Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Dec 2001 06:08:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
312 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > What difference does it make whether or not we're genetically predisposed to
> > prefer sin? If I have an urge to steal, to murder, to not worship God, or to
> > be gay, what difference does it make where that urge comes from? Isn't the
> > important part in Christianity that you can overcome the urge and NOT follow
> > it, thanks to your faith/love in/from God?
>
> I'm not sure where to go with this part of the debate without actually
> veering into a no-holds-barred religious debate. The idea of sin is based
> on faith, that immorality is a wrong against a god.
Ok so far I guess-- although we're assuming some stuff about sin and
morality, but there's a chance we won't need to get into it very far...
> As such, sin could
> never be proven or disproven by science. Specific behavior however, has
> been listed as wrongs that an individual can choose not to do, unless
> science could show that specific behavior is a birth trait and cannot be
> "removed" by repenting.
Ah. So your thought is that someone who is genetically predisposed to be gay
is someone who "must" sin due to genetics-- who has no choice in the matter.
And as such, it would disprove the belief that humans have free will. That
life is pre-determined, and we have no real say in whether we are good or
not. Hence, Christianity fails. Is that what you're saying?
Assuming so, I'll propose the following that I've said elsewhere: Am I not
predisposed to be attracted to women? Don't I want instinctively to have sex
with them? Even if I'm married? Isn't that a 'natural' genetic trait? And
still sinful? And don't I have the ability to overcome that desire
consiously, even if my 'instinct' tells me otherwise? And isn't *that* what
Christianity preaches? That I can overcome it by free will?
If so, then I would posit that by this definition of Christianity, one can
still be gay via genetics, but not sin by not acting on homosexual urges and
overcoming them consiously. Hence, it's still a choice to commit homosexual
ACTS, but not to have homosexual urges-- IE to be gay.
> On the other hand, homosexuals seem to
> want to be Christian without acknowledging that they are sinning. Kind of
> like trying to join a club but refusing to follow the dress code or rules of
> conduct.
Christianity is very appealing to some people. It preaches unconditional
love and an infinite capacity for forgiveness. And it's so VASTLY open to
interpretation that one can even work in homosexuality and still be
Christian according to certain interpretations of the 'rules'.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) I'm not sure where to go with this part of the debate without actually veering into a no-holds-barred religious debate. The idea of sin is based on faith, that immorality is a wrong against a god. As such, sin could never be proven or (...) (23 years ago, 5-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
|
|
|
|
