Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Dec 2001 04:14:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
324 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > Yes, if any of your above examples become reality, then the Bible is thereby
> > proven falacious.
>
> Why? What part is falacious?
The part that says sin can be overcome and must be repented of for
acceptance into the kingdom, unfortunately some in the gay community want
Christianity, but not the rules.
> I presume that you mean to say that God would create humans with equal
> desires towards sinning. Hence, if it were found that SOME people had MORE
> desire to sin based on their genetics, that it would prove that God does NOT
> create people with equal desires. And that would be a contradiction, yes, I
> agree.
>
> However. I never saw it publicized in the Bible that God creates all men
> with equal desires for sin. In fact, as obviated, He creates people of all
> sorts of varieties. And it is each of their quests in turn to deal with
> their unique situation and maintain faith, obedience, and love of God, no
> matter what their predisposition. That the Earth is not a TESTING ground,
> but a TRAINING ground. That we must be trained to deal with our desires and
> know which ones to follow and which ones not to follow.
>
> So I just don't see what aspect of Christianity is falacious if a gay gene
> exists.
Having a genetic behavior suggests that the behavior cannot be overcome,
Christians don't believe that any sin is that powerful. Thus the demand by
the Bible for repentence.
> > Do you think I could offer blood
> > sacrifices to Elvis and still be Christian?
>
> I suppose so. But I expect that such a hypothetical person really WON'T
> exist. In order to be a Christian, they'd have to have taken some
> interpretations in the Bible WAY wrong. In other words, I don't think anyone
> ever has, is, or will be a Christian and still do this.
Many people do not believe that a person would choose to be gay either. But
the point is, many gay individuals believe they can be Christian without
repenting of the sin of homosexuality.
> As for the research, check o-t.debate history. It came up not long ago (and
> also before then)-- I think I was talking with James Simpson recently on
> potentially the exact issue. IE what one can and can't do and still be
> Christian.
>
> DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (don't mind me, I'm just a teenager who doesn't really know alot) I've been reading through this whole debate with interest, I know a girl who is gay and she says she knew ever since puberty (However she still hasn't told her parents [which makes me (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) According to Christianity, every child (with or without the "gay gene"), is born into sin. Is that not a bit more powerful than the "genetic behavior" above? If indeed some very few percent are born into a genetic disposition towards a sinful (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) Why? What part is falacious? I presume that you mean to say that God would create humans with equal desires towards sinning. Hence, if it were found that SOME people had MORE desire to sin based on their genetics, that it would prove that God (...) (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
|
|
|
|
