"There can be as much value in the blink of an eye as in months of rational analysis." ~ Malcolm Gladwell
Once again I am creating an entire post in response to comments from a previous post, specifically, yesterdays. As I began to respond to all the commenters that disagree with me, I realized, once again, that my answer was going to be so lengthy, it may as well be a post on it's own. So here is my response:
All of you people who keep insisting that homosexuals are born homosexuals (as in naturally, not created that way by environment)forget one very important thing.
Common sense.
No one can honestly say they really believe that. Not even homosexuals. They know they were abused by some one when they were children, or molested, or maybe there just wasn't a powerful enough father figure in the home. Who knows?
But they won't admit it and they won't tell you. And I suppose some have been denying the truth for so long they have begun to totally believe their own delusion. They are too busy defending their perversion instead of working on the issues that have influenced then to become that way.
It is so much easier to convince people who would rather let so-called experts tell them what to think whether it is logical or not, isn't it?
I don't hate homosexuals, nor do I fear them as some have insinuated. I hate the act of homosexuality. (It is possible.) My whole argument concerning the subject is that I categorically reject the notion that anyone has ever been born a homosexual. They choose to be that way for the reasons that I mentioned. And more. In the last couple of decades, I believe another reason for "turning gay" is that it has become fashionable.
I have had many homosexual friends, (I've mentioned this before) and I like all of them personally. But every one of them that I ever spoke with on the subject has suffered some kind of trauma in their formative years such as molestation, at the extreme end of the spectrum, to simply not having a strong enough father figure influence at the mild end.
Every one.
Just the other day, I talked to a woman who got all defensive when I mentioned my belief that environment creates queers, not nature. Why defensive? Because her son admitted to her at 14 that he was gay.
She went on to explain that instead of trying to explain to him that homosexual behavior is unacceptable, she simply accepted it. Then she explained that he didn't have a father until she married when he was 7.
I am a stepfather, and it is my belief that stepfathers, while they may be very good fathers, simply cannot be as good a father to their stepchildren as they can to their own, because they do not have that blood bond.
Right there in that short exchange is two textbook examples of childhood experiences creating a homosexual. A mother who does not accept the responsibilty of guiding her son in the right direction, and no father figure. In that case, I believe the two elements combined to create a homosexual tendency, which in itself, is not necessarily deviant. It is when the individual gives in to the urge to explore deviant fantasies that it becomes unnatural.
I created a post about a scientific study back on June 3 last year. Scientists genetically altered a female fruit fly by placing a male gene in it. It did what male fruit flies do. It made sexual advances on another female fruit fly. A similar, more recent experiment was done with mice, if I remember correctly. Then, the article I was referencing (from who else? The New York Times) drew the conclusion that homosexuality was genetic. The more recent study drew the same conclusion.
My take on the subject at the time was flawed because I based it on a statement from one of the scientists that I misunderstood.
What I should have pointed out at the time, but didn't, is that the research didn't prove that homosexuality was genetic at all. It proved precisely the opposite. The fruit flies would have never behaved in that fashion if not altered. In their natural unaltered state, they would have behaved heterosexually.
An opposite sex gene never occurs in nature. It can only happen if it is artificially altered in some way.
So, if not genetic, what then?
Environment. As I said.
I've said this before. If you want to be gay, go ahead. Whatever floats your boat. I don't really care. But stop trying to convince others that it wasn't a choice, and that you were born that way. You weren't, and subconciously at least, you know it.
The only thing you are doing when you insist it's natural is encouraging more confused young people to deny the fact that they are suffering from childhood traumas instead of dealing with them and expunging those particular deviations.
Sometimes you just has to use the sense the good Lord gave you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
84 comments:
Gah. I cannot find the words to respond to this. So, I won't. Anybody else cares to start, maybe I'll jine in. Maybe not.
Cause you can't. My logic is flawless. Any argument would be based on a lie, or a misrepresntation of the facts.
Just like the homosexual scientists that try to prove that there is a "gay gene".
Their research is flawed, and has been disproven. No heterosexual scientist has ever proven the existence of a gay gene.
Wow.
Dr. ER says: "The answer to the nature-nurture question is 'Yes." It's not one or the other. Simply, 'Yes.' "
ER says: I'm not convinced there is "a" Negro gene. Yet there are black people. And some black people are "blacker" than other black people. Explain that.
There are degrees of everything. You sure you could be just a *little bit* gay, Mark?
Ron White (and I know you like Ron White!) says we're all a little gay:
""We're all gay in some way, it's just a matter of how gay. My friend, he's a homophobe. Didn't you think they were all dead? I didn't know they existed anymore. What a stupid fear. Anyway, we're in some bar and he leans over and says to me, 'Hey, I don't like this place man. There's too many QUEERS.' I looked at him and said, 'You know... the next time you have a thought... Just let it go...' I told him that we were all gay in some way and he freaked out. 'Hell no, I'm not gay.' So I said, 'I'll prove it to ya.' And he said, 'FINE!' So I asked him, 'Do you like porno?' He says, 'Hell yeah I like porno! You know that!' So then I says, 'Ok. Well do you only watch porno where two women are goin at it?' And he says, 'Hell no, I watch porno with a man and a women makin love!' So I asked him, 'When you're watching it.. do you like it when the man has a small, flaccid penis?' And he said 'Hell No! I like big (redacted)!"
Face it. You're afraid.
You're afraid that homosexuals are going to be treated as equals to heteros and you can't stand it.
You're afraid that, like Christians in the antebellum South before you who defended slavery because it was "in the Bible," that the wider church is eventually going to quit harping on this sin over any other and start welcoming homos into the fold, just like drunks and alkies and wife abusers and other sinners, and you're going to have rethink what the Bible really means -- or, perhaps, actually think about it for the first time -- and it's going to be damn hard, not easy at all, and it's going to make you realize that the only LIE involved in homosexuality is that it's that big of a deal one way or the other -- and that Jesus loves fags just like he does everybody else, and that repentence comes to all in God's own way, AFTER grace has freed them from the bondage of self, and some will be like you and some will not.
I swear, that's what this whole discussion we're having in this country over gay marriage and all reminds me of: This country in about 1820, when lots of people, in and outside the church, were figuring out that slavery was an evil that demanded justice, just like today: A few voices in the wilderness are crying out for justice for homosexuals and retribution against those who have abused them, especiallyu in the name of God, in this so-called land of the free, for so long.
"No one can honestly say they really believe that. Not even homosexuals."
I believe it. And I'm saying so honestly. Strike one.
How did you become heterosexual, Mark? Who taught you that? Could somebody have convinced you or taught you to be gay?
Anectdotally, I was never taught to be straight. No one could possibly "make" me gay. I'm a heterosexual and it can't be changed.
My gay friends, on the other hand, are homosexual. They couldn't be taught that nor taught otherwise.
"ER says: I'm not convinced there is "a" Negro gene. Yet there are black people. And some black people are "blacker" than other black people. Explain that."
What would happen if black people stopped breeding? Within one generation, there would not be a black person on the face of the earth. Do homosexuals typically breed. No. If there were a homosexual gene, it would have been bred out of the human race hundreds of thousands of years ago. Explain that. And try to do it without making me embarrassed for you.
"But every one of them that I ever spoke with on the subject has suffered some kind of trauma..."
But this is not the case with every gay fella or gal I know. Further, I know plenty of people who've suffered trauma who are straight. By your reasoning, does that mean that they were traumatized into heterosexuality?
I am a stepfather, and it is my belief that stepfathers, while they may be very good fathers, simply cannot be as good a father to their stepchildren as they can to their own, because they do not have that blood bond.
So, what about people who are adopted Mark? Are the bonds not as strong, because there is no "blood bond"?
I understand you feel this way about your own personal experience. But not sure how you can make such a broad generalization when there are so many fathers who either treat their kids like crap, or walk out on their lives altogether. You can't tell me that they feel the "blood bond" you are talking about.
And in case you have forgotten Mark: I'm adopted. I'd say the bond between myself and my biological parents are nil. Whereas, my parents- the ones who raised me since I was a baby- have given me everything. I couldn't have asked for better parents or a stronger bond.
LR, untrue: "What would happen if black people stopped breeding? Within one generation, there would not be a black person on the face of the earth."
As long as people have multiple racial ancestry, there's always the chance that given the right combination, you could end up with a child who expresses traits not obvious in either parent. Two people with mixed-race parents can hook up and create a child that expresses some traits expressed in the grandparents that are not expressed in either parent.
There are very few purebred humans.
Oh, LR, re: "And try to do it without making me embarrassed for you." The feeling is regularly mutual. You shame the Gospel and yourself.
"Dr. ER says: "The answer to the nature-nurture question is 'Yes." It's not one or the other. Simply, 'Yes." --What's the nature-nurture question? I don't understand what you are saying here. Clarify, please.
"You're afraid that homosexuals are going to be treated as equals to heteros and you can't stand it."
No, I believe that homosexuals SHOULD be treated equally. Gode created all of us equal. He created all of us heterosexual.
"and that Jesus loves fags just like he does everybody else"
I agree with that, too. He loves the sinner, not the sin. And there is forgiveness in Christ Jesus no matter what the sin is.
Comparing black people with homosexuals is apples and oranges. Blacks did not choose to be black.
Homosexuals choose to be gay. Big difference.
Dan, "How did you become heterosexual, Mark? Who taught you that? Could somebody have convinced you or taught you to be gay?"
Stupid question. I'm sorry, Dan, but it is. My whole point is that homosexuality is NOT natural. It is a chosen lifestyle. Everyone is born heterosexual. It doesn't have to be learned.
"My gay friends, on the other hand, are homosexual. They couldn't be taught that nor taught otherwise."
Wrong. They can and they did.
"But this is not the case with every gay fella or gal I know. Further, I know plenty of people who've suffered trauma who are straight. By your reasoning, does that mean that they were traumatized into heterosexuality?"
How do you know? As I said, they either deny the truth or they won't tell you. Or, they have suppressed the trauma to the point where they themselves are unaware if it. If they were to admit they chose their lifestyle, then they would have no excuse for being degenerate and you would likely turn your back on them because they fooled you all these years. They made a committment. they have to see it through to conclusion or face the consequences. How can you be trraumatized into something that is natural? Again. heterosexuality is natural. Homosexuality is a choice.
Wordsmith, I apologize. I didn't mean to make it sound as if there is no strong bond at all between adoptive parents and their children. Let me try to clarify. I am both a father and a stepfather. I love all my children but try as I might, I do not have the same bond between my birth children as I do my adopted child. It just isn't the same, and I can't really even sxplain it better than that. I have to blame it on the fact that the one son is not of my loins, so to speak. I wish it were not so, but I can't deny there is a subtle difference in my feelings for them.
"LR, untrue: "What would happen if black people stopped breeding? Within one generation, there would not be a black person on the face of the earth."
As long as people have multiple racial ancestry, there's always the chance that given the right combination, you could end up with a child who expresses traits not obvious in either parent."
This, I agree with, completely. With that said, however, I believe, if I can speak for Lone Ranger, that what he means is if black people never breeded with wite people and they stopped breeding the black people would die out. If the gene is not, nor has ever been there, it will not suddenly appear. And that fact suggests very strongly, that homosexuality is not natural, which was my point all along.
Homosexual is as natural as the mule.
Cross a hetero man, which is one thing, and a hetero woman, which is another thing, sometimes you get a homo offspring, a hybrid, which is a third thing.
Cross a male donkey, which is one thing, and a female horse, which is another thing, and you get a hybrid, a mule, which is usually sterile.
Homosexuals do not reproduce. They are a hybrid -- call it an abberation, I don't care, the fact remains they are human beings and part of creation -- that cannot reproduce by having sex with one another.
Same with gays, it seems to me.
"Homosexuals do not reproduce. They are a hybrid -- call it an abberation, I don't care, the fact remains they are human beings and part of creation -- that cannot reproduce by having sex with one another."
This is true. Except the part about them being a hybrid. Unless, by "hybrid, you are referring to the fact that they are parts of each parent. But they are not born gay. being gay is their choice. Get that? They are humans. Humans can choose to be gay or remain the way God made them, but They. Are. NOT. Born. Gay!
Kevron,Just because i disabled comment moderation, it doesn't mean I welcome comments from Kevron. Don't even try. I will delete them even if you make a good point, which you can do now and then, but you didn't this time. You condemned yourself to a lifetime in comment purgatory in this place, because everytime I let you comment with a lucid well-thought out comment, you immediately followed it with some inane rude, and/or obscene comment. Hence you are forever banned, or until such time when you learn that my blog is not your personal forum to insinuate your name into as many blogsites as possible. So you might as well offer your comments elsewhere. I will always delete your commentrs, no matter what you say. Even if you agree with me.
ER, Yes, I like Ron Whitre, and I have heard that routine before. It is funny. But it is misleading logic. With that same kind of logic, I can prove you don't exist.
"They can and they did."
And you come by this supernatural knowledge of how they feel, how exactly? Mark, ignorant arrogance doesn't become you.
Yeah, I gotta say it: in general, saying that your logic is flawless isn't going to win anyone's mind over. It sounds like you've stopped listening.
A few posts back, you were opining that if someone managed to bring both homosexuality and abortion into a single discussion, you'd really come unglued.
So here's the question: if you knew that someone was going to be born gay (not that such a thing exists, of course), would you wish them to be aborted, as a perversion and abomination?
I mean, you don't hate gay people, but you manage to hate their sexual practices...Which raises more questions.
If someone is oriented a certain way but never acted on it, are they, in fact, that particular orientation? Since sex is what defines it? Also...
How can you hate what a person does, and not the person? Sex is about the most primally human thing we do, and is very important to a lot more than just the propagation of the species. So what's to hate, exactly, about something other people do that you don't, in this case?
Mark has declined to answer that homo-abortion question before. I posed it myself a few posts back.
I think it's because he does hate homosexuals and homosexuality so much that he probably *would" suspend his abhorrence of abortion to end homosexuality. But I don't know that.
Mark, "is not" is not an effective counter to any argument or assertion -- and the ONLY thing you've brought to this post, and the commnents, is just that: homosexuality "is not" naturally occurring.
But ... someone says.
"Is not!" you say.
But ... someone else says.
"Is not!" you say.
But ... yet another person says.
"Is NOT!" you say.
Sheesh. If all you want to do is make an assertion unbacked by anything other than your own dang anecdotal experience, and what you desperatekly WANT to be true, why don't you follow the Lone Ranger way of blogging and just turn the commnents off?
ER, I answered that question when you asked it. It is as ridiculous a hypothetical situation as it was when you asked it. It can't happen, because no one is born with the prediliction to homsexuality. So, it's a moot point.
However, if there was any way of knowing in advance that an unborn baby was going to turn gay when he reached puberty or later, no, I would not support aborting that baby. Abortion is always wrong. There are no moral arguments in support of it. And gays can change, But not if they were never born in the first place. It is a stupid question with an obvious answer.
My post offers a logical explanation for why people turn gay, and if you didn't see that, you are either as stubborn as you say I am or just plain stupid.
It's right there! read it, or don't. I don't care. None of you have made the case in support of the "born gay" assertion, while I have made a srong case against it.
And if you continue to come in here and insult me this way, perhaps you will begin to get the kevron treatment, too.
Just because I believe what God Himself said about gays and not what some pseudo-expert who wants to advance his own gay agenda says , I am not stupid.
Rich, on the other hand, lost all credibility on my blog when he insisted that President Bush perpetrated the attacks on 9/11. What a maroon!
Frankly, ER, I am getting a little tired of you regurgitating your little Liberal, moonbat talking points. Why don't you just accept that you aren't smarter than God?
Again, ER, I say. If you don't like what you read here, you are welcome to not visit. I couldn't care less.
Well, your credibility with me is sort of lacking, too, due to pretty much everything I've ever seen you post.
But I still talk to you (though not so much these days), and if I was asked a question by you, I'd try to answer, not just do the whole 'this question is beneath my dignity, and besides I'm right' number.
Or toss angry non-sequiturs around about how if people don't like it, they shouldn't read it. I read it because...I'm surrounded by people who agree with me: what fun is that?
I don't spook just because I'm disagreed with, or being called weird cartoony insults like 'maroon'.
I mean, I could call ya' names, but always whine about how mean liberals are when I do so...
Sorry folks. Comment moderation is back. It seems Kevron cannot take a hint. If someone sees that his comments are being deleeted over and over and was even told that his comments would not be posted, and he still does it does that make him stupid?
Yes it does. Kevron is stupid. If you don't like comment moderaton, blame hevron.
I don't care how they come about, Normos are abnormal......Even if they are born that way.
Some of you know my take on the GLBTBPNP'ers, but those of you who don't can go to the link below to find plenty of my takes.
http://search.blogger.com/?as_q=norm&ie=UTF-8&ui=blg&bl_url=therightisright.blogspot.com
--------------
Question for all you who like homosexuality: Polygamy and pedophilia are considered normal in some places too, so do you think they should be considered within the NORM?
You should know this topic would throw KevrAnus off the edge.
ER: I like your Horse, Donkey, Mule scenerio.
But the mule is neither Horse nor Donkey........It's a whole different species.
Are you saying this is the case with Homo's? If you aren't then your scenerio has no validity. But if you are saying this is the case........Well, that makes you a baaaaaaaad man.
So, is there an answer to how you "know" that no one is born gay? Or that "every" gay person has been abused or tramautized to cause their homosexuality? A study? Some evidence?
(And when I say "evidence," I don't mean some religious group with an agenda that has discovered evidence that says every gay person has been tramautized into it.)
Mark said:
"Just because I believe what God Himself said about gays..."
And that would be...? There are a couple of places in Leviticus where the writer says that "men who lay with men are an abomination and ought to be killed," is that what you mean? Are you prepared to start stoning gay men? Leviticus also calls shrimp an abomination - will we set up a stoning booth outside Red Lobster?
Other than those few references in the Holiness Code, the Old Testament is silent on the topic. Sodom and Gomorrah is about rape and a lack of concern for the poor - not homosexuality. The couple of other places in the OT that people cite are references to temple prostitution, not homosexuality.
In the New Testament, Jesus is silent on the topic (if it were such a huge sin, don't you suppose he'd mention it a time or two?) The other 2 or 3 passages in the NT are places where the translators are unsure of the word (translating it "effeminate," "soft" and other vague translations - the Greek is unclear).
The one remaining passage that is the strongest case in the NT is the Romans passage, where God blasts bad behavior of all sorts.
What is missing from the passage (and the Bible as a whole) is any discussion of gays living in a committed and loving relationship. We can agree that God is opposed to bad, destructive behavior, but God never condemns loving, committed relationships.
So, what exactly is it you think God is saying? I'd like to know.
Mark is saying that every single word, and punctuation mark, in the Bible, was written BY GOD HIMSELF, i.e., JESUS HIMSELF, to Mark and every one else today, just as if he sat down yesterday and dictated it into a tape recorder.
Which is fundamentalism.
You inspire me, Mark. To never take a word any run-of-the-mill conservative says seriously without checking it out first; to *always* be on guard for people holding up a Jesus mask when it's convenient, and a judge's mask when it's not; to pray for people who mistake faith that God will sustain us in the important things for "faith" that "everything will work out in the end," and for those who confuse soothing words from supposed "friends" who do nothing but kiss up to them with the actual still, small voice that is the TRUE "word of God," not to be confused with the cultural artifice behind calling the Bible, which is crucial to all Christian faith, "the word of God," which is a bad joke when wielded by those who shoot themselves in the foot every time they try to aim the gospel gun; and to always, always shout down hate masquerading as "hating the sin but loving the sinner," which only Jesus can do -- and which is not your job: Your job, my job as a Christian, is to love the sinner and let God deal with others' sin, because dealing with our own sin is a full-time job.
Feel insulted? You should feel ashamed.
I put up with every load of manure you dump at my place -- and that's all you've done lately: Drive-by hate and intolerance.
Ban away, you viper. Your loss.
"So, is there an answer to how you "know" that no one is born gay? Or that "every" gay person has been abused or tramautized to cause their homosexuality? A study? Some evidence?"
Did you even read my post? The answers to all those questions are there.
Common sense tells us it is a deviation from the norm.
I didn't say "Every" gay was abused or traumatized.. I said every gay that I ever talked to says so. I am not saying that they all sat there and said, "I am gay because my uncle abused me." No, they let it slip gradually in everyday conversation. Probably they don't even realize they are admitting it.
I also mentioned that I am sure some turn gay simply because it is fashionable. In other words, the gay lobby has been so successful at creating the illusion that homosexuality is normal and natural, that you lemming mentality Liberals swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
Even you believe it.
Perhaps it is you people who are afraid. Afraid of going against the latest fad. Fear of being right when everyone else is wrong. Fear of being branded a bigot when you simply trust your own common sense. Fear of the disapproval of your peers.
I once talked to a lesbian that said she was not born gay and she didn't believe anyone was. A Lesbian! She said she made a conscious decision to turn gay because she had been in a series of abusive relationships and just decided she didn't want a man anymore. I suspect almost all gays came to similar decisions for much the same reasons. And I also suspect that they may not be aware of any such abuse. It is called a mental block. Ut is a protection mechanism that helps to keep then from going completely insane.
The studies you ask for are out there. You are forever doing searches on the internet to disprove me and others who you disagree with. Do the research.
Usually when you Libs disagree with me, you come in here armed with all kinds of studies and evidence to prove your point. Where are your studies? Where's your evidence? You have none.
Why?
Because there is no scientific evidence to support your arguments.
On the other hand, you seem perfectly willing to accept anecdotal evidence to support your position but give no credence to mine. You have friends that tell you they were born that way, so based on what they tell you, you blindly accept what common sense tells you cannot be true.
And when you accuse me of doing exactly what you are doing, except unlike you, I produce valid logical reasons, I am wrong, but you are right?
Your hypocrisy is showing.
I will never be ashamed of God's Word.
I have asked you this ad nauseum, ER, and you have yet to give me an answer. Exactly who do you think is qualified to determine the criteria by which you judge which parts of the Bible are not true and which parts are?
The fact of the matter is: No one but God determines the truth of His word. Just because you choose not to believe it does not mean it isn't true.
You've got to have a truth that is true, whether you believe it or not! It's true whether you like it or not! It's true whether you even know about it or not! It's just true!
A couple of points...
The whole male burro and female horse thingy doesn't work. There's a reason why their offspring are mules... sterile... they are incompatible genetically. They produce offspring, yes, but flawed offspring.
The difference should be obvious, but obviously isn't: Homosexuals, be they male or female, can produce offspring that can in turn reproduce themselves... but homosexuals choose not to produce... They have chosen an aberrant lifestyle... one that goes against nature. The biggest piece of evidence I have for this-- and it should be obvious to all --is genitalia; designed to receive the opposite sex for the purpose of advancing the species. The fact that sex is enjoyable is icing on the cake.
And before anyone brings out the homosexual monkeys as Exhibit B, don't bother... they're animals, with no Conscience, and no understanding of right and wrong in terms of God's Law. Simply put, His law is not written on their hearts. Exhibit B doesn't wash either.
I'm with you on this one Mark. Calling "Aberration" aberration is not bigotry, or phobia... It's intellectual honesty.
"Sodom and Gomorrah is about rape and a lack of concern for the poor - not homosexuality."
How do you get that!?! Been listening to the reverend Spong? Reading the NIV?
What a sad distorted little world you live in.
The one remaining passage that is the strongest case in the NT is the Romans passage, where God blasts bad behavior of all sorts.
What is missing from the passage (and the Bible as a whole) is any discussion of gays living in a committed and loving relationship.
Your first statement acknowledges that God is doing the blasting, and right you are. But your second statement fails to acknowlege that God doesn't change: He's the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. It doesn't matter HOW committed a pair of homosexuals are to one another, God STILL "blast's" the conduct.
Dan said:
"Sodom and Gomorrah is about rape and a lack of concern for the poor - not homosexuality."
elashley asked:
"How do you get that!?!"
God. In Ezekiel 16, God says:
"This is the sin of your sister, Sodom: pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."
In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah itself in Genesis, the bible says:
"But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."
All the people of Sodom wanted to rape the angels. It didn't really matter if the angels were male or female - the point was, they wished to rape them.
What other point can you get from the Bible but what it says? Oh, I know what you can get if you look for it: That God destroyed Sodom because the people were gay. It's not there. Remember: God says that Sodom was destroyed for a lack of concern for the poor, for her pride and haughtiness.
Makes you want to be a little more careful about being haughty, no?
And, for what it's worth, I don't know who Rev. Spong is and I read all manner of translations, including the NIV. You one of these that think only King James was inspired by God?
Mark, I'd still like to know what it is that you think God says about gays.
Dan, Again, I suggest you go ahead and read my post. I made no mention of what the Bible or God says about it in there anywhere. Yhe reason I didn't is because you cannot argue the Bible with people who don't believe the Bible, or as in your's and ER's case, People who only believe the parts of it that they agree with. So I am not going to answer that question. You know what he says and you know where he says it. You would just interpret it the way you want to anyway.
I will say this though. Yesterday, in church, our sunday school teacher said God didn't write the Bible only for Bible scholars. he wrote it so that eveyone could understand it. Everyone, including us poor slobs that you apparently think aren't smart enough to understand reason. He is right. You are wrong. So quit trying to find things in it that aren't there and quit trying to pretend that what is there isn't, just because you don't want to believe it.
And no one has answered my question yet:
Exactly who do you think is qualified to determine the criteria by which you judge which parts of the Bible are not true and which parts are?
If you can't believe parts of it, then you mught as well throw the whole kit and kaboodle out.
Look at it this way: Imagine if your wife cheated on you and then admitted it and told you she would never do it again. for the rest of your marriage, everytime she was later than you think getting home, everytime she talks to another man she sees on the street or whatever, evrything she does, you will naturally be suspicious of. You would no longer trust her, even if she remained 100% true to you the rest of the marriage. Same thing. If God says even one thing that isn't true, you cannot believe anything he says.
As for Rich's Biblically uneducated talking point questions about other rules established in the old testament: We've all heard these arguments before, and it has been explained to you ad nauseum that the rules God set down in Leviticus (and other books of the law) Were appropriate for the times for the health and welfare of the people. Even the rule about laying with a man as you would with a woman. The rather extreme punishment ordered was also appropriate for the times.
I would dearly love to see the looks on the faces of those people at the last judgment who try to stand before the Creator of the Universe, and say to Him, "When You said this or that, You were wrong."
The only thing sadder about the way you people misinterpret God's Word is your arrogance about it.
Sheila, You know I respect the heck out of you, darling, but all those so called studies and experiments and their findings have since been rejected as flawed. First red flag that went up there was the men conducting the study were gay themseves and framed the study in such a way as to produce the results they wanted. In other words, it was far from an impartial study. They set out to disprove the facts and it appeared they had, but further research and studies done by truly impartial researchers found them to be dead wrong. And that's why legitimate news outlets don't cover the story. They don't want it known that the Liberals are ever wrong about anything.
Re, ... "you cannot argue the Bible with people ... who only believe the parts of it that they agree with."
I can say the exact thing about you. You either do not believe the things Jesus says about loving your neighbor as yourself, about the poor, about power -- or you are ignoring it, which is worse.
"The Bible" is not "a" thing; it's a compilation of many pieces of writings, all written by men inspired by the search for truth and the need to explain their powerful yet mysterious encounters with God, some with more veracity than others.
And if you tell me that you believe that God created this world in six days, then rested, then I give up. That's sort of an insult to God, in my view -- an example of placing a literal reading of the Bible, the Bible itself, ABOVE God Himself, which is idolatry. Takes a bigger and more wondrous God to spend BILIIONS of years making everything, and cradling it, than it does to whip out a world in six measley days.
Who gets to decide what parts of the Bible are literaly accurate? (It is all "true" in a sense that, to be honest, I don't think you understand, since you keep accusing me, wrongly, of being willing to just throw out sections I "don't believe").
I do. And you do. Both with humility and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I daresay I bring moe humility to the mystery of God than you do -- which sounds strange to say.
But you seem to think you have a handle on it all -- "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." You refuse to think about what the Bible says; you just "accept" it. You refuse to use, and develop, the intellect God gave you.
I do NOT think I know it all. That's what fundamentalists really have against nonfundamentalists:
We don't pretend we know it all, and you think that means we don't believe. That's another damned lie.
And if you're going to a church that anything like "God wrote the Bible," go to a different church. For Christ's sake.
Mark,
I love to cry out "liberal media bias" as much as the next conservative; but not poo poo MSM everytime I am in disagreement with it. I don't see how you can be so dismissive of Sheila's PBS program, without having seen it and done background work on the program itself.
I thought 60 Minutes did a decent piece on the topic of sexual orientation a few weeks ago. You can check out the transcript or the video: javascript:vlaunch('clip=/media/2006/03/12/video1391768.rm&sec=3415&vidId=3415&title=Gay$@$Or$@$Straight&hitboxMLC=60minutes')
(Sorry but you'll have to cut and paste...scrolling faaaaaaaar to the right to get all of the link).
It'd be nice if you could take the time to watch the vid, because I'd really like to know what you'd think of it.
I don't have any hard convictions, and this program seemed to beg more questions than it answered. I thought it was a good segment.
Re, "I would dearly love to see the looks on the faces of those people at the last judgment who try to stand before the Creator of the Universe, and say to Him, 'When You said this or that, You were wrong.' "
Closer to this:
"Why, oh, why, did those terrible words that those small men wrote in Your name last so long, cause harm to so many people and lead so many people away from Your grace?"
Then I might ask about hurricanes and earthquakes and tornados and such. Same deal.
Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people -- rain on the just and the unjust as it were? Why does ignorance and illiteracy persist? Disease? Death. That kind of thing. All things will be made known. But I don't necesarrily think it will be immediate.
So, yeah. I'm gonna have questions.
Actually, though, you and I will both be on our face, in wonderment and awe.
Oh, and please acknowledge that you were overwrought when you actually wrote, way above: "My logic is flawless."
No one's logic is flawless. Not even mine. :-)
"If you can't believe parts of it, then you mught as well throw the whole kit and
kaboodle out."
This is not the case, Mark. I'll let you in on a secret: I don't believe parts of
the Bible! But the thing is, you don't believe parts of the Bible either!
I don't think that eating shrimp is an abomination, as the Bible clearly tells us
it is. I don't think you think so, either. We don't think that we ought to stone
to death "men who lay with men," right? I mean, to take that literally would have
us killing me for laying with my son at night, right?
The thing is, No one does or should read every word of the Bible literally.
To do so would be a great evil.
So your question (Exactly who do you think is qualified to determine the criteria
by which you judge which parts of the Bible are not true and which parts are?) is
a critical one, even though you were asking it rhetorically.
The answer is, as you noted, everyone can interpret the Bible as led by God's
Spirit. It can be fairly clear to understand as long as you keep things in context
and know that we ought not interpret every word literally. In fact, interpreting every line literally would be anti-Christ-ian, as Jesus re-interpreted the Holy Scriptures his own self ("you have heard it said, an eye for an eye...but I tell you, turn the other cheek...")
Here's the thing, Mark: we ought to take every Truth of the Bible literally. When God tells us that "God is Love," or when Jesus tells us to beware the dangers of wealth, I believe it and take it literally.
When I read the story of Jonah, I feel no compulsion to believe that Jonah was
literally swallowed by a great fish. I'm not saying it's not true. I'm saying the
Facts of the story have no impact upon the Truths of the story (you can't run from God, we ought not hate our enemies, etc).
When I read Paul telling slaves to accept their lot and be good slaves, I feel no compulsion to think that this is an endorsement of slavery.
How do we interpret the Bible then, deciding which parts apply to us and which ones don't?
1. Common sense
2. Contextually
3. Beware of isolated scriptures that seem to be contradicted elsewhere
4. As Christians, we interpret the whole of the bible through the words of Jesus. If there seems to be a conflict between a passage and what Jesus says, we hew pretty close to the line that Jesus taught.
Agree? Disagree?
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion..."
Jude 7-8
[Emphasis Added]
Yes, the men of Sodom wished to rape the Angels. And as angels are ALWAYS referred to in masculine terms, it sounds a lot like buggery to me...
Why do you think the word Sodomy has the connotations it does? Because Sodom was inhospitable? Didn't care about the poor? Was Prideful and Haughty? All these things are true... God has said it, but as "all scripture is given by inspiration of God..." the obvious connotation is explicitly defined by God Himself through Jude... Immoral sexual practices God says are an abomination.
But God is not willing that any perish. He wants the homosexual and the sexually impure to turn away from their wickedness, and be spared the judgement to come.
If I or any other person who calls him/herself Christian is not actively trying to spare these people the punishment to come, their blood will be on our hands. We are told to abhor the sin, and compel the sinner to come to the marriage feast... we have to condemn the act, but it is not our place to condemn the man. We are commanded by God to make judgements... "come out from among them, and touch not the unclean thing..." To do this requires we exercise judgement.
"But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." 1Cor 2:15
The connotations we derive from Sodom today, are the same derived by the people of Jesus' day, or God would not have inspired Jude to write what he did. Jude does not invalidate Ezekiel, Jude merely expounds and expands upon previous statements made by God.
I believe you mean well, Dan and ER. But I also believe you do the condemned a dis-service by choosing to mollify your rhetoric on this issue. Unless the homosexual (sexually impure) is made to awaken from their slumber, they won't know to flee the burning house. It won't earn you many points in the eyes of those who don't want to listen, but those who do listen will thank you on the other side. And you will have done God's will in the process, which is always a good thing.
Oh boy, Mark. How many ways can you misinterpret, have too small a sample size or just plain pick the facts to suit what you want to be true?? I'm at work, so I don't have time to refute you point for point, so let me just say this;
Your premise, 'Common Sense', also tells an observer that the world is a flat disk around which the heavens revolve. Come to that, 'Common Sense' tells me that death is the end, but I'm sure you'd disagree with that too.
A more thoroughly researched approach is called for, I think - and I don't just mean on the website of Christian's Against Gays, I mean Research, where people have actually done demonstrable, hard, repeatable research to come to their conclusions.
Mark, I am so terribly disappointed in your post. I expected more thought from you rather than a need to have a lot of comments.
So I have a question for you: If homosexuality is a choice, can you choose it? Seriously, have you ever in your life felt an attraction to a man? I suspect most of your commentors -- if straight -- will say no. I didn't choose to be attracted to women. It's just the way I'm made. (Gratefully.) Yet I have abuse in my childhood. It didn't make me gay. I know a lot of abused people who aren't gay. It can't be just abuse. I know a lot of people who didn't have a dad or had several dads or had abusive stepdads, but they didn't turn out gay. It can't just be the lack of a father figure.
People like to say that homosexuality isn't natural. That a homosexuality gene would have been bred out of a population by now. (It's curious that Christians will often use evolution's inherited traits to support this view.) However, any scientist who studies genetics will tell that genes take a long time to be bred out in humans. (We could also get into a discussion about "junk" genes and how science is finding that perhaps junk genes aren't junk, after all, but genes that have either outlived their usefulness or as a genetic library for an organism to respond to future environmental pressures.) A little thought will tell you why it takes a long time for a gene to be bred out. For one thing, our generations are particularly long. Second, homosexuals are not stopped from having children. (A surprising number of gay men and women have children.) You might look at this from the perspective of albinism. Albinism carries no evolutionary advantage. Typically, in the past, one afflicted with it had a short, ugly life. In all those thousands of years, you'd think that it would be bred out of the population. Not so. Mostly because the carriers of the gene often do not display the gene. It is recessive. They don’t know their children carry the gene. But if their children marry someone who also has the recessive gene, then there is a one in four chance that their children may be afflicted with this. (Please note that the inheritance pattern for ocular albinism is different.) In other words, genetic inheritance is not a simple matter. Genes that seem to convey no particular survival advantage continue to be inherited. (Look into the inheritance of sickle cell anemia for a truly dizzying ride on how genes can betray us.)
This is overly simple, of course. For one thing, we have no idea if a homosexuality gene even exists. Please don't be misled by the news. We know very little about genes and how they express themselves. To further complicate matters, we are just beginning to see how various genes can work together and against each other to express genetic traits. The National Academy of Science has pointed out that in terms of genetic knowledge, we're not even standing on the edge of the iceberg. We only know that an iceberg is out there.
Does this mean that a homosexuality gene could exist? Maybe. But what does that mean? Could a gene force us to be only gay? Or only straight? Unlikely. We know that certain traits can be bred in animals, such as affinity for children or herding. However, these behaviors must be enforced or they can be ignored or overridden by the animal. Mind you, we're not talking about physical characteristics such as eye color or skin color. We're talking about behavior.
So really what can genetic science tell us about homosexuality? Not a lot. We can guess that perhaps a particular gene or set of genes leads to a tendency for that behavior, but we don't know that. (Likewise, we don't know what genes or set of genes leads to heterosexual behavior.) There seems to be a slight inheritance pattern for homosexuality, but societal pressures make it impossible to collect any reliable statistics. (Gays that stay closeted, for instance, keep the statistics from being accurate. Stats would let us see if there was an inherited tendency or if we could factor in environmental pressures that might continue in a family through the years.) If we look at animals, we see documented and photographed same sex behavior in dolphins, whales, killer whales, chimps, gorillas, wolves, birds and a couple of species of sea grubs (One set of grubs also violates the incest taboo. Might I say, "EWWW?"). This seems to be an argument for homosexual behavior being natural. However, these studies have yet to unearth any animal subjects that exhibited exclusive homosexual behavior. In all studies (that I've seen) the animals were subject to environmental pressures, i.e. lack of mates, confinement with only males, lack of food (no food for babies), etc. Many of these animals express their sexuality according to their environment. So now it seems that the studies support people who say that it's a choice or environment. Truth is, we don't have enough information yet to make a definitive statement one way or another.
Let's sum it up. Basically science can't tell us anything about homosexuality as a genetic inheritance. Both sides attempt to use science to back them up. Both are wrong. Science is supposed to be about what is, not used to promote any particular religious or political position.
I seem to have wandered off. I do that a lot when I talk about science. I think it's one of the noblest human endeavors. But to get back to my point, which is this post. If you believe homosexuality is wrong, fine. That's your right to believe that way. If you believe it's right, that's your right, too. But don't use erroneous "science" to back up your arguments. (And I suspect you knew it was erroneous. That's what so terribly disappoints me. To be sincerely wrong is understandable. To be deliberately wrong is misleading and pandering for comments.)
There is one fact that has yet to be disproven. There is no identified human gene that produces homosexual tendencies/behavior. Sex is a learned trait; therefore choices are made as to the partner's gender.
The horse/ass argument only serves to make a horse's ass out of the arguer. The horse and ass are DIFFERENT species. Two different species that NORMALLY do not interbreed in natural circumstances. So, unless you can produce a man and a woman of different species and link that union to homosexuality, the argument is mute. I don't think you want to argue a human/gorilla union produces homosexuals. That would be a comparative argument.
Homosexual behavior is the result of choices made - not genes. That's why it is called BEHAVIOR.
Actually, ah, no, old soldier. Horses and asses are of the same species, or they couldn't interbreed, by definition. When they mate and produce a mule, that's a hybrid.
So, I correct my premises but not my conclusion:
A hetero male of the human species mates with a hetero female of the human species, sometimes creating the varietal hybrid known as the "homosexual" of the human species.
Ha. Actually, Tech is right. Science hasn't yet caught up. Beware: The church in general, always, eventually, acknowledges the truth of science lest it become irrelevant.
ER, you are quite right, so I stand corrected on the species error (didn't read closely enough - still an error on my part)
However, natural interbreeding between ass and horse rarely occurs. It is usually man's intervention that cross breeds the horse and ass. So, the arguement still has significant validity. The hybrid (mule or hinny) has gender organs but is most frequently sterile. Can the same be said of homosexuals? For the horse / ass argument to be applicable to this homosexual discourse, the breeding of two horses would have to produce the mule/hinny. It doesn't happen.
Face it, sexual activity is a learned behavior and involves choices. To date, no gene or gene strain has been tagged as "the homosexual or heterosexual gene". It just hasn't happened (most likely because it doesn't exist). So if science is your argument's foundation (homosexuality is not by choice), it proves the opposing argument much more succinctly.
Actually, if I have an argument it's this:
God's grace is greater than all my sin, and yours, and that of any hetero or homo who is drawn to a relationship with God through Christ; God is to judge, not me; I am to try to love without fail; repentence comes after an encounter with grace, not before, or it is an attempt to earn something that is, um, unearnable; and God reveals Himself, and his plan for every human being's life in Him in His own way, in His own time.
There are pretenders, those who say "Lord, Lord" and all that. We will know them "when we all get to heaven -- what a day of rejoicing that will be." Not one minute before.
Therefore, it doesn't matter to me whether homosexality is a choice or a genetic or other biological tendency. Jesus loves me. Jesus loves you. Jesus loves "fags."
Jesus even loves Fred Phelps, the freak -- and since I have no real idea what is going on in his heart, or mind (since he may very well be insane and thus unaccountable for himself), while I wouldn't fellowship with him, I will not condemn him to hell either.
So, I'm just curious: Do we all agree that no one does or ought to read every word of the Bible literally? That we all must rightly divine the Word of God to determine what God is saying? And, by our fallen nature, none of us will get it all right?
And, is what we're left with then, is just the question of whether or not these handful of passages that sometimes seem to be addressing homosexuality actually are?
Dan, I am positive, based on what Mark has asserted repeatedly, that he most definitely does not agree with any of that.
Well, I'd like to hear it from Mark. I mean, usually when you ask an inerrantist (including me at one time) if I believe it an abomination to eat shrimp or that we ought to kill men who lay with men or disrespectful children - even tho the Bible says all that - that we will say, "No, I do not believe that."
Then we inerrantists will say why that isn't not taking the whole bible literally. But still, just getting to the point where we acknowledge that there is a line in the Bible that isn't meant for us - isn't meant to be taken literally - it's an important step. At least it was for me.
Mark?
I know you said earlier you wouldn't answer my question - but are you doing so to avoid meeting me or is it to avoid God?
”…repentence comes after an encounter with grace…”
I do not believe that, ER. Repentance comes after the Holy Spirit’s conviction of sin which motivates the sinner to repent, and seek forgiveness through Jesus. Grace is applied in God's forgiveness of sin. Without the conviction and repentance, grace is not applied (to the sinner). I do not believe God applies unmerited favor to sinners who have not come under conviction, repented and asked for forgiveness. If that were the case, what would be the point of Christ’s atoning death?
The way anyone wishes to “interpret” the bible is clearly up to said person. The bible is meant to be instructional in our lives and give us unchanging truths upon which to base our behavior toward one another and toward God. I believe it is meant for us to use as a tool of judgment, not for the purpose of condemnation of others, but for the purpose of recognition. If we cannot recognize and judge for ourselves that an act or behavior is sin, how are we to avoid it, or repent from it? To that end I believe the bible is quite clear.
Any sexual activity outside the God ordained institution of marriage (one man one woman for life) is sin. It does not matter how much human love is present between the two partners, if it is sinful, then it is sin. God does not discern between little sin and big sin; we humans tend to do that. Homosexual relationships do not fit God’s model of marriage, therefore it falls in the category of sinful activity (just like a man and a woman living together without being married). If God’s “saved” children continue to turn a blind eye to sinful activity, how is the world to know they are living in sin? God utilizes His flock to witness to the world. He uses that witness to help the Holy Spirit bring sinners under conviction. If we condone sinful behavior, what does that do to our witness?
God is quite clear about what human relationships He has ordained and homosexual relationships are not among them. First of all, He created woman as a helpmate and companion to Adam, not another man. Second, He commanded that we honor our “father” and “mother”, not our father and father or mother and mother, that we may live long. Third, He clearly stated “man shall not lay with man as with woman, for that is detestable.” Fourth, He stated that man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and the two shall be joined as one flesh; not cleave unto his/her same sex “partner”.
Any sexual behavior outside the God ordained institution of marriage is sin. Forgiveness comes after conviction and repentance (a turning away from). Clearly, for children of God to condone sinful behavior will only serve to condemn the sinners to Hell because they can not be brought under conviction.
"Any sexual behavior outside the God ordained institution of marriage is sin."
Is this not a reason, then, to allow gay marriage? So that our gay brothers and sisters might not "live in sin"?
I know that's at least one reason that we've celebrated many gay marriages at our church. Love and committment are wonderful things - never condemned anywhere in the Bible.
ER, "Why, oh, why, did those terrible words that those small men wrote in Your name last so long, cause harm to so many people and lead so many people away from Your grace?"
You would have us to believe that dozens of uneducated men, from different nations and cultures, with different languages, and who included shepherds, fishermen, tentmakers, tax collectors, doctors, slaves, kings, musicians, and various other occupations could somehow had had the organization, cleverness, intelligence, foresight, wisdom, understanding, etc, to combine, over thousands of years, some very remarkable insights as to the world and the way things work in the world, of things both in heaven and in earth, and still mystify even the most respected intellects of our time.
That is tantamount to putting a thousand chimpanzees in a room with a thousand typewriters and expectiong them, after a thousdand years to hammer out the complete works of Shakespeare.
If you believe that, How in the name of all that's holy can you be so arrogant and skeptical that you don't believe God Gave themn His Word?
And why do you assume that God is not capable of making sure that the words He inspired in them are accurate?
The one flaw in your argument is that you continually want to try to confine the omnipotence and omniscient omnipresent God to the physical restrictions of the Universe as you yourself understand them.
God can do anything! If he wants to create the Universe in 6 seconds, 6 minutes, 6 days, or 6 millenium, he can. If He wants to use mortal man to put His words in text, he can do that, also. And He can make sure that none of His Words are put down in text distorted or inaccurate.
Yes, there are translations that are not accuarately translated, but the ones that have been translated directly from the Koinae(sp?) Greek are considered by smarter people than you and I as accurate.
The first English translation of that Greek was the King James version. It was written in the language of the day hich is why it's so difficult for modern man to understand. Some modern day translations attempt to translate the Bible from the KJV, not from the Greek, therefore they are flawed.
I do not necessarily believe that the KJV is the only accurate translation available. As I understand it, the NIV was translated from the original Greek and that is the translation that I use.
Now, I will reiterate for the rest of you who appear to have not read my entire post, to go back and read it, and if you have time, go back and read ALL the comments I made in response to the allegations made against me here. All your questions are covered and answered therein, even the stupid ones.
And I have no interest in recovering old ground.
Except I will respond to those who have made the incredible leap of logic to assume that I think negative childhood experiences ALWAYS make some people change their sexual orientation. On the contrary, to assume that would only serve to strengthen the argument that they have no choice, but as Tech and some others have pointed out, some who have suffered childhood abuses of varying degrees have not become gay. Therefore, they have a choice. That argunment only proves my assertion that gays were not born that way. which is the original and ONLY point of the post.
I never said they aren't good people. I never said I hate them. I never said Jesus hates them. On the contrary, in my post, if you go back and read it, I said I have gay friends, and I personally like all of them.
My only contention is that I don't believe that homosexuals are born gay. I believe that for whatever reason, whether trauma induced, or as a fashion statement, or even as an exhibition of Munchhausen's syndrome, they chose the lifestyle.
And none of my detractors in here have yet to prove I am wrong.
Look, if you don't want to believe common sense and logic because you depend more on your feelings than your intellect, that's up to you, but don't come into my place and track mud over my nice clean floors. You will not prove me wrong. You might as well cast your pearls before swine.
ER, you say, "God's grace is greater than all my sin, and yours, and that of any hetero or homo who is drawn to a relationship with God through Christ; God is to judge, not me; I am to try to love without fail; repentence comes after an encounter with grace, not before, or it is an attempt to earn something that is, um, unearnable; and God reveals Himself, and his plan for every human being's life in Him in His own way, in His own time.
There are pretenders, those who say "Lord, Lord" and all that. We will know them "when we all get to heaven -- what a day of rejoicing that will be." Not one minute before.
Therefore, it doesn't matter to me whether homosexality is a choice or a genetic or other biological tendency. Jesus loves me. Jesus loves you. Jesus loves "fags."
Jesus even loves Fred Phelps, the freak -- and since I have no real idea what is going on in his heart, or mind (since he may very well be insane and thus unaccountable for himself), while I wouldn't fellowship with him, I will not condemn him to hell either."
And that, all of that, I completely agree with.
However, my original post states my common sense belief that No one is born gay. And my plea for people to stop trying to convince logical thinking people that they were.
That's all. I will say no more on the subject. All other arguments have been dealt with, either in the post itself, or in my responses to the comments. If you missed them, go back and re-read them.
Oh Boy! Another comment for me to respond to! Y'all are batting .000 so far.
Dan, you say, ""Any sexual behavior outside the God ordained institution of marriage is sin."
Is this not a reason, then, to allow gay marriage? So that our gay brothers and sisters might not "live in sin"?"
Short answer: no, it isn't.
Long answer: Marriage is defined as a union between one woman and one man. Any variation or, more appropriately, deviation of this truth, is sin.
Only God can change the rules. You cannot remove the sin by simply changing the rules. To suggest you can is not only arrogant, it is downright heretical.
"I do not necessarily believe that the KJV is the only accurate translation available."
You are aware, aren't you, that the KJV has as many or more errors (or "problems" if you prefer) as many of the newer translations. This is no denigration of the Bible, which I love, just an acknowledgement that flawed humans have pulled together the written word of God and made mistakes in doing so.
Here's a fan of the KJV pointing out some of its flaws:
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/
kjverror.html
Simple errors in translations. No problem as long as you haven't placed a human compilation in the infallible category that only God belongs in.
When I was a young man, I was taught and believed that the Bible was above reproach - not to be questioned. But in so doing, I was committing idolatry.
The Bible is not God.
And, are you not going to post my last comment? What's up with that?
Mark said:
"You cannot remove the sin by simply changing the rules."
And where did God say that gays ought not be married? Answer: God never said that. It is a human decision.
Dan, I do not worship the Bible per se. I worship God and the Bible is His infallible Word. He says so.
I would submit that if you fail to recognize God's Word when you see it, perhaps you are guilty of the sin of rebellion against Him, which God says, Is "as the sin of divination". (Witchcraft)
Rebellion, actually, is in itself idolatry, because by rebelling against God you choose to worship your own desires and/or philosophy, rather than God. Hence, if you choose to believe that God's Word is not really God's Word, you are committing idolatry yourself.
Now I am done. Any other questions? re-read the post and comments. responses are contained therein.
You know? It strikes me that you people either don't really believe this stuff or you do not thbk these things out fully. I am not so smart that I can completely destroy all well thought out arguments, and yet, I have done so.
"I worship God and the Bible is His infallible Word. He says so."
How do you know it's infallible?
Where does God say so?
What does infallible mean?
Where does God say so?
I fully agree that God is infallible. I fully agree that the Bible is divinely inspired.
But the Bible demonstrably has little blips of info that ought not be taken literally for various reasons. It has some words that have been wrongly or badly translated. Demonstrably.
As I've suggested, you don't take killing gays or disrespectful children literally. So what do you mean by infallible?
Old soldier, re: "God does not discern between little sin and big sin; we humans tend to do that."
That's about the only thing I totally agree with in what you wrote.
"Re: ”…repentence comes after an encounter with grace…”
I do not believe that, ER. Repentance comes after the Holy Spirit’s conviction of sin which motivates the sinner to repent, and seek forgiveness through Jesus. Grace is applied in God's forgiveness of sin. Without the conviction and repentance, grace is not applied (to the sinner). I do not believe God applies unmerited favor to sinners who have not come under conviction, repented and asked for forgiveness. If that were the case, what would be the point of Christ’s atoning death?" "
I think we're actually saying the same thing, but you've labeled certain steps that I see as happening in an instant, in the explosion that occurs the instant someone "believes." I think "conviction of sin" and realization that it has been paid for IS grace! We're talking about the same thing.
Repentance comes -- or "commences" might be a better word -- AFTER the acceptance of grace in the form of conviction-awareness-etc. No repentance, no acceptance, no deal.
BUT, I am not to judge any of that for any other person who professes faith in Jesus. What else does "don't judge" mean?
I'm all ears -- and, despite angry retorts and assertions on my part, and claimns that one's mind cannot be changed by blogging, I AM teachable. Just not by angry people who denounce me.
Two gay men joined the church I attend Sunday, a couple. They stood before the congregation glowing with joy. I cannot tell by looking whether they were joyful in Jesus, or happy because they think they're getting away with something. We are not to judge because we cannot judge. It's up to them to discern how to respomnd to God's grace. But here's the deal: If they DO homosexuality, that's one thing; if they ARE homosexuality, that's another. And that's an IF I am not prepared to answer. I cannot answer it. I cannot judge. I won't judge.
Mark, dude, this sort of thing makes you sound like a cult leader:
"I am not so smart that I can completely destroy all well thought out arguments, and yet, I have done so."
"My logic is flawless."
Hoo boy.
"Any sexual behavior outside the God ordained institution of marriage is sin."
”Is this not a reason, then, to allow gay marriage? So that our gay brothers and sisters might not "live in sin"?”
Mark responded to this once, but I feel obliged to respond also. The biblical definition of marriage is established as one man one woman. For you, your church or anyone else to decide (and ordain) that a man may “marry” a man or a woman may “marry” a woman is heresy. Even Webster (until recently) defined “marriage” as: “the state of being married; relation between husband and wife;” and “marry” as: “to join as husband and wife; to join (a man) to a woman as her husband, or (a woman) to a man as his wife.” If the homosexual movement can breach the definition of marriage to include their unions, they gain societal acknowledgment of their behavior as being “normal”. Their gain may cost them their soul’s eternal location.
If someone does not know that their behavior is wrong (sinful), how can they know to repent and ask forgiveness? Any church professing Christianity that condones and ordains homosexual marriage serves only the purposes of Satan. They may as well condone unwed people living together, bestiality, pornography, pedophilia, theft, murder and all other deviant behavior as well. Why?, because they have in essence said that what God has defined as sin is not really sin, so then, what really is sin? Satan is subtle and effective; I would look for his hand in this matter.
The love of the bible is primarily an Agape love or the love God has for man. When Philo love is discussed it is within the realm of wanting fellow man to come to God, to do what is right in God’s sight; not some compassionate emotional feeling that desires to exonerate a wrongdoer of his wrong. Do you love your child? Do you want your child to do what is right? Why? You tell your child the truth because you love them. Well, God wants you to do the same for sinners; He wants you to love them enough to tell them the truth so they may come to know Him. Would you deliberately cause your child to fail? Why them would you not tell a sinner their behavior is sinful, so they may know to repent and ask for forgiveness. It could mean the difference between a spiritual birth and eternal damnation. How much do you love the sinner? Enough to tell him/her the truth? I would hate to think that my human condoning of a sinful behavior would cause another’s soul eternal damnation.
Yes, ER, it does sound like that, doesn't it?
"I am not so smart that I can completely destroy all well thought out arguments, and yet, I have done so."
"My logic is flawless."
But if it were not true, how is it that no one has yet to point out any valid flaws in my post or my reponses to the comments?
O. Soldier said:
"The biblical definition of marriage is established as one man one woman. For you, your church or anyone else to decide (and ordain) that a man may “marry” a man or a woman may “marry” a woman is heresy."
Fine. Show me where in the Bible that marrying two gay folk is a heresy and you'll have won me over. Or even where it says that it's even a little bit wrong.
But you'll excuse me if I don't merely accept your word that it's heresy?
Dan, you obviously have your agenda and wish not to base your reasoning in biblical truth, but rather in what you emotionally desire to perceive as truth. That is your prerogative, as it is mine to believe that when God inspired the words “for that reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh,” that he meant marriage is between a man and a woman. (Anatomically, how do two women become one flesh?) He also told us that whosoever He joined together we were not to put asunder. Corruption of the institution of marriage is a recent event, not one steeped in history, and certainly not biblical. Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding (of a man and a woman) and made it the best wine to honor the groom. Christ spoke of the church as His bride. There is more than enough inference and direct text in the bible to substantiate that marriage is between one man and one woman.
“Heresy” means: “a religious belief opposed to the orthodox doctrines of a church.” I just iterated the basis of biblical marriage (above). To espouse otherwise opposes the Christian orthodox (or biblical) view that marriage is between one man and one woman. Now, what would you call a belief that opposes an orthodox doctrine?
Whether you accept my point of view is irrelevant; I’m not an injured party. However, the homosexual that may perceive there is no sin in homosexual behavior because of your emotional desire to be nice to him/her and miss the narrow path to salvation is truly an injured party. I will continue to love sinners as instructed, but under the obligation of that love I shall witness that there is release from the bondage of sin – via repentance and salvation.
I will not play the game of show me in the bible where it says I can’t… it is up to the Holy Spirit to guide us in reading God’s word. If you chose (there’s that word again) to perceive something different to sooth an emotional pang, that is between you and God.
"Show me where in the Bible that marrying two gay folk is a heresy and you'll have won me over. Or even where it says that it's even a little bit wrong."
What part of "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them..." do you not get?
If God sees the act as abominable, (or detestable according to the NIV), it stands to reason that God does not sanction a marriage between two men (or two women for that matter) since marriage involves the very act God sees as an abomination.
Further more, what part of "...For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." do you not get??
God says the homosexual act is "vile," "against nature," and "unseemly." No contract of marriage before God will change how he perceives these acts.
Also, "...receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
clearly says there is a price to pay for such behavior. So what could that be? Social Ostracization? An eternity in Hell? AIDS?
ER is right about one thing... and many others to be fair: we will all be prostrate before the throne of God, in awe of His glory, His majesty, His Holiness, His righteousness, and His Justice. Sinners will also assume this position at the last judgement for all the same reasons, but for them we can add regret, pleading, and sheer terror at the realization they are not welcome to spend eternity in God's Holy Presence.
I don't condemn homosexuals. I judge their chosen lifestyle (as I am commanded by God) as unholy. I don't have to condemn them, for they are condemned already. It's my sole purpose to "...[pull] them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh."
If I don't at least try to turn them in the right direction, God will hold me accountable for their blood. There's enough blood on my hands as it is. Forgive me if I don't wish to add to that burden.
I dont think our job is to tell the "good news." It's God's job to convict of sin. Not mine.
Where does the Bible say that our job is to instruct people on what is and what is not a sin? Serious question.
BTW, if yer basing the assertion that "biblical marriage" is based on the verse that says a pastor should be "the husband of one wife" -- while that *does" mean "no more than one wife," not "never having been divorced" -- are not pastors, elders and deacons called to higher standards as leaders of congregations? Isn't that the crux of the discsussion in some denominations struggling over gay pastors?
BTW, "heresy" has always been used to denote something outside the mainstream. Abolition was outside the mainstream for Southenr Christians, and slavery was outside the mainstream for abolitions -- and each side did hurl accusation of "heresy" at one another. So, that has little real meaning to me.
Mark, I have stayed out of this particular Barfight on purpose.
We can argue this subject for 164 more comments, and you can present all the science and logic you want, and your opponents will never back down, agree with you, or even admit that you have even one single valid point.
Because if they did, then they would not have to apologize to you, they would have to repent before God. They would have to admit that their philosophy, their religious beliefs, their politics, their very World View has been, and is, wrong, and sinful.
Never mind what the Bible says if it disagrees with them, YOU obviously have misinterpreted it.
Never mind scientific studies, the results of those can be manipulated. (Liberals do this all the time.)
Never mind common sense, never mind logic, never mind the obvious.
Never mind what God said.
Since Jesus is a Liberal, then he obviously supports Gay Marriage. (And Abortion, and state sponsored Slavery in the form of State mandated charity, and all of the other immoral Liberal Ideals that are killing the very Soul of America.)
How can you argue with that logic?
So carry on with your arguing.
I'm sure the Lord is very proud of us all.
Yuikes. Major word left out.
I wrote:
I dont think our job is to tell the "good news."
Of course, I meant: I think our job is to tell the "good news."
elashley said:
"If God sees the act as abominable, (or detestable according to the NIV), it stands to reason that God does not sanction a marriage between two men"
And, as I've pointed out, eating shrimp is an abomination to God (or detestable in the NIV) - have you ever committed that abomination? Do you not think it is really an abominatin?
The thing is, all, that I was where you were. I thought the Bible and God clearly called homosexuality a sin and abomination. I changed my views not because of any emotional desire to be "nice" to gays.
I changed my views because the Holy Spirit taught me, through the Bible and the real world, that God is opposed to destructive behaviors, abusive relationships - but NOT loving committed relationships between two folk.
The biblical evidence against homosexuality is simply not there. Yes, a brief glimpse at the Bible may make those (literally) handful of passages seem like homosexuality is wrong - especially if that is what you've always been taught.
But deeper study of the issue with an open heart to God's teaching led me to believe something else and see that what I'd been taught was wrong.
Yes, Old Soldier, we'll all have to make our own peace with God on this issue, and we will sooner or later. I was just trying to challenge you to see that the issue isn't as clearly presented in the bible as I once thought.
Dan, according to Leviticus 11:9 – 11, eating fish without fins and scales are to be an abomination to us not God. God did not say they (unscaled, unfinned fish) were an abomination to Him. Whereas God very pointedly said, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (Leviticus 18:22). I think the distinction stands clearly by itself.
As for the shrimp, according to Acts 10:9, Peter had a vision from God that changed the entire clean/unclean food regimen established in the Old Testament.
”I changed my views because the Holy Spirit taught me, through the Bible and the real world, that God is opposed to destructive behaviors…”
First of all, perhaps you should examine which “spirit” is leading you in your interpretation of the Bible. The Holy Spirit would not contradict what God has clearly indicated in His word. I agree that “God opposes destructive behaviors”, that is why I believe He intended sexual relations to be heterosexual inside marriage. If you believe Leviticus 18:22 is no longer valid, then you must also believe that Leviticus 18:23 is no longer valid either. Do you condone bestiality as you condone homosexuality?
”I was just trying to challenge you to see that the issue isn't as clearly presented in the bible as I once thought.”
You have succeeded in convincing me that to you “the issue isn’t as clearly presented in the Bible as [you] once thought.” However, I remain unequivocally convinced that the issue is crystal clear. If you believe that Leviticus 18:23 is applicable today, then Leviticus 18:22 must also be applicable. I see nothing in the New Testament where Jesus taught otherwise.
Then we have one of them whaddya callits...disagreements.
Peace.
Amen on the not-trying-to-e-nice to homosexuals, Dan. The fact is they creep me out. But so do Pentecostals. And I love 'em both, and believe 'em when they tell me they're Christians.
"If you believe that Leviticus 18:23 is applicable today, then Leviticus 18:22 must also be applicable. I see nothing in the New Testament where Jesus taught otherwise."
I know we just disagree, but could you clarify something for me?
If that is the case, Old Soldier, then is not Leviticus 20:13 (If a man lays with a man, then they must be put to death) also still valid? Why is the one valid and the other not? Jesus never changed the Holiness Code specifically towards the supposed teaching on homosexuality.
If I may speak for Old Soldier, I distinctly remember a story inwhich a woman caught in the act of adultery was brought before Jesus in an attempt to trip Him up. "Moses said we should stone such a one," the Pharisees said. Jesus said quite simply, and I paraphrase, "whoever among you is without sin, let him cast the first stone."
When they all left, He asked the woman, "where are those thine accusers?"
She said, "They are gone."
Jesus then instructed us all on how we should be approaching this subject.... "Neither do I condemn thee... go and sin no more."
He did not condemn her to the punishment Leviticus dictates, but he did label her behavior as sin. He acknowledged her sin, but granted mercy... Grace, if you will... because it was an unmerited favor.
That's all Mark, Old Soldier, and myself (again, if I may presume to speak for them) are saying. Homosexuality is sinful. It will incur God's just wrath and punishment... and that is the point. If I am to be like Jesus, I must extend mercy, but not shirk in calling attention to their sin... extend mercy while instructing them to turn from their sinful ways.
I understand why some are offended by this approach, I even understand why those caught in this "lifestyle" can't see their sin. But what I can't understand is why anyone claiming the name of Christ would, in effect, condone behavior that will eventually lead another person, or group of persons, to an eternity in Hell, separated from the love of God.
I'm with Old Soldier on this: I'd re-examine my faith if I were you, and see if I were really one of His. This is not a matter of Liberal vs Conservative, Left vs Right, tit-for-tat "I'm right and you're wrong..." It's simply a matter of prudence... better safe than sorry. If we truly are brothers in Christ, I urge you to re-examine your position. No one is saying you have to hate Homosexuals, or condemn them.
Dan, in reference to stoning to death sexual sinners per Leviticus, I can only point to Jesus’ reaction to the harlot about to be stoned… He charged the sinless ones to cast the first stones. IMHO that took the church out of the punishment business as the tradition continues today. He also told us to obey government and to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Again, IMHO, that placed civil government in the roll of implementing laws of man and enforcing them. Jesus never told us to punish evildoers. He did tell us to witness to them and let the Holy Spirit take over from there. God has reserved final judgment and punishment for Himself.
We don’t slay a spotless lamb and use hyssop branches to spread the blood over the lentils of our doors during the feast of Passover anymore, either. Jesus gave us a direction that departed from the laws that made man aware of sin, to witnessing in His name to make people aware of sin. In the old testament the laws defined sin (or made people aware of what sin was). Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic laws and by His life’s example made people aware of sin – the laws are no longer necessary to define sin. That establishes how we become aware of sin. It does not change God’s temperament or pronouncement concerning what is sinful.
Regardless, God’s opinion of any sexual impurity is quite condemning. New Testament evidence of the unchanging opinion is found in 1 Cor 6:9 & 10 and Romans 1:24 thru 32. It is not for me to punish any sinner in Christ’s name. I am to be a witness in the way I live and by verbal testimony of His love, forgiveness and salvation. It is up to the Holy Spirit to convict and convert sinners. How is a lost person to know they are lost, but by hearing the word of God?
"God’s opinion of any sexual impurity is quite condemning."
Which is why I want my gay friends to have the opportunity to marry. So that they won't be tempted by the "church's" condemnation to chuck it all.
Which is why I ask you to search your hearts as well, as God has warned us how things will be for those who cause one of mine to stray.
You check your religion, I'll check mine and we'll have to let God sort it out.
"I'd re-examine my faith if I were you."
I do.
Every. Single. Day.
Holy Moses!
"God’s opinion of any sexual impurity is quite condemning."
“Which is why I want my gay friends to have the opportunity to marry. So that they won't be tempted by the "church's" condemnation to chuck it all.”
Dan, marriage is not a shelter that exonerates or nullifies sexual impurity. Read Matthew 19:3 thru 12. Jesus clearly defined the institution of marriage and answered the Pharisee’s questions that were intent upon tricking Him. He also clearly defined that marriage partners are “male” and “female” per the Creator’s original intent. I do not know how much clearer you require God’s word to be to realize that “marriage” is between man and woman. Corrupting the term or word “marriage” to include same sex unions only serves to falsely justify those who engage in the impure acts. It does absolutely nothing toward changing God’s word or condemnation. And remember, it is God’s condemnation, not the church’s. The “church” has no authority to condemn on God’s behave.
“…God has warned us how things will be for those who cause one of mine to stray.”
You are absolutely right. God also warns us about those that would call good evil and evil good. I submit that by not lovingly pointing out the sinfulness of homosexuality, you are doing exactly what you believe you are avoiding; causing sinners to remain in sin by falsely justifying their sinfulness. Hence, you are causing one (or more) of God’s children to stray or not see God as their means of salvation.
I don’t have a “religion”. I have a “relationship”, and so should all of God’s children. Those that have a relationship won’t have to wait for God “to sort it out”, because they realize, He already has.
"you are causing one (or more) of God’s children to stray or not see God as their means of salvation."
This is your position. My position is exactly the opposite - that much of "the church" tends to drive people by their failure to rightly divine God's word - causing folk to stray to the church's shame.
In other words, we agree that it is important to preach God's word, God's love - about God's warnings to those that'd call good, evil - and yet we appear to be polar opposites on what that Word is, and I reckon we'll just have to let God sort it out.
Which we all knew going in to this conversation - I just thought it important that folk know that there are some Christians out there who are great Bible believers who've reached often different interpretations from you - that it's not a matter of gay-supporters hating God and the Bible, but brothers and sisters who disagree with the dominant paradigm.
Peace.
Dan, how do you interpret the biblical defining of "marriage"?
Please do not perceive me to be a "gay basher" as I do not perceive myself as such. I'm merely another sinner struggling to follow my Savior as He leads.
God bless.
"how do you interpret the biblical defining of "marriage"?"
An interesting question. I'd say that the Bible is all over the place on marriage.
1. Paul suggests we ought not marry and called for celibacy.
2. David, a man after God's own heart, had many wives - the polygamy model and nowhere does it appear to be condemned by God or any of the prophets (although, Nathan did condemn his sending innocent men off to war to die so that he could marry Bathsheba...)
3. God told Hosea to marry a prostitute!
4. Wives as chattel are common throughout the bible.
5. And, of course, the more commonly accepted notion of one man, one woman is found in the Bible.
6. Gay marriage is not mentioned one way or the other.
For myself, I weigh all of what the Bible has to say about marriage, along with what I know about God, and find it reasonable from a biblical and godly perspective that for two folk to want to have a loving, committed relationship is a good thing.
I can't say that this is endorsed in the Bible because it goes unmentioned in the Bible. Just as you can't say it is condemned in the Bible. We have many issues where the Bible doesn't offer a teaching - nuclear war? abortion? smoking cigarettes? Marijuana? And we have to seek God's guidance on these issues. I have, as I suppose you have.
Thanks for asking.
And by the way, I don't perceive anyone here to be a gay basher. For a long time, I was where you were. I didn't hate gays, but I was convinced their behavior was wrong. I fully understand the concept of loving the sinner but hating the sin.
Having said that, I think a lot of damage is done by those who hate the sins of others, even when it's unintentional.
Dan, thanks for the thoughful response. We have both sought divine revelation in reading and understanding the Bible. For either of us to portent the other to be wrong would be arrogance. I don't perceive you to be arrogant and I try my best not to be, especially in matters concerning what God says and doesn't say in His word.
I believe it best that we conclude by respecting each other's priesthood. God bless.
A new study which recently appeared in the journal Human Genetics "confirms that there is a strong genetic basis for sexual orientation." In the study, women with multiple gay sons were studied. "Scientists found that almost one fourth of the mothers who had more than one gay son processed X chromosomes in their bodies in the same way. Normally, women randomly process the chromosomes in one of two ways -- half go one way, half go the other." The study consisted of 97 mothers of gay sons and 103 mothers without gay sons.
via towleroad
Thanks zefrog, and welcome to my blog. I am not familiar with the study you referenced, but it has most likely already been debunked by non-partizan scientists and researchers. they all ultimately are. These studies are always conducted by homosexual scientists who manupilate their findings to support the conclusions they have already drawn before the study was begin. No amount of evidence to the contrary will sway these people.
Post a Comment