Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

I disagree. I do not believe in predestination and this is part of it.

Homosexuality is a choice. To say otherwise is to give the gay community 10 steps forward in legalizing gay marriage.

I can hardly believe that a Baptist wrote this article. The practicing homosexuals have been trying to prove they were 'born' this way forever. If they can prove this, then they don't have to change and they can be saved, and enjoy the same marital rights, spirtual joys, etc. that heterosexuals do.

We certainly don't need Christians lending any credence to this. It simply is not true.

Amen to J of J!

 

Exactly what I said. It is a perversion of His creation, it is unnnatural. So it cannot be found in nature. It is against what God intended for people, therefore the source of it will not be found in nature but in the sin nature.

To carry it further, scientists have not found a cause in DNA for any sin: stealing, adultery, murder, idolatry, etc. Any of us are likely to commit any sin. Why? Because we have a sin nature in our non-material soul, not because our body somehow predisposes us to it.

Consider fallen angels. They do not have bodies, but they sin. Right?

Sorry, Romans 7:8 does not say anything about the body. It only proves that saved people have a sin nature, not where that sin nature resides. To reiterate, the almost universal interpretation of the "flesh" in Rom. 7-8 in church history has been the fallen nature of the soul, not the physical body. I just checked 5-6 commentaries, and all agreed on this.

I'm a trichotomist. I believe that the sin nature is in the soul (the non-material essense of a person) not in the spirit (that non-material part of a person which can communicate with God), which is dead until regeneration takes place, or the body (the physical part of a person which communicates with the world around him or her).

Another point. In Hell, people will still have their sin nature, right? Homosexuals will still have that unnnatural lust, righ? Yet at this point in history, they will not have their bodies. The lust is bound in their souls.

 

I was wondering why you believe those in hell will still have their sinful nature when you need the limbs of the flesh to commit such acts and the body won't be in hell, just the souls of the wicked. Also,you say they will still have their unnatural lust and I was wondering how someone in such pain could be lusting?

 

There is nothing in the Bible to teach that a person changes their sin nature when they die. Also, remember that there are many sins you don't need your limbs to commit. You know well, I'm sure, that Jesus taught just lusting was committing adultery--you didn't have to commit the physical act to be guilty.

You do have a point, though, when you wonder how someone in such pain could be lusting. However, I think that part of the torment of Hell is the lusting without the power to obtain. A drug addict on earth can be in great pain going through withdrawal, but still crave the drug with every cell of his body.

God bless.

 

I don't recall where the Bible says homosexuality is a 'choice.' That is a modern concept derived from psychology, not the Bible.

I was 'born heterosexual' and yet the sinning is the act of fornication, not being born that way. If I do not fornicate, I have committed no sin. Same with homosexuality. If one is 'born homosexual' (and I really think we are going to lose the battle on this one) then they have not sinned unless they commit homosexual fornication. Right?

The point is, being 'born homosexual' is no worse than being 'born heterosexual' is it? Provided one is committed to following God's word and not acting on one's sinful nature. If one is committed to following every sinful lust, then heterosexuality is about as bad as homosexuality.

 

There could be a very interesting reversal involved in the issues raised. The Puritans of times past, and the "fundies" of today have contended that 'nature' shouldn't be messed with; and that has, at different times, taken the form of no dissecting a human body for study, making it illegal to give pain-killing drugs to a woman in childbirth, and condemning all abortions. Now it may be the liberals who want to stifle research and condemn 'messing with nature', and might try to make abortion illegal for the cause of the child having tested positive for a homosexual propensity, or to try and make changing a fetus' 'sexual nature' illegal. To avoid this contradiction in their previous goals, they are trying to head of research that makes these objectives possible.

But if we are dealing with scientific breakthroughs, they seldom change very much about the vast majority of people and how they live. Proving we could land a man on the moon led to so much speculation and space travel becoming common and colonizing Mars-- we're hardly any closer to such things after 3 1/2 decades. I don't think there's a lot of stock in this... and I'm not sure I'd invest if there is.

Nevertheless, if 2 'standard' [if not 'fundamental'] doctrines are true-- the eternal security of the believer, and that a person must have an understanding of sin to be guilty thereof ('age of accountability')-- then it would be entirely logical to abort a baby determined in the womb to be homosexual. The mother would not lose her salvation for doing so, and the baby would not be guilty of sin, but probably will be guilty of being unrepentantly in sin if allowed to be born and grow up.

For that matter, since the Word says that multitudes choose the way to damnation, and a only a few will be saved, there is a very high risk of producing an eternally damned person by having children. So in the eternal scheme of things, that is not a good thing to do...unless you like to gamble at infinitely high stakes with another person's soul.

 

There is, I think, another angle to consider. If we believe God "forms us in the womb", then why do we think God needs help with the forming? Might it be part of His plan?

2 Corinthians 1:4 "(God)...who comforts us in all our affliction so that we will be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God."

Although I know Paul is speaking primarily of persecution here, I think a larger priniciple emerges. Those who have suffered the same kinds of sins and have been brought into a saving relationship with Christ, have a platform that those who have not experienced those sins do not.

There are great ministries of Christian men and women who have come to Christ and have been brought out of homosexuality. They, in turn, have gone back into the homosexual community to preach the same gospel that saves homosexuals from their lusts as saves the "straight" from theirs.

Although I don't think homosexuals must hear the gospel from former homosexuals in order to be saved, there should be no denying that former homosexuals have a better understanding of the pressures and desires that are present.

Just a thought.

peace to youraying:

 

I am sadden to see that this man would even suggest that there is some biological condition connected with this sin.
The best thing that he did write is this;
"There is, as of now, no incontrovertible or widely accepted proof that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists."

The problem today is that so many are being led astray and deceived by what causes sin. We seem to forget the words of the master and for some reason want too believe the words of satan instead.
Jesus said;
Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil

Homosexuality is simply like any other sin. it is a choice. There is no predisposed condition that makes one a homosexual except that they are fallen and make sinful choices.

Simply put Dr. Mohler has been deceived if not in the whole certainly in part. Pray for him. raying:

 

Have you ever asked a homosexual if he/she chose that predisposition?

Did you choose your heterosexual predisposition?

 

Exactly and amen. If we don't re-think this issue then we will just marginalize Christianity relative to homosexuality. The time is coming when we will have no credibility left on the issue if we keep arguing that homosexual orientation is a "choice." We need to focus on what the Bible focuses on, which is the behavior.

 

I do not accept the faulty argument that biology equals morality, but the gay right movement does and will use anything they can to prove it, no matter how silly.

I don't need to re-think something God has made quite clear in his Word.

 

Where? All I see in the Bible is condemnation of the behavior.

If we keep harping on how sexual orientation is a 'lifestyle choice' and denying any biological basis, while it is becoming more evident all the time that there is one, then we will simply be adding credibility to the gay rights activists' claims by diminishing our own. If they can prove there is a biological basis, that they are right and we are wrong on the base assumption, then it will appear that the biological basis of homosexuality DOES constitute a justification for gay marriage, etc., and all their social aims become more plausible.

Let me further my analogy to astronomy: If I continue to say that the earth is the center of the universe, or that it is flat, am I likely to be taken seriously enough to ever have input into policy decisions affecting space exploration? I might have some fine ideas about space exploration, but they will never have a chance to get on the agenda because my base assumptions have been labelled crackpot. We are now in danger of putting ourselves into that position on homosexuality.

If I thought there was some scriptural basis for this position I would support it to the end, believe me, but in fact I have never seen a scriptural foundation for it.

BTW, I expect most of us now accept that alcoholism has a biological basis. And yet no one argues that the biological predisposition toward alcoholism makes alcoholism desirable, justifiable, unavoidable, etc. Why is admitting a biological basis to homosexuality going to necessarily be so radically different? We still have just as strong a moral argument as ever.

 

Mohler is pre positioning himself

Mohler is pre positiioning himself for the obvious...and if you would actually sit down and listen to other people and actually ask them and respect that instead of trying to explain it away for them.


They will say: I was born this way


Common sense provided by the Holy Spirit: Discernment says that these Gods children are

BORN THAT WAY

mohler is just trying to be ahead of the science that is building and building that says the same thing.

I have said it ever since I have been on the BB these people deserve mercy and it is a test of love and that they are born gay because they
say so. They are born between a man and a woman and most feel confusion and trapped they are like hybrids...it is so obvious if you just step back and discern...see...listen...hear. Perhaps they will have a choice in the future with genetics and a genetic serum...but it will be their choice
then...but we should promote hope...mercy and love.

That simple.

Mohler is trying to please both sides...but guess what he just opened the flood gates.

I appreciate the BB mods for letting this go on...I see it as some validation of what I have been saying all along.