"Twin Studies and Homosexuality"

[CoAspen]

wrx and dd.....have you ever watched the 3 stooges.....they were really funny!!

[Bravus]

I'm no sort of theologian at all, though I have read quite a few. I'm just a guy who reads the Word and takes Jesus at His word. 

By all means, no-one take your theology from me: go and read. Read the Gospels first, and repeatedly. Do what Jesus did.

[Bravus]

(I find 'What did Jesus do?' to be a *much* more reliable guide than 'What would Jesus do?' Much less at risk from our own projections)

[Green Cochoa]

2 hours ago, David Geelan said:

(I find 'What did Jesus do?' to be a *much* more reliable guide than 'What would Jesus do?' Much less at risk from our own projections)

Essentially, those are the same questions, however.  For example, it was Jesus who commanded that the Sabbath-breaker be stoned.  Note: The man had defiantly gathered wood on the Sabbath, so it was not the usual case, nor an accidental breaking of the law--it was rebellion.  The Bible says rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and witches also were to be put to death.  These are commands that Jesus gave, so that represent what He did or would do just as much as the things which He did later while on earth.  Each part of the scriptures is given us for a reason, and no part trumps another, rather the entirety provides a whole picture.

[Gregory Matthews]

Bravus is correct:  The scientific evidence today does not support the idea that there is a single gene that makes one heterosexual/homosexual.  However, there is evidence that there may be genetic aspects.  It is best to be open minded as the knowledge advances on this point.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, I am uncertain as to exactly what you are saying.

Are you telling us that the Bible teaches that it is a sin to be a homosexual, even if one is celibate?

Or are you telling us that the Bible teaches that it is a sin to be a practicing homosexual?

OR, are you telling us that the Bible teaches that it is a sin to be both of the above?

I ask because I do not understand what you are saying.

 

 

[Green Cochoa]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Green, I am uncertain as to exactly what you are saying.

Are you telling us that the Bible teaches that it is a sin to be a homosexual, even if one is celibate?

Or are you telling us that the Bible teaches that it is a sin to be a practicing homosexual?

OR, are you telling us that the Bible teaches that it is a sin to be both of the above?

I ask because I do not understand what you are saying.

 

 

Let us leave the more polarizing "homosexual" concept aside for just a moment, and focus more on the "sin" and "heredity" aspects.  Allow me to ask you three questions to help you understand where I might be coming from on this question.

1) Is it a sin to be an alcoholic?

2) If "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic" is true, is it a sin to be a "recovering" alcoholic who never drinks?

3) Is it a sin to want to drink (lustful craving) without acting upon the desire?

 

I would look at the 8th and 10th commandments as the ones that most nearly pertain to this question.  I believe it is both wrong to steal AND to desire to steal (covet).  If it is wrong to practice homosexuality, it is also wrong to desire to practice it.

As regards the DNA--our genetics, as I understand them, are beyond our control, and we are not held to account for the DNA which we have inherited.   However, our DNA cannot force our thoughts or actions.  If homosexuality is somehow proven to be linked to the DNA, it still would not mean the individual has a free pass to practice sin.  In fact, we ALL have sinful flesh and are born with sinful desires that must be overcome.

 

The Bible clearly teaches that the practice of homosexuality is sin.  The Bible clearly teaches that to lust for/desire to sin is sin, even if the desire is not acted upon.  Therefore, I believe that the Bible teaches homosexuality is sinful.  If someone truly desires to follow Christ, he or she will follow the Word which says: "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." (Galatians 5:24)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

 

[JoeMo]

14 hours ago, Wrxdod16 said:

I think scripture is pretty clear even acting out on it consensually IS sin.

First, there is a difference between temptation and sin.  For me, having gay sex in any fashion would be a huge sin and totally disgusting.  I'm wired to be attracted (at times lustfully, although at 65 years old that doesn't happen as often as it did when I was 20 ) to women.  I can't make that strong of a statement about people who are wired (by nature, nurture, or both) to be attracted to the same sex.  I have many friends who are gay; and they NEVER, EVER hit on me out of respect for my sexual orientation and me, in general.  In return, I don't rebuke or condemn them for their sexual orientation.  Isn't inclusive love and respect for one another more in line with Jesus' example than universal condemnation and judgment?

Accepting another person and his/her sexuality is different than treating them as needing or deserving special "privileges".

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, Green Cochoa said:

The Bible clearly teaches that the practice of homosexuality is sin.  The Bible clearly teaches that to lust for/desire to sin is sin, even if the desire is not acted upon.  Therefore, I believe that the Bible teaches homosexuality is sinful.  If someone truly desires to follow Christ, he or she will follow the Word which says: "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." (Galatians 5:24)

I'm pretty sure you would be in the camp that thinks drinking alcohol is a sin.  So ... using the analogy in your post, is it a sin to want a beer on a hot Sunday afternoon?  If I've already sinned by wanting one, is it a another sin if I just give in and have one or two beers; or does it only become another sin after the third one? Or is each beer a separate sin?

Let's say I've been a drug addict all my life; and I come to Jesus.  Is it a sin to have the physical craving for drugs after one has accepted Jesus?  What if I just take enough of my preferred drug to take the edge off of my withdrawals?  Or does Jesus magically (OK miraculously) take away all my cravings if I just "believe" hard enough?

Let's say I've lived a gay lifestyle all my life; and in coming to Jesus, I am convicted that participating in gay sex is a sin.  Is it a sin, if being celibate, I miss my relationship with a former lover?  Or does God just magically make me desire women (but not lustfully!) if I just "believe" hard enough?

I don't expect answers to these questions; I'm just demonstrating the conundrum you can find yourself in when you are so convinced of your "rightness" and God's stern, rigid judgment.

[Green Cochoa]

2 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I'm pretty sure you would be in the camp that thinks drinking alcohol is a sin.  So ... using the analogy in your post, is it a sin to want a beer on a hot Sunday afternoon?  If I've already sinned by wanting one, is it a another sin if I just give in and have one or two beers; or does it only become another sin after the third one? Or is each beer a separate sin?

Let's say I've been a drug addict all my life; and I come to Jesus.  Is it a sin to have the physical craving for drugs after one has accepted Jesus?  What if I just take enough of my preferred drug to take the edge off of my withdrawals?  Or does Jesus magically (OK miraculously) take away all my cravings if I just "believe" hard enough?

Let's say I've lived a gay lifestyle all my life; and in coming to Jesus, I am convicted that participating in gay sex is a sin.  Is it a sin, if being celibate, I miss my relationship with a former lover?  Or does God just magically make me desire women (but not lustfully!) if I just "believe" hard enough?

I don't expect answers to these questions; I'm just demonstrating the conundrum you can find yourself in when you are so convinced of your "rightness" and God's stern, rigid judgment.

Joe,

Physical cravings, aka withdrawal symptoms, are not a sin, as I see it, but simply an effect of sin.  One does not have such withdrawal symptoms without an equally-strong desire to be free of the addiction--and it is this desire that the Lord looks at and sees as "repentance."  Conversely, to desire to have the addicting "drug" (or sex, food, etc.) from a mental standpoint, not simply a physical craving, is sin.  Consider the words of James on this question:  "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.  Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."  (James 1:14-15)

Temptation itself is not a sin.  Dwelling on the temptation, and lusting for it, is.  This is why the Bible tells us to "flee temptation" to "resist the devil" and so on.  If we have a heart filled with desire to follow God, and have truly repented, He will have given us new desires such that the temptation itself will make us cringe, and we will be repulsed by the thought of continuing in that direction.

Blessings,
Green Cochoa.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said:

Temptation itself is not a sin.  Dwelling on the temptation, and lusting for it, is.

Here is where you became more clear.

Temptation, in itself, is not sin.

To dwell on something is a choice.

 

[Bravus]

Again, this is circular reasoning, based in the *assumption* that homosexuality is sin.

I think we need a new thread in which we explore each of the relevant texts and try to better understand what they are *actually* about.

[Bravus]

(that leaves aside the fact that there are about 7 texts that are interpreted as being about homosexuality, none of them the words of Jesus (in his incarnation on Earth, to head off the claim made above that the whole Bible is the words of Jesus), and about 300 about how we treat the poor and vulnerable, whereas the emphasis and energy of some seems to reverse that ratio)

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

9 minutes ago, Wrxdod16 said:

Pay close attention David and let this be a lesson to you. Not a lesson from me but from what God authored and Paul wrote. You really need to learn what God breathed means in regard to ALL scripture. My advise is for you to stay away from biblical arguments because you are terrible and do damage.

[Bravus]

My point was not 'the rest of the Bible is not the words of Jesus', it was 'when I say "the words of Jesus", what I mean is the words recorded in the Gospels as having been spoken by Him in his incarnation on Earth'. It was not a statement on doctrine and inspiration, it was a clarification of what *I* mean, since I was being misunderstood. I took responsibility for trying to make my words easier to understand.

A personal thing of mine, which not all may share, is that I rank those words more highly than the rest of the Bible. The OT says 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', and Jesus says 'but I say, turn the other cheek'. Clearly He had some additional revelation for us, and I take Him at His word on that.

[Bravus]

Definitely neither of those particular heresies.  Rather the reverse, if anything.

[CoAspen]

Actually David understands scripture quite well, others assume things he isn't saying, which seems to be an inherent problem with certain posters. 

Quote

The OT says 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', and Jesus says 'but I say, turn the other cheek'. Clearly He had some additional revelation for us, and I take Him at His word on that.

What has been pointed out is that misinterpreting scripture has always been an issue. The quote above was actually about equal justice and had been used to justify something else. 

[CoAspen]

......others assume things he isn't saying, which seems to be an inherent problem with certain posters. 

[Bravus]

I think I indicated pretty clearly the method I use to weight parts of the Bible. If Jesus himself said it, it weighs more. His whole purpose in coming to Earth was to reveal the Father to us. He says quite clearly, 'because of the hardness of your hearts... but I tell you....'. In other words, because of fallen human weakness, not every prescription given in the Bible is God's ideal for humanity. It was a step forward when it was given, but Jesus has more.

An eye for an eye is a nice example. Without proportionate justice, an eye is revenged with a life, a life with a village, a village with a nation. Proportionate justice (lex talionis) limits the damage, but it is not God's ideal: Jesus shows us God's ideal: turn the other cheek, go the second mile, do good to those who harm you.

To claim that every word in the Bible is exactly equally weighted is to disregard this progressive nature of revelation, and God's knowledge of the hardness of our hearts.

[Bravus]

With respect, I am not participating in these discussions in order to be cross-examined on my theological orthodoxy. Rather than focusing on me, how about I start that new thread about what the texts actually say?

[Tom Wetmore]

Administrative Cautionary Note:

Let's stick to the topic and refrain from making each other the object of our comments. State your own opinion/view on the topic at hand without accusations, innuendos, judgments about others theology, integrity, character, etc.

In discussing issues of this sort, points of Scripture, differences of interpretation and understanding of the meaning and importance are inevitable. But it is important to keep in mind that such differences are most likely far more troubling to us than they are to God.  Let's leave the final judgment to Him, and try to assume the best of one another in our interactions.

[Gregory Matthews]

Jackson, without commenting on the merit of your position, your have clearly engaged in circular reasoning, as Bravus stated.  That statement of his is clearly of merit.  It is worthy of discussion.

Further, your statement that he assumes that God did not mean exactly what God said is simply a personal attack on Bravus that is inappropriate.

It is quite possible that Bravus does believe that God means what God said and then disagrees with you as to what God said.

NOTE:  This is the only aspect of this issue that I am addressing.  Please do not twist what I have said here into some issue that I have not commented on in this post... 

 

[Green Cochoa]

18 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Jackson, without commenting on the merit of your position, your have clearly engaged in circular reasoning, as Bravus stated.  That statement of his is clearly of merit.  It is worthy of discussion.

Further, your statement that he assumes that God did not mean exactly what God said is simply a personal attack on Bravus that is inappropriate.

It is quite possible that Bravus does believe that God means what God said and then disagrees with you as to what God said.

NOTE:  This is the only aspect of this issue that I am addressing.  Please do not twist what I have said here into some issue that I have not commented on in this post... 

 

Saying something does not establish it any better than hearsay if no evidence supports it.  Where is the evidence of circular reasoning you claim?  Saying it is clear and making it clear are two different things.

I tend to see Jackson's point in that if God calls something sinful, an abomination even, then for Bravus to claim that someone else has made an "assumption" that such was a sin, it implies that Bravus may not believe God has meant what He said.

[CoAspen]

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote

Obviously we all don't agree on this and one party is right and the other is wrong which obviously implies 1 party is not Biblical. 

not necessarily... sometimes Scriptures allow for different interpretations of an issue...

I'm reminded of the passage in Romans 14 of "be convinced in your own mind..." — if someone has prayerfully considered a subject, and has come to a prayerful conclusion on a presenting issue, that conclusion is *right* for that person.  It may not be *right* for someone else, but that doesn't negate the rightfulness to the one who came to that conclusion.