh and blood.
     
    #47 standingfirminChrist, Jan 6, 2006
  8. Martin

    Martin Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,229
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    ==You answered. I have no problem with your answer (other than the idea that Romans 1 is not judgment, and that somehow behaviors can be divorced from influences). I am not refusing your answer. I agree homosexuality is sin. I was driving at the point of influences. Regardless of the source of those influences. I think Joseph mis-understood what I was saying and I can take full blame for that one (if I did not clearify the way I was using certain terms).


    Martin.
     
    #48 Martin, Jan 6, 2006
  9. standingfirminChrist

    standingfirminChrist New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    3
     
    #49 standingfirminChrist, Jan 6, 2006
  10. standingfirminChrist

    standingfirminChrist New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joseph and I do not see eye to eye on other subjects, but I agree with him on this. homosexuality has nothing to do with genetics and nothing to do with fleshly influences. And God did not plant that sin in man's heart.
     
    #50 standingfirminChrist, Jan 6, 2006
  11. Martin

    Martin Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,229
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    ==Again I have not said that God put in their hearts. Nothing to do with fleshly influences? So you are saying that people can't be influenced to sin? Just trying to make sure I understand your point.

    Martin.
     
    #51 Martin, Jan 6, 2006
  12. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    I'm sorry, standingfirminChrist, but that is simply not true, biblically or logically (which don't disagree with each other...)

    Outside influences cause us to do all kinds of things. My parents smoked. I grew up hating it because of breathing it. Would I hate it otherwise or be more tolerant? I don't know, but I know I am far more tolerant of things I have not had personal contact with that others hate!

    As a parent I KNOW I have had influence on my children's choices in life. I know my husband has an influence, and a very strong one, over my behavior.

    And I am not different from the rest of humanity.

    The whole of the adverising industry thrives because they know they can influence what people do and buy! Hollywood is gung ho political statements because they know they can influence people via entertainment. You are here because you expect to influence people. So am I!

    One deaf interpreter I used to work with was homosexual (he is a Christian now, however) and told me his story -- he had been enticed into it as a teenager when abandon by his father and 'fathered' by an adult friend. If that is not influence, I don't know what is!
     
    #52 Helen, Jan 6, 2006
  13. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    John 9:3

    NASB

    Jesus clearly teaches that the blinded happened for a purpose, and that purpose was not to punish sin, specific or general, but to bring glory to God.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
    #53 Joseph_Botwinick, Jan 6, 2006
  14. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    It means God was able to use it and so allowed it, Joseph.

    If God caused it directly, then you are not far from saying He caused sin itself, and evil directly, and we know that is not true.
     
    #54 Helen, Jan 6, 2006
  15. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. You err in thinking that a birth defect or blindness is a sin or evil. Nowhere does the Bible say that.

    2. Since there was a Godly purpose for it, God did cause it.

    3. His blindness was not caused by sin (specific or general).

    4.
    John 19:11

    Who is the one from above who gave Pilate the power over Jesus? What is your interpretation of that second sentence in context with the first sentence? Remember that the therefore clearly links the two ideas, so don't try to take it off into a different direction.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
    #55 Joseph_Botwinick, Jan 6, 2006
  16. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joseph, if it is your pleasure to believe that God is the author of pain and suffering -- and birth defects -- there is nothing I can do to stop you.

    But at least I can protest publicly that that is not the God I know, who created all things and pronounced His creation 'very good.'

    If you think birth defects qualify as 'very good' I would suggest you don't know beans about them.

    As far as your quote from John 19:11 is concerned, Jesus is telling Pilate that his power over Jesus was given to him from above. This is not the same as saying that 'above' handed him over to Pilate. The chief priests and Pharisees did that, and Christ had already lambasted them in Matthew 18 as well as other places. THEY were guilty of the far greater sin, as they KNEW the truth about Jesus and were suppressing it to maintain their own positions.
     
    #56 Helen, Jan 6, 2006
  17. computerjunkie

    computerjunkie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,827
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do NOT believe homosexual behavior is genetic. However, I DO agree with #2 in the OP...it is a choice people make. However I believe there are probably psychological and sociological factors that influence that choice.

    Yes, we do have a sin nature; however, by the grace of God, we can overcome this sin nature. But I believe many things can influence our behavior. For instance, have you actually NOTICED the change in TV commercials in the last few years? They would certainly influence ADD behavior. They are extremely fast-paced, wild colors flashing across the screen, images changing in split-second timing, etc. Some of them are very agitating...for me, anyway. In fact, I probably couldn't tell you the product most of them are advertising because they are so obnoxious. (Personal opinion.)

    I don't play video games, but from what I understand of them, I would think they could influence behavior that would not necessarily be in-bred.

    I would assume that homosexual behavior could result from influence in the same way. Yes, Christians have the power of the Holy Spirit to turn from this sinful lifestyle, but I do believe today's culture can most certainly influence sinful behavior.

    However, I'm having more trouble with the idea that birth defects are a result of sin...
     
    #57 computerjunkie, Jan 6, 2006
  18. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helen,

    It is my pleasure to believe that birth defects are not a sin nor evil. It is further my pleasure to point out the obvious in Scripture: That God had a purpose for the man being blind, which seems to suggest to me that he caused his blindness. It is also my pleasure to point out that Jesus stated in his Word that the man's blindness was not the result of sin, and was not the punishment of God for sin, neither general nor specific; rather he was blind for the purpose of bringing Glory to God.

    Finally, it is my pleasure to point out that the "therefore" clearly links the two sentences together whether you want to ignore it or not.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
    #58 Joseph_Botwinick, Jan 6, 2006
  19. Martin

    Martin Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,229
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Joseph,

    From your silence I must assume you refuse to answer my last reply to you? You have accused me, falsely, of heresy. A charge that carries serious weight.

    You focus on John 9:1ff. However there are several points you are ignoring (in reference to this discussion).

    1. Jesus was talking about "this" blind man (vs1,3). That man, nor his parents, did anything to cause his condition. Personal sin was not the issue (in that case). Certainly some people sin and suffer disease as a result (see next paragraph). But that was not the case with this man. This man was not blind because of his personal sin nor his parents. However apart from the fall (sin) this man would not have been born blind.

    Concerning your heresy charge I find it interesting that the Lord Jesus does not call his disciples "heretics" because of their statement in verse 2. In fact their statement was a common belief of the time. They believed that if a person was born with a birth defect either their parents sinned, or they sinned before birth. Jesus pointed out that in this particular case (Jn 9:1ff) the belief was not true (vs3). However some people's sin does lead to their own physical suffering according to Jesus Himself and other clear Scripture (see Jn 5:14, Jms 5:15, 1Cor 11:30, Rom 1:27, Pr 5:11, etc). We also know of times when the sins of the parents does indeed cause suffering in the life of their children (ex: mothers who abuse drugs, alcohol, or smoke, etc, etc).

    Now since I was NOT saying what the disciples said, and since Jesus did not call them heretics, you had no ground of charging me with heresy. Also my position that human suffering (etc) is a result of the fall (sin) is perfectly Biblical and orthodox (see below). Any position that tries to divorce suffering and sin (the fall) is unBiblical.

    2. Jesus never said that suffering was not the result of sin (in general). In fact Paul indicates that it is (see Rom 8:18-22). In a very real sense all suffering is a result of sin. For if there were no sin there would be on suffering.

    3. It would be error to claim that there was disease, birth defects, and human suffering before the fall (before sin). It would also be an error to claim that if there was no fall that people would still suffer from birth defects and disease.

    Now back to the point of the original post (which seems to have been lost). I don't see how anyone can claim that there are no influences on behavior (social, mental, or even biological). Clearly there are. We can see this in our daily life and in Scripture. People who fall into the sin of homosexuality have been influenced. Clearly their actions are the result of a choice they have made. However there had to have been some influences. These could include family, friends, teachers (ie...social), or mental issues of some sort (maybe a result of the social).

    What about biological influences? As I said in my original post, I don't know. Thanks to sin (the fall and its results) it is possible that some people have a birth defect that allows them to be tempted with homosexuality. This type of thing is not unheard of in the medical community. It is known, for example, that children of alcoholics tend to tempted by alcoholism themselves. There is something that has "gone wrong", or been altered, in their biology that causes that (ie..a birth defect). This of course does not mean that the behavior is ok. No. Morality is not determined by biology (in a fallen world). I don't know that there are biological influences when it comes to homosexuality but if there are it does not justify or excuse the behavior. It is still a sin. The person who is tempted by homosexuality, like every other person, must come to Christ and be born again. Christ can save them from sin and give them the strength to overcome the temptation (see 1Cor 10:13).

    Martin.
     
    #59 Martin, Jan 6, 2006
  20. Martin

    Martin Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,229
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    ==I don't think that is a Biblical statement. The Bible states, for example:

    "Do not be deceived: Bad company corrupts good morals" 1Cor 15:33

    Other such passages would include 3Jn 11, 1Cor 8:9,13, etc.

    I could also list a host of Biblical examples where people (social) influenced others to sin...Rev 2:20-23, 1Kings 11:3-4, etc, etc.

    Now is it true that those influences have spiritual elements? That there maybe spiritual forces behind some of those influences? Certainly (Eph 6:12). That is why we must not just deal with the external but we must also deal with the spiritual. However to deny those external influences is not correct. Also denying internal influences is not correct (see Jms 1:14-16).

    In Christ,
    Martin.
     
    #60 Martin, Jan 6, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 6
Loading...