| Welcome to Saint Rangers. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Our goal is to equip saints to go out and witness to not only those on the internet, but to those we come into contact with on a daily basis. Through discussion and debate we are confident that growth in the knowledge of Jesus Christ will increase as we learn to perfect holiness in our daily lives, and to also strive for the doctrinal purity and harmony that is to be a primary characteristic in the mature Christian. Members of differings faiths and atheists are welcome here, but we will moderate the behavior of all who come here, and ask that civility be kept in all discussion. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Born Gay | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 5 2013, 05:49 AM (543 Views) | |
| S.T.Ranger | Oct 5 2013, 05:49 AM Post #1 |
|
Ranger
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hello brother Theophilus, I thought it better to discuss this here, rather than the forum it was taken from:
Hello brother, seldom do I disagree with what you have to say, but I have to disagree with this:
Can we also say that experiencing homicidal desires isn't a sin? It is true all are born with a sin nature, and that it is inevitable that the natural man will indulge in that which he desires, doing that which is right in his own eyes, but, I have to disagree that the concept that because of this nature which is inherited from Adam it is first proper to see men as "born" to a particular sin and secondly that scripture provides an excuse for any sin based upon it's teaching that all are sinners. Consider: Exodus 20:17 King James Version (KJV) 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. Sinful thoughts are directly addressed here. There is nothing in this to suggest that "It is not a sin to desire...that which is forbidden us." Here those desires cover a lot of ground. Someone's possessions, including "persons." I think we can back up and see this as a biblical principle from the beginning: Genesis 2:16-17 King James Version (KJV) 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. It was desire that led to the actual sin. Genesis 3:6 King James Version (KJV) 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. I think most of us would agree that it was Satan that kindled that desire by making it seem harmless, and that it had no consequences as God had said. In the Bible as a whole entertaining sinful thoughts and desires leads to sin, and serious consequences for not jus the one desiring, but others who are impacted by that sin. James 1:13-16 King James Version (KJV) 13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. 16 Do not err, my beloved brethren. Sinful desire leads to sin, and sin leads to death. So I am not sure that the statement above is something we should be telling those that advocate for sin, and make homosexuality something that God has given men, that they be tempted to sin.
The "IF" in there is pretty big, as it has not, to my knowledge, been shown that one can blame genetics as the reason they sin in particular fashion. Sin is usually attributed to three causes: 1) man's sin nature and proclivity to sin; 2) man's upbringing; 3) man's desires. I have to say that the reasoning of the blog gives the impression that God can be held responsible for the sin of homosexuality, by making homosexual something that a man or woman is born with. On the level that man is born with an inevitable nature to sin, to say that this or any other sin is a result of genetics takes it a little too far in my view. I chose to speak with you here about this because I did not want our discussion to interfere with your ministering to this individual, and thought it better we "privately" (lol) discuss this. Hope you will not be offended by this, and no offense is intended, but it is something that bothers me. God bless. |
![]() |
|
| Shim | Oct 5 2013, 07:45 AM Post #2 |
|
Sojourner
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I wholeheartedly agree with you Ranger. And had thought that it was not appropriate to argue these things in front of the atheist which would only fuel his own atheistic opinion. I have deleted countless responses because I have decided to not argue the poster child argument for atheism. It is also rather interesting that the genome project had failed to find any gene for alcoholism. I suspect that there never will be either. One cannot blame genetics for life choices. Just curious Theo, what is even the purpose of looking into genetics? If there were a "homo" gene would it be moral to require others to take a "cure." This sounds like an X-Men mutant argument. I fail to see where the act and the desire are any less sinful for heterosexuals and homosexuals. Arguments stating that homosexual is natural also open up other natural arguments. Such as survival of the fittest, if homosexuality is natural so to is the nature of bullying them, why should bullying be suppressed and considered morally wrong? The same argument that works for them has a dual standard. Isn't it just nature's way of securing itself against genetic defects in securing the future of the species? Lastly, there was a "Christian," who was banned from my Calvinist group this morning for taking very similar positions behind arguments such as yourself. Don't worry I never considered you, but the point being is that they seemed more adamant about making points from extrabiblical sources than the bible itself. It is so sad that those who are deceived are so deceived that they cannot recognize Scripture or the truth thereof. Romans 1:26 says: 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: That is, their affections are vile. Homosexuality affects everyone, by jeopardizing societies understanding of sex, sexuality and marriage. In Matthew 19 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? That positive is as powerful as a negative I believe. "Have you not read," Theo? God bless, my brother! Edited by Shim, Oct 5 2013, 08:32 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theophilus | Oct 5 2013, 09:51 AM Post #3 |
|
Sojourner
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There is a difference between simply being gay and living a gay lifestyle. It is a fact that some people are sexually attracted to others of the same sex. Whether this attraction is the result of some genetic defect or has some other cause is irrelevant. What is important is the choices this person makes; he can choose to act in such a way as to satisfy his desires or he can choose to obey God's commands and refrain from homosexual activities. All of us are tempted to sin. Because we are all different not all of us are tempted in the same way. Gay and straight people are alike in that they experience sexual temptations; the only difference is in the objects of their sexual desires. In some of my posts I have recommended a book called Washed and Waiting by Wesley Hill. Have either of you read it? Hill was born in a Christian home, brought up believing the Bible, and trusted in Christ as his savior. He also discovered that he was sexually attracted to other men. Because he believes the Bible he chose not to act on his attractions but to obey God instead. This book shows that it is possible to be gay and still live a life of obedience to God. |
![]() |
|
| Shim | Oct 5 2013, 11:55 AM Post #4 |
|
Sojourner
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I fail to see how the "unnatural" desire to violate Scripture can be described anyway other than a state of depravity. Unregenerate also comes to mind, because they are defending it - the desires themselves are in one's thought life and are at enmity with God. My question is, why does God not give to them new desires? Perhaps He does, but the person is probably working against Him, or their enmity is being reinforced when we make excuses or condone the desires themselves which lead to wrong action. In short, God gave homosexuals over to the depravity of their hearts and minds. But you're arguing that the depravity itself is not sinful. I fail to agree with you Theo. The word "conceived" in James 1:15 is συλλαμβάνω to seize, what James is trying to say, is when desire has seized you, namely when we entertain that sinful desire whether in action or in thoughts, meaning, carrying the thoughts further instead of casting it away and putting it into captive in obedience to Christ, then we sin. It is the devil putting such a thought in their head, and what they do with that thought determines whether they sin or not in further thoughts or carrying it out in action, thereby strengthening an initial desire into an affection. Romans says God gave them up to those vile affections. Cast Study:
Regenerate homosexuals are not necessarily free from homosexual temptation but: 1. They will fight against it acknowledging it that such a thought leads to homosexual sin. 2. They will no longer live a lifestyle of homosexuality. Though the temptations may most likely still exist, but not always - the key is the presence of desire to fight the flesh - it is a good sign that one is regenerate. God bless! Edited by Shim, Oct 5 2013, 11:28 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| S.T.Ranger | Oct 7 2013, 06:16 AM Post #5 |
|
Ranger
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree with that, there is a difference: one who entertains such notions but does not act on them is not what I would consider gay, just as one who entertains thoughts of murdering their spouse or boss is not a murderer until they do so, though we can say that the thought makes one as guilty as if they had accomplished the act. But, we merge a worldly concept with a spiritual one. Right? From the worldly perspective one would not be considered gay unless they were involved in homosexuality, and from the spiritual perspective one would be guilty of sexual impurity, such as a person being married entertaining such thoughts would be guilty of adultery in the eyes of the Lord. I guess the point I am trying to make is that reasoning which makes homosexuality something which someone has no control over is a loop-hope which I think many homosexuals might use as an excuse to continue in their sin, whether saved or not. I don't believe that is true of either. Take drug and alcohol abuse: both spoken against in scripture, and yet we see unsaved men and women gain victory over these apart from salvation all the time. You said:
I read the blog and I'll be honest, I did not see anything that made this statement mean anything but what I took it to mean when I first read it, which implies that being "straight" is not what scripture teaches, but is itself an aberration. In other words, I see this to be saying that being straight is due to a defect, rather than God's intended and natural course for mankind. The response of the atheist has been in my perspective...disheartening:
And he hasn't been back. We could guess that this fellow may be himself gay. We could guess that like many that defend homosexuality and advocate it's acceptance not just by the general public but by the Church herself...he is looking to justify the lifestyle he has chosen. While we could wrong about this fellow, we can say that all who sin against the will of God do exactly those two things, seek to justify their sin, desire for it to be accepted, or, see it perceived as not sin, despite what the Bible teaches. And like I said, brother, there is little that I myself find that we come into disagreement with, but, I have to question reasoning that takes the sting out of any sin. We all sin, that is true, but, we who have been saved are to seek to put away sin from us, and take a dogmatic position that also heralds to others the consequences of sin in our lives. I believe that genetics have nothing to do with the choices people make, but see the instruction and experiences of people as critical in the lives they lead. Being fascinated with crime, I have learned that many of the serial killers, for example, became what they are, not through genetics, but through their upbringing and experiences. And this fellow, we can see that he has had some kind of "Christian" upbringing, though we do not know what that may be yet, for he has not answered direct questions to that effect. Which is, in my view, normally a tell that whatever group that may be is a group he does not want to disclose, for whatever reason, whether because he will be found to have been in a group that is questionable that he already knows is out of sync with Biblical Doctrine, or it is a group which is not questionable, but he already knows he himself is out of sync with sound doctrine. But what we can say is apparently this is the focal issue in his life, and he is at odds with the doctrine which condemns homosexuality. I think he is, like many homosexuals, looking for people to tell him, "Your parents and the Bible are wrong, that kind of mentality is outdated." And I don't think I want to be the one to tell him that, lol. So that is why I brought this up, because I was a little astonished at what you told him in those two very momentous statements. I hope you will not get upset with me, brother, as I have counted you as a friend for a number of years, and hope you know that the last thing I want is there to be something between us that would affect that friendship.
This is true, but would we tell someone that "Maybe we should look for the defect in genes that makes us not serial killers?" I cannot see how a position that makes any sin something that one cannot help themselves against can help. If someone sees homosexuality as a natural (in the sense they were programmed genetically to that character) condition which cannot be blamed on the individual themselves then one may see that as justification to continue in that sin. I think that is the complete opposite of what scripture teaches. All men are born sinners, and it is my belief that despite that...men choose how they will sin, and how they will abide by God's will. This fellow decides that God's will concerning murder is correct, but not condemnation of homosexuality. He decides that his children should be taught not to use drugs, but if they choose to be gay, or are born that way, he is a prime example of love in that he would not disown them. The corollary being that those who insist that homosexuality is not something one is born with and view it as a choice one makes in their lives are...unloving. And that goes all the way back to God Himself. They take a position of moral superiority over God and those that seek to teach God's will concerning sin.
I have not read the book, and it is doubtful I will. I look at the homosexual discussion as something that begins in scripture and ends in scripture. Many of those that advocate homosexuality as a lifestyle that is acceptable seek to either rewrite scripture or, as this fellow wants to do...throw it out altogether. For those that were homosexuals that have a ministry to homosexuals, as I presume the author does, they have a ministry which is not mine. To be honest, I do not read much extra-biblical literature, and I examine the doctrine people bring to get an idea of whether the message they have in general is one that I might agree with. If this book teaches homosexuality as something a person is born with outside of the sin nature man is born with in general, and sets it apart, I am afraid I could not endorse such a book. Nor am I in the habit of recommending any book other than scripture, though, when dealing with specific areas of sin I can see how for some people they could be very beneficial. That Hill found he had an attraction to men does not qualify as a sound reason to think that men are born gay. That he was brought up in Christian home does not, as you know, mean that he embraced whatever teaching he was exposed to (nor that the doctrine itself was healthy, as it may have been a very hateful approach to homosexuality which is a major reason why people reject the condemnation), but the contrary would be more likely, because of his sin nature itself he rebelled against that teaching. Had he been in a neighborhood in which the norm was gangs, violence, and drugs, he may have written a book in which he was a gang member involved in those activities and how through Christ he was saved and overcame those sins. Look, I hope you do not, as I said, get upset with me, Theophilus. Often when there is disagreement there is a tendency for fellowship to be broken, and I hate to see that happen, but I know this is an area which you have ministered in since I have known you. How you minister is not for me to decide, and that is precisely why I brought this up here, rather in front of the fellow on the other forum. Perhaps it may be that he has gone to read the book, and that it will itself minister to his heart, and that is a possibility that I see as very real, not just with him, but with others you minister to. But, I did want to discuss it with you, as I see those two statements as something I cannot agree with, and for me to remain silent would be to, myself, to agree with it. I think I have spoken the large part of my view, and will not pursue this further, as I do not want this to be an issue which, though it may divide on a doctrinal front, should not be one that divides in fellowship. God bless. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Clyde Herrin Blogspot · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




7:13 AM Jul 11