Is Homosexuality Biological?

[StraightAndNarrow]

I don't know. The thing is we've made so many advances in genetics in other areas but to my knowledge not for homosexuality.

My only real knowledge in this area came through a fellow high school student who came to my family's home to tell me that he was homosexual and desperately wanted to change but couldn't. He came to me because in Public Speaking class I gave a speech about proofs of the existence of God.

I felt completely inaudaquate and referred him to a psychologist or minister.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

My Take:

No. Homosexuality is not genetical or biological in any way.

It is a sinful choice man makes.

There ARE environmental factors involved - psychological, sociological and otherwise - there have to be, by definition. It is impossible to willfully choose homosexuality (or anything else, good or bad) in the absence of environmental influences.

These "negative" influences ARE the result of the fall as someone pointed out. They cannot be otherwise, as they are neither holy nor innocent. On top of that the mind itself is fallen. Moreover, though it's more complex than this, it's safe to say these factors are often influenced, both directly and indirectly, by the "principalities and powers" in Eph.6:12 as someone else indicated. I should point out that these "negative" influences affect all men, though differently. We are all fallen. And we all experience the attention of demonic spirit beings to the extent that God our Almighty Father allows it.

Jesus Christ can and will change the homosexual just as He will change any other sinner. His Word is more than adequate to deal with homosexuality just as it is more than adequate to deal with all sin.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Martin:
Joseph,

From your silence I must assume you refuse to answer my last reply to you?

You assumed wrongly. I missed your last post. Just looked it up. Here is my response:

1. No, I am not saying that. I am saying that homosexuality is not a birth defect, it is a spiritual defect. It is not genetic. I am further saying that I don't know if birth defects might have occurred before the fall and neither do you. If you think the Bible deals with the issue of birth defects before the fall, please show me from scripture where you see that. I know that the Bible deals with the issues of man's spiritual state before the fall, their interpersonal relationships with other men before the fall, and the fact that their sin cuased death. I see nothing about birth defects.

You have accused me, falsely, of heresy. A charge that carries serious weight. [/QUOTE]

The heresy is two fold:

1. That sin is a genetic birth defect caused by sin in general. If that were true, we would all have that genetic failing. We all don't. As a matter of fact, none of us do.

2. That homosexuality is a genetic defect and not purely a choice of the natural sinful nature. It is a spiritual, not a biological issue. The totally depraved, sinful man is doing what is natural to him...whatever makes him feel good. For some it is pride. For some it is adultery. There are a myriad of sins that are committed by sinful man. None of them are the results of genetic wiring.

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. [/QUOTE]

And the point that you ignore is that his blindness had a purpose, which was the glorification of God. You refuse to see that the blindness in and of itself was not evil....and indeed, could have been the will of God. God made the man blind from birth in order to glorify God. God did not make any man homosexual from birth for his glorification. There is no condemnation of being blind in the Bible (except for those who were caught up in the ancient days version of the Word of Faith heresy). Homosexuality is very clearly condemned in the Bible. To compare the two is to do damage to logic and the Word of God.

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).[/QUOTE]

1. While it is true that some people's sin did, indeed, lead to physical suffering and it is clearly verifiable in Scripture, the idea that all birth defects are the result of sin is not true or clearly verifiable in Scripture.

2. Homosexuality is not a genetic birth defect. It is a spiritual defect.

3. Birth defects are not condemned as sin. Homosexuality is. The comparison of the two is ludicrous.

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. [/QUOTE]

See above.

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.[/QUOTE]

You show very little understanding by using this passage to argue that physical suffering is always due to sin. It is clearly dealing with spiritual siffering with the groanings of birthpains. You will also note who caused the frustration and by whose will it occurred. There is nothing genetic in this passage.

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.[/QUOTE]

Scripture please.

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. [/QUOTE]

There are influences. They are spiritual, not biological in nature. Now, I must go to bed because I have to get up and go to work tomorrow at 5 in the morning. Won't be back on till probably tomorrow night. Good Night.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[webdog]

#2. Homosexuality is a direct result of sin, and since it is "unnatural", man was not created with the desire initialy, nor was it coded into man's DNA.

 

[le bel]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
homosexuality is a product of the sin nature, not as a result of a birth defect.

I agree. I believe the "I was born gay" as a means of not being held accountable. Man's stamp of approval for sins committed.

I also have family who are "Christian" yet live this lifestyle believing it to be OK.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

God's Word declares this lifestyle to be an abomination. And we are told that all things abominable will be cast in the lake of fire. This includes all who practice homosexuality.

 

[KenH]

Somewhere between answers 3 and 4.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by webdog:
#2. Homosexuality is a direct result of sin, and since it is "unnatural", man was not created with the desire initialy, nor was it coded into man's DNA.

Webdog,

I agree, with only one addition: Neither are they created with its code in their DNA today.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Martin]

Joseph,

I am saying that homosexuality is not a birth defect, it is a spiritual defect. It is not genetic. I am further saying that I don't know if birth defects might have occurred before the fall and neither do you. If you think the Bible deals with the issue of birth defects before the fall, please show me from scripture where you see that. I know that the Bible deals with the issues of man's spiritual state before the fall, their interpersonal relationships with other men before the fall, and the fact that their sin cuased death. I see nothing about birth defects.

==Before the fall God called His creation "good" (vs10,12,21,25) and "very good" (vs31). Man and animals were eating plants and not each other because there was no death (not physical and not spiritual). God created a very good world. It was only after sin that suffering entered the picture (Gen 3:16-19, 4:8-10). This suffering includes humans, animals, and the entire creation. Humans now eat animals, animals now eat each other. This was no occuring before the fall (Gen 2:29-30, Gen 9:3). The idea that any form of human suffering occured before the fall, before sin, is unorthodox. The Bible simply does not allow for that. I will return to this later in this reply.

________________________________________

1. That sin is a genetic birth defect caused by sin in general. If that were true, we would all have that genetic failing. We all don't. As a matter of fact, none of us do.

==Agree or disagree I don't see that as being properly labeled as heresy. Also I have not said that homosexuality "IS" biological in nature. I have said that there "maybe" biological "influences". That is far different from what you are claiming. Now, as I pointed out, there are clear medical examples of biological influences so I don't see how you can deny that possibility. As I have said even IF there is a biological influence that does not excuse the behavior. The behavior is still sin.

_____________________________________________

That homosexuality is a genetic defect and not purely a choice of the natural sinful nature. It is a spiritual, not a biological issue. The totally depraved, sinful man is doing what is natural to him...whatever makes him feel good. For some it is pride. For some it is adultery. There are a myriad of sins that are committed by sinful man. None of them are the results of genetic wiring.

==I agree that homosexuality is a spiritual problem. As I have said already in this thread I believe that no true christian can be a homosexual (1Cor 6:9-10). What I am talking about is "influences". Could there be any "biological" influences? My argument is that since man has been negativly affected by sin (in all ways) it is certainly possible.

I can't accept your argument that health problems are not caused by sin. I think it is pretty clear in Scripture that all suffering is caused by sin in the bigger picture. I also think it is clear, via the medical community, that most human suffering comes from human sin and carelessness (polution, drugs, etc).

_______________________________________
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.

And the point that you ignore is that his blindness had a purpose, which was the glorification of God. You refuse to see that the blindness in and of itself was not evil

==That is not what I am talking about. I am making the point that Jesus and His disciples are refering to a specific man (ie..."this" man). I don't see Jesus giving a general all purposes principle here. As I pointed out elsewhere in my reply Jesus Himself did point out that sin can cause physical problems (see Jn 5:14). You are trying to make a general principle out of John 9:1-2 and I just don't see a general principle there. Maybe the point for us is that not all sick people have done something to deserve their sickness. However that has nothing to do with our discussion here since we are talking about sin in general (ie..the results of the fall and the curse).

________________________________________

God did not make any man homosexual from birth for his glorification.

==I have not said that God made homosexuals. Don't build a strawman. Notice I rejected views 3 and 4 in my original post. I am only saying that there "maybe" some biological "influence" thanks to the problems created by the fall (ie...sin). However I am not certain about that. I do, however, believe that there are social and mental influences on people who turn to homosexuality. Behind those "influences" is the real cause of their condition (ie...spiritual death, lostness). However the spiritual death alone is not the problem since not all lost people, in fact most lost people, are not homosexuals. So what other factors come into play with lost people who are (and only lost people can be homosexuals -1Cor 6:9-10). That is the issue....influences.

_______________________________________

There is no condemnation of being blind in the Bible (except for those who were caught up in the ancient days version of the Word of Faith heresy). Homosexuality is very clearly condemned in the Bible. To compare the two is to do damage to logic and the Word of God.

==I did not compare the two...you did. You mentioned John 9:1-2.

_______________________________________
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).

1. While it is true that some people's sin did, indeed, lead to physical suffering and it is clearly verifiable in Scripture, the idea that all birth defects are the result of sin is not true or clearly verifiable in Scripture.

==All birth defects (etc) are not the result of personal sin. However all human suffering is a result of sin (ie..the fall). Saying that human suffering would have been true even if there was not fall seems to me to be highly unorthodox.

_______________________________________
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.

You show very little understanding by using this passage to argue that physical suffering is always due to sin. It is clearly dealing with spiritual siffering with the groanings of birthpains. You will also note who caused the frustration and by whose will it occurred. There is nothing genetic in this passage.

==You are saying that Romans 8:18-22 is only talkiing about spiritual suffering? Let's see if that holds up:

"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory this is to be revealed to us. For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation itself was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set from from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now." Romans 8:18-22

What terms did Paul use?
1. "the creation"
2. "the creation itself was subjected to futility"
3. "the creation itself also will be set from from its slavery to corruption"
4. "the whole creation groans"

Clearly Paul is talking about "the whole creation" not just humans spiritual condition. When was all of God's creation subjected to slavery? At the fall (Gen 3). I may not have a full understanding of this verse but I do see that it refers to "the whole of creation" suffering due to its slavery to corruption and not just human spiritual suffering.
__________________________________________

There are influences. They are spiritual, not biological in nature.[/QB]

==What about social and/or mental influences? Certainly the root cause is spiritual but since not all lost people are homosexuals, most lost people are not homosexuals, the question must be asked what other factors come into play? Are those factors sociological? As a sociology major I think there certainly are sociological factors. A person's enviroment has a large affect on their behavior. Indeed the people a person grows up around (family and friends) and other social influences have a large affect that person. Now it certainly does not "cause" any behavior. Rather it is an "influence". So I must allow for sociological factors. This seems logical and it is Biblical. The Bible shows, by teaching and example, that people can be influenced by others to do both good and evil.

Are there psychological factors? If there are sociological factors there must be some level of psychological factors.

Are there biological factors? Did something, due to sin, go wrong in certain people's biology that causes them to lean towards homosexuality? I don't know. However I think we cannot say 100% no. Why not? As I have pointed out we know of other sinful behaviors that have a biological influence (not root, root is spiritual). Therefore I don't see how we can 100% say yes or no on the biological influences.

In Christ,
Martin.

 

[jw]

I'll vote for a "Maybe" type answer.

In a fallen world, I think it is possible that man could be born with these unnatural affections. That certainly doesn't make them right. There is a matter of choice for someone to willfully live out these affections.

For example, it is generally accepted that some people are predisposed to alcholism, but they can choose not to drink. It may not be the exact same thing, perhaps the drive or desire is far greater (I am a man, and I know how sex driven we can be).

Maybe it's just a little of both. Man certainly is free to choose, but some men maybe genetically predisposed to this particular sin, whereas others may be predisposed/have weaknesses to others.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Homosexuality results from a combination of things including biology, upbringing, spiritual status, and choice.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Martin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />1. That sin is a genetic birth defect caused by sin in general. If that were true, we would all have that genetic failing. We all don't. As a matter of fact, none of us do.

==Agree or disagree I don't see that as being properly labeled as heresy. Also I have not said that homosexuality "IS" biological in nature. I have said that there "maybe" biological "influences". That is far different from what you are claiming. Now, as I pointed out, there are clear medical examples of biological influences so I don't see how you can deny that possibility. As I have said even IF there is a biological influence that does not excuse the behavior. The behavior is still sin.
</font>[/QUOTE]There is no clear medical examples of genetics causing homosexuality. There is clear Biblical evidence that God calls this sin an abomination, and that he does not say the same thing about other biological ailments (such as being blind). Homosexuality is a spiritual defect. Blindness and other biological defects are genetic defects. They are not the same.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Martin]

There is no clear medical examples of genetics causing homosexuality.

==Have I said that there was? No. In fact I am not even raising that as an option.

I am talking about "influences". There is a vast world of difference between "influence" and "cause". I think I have made this point very clear (ie..my last reply) so why you keep going back to it is a mystery to me.

___________________________________

There is clear Biblical evidence that God calls this sin an abomination, and that he does not say the same thing about other biological ailments (such as being blind).

==I am sorry but are you even reading what I am saying or are you just scanning it?

I have dealt with this point several times. Nobody here is saying homosexuality is not a sin. Again we all agree it is a sin and an abomination. That is not the issue.

I have not compared homosexuality to "other biological ailments". My point is that it is possible that a person, thanks to the fall (ie..sin), could have a biological issue (birth defect, change) that could cause them to be tempted with homosexuality. This does not "cause" them to be a homosexual. However in some lost people it certainly could be one of several influences that lead them in that directioin. As I have said the root problem is their spiritual deadness. However since not all lost people are homosexuals there must be some other factors that come into play. Those factors do not force the person to act in a certain way. No people, even lost people, have moral free-will (ie..we make choices). So this is about influences not causes.

I can't say what, if any, biological influences are at play. I am sure there are sociological and psychological influences but the biological I am just not sure of. I would however consider it careless to rule it out 100%. What are you going to do if they find some chemical imbalance that may have influence on this matter?

I think I have made all of this clear.

Also God does not condemn a person for being tempted (regardless of the temptation). He condemns people who act on the temptation (lust, or action). It is the action that is the sin, not the temptation. Also, as I have said before, various influences would not change the moral nature of the action. It is still a sin. Therefore if there are any biological influences those influences are the result of the fall (ie..sin...birth defects/abnormalities) and the person is still responsible for the choices they make (to turn to Christ and be saved from sin or to give into the sin).

So I don't see how your reply here even addresses my point(s).

_______________________________________

Homosexuality is a spiritual defect. Blindness and other biological defects are genetic defects. They are not the same.

==I have already dealt with this. I will just quote what I said in my previous reply (most of which you have not replied to at this point).

I have not said that God made homosexuals. Don't build a strawman. Notice I rejected views 3 and 4 in my original post. I am only saying that there "maybe" some biological "influence" thanks to the problems created by the fall (ie...sin). However I am not certain about that. I do, however, believe that there are social and mental influences on people who turn to homosexuality. Behind those "influences" is the real cause of their condition (ie...spiritual death, lostness). However the spiritual death alone is not the problem since not all lost people, in fact most lost people, are not homosexuals. So what other factors come into play with lost people who are (and only lost people can be homosexuals -1Cor 6:9-10). That is the issue....influences.

Martin.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Martin, just what is your agenda here? Are you trying to justify a person's homosexuality?

Homosexual acts are not of God. There is nothing at all biological involved in it. No chemical imbalances, nothing.

Socialogical influences? Jesus accused the Pharisees of doing the work of their father, the devil. I would say it is not a social thing, but rather giving into temptation and the lies satan tells.

Psychological influences? again, listening to the father of lies.

 

[Charles Meadows]

There may be some biological basis for a tendency towards homosexuality. The brains of homosexual males show some significantly different conduction patterns than those of heterosexual males. That could also be an effect of a habitual homosexual lifestyle however and is not proof of a biological cause.

No homosexual will tell you he/she CHOSE that lifestyle. That doesn't mean they were BORN gay. But it certainly does suggest that it is not a simple yes/no choice. The adoption of a homosexual lifestyle likely occurs secondary to serious emotional and spiritual deficits which require fulfillment. A boy who loses his father early in life, has few friends, is not popular with the girls, has no spiritual support may end up feeling accepted in the gay community. If he has had some confusing feelings about other men (as boys often transiently do during sexual maturation) and did not have any real emotional support he may end up in a relationship with another man which becomes an emotional bond. This may lead to a sexual relationship.

Comments like, "It's a simple case of chosing sin!" are immature and spiritually insensitive. These people are broken and in dire need. Some here are just not Christlike enough to care about them.

Jesus has a heart for every gay man and woman out there. And He CAN fill their needs. But many here won't even consider their plight. They are more interested in following the "Fundie party line".

Sad.

 

[Martin]

Martin, just what is your agenda here? Are you trying to justify a person's homosexuality?

==Part of me wants to ignore that statement since I have made myself clear all through this discussion. Why you can't see that is beyond me. In fact I already answered this point last night.

__________________________________

Homosexual acts are not of God. There is nothing at all biological involved in it. No chemical imbalances, nothing.

==I never said homosexuality was an act of God.

I have never said that there were biological influences. In fact, if you will bother reading what I wrote in my original post, you will find that I rejected options 3 and 4 (both of which included biological influences). My point here is that I cannot reject biological influences 100%. They may very well be present but I can't prove they are and I can't prove they are not. As for your statement above...how do you know that? The Bible does not say that. Medical science does not say that?

____________________________________

Socialogical influences? Jesus accused the Pharisees of doing the work of their father, the devil. I would say it is not a social thing, but rather giving into temptation and the lies satan tells.Psychological influences? again, listening to the father of lies.

==So you are saying that there are no mental issues with those who choose that sin?

You think a person's actions are totally seperate from their internal thoughts (mental, psychological, etc)?

What about social influences? Do you reject that to?

Are not social and mental factors connected?

These things do not cause or force a person to give into the temptation. These things might, however, have an influence on what they are tempted with. If they are not saved then they have no spiritual weapons with which to fight off the temptation (no matter the source of the temptation: demons, social, mental, biological, or a mixture of some/all).

________________________________________


You did not respond to my last reply to you (posted last night). So, in case you did not see it, I will repeat it here since it is directly related to your statements here.

You said, in a reply to Helen, "I have stated earlier, the only outside influence is spiritual wickedness in high places. not flesh and blood."

I said the following in response:

==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 (social) is not correct. Also denying internal influences (mental) is not correct (see Jms 1:14-16).

In Christ,
Martin.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Homosexual acts are not of God. There is nothing at all biological involved in it. No chemical imbalances, nothing.

Socialogical influences? Jesus accused the Pharisees of doing the work of their father, the devil. I would say it is not a social thing, but rather giving into temptation and the lies satan tells.

Psychological influences? again, listening to the father of lies.

Have you had a homosexual relationship before? You really don't have any idea what is going through the minds of these poor souls. And from your comments it doesn;t sound like you care to listen to them at all.

If you are a pastor shame on you.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

I am finished arguing against this heresy. Sin is a spiritual defect, not a genetic issue. If you want to continue trying to justify sin, and then deny you did so, be my guest. But, you will do it without me. I don't have time for such foolishness.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Charles Meadows]

I am finished arguing against this heresy. Sin is a spiritual defect, not a genetic issue.

And you don't seem very interested in providing any spiritual support, Joseph.

No one here has justified homosexual behavior. WE simply have pointed out that there is more to it than a willful choice to do something bad.

These people are broken spiritually, emotionally, and often socially as well. If they have a certain genetic predisposition or are placed in the right situation they may turn to this deviant practice.

You are telling these people, "Go away, be ye warmed and filled". What they need is understanding, compassion, patience - you know - the stuff Jesus showed US.

Looking down your nose at sinners and saying "Lord Lord" is the easy part.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
I am finished arguing against this heresy. Sin is a spiritual defect, not a genetic issue. If you want to continue trying to justify sin, and then deny you did so, be my guest. But, you will do it without me. I don't have time for such foolishness.

Joseph Botwinick

==I don't think you understand what is being discussed here. I think you have set up a strawman that you are arguing with. Be that as it may...

Your denial of the affects of the fall and of sin is troubling.

Martin.