Is Homosexuality Biological?

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Charles,

1. They have no genetic biological disposition for homosexuality. They have a spiritual defect called the sin nature.

2. They don't need your feel sorry for them compassion. They need to hear the Word of God and salvation.

3. I have told no homosexual any such thing. You made that up. I show compassion and love. I don't preach heresy to them to help them feel better about their sin, though. That is what you do.

4. I don't look down my nose on anyone. You are the one who just did that to me. Do you feel more righteous now?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Amen, Joseph!

As with you, I am finished with this thread. It is here to justify sin rather than rebuke it.

Saying genetic, biological, socialogical, or psychiological factors or influences are the cause is totally against what God's Word says.

I am outta here.

 

[RayMarshall19]

Originally posted by 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.

Of all the posts in this discussion, this is the only one that actually reports the testimony of a homosexual. Bravo, StraightAndNarrow.

In the early 1990's Drs. Bailey and Pillard of Northwestern University studied identical and fraternal twins. They found that, for identical twins, when one of them was homosexual then 52% of the time the other was, also. For fraternal twins the number was only 22%. For women the numbers were 48% and 16%, respectively. If these statistics are legitimate it's a little hard to say that genetics does not play some part.

 

[Martin]

Charles,

No one here has justified homosexual behavior.

==I have pointed that out until I am about blue in the face. They don't listen. I think they are too busy arguing against a strawman of their own creation.

_____________________________________

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

==It is, sadly, much easier to throw stones than to have compassion on people. We must all watch for that in our own lives. However compassion must NEVER be misunderstood as approval. Homosexuality is a sin and those who practice it will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1Cor 6:9-10) but will instead inherit the lake of fire (Rev 21:8). To have compassion is to (a) not throw stones, (b) witness the gospel to them in word, (c) witness the love of Christ to them in deed.

The denial of social and mental factors is, in part, is really a denial of Scripture. For the Bible has very clear examples of people (social) influencing others astray (into sin). The Bible also makes it clear that the thoughts (mental) of a person can influence them astray as well. The denial of the possibility of biological influences is a denial of the fall and its affects on all aspects of creation.

___________________________________

Martin.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Amen, Joseph!

As with you, I am finished with this thread. It is here to justify sin rather than rebuke it.

Saying genetic, biological, socialogical, or psychiological factors or influences are the cause is totally against what God's Word says.

I am outta here.

==Are you going to ignore my reply to you?

I guess it is easier to argue with your strawman and then walk away then it is to deal with what is actually being said?

When you deny social and mental influences in people's lives you are denying Scripture (I gave evidence of this in my last reply to you).

Martin.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Saying genetic, biological, socialogical, or psychiological factors or influences are the cause is totally against what God's Word says.

==I have not said that those influences are "the cause". In fact I have directly denied that statement several times. Another proof that you are arguing against a strawman and not against anything I have actually said.

Martin.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Joseph,

I don't know your experiences with gays - but I know MANY of them.

Many of them live in brokenness. In your words I see no desire to comfort them. You want them to get saved but are you willing to sit and listen to them? Are you willing to talk it out with them? Are you willing to be patient with them when they fall back into sin?

In your words I see a view of Christianity that is very different than the example Christ gave us. If a man lost in sin stumbled across this thread what would he see? He would see a number of posts by people who talk the talk but who exhibit no tolerance for those who are different. He would see a number of posts talking about the righteousness of Christ - but not many that reflect the love that Christ showed us all.

Talk is cheap.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Joseph,

I don't know your experiences with gays

You're right. You don't know my experiences with gays.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Charles Meadows]

My experience with gays is fairly extensive. All I can say is that we as Christians need to show them love.

Perhaps I am wrong.

But in your posts and in the posts of StandingfirminChrist I see an attitude of, "We simply need to preach louder and harder and these people will get convicted."

I agree that homosexual sex is sin and that it cannot be justified in any way.

I also know that God saved me out of a life of terrible sin. I was drunk at least twice a week for 5 years, not to mention unchaste and foul-mouthed.

Thank God there were Christians at Spring Valley Freedom Baptist Church who were willing to keep talking to me and to keep discipling me.

If they had simply said, "Drunknness and unbelief are sin and you need to get on your knees" I probably would have said "@#$&* you - you holier than thou @#$*&!"

I hope I am wrong. But when I read your posts on these topics I see a dogmatic intolerance - which will be interpreted by the lost as lack of compassion. And that is bad witness.

Preaching correct doctrine is easy. Preaching the right doctrine while still showing Christ's love is what really brings the Gospel to the lost in a powerful way.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
My experience with gays is fairly extensive. All I can say is that we as Christians need to show them love.

Perhaps I am wrong.

No. You are correct. What you are wrong about is the idea that homosexuality is a genetic disorder.

But in your posts and in the posts of StandingfirminChrist I see an attitude of, "We simply need to preach louder and harder and these people will get convicted." [/QUOTE]

Neither StandingFirm nor I said any such thing.

I agree that homosexual sex is sin and that it cannot be justified in any way.[/QUOTE]

This is correct.

I also know that God saved me out of a life of terrible sin. I was drunk at least twice a week for 5 years, not to mention unchaste and foul-mouthed. [/QUOTE]

Praise God for that.

Thank God there were Christians at Spring Valley Freedom Baptist Church who were willing to keep talking to me and to keep discipling me.[/QUOTE]

They probably mentioned somewhere along the way that your drunkeness, lack of chastity, andfould mouth were a genetic disorder, right? Somehow, I doubt that. I rather think they probably pointed our your sin to you and how Jesus was the only way to be set free of your sin. They probably preached the Word of God to you. At least, I hope certainly hope so.

If they had simply said, "Drunknness and unbelief are sin and you need to get on your knees" I probably would have said "@#$&* you - you holier than thou @#$*&!"[/QUOTE]

This is probably true due to your spiritual condition of being lost. This, also, however, had nothing to do with your genetic biological make-up. I remember one day I mentioned that Jesus loved a certain atheist and wanted to save them from their sins, and recieved the same response you mentioned above. Please, tell me: Should a lost person's response to the truth determine whether or not we are to tell them the truth? This is the problem with the whole seeker sensitive philosophy: It states that seekers are seeking God. The Bible states otherwise:

9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."[c]
13"Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."[d]
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."[e]
14"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."[f]
15"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know."[g]
18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."[h]

Romans 3:9-18

I hope I am wrong. But when I read your posts on these topics I see a dogmatic intolerance - which will be interpreted by the lost as lack of compassion. And that is bad witness. [/QUOTE]

The lost are not qualified to judge the Church. You have it the wrong way around. We don't determine our method of evangelism or our message based on what they like. We base it on the Word of God and the truth.

14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
16"For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?"[d] But we have the mind of Christ.

1 Corinthians 2:14-16

Also, FWIW, I do preach dogmatic intolerance to sin and any justification of it, as does the Word of God. I do not preach dogmatic intolerance of the sinners. That is what Fred Phelps and those like him do. Don't get that confused.

Preaching correct doctrine is easy. Preaching the right doctrine while still showing Christ's love is what really brings the Gospel to the lost in a powerful way. [/QUOTE]

Preaching correct doctrine to the lost in and of itself is showing the love of Christ. It is the Power of God which brings the Gospel to the lost in a powerful way and saves them:

1When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.[a] 2For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, 5so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.

1 Corinthians 2:1-5

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Charles Meadows]

No one here has asserted that homosexuality is a genetic disorder. In fact it would seem that that is NOT the case.

What some have asserted is that a person becoming homosexual is the result of a number of things, one of which could be a predisposition. We know that certain people are more prone to become addicted to drugs or alcohol than others. That doesn't mean that they don't have a problem to overcome or that their condition is non of their own fault. But it means that those of us who are trying to help them need to realize that it will take more than just telling them that they need to get right with God. Many of these people want desperately to "be normal". Dismissing their conditions as simple matters of choice only serves to widen that gap they see between themselves and the rest of the world.

My state was not the result of my genetic makeup. But my state had a lot to do with my analytical personality. I found myself (in college) unable to put my faith in something that seemed so improbable. Thus many times when Christians talked to me I dismissed their beliefs as unrealistic. If I were a more naturally trusting and less inquisitive person I probably would not have had that trouble to begin with.

Those who witnessed to me later on realized that my personality and my nature affected the way I perceived things. Because of that recognition they dealt with me in a more patient way.

 

[le bel]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Charles,

1. They have no genetic biological disposition for homosexuality. They have a spiritual defect called the sin nature.

2. They don't need your feel sorry for them compassion. They need to hear the Word of God and salvation.

3. I have told no homosexual any such thing. You made that up. I show compassion and love. I don't preach heresy to them to help them feel better about their sin, though. That is what you do.

4. I don't look down my nose on anyone. You are the one who just did that to me. Do you feel more righteous now?

Joseph Botwinick

Amen, Amen, Amen!! Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[RayMarshall19]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
No one here has asserted that homosexuality is a genetic disorder. In fact it would seem that that is NOT the case.

I have asserted that the TENDENCY toward homosexuality may be genetic.

I don't think it a "genetic disorder". I think it is a sin and, just like for drunkenness, gluttony, and heterosexual fornication and adultery, the temptation to commit this sin is a lot stronger in some people than in others. And I think genetics often plays a role in the degree to which we feel tempted toward many sins.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by 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.

All things sinful will be cast into the lake of fire. I'm not aware of any distinction between abominable and sinful. This includes so-called "carnal Christians" so it's not something that only "those people" have to worry about. We all need to continue to live as followers of Him.

BTW we're also told that liars will not enter the kingdom.

 

[benz]

Ok i believe this is how it is. There are many temptations, God choose which ones would attract us depending on how he made us, however no temptation you face will be greater than the GRACE GOD has to provide since this is what the word states. ofcourse sometimes just praying might not be enought a little proactive action such as maybe lying with a woman would work since your body naturally responds to everything...

 

[EdSutton]

As a new member, I shall throw in my own (and only) two denarii worth. The original question 7 pages ago was "Is Homosexuality Biological?" This is one of the easiest questions I've ever seen to answer. Absolutely! It certainly isn't mineral!
All of us have to believe some things. I have a couple I believe: I believe that I have had a difficult time following some of this, number one. That said, although I would speak face-to-face on the subject with any, I believe that I will not touch this thread, more than I already have, with an eleven foot pole. Ed

 

[DeeJay]

3. Maybe. The action of homosexuality is a willful choice. However there maybe be biological, psychological, and sociological factors that influence their choices. This is the result of the fall.

I think some may be born with a predisposition to homosexuality. I think some also choose to become that way.

The fact is that we are responsable for our actions. If you are born with an attraction for the same sex that does not make it not a sin.

Most males are natrualy attracted to multiple women. When I was married I did not loose my attraction for other women. However just because I was born with the desire to "be with" lots of women does not make it less sinfull.

Some see saying people are born with a predisposition toward the same sex is an excuse for that sin. I think it is the oppiset. It is an acknowlegement that we are all born with a predisposition for sin and that by the Grace of God he can weed out those sins from our lifes.

Should a person who is attracted to the same sex act on that attraction? No it is a sin. No more then I would say it is ok to sleep with multiple women because I was born with the urge to.

#4 is wrong because a birth defect is not a sin. Homosexuality is. These people are born with a sin defect. That is all people are born with a sin defect.

 

[RayMarshall19]

Well said, DeeJay.

Every person is a combination of genetics and environment. (Earlier I shared some statistics concerning identical and fraternal twin about which nobody made direct comment.)

I especially like your last paragraph. Many people seem to want to characterize their own temptations and sins as "minor" and, therefore, tolerable and those of others as "major" and intolerable. My philosophy is this:

1. Hate the sin.
2. Love the sinner.
3. Concentrate my efforts on my own temptations and sins, not those of others.

 

[EdSutton]

Since I happen to respect DeeJay from some of his posts I read, I'm going to put aside that eleven foot pole for a minute, and toss in two more farthings. (I like to vary the two fractional coins I toss in each time. Fortunately my list is not too long when it comes to some subjects.) DeeJay, you twice alluded to being 'born with the desire to "be with" lots of women' as well as "sleep with multiple women because I was born with the urge to.". I'm neither a psychiatrist nor psychologist (Anyone who would go see either one ought to have his head examined!), but a dirt farmer. However I'm relatively sure that from when you were born until somewhat later (say until you got into public schools- "Ed!, Down flesh!") that the "urge to""sleep with multiple women" was not real high on the list, in fact not even on the radar screen.
I further fully agree that homosexuality is a sin. I have read all and/or parts of Genesis several times. I'm pretty sure I have no recollection of either 'Adam and Steve' or 'Madam and Eve'. But I want to be somewhat charitable as to any (with a couple of apologies in advance to Noah Webster for how I shall now use 'partner' and 'couple' as terms) individual and his or her 'partner'. Often they have children. You know- the 'Be fruitful and multiply' bit. I don't want to interfere too much in this matter. (Here on these pages, I wouldn't touch, say, abortion with a TWELVE foot pole!) Also I'll use well known 'entertainers' (another apology, Noah!) as examples. (Don't worry! I'm not going to come within 500 miles of Michael and Lisa Marie!) And just to show I'm not trying to be judgmental, I'll be even more tolerant of homosexual couples (Cough, choke, wheeze!) than I might be of some others. For examples I think that Sir Elton and 'consort' (#4 there, Noah), Ellen Degenerate and 'paramour' (#5 This is getting ridiculous!), or any other such couple ought to be able to rear any child they have between and of only themselves in any way they see fit!
Now, what did I do with that eleven foot po...?
Ed

 

[Charles Meadows]

Very well said Deejay!

Good points.