Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Dec 2001 23:24:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
342 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> > > If science can prove that a gay gene exists, then the Bible has also been
> > > proven falacious.
> >
> > It is neither here nor there. If there is a gay gene, I don't see what the
> > Bible has to do with it. That is a problem for the literalists to wrestle
> > with.
>
> Just asking-- what problem is created for literalists?
Idunno - as I said, that's their problem to wrestle with (I am not a
literalist). I'm tempted to say the problem is one of their own making, but
I am hardly enough of a Bible scholar to actually say that with any
certainty. I don't know of any, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one
somewhere.
> How does the literal
> Bible (Old or New Testament) contradict the existance of a gay gene? I
> honestly can't think of anything that WOULD contradict unless it said
> somewhere that "God won't create someone who wants to sin any more than any
> other person" or something like that. Everything I've ever heard in
> reference to homosexuality in the Bible has been in the Old Testament, and
> never about the origin of the desire to behave homosexually. It's always
> referencing the act itself, which is not a direct result of the gay gene. So
> either there IS a reference to the origin of the specific urge, or there is
> a reference linking the desire to the origin of desires in general.
I would think a gay gene implies that we don't have a free will. If
homosexuality is a sin, then it implies we had the free will to not indulge
in it. A contradiction? Others in this discussion feel that even with a
gay gene, you still have free will, but perhaps the concept still sits
poorly with a fundamentalist's world view. I suppose my own view is shaped
by my parents, who felt that if you are identifying yourself as a Christian,
you should be paying attention to the New Testament and not the Old, and
thus I've never been hung up with worrying that homosexuals may be sinning.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) Nah. I would say that we still have the ability to overcome the desire given to us by the gene. Just like I might have the urge to cheat on my wife. Genetic? Of course! I mean, that waitress is hot! Why do I think so? Instinct! But I still (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) Just asking-- what problem is created for literalists? How does the literal Bible (Old or New Testament) contradict the existance of a gay gene? I honestly can't think of anything that WOULD contradict unless it said somewhere that "God won't (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
97 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
