Don't Ask....Don't Tell. Good Policy?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'd say it's part of the sin nature of man. It's "natural" in the sense that sin comes "naturally" to mankind. The natural man cannot receive spiritual things, for example. So, it is "natural" for many. But I'd not say it is "normal" or what is by design.

As for being born gay... I believe we're all born sinners. Our flesh has chemicals, pharomones, hormones, etc. that all drive us to temptations and sinful actions. In our flesh, there is no good thing. We're fallen and sinful, body, soul, and spirit. I've known gays who were gay from before they were 8 years old. And they came from very happy and healthy homes where their brothers and sisters turned out just fine. I think we heep a lot of guilt on parents by saying it's purely "environmental". Parents start weeping wondering, "Where did I go wrong?" Truth is... they didn't. It's that whole sin nature thing operating in their child's flesh... i.e.... biology of a fallen human being.

Now, I don't think that biology is always a cause. I do believe that some suffer abuses that lead to this attraction.

I also believe that for some it's just a "kink" they prefer.

So in short, I see it as a more complex issue than many. That's my take on it. I could be wrong... but I hope that clarifies.

God bless.

Aquila, thanks for responding.

I have to disagree with your overall perspective on homosexual being "natural" -- even after the order of fallen man. I'm not one who boasts about sinful hierarchies, but I do believe homosexuality to be a great sin qualitatively (not quantitatively). In other words, it's not worse than yours or mine in it's depth, it's worse in the jaded lie man has bought in that case.

I've spent much time looking at this pericope below -- which could feel pages and pages:

21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they(AN) became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22(AO) Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and(AP) exchanged the glory of(AQ) the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24Therefore(AR) God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to(AS) the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for(AT) a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator,(AU) who is blessed forever! Amen.

26For this reason(AV) God gave them up to(AW) dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another,(AX) men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.


The "God gave them" I interpret as God let it be so. They believed the lie, and he let them. This isn't, IMO, always some conscious effort. Notice, though, that Paul's calls these "dishonorable passions" and says "natural relations" were given up for "one another." He calls these "shameless acts." Acts done without any shame.

Now, I understand Paul's "set-up" here in the first chapter is not on the subject of homosexuality. I do know, however, that it is explicitly mentioned here. In general, the subject is that Gentiles are without excuse, just as much as Jews are (despite them maybe using the argument "If God had chosen us, or come to us, we wouldn't have screwed up as bad") Instead, Paul makes it clear that none are without excuse. All are guilty. Equally guilty. In his argument, though, he shows the process of sin, and how twisted and yes, unnatural, it can become. Heterosexual sex is natural. It works that way. Our bodies were made for it. The tools fit. It's plain, Aquila. Fornication is even natural in this regard! Homosexuality is not. It's unnatural. This is why some quacks have called homosexuality a psychological disorder. I disagree with those fringe psychologists. I think, whether direct choice or not, it's a product of sin -- but sin that has produced depraved and unnatural affections. It's marred. It's certainly due to our fallen nature. But not all sin is 'unnatural.'

I don't pretend to have it figured out, and like you, I agree it's complex. What I do know, is that there is hope. But to say there's on difference in homosexuality than heterosexual fornication is naive at best.

Parents aren't always the blame for environment. It's not always directly something they did (where environment does, in fact, play a part), but rather something the child was exposed to. But if parents have guilt for abusive parenting, then there's nothing wrong with them feeling guilty. It's not a bad thing. That's a God-thing to bring them back on track. When people point back and say they were "gay at 8," call me cynical, but I find that hard to believe. I think it's a form of personal historical revisioning. It doesn't ruin any argument or theory if they do feel that way, and indeed it is true.

I also agree it's sometimes a kink -- not necessarily that they prefer, but that they ended up with. For others it's related to trauma or identifying due to difficult circumstances, insecurities, physical differences, etc.

I believe a child can be born "more inclined" or "more susceptible" but I simply cannot accept, at this point, that there is any truth to people being born homosexual. If I'm wrong, that's okay too. People are born with many disorders -- and if it were a DNA thing, I would definitely point to homosexual as a genetic disorder.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Aquila, thanks for responding.

I have to disagree with your overall perspective on homosexual being "natural" -- even after the order of fallen man. I'm not one who boasts about sinful hierarchies, but I do believe homosexuality to be a great sin qualitatively (not quantitatively). In other words, it's not worse than yours or mine in it's depth, it's worse in the jaded lie man has bought in that case.

I've spent much time looking at this pericope below -- which could feel pages and pages:

21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they(AN) became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22(AO) Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and(AP) exchanged the glory of(AQ) the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24Therefore(AR) God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to(AS) the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for(AT) a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator,(AU) who is blessed forever! Amen.

26For this reason(AV) God gave them up to(AW) dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another,(AX) men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.


The "God gave them" I interpret as God let it be so. They believed the lie, and he let them. This isn't, IMO, always some conscious effort. Notice, though, that Paul's calls these "dishonorable passions" and says "natural relations" were given up for "one another." He calls these "shameless acts." Acts done without any shame.

Now, I understand Paul's "set-up" here in the first chapter is not on the subject of homosexuality. I do know, however, that it is explicitly mentioned here. In general, the subject is that Gentiles are without excuse, just as much as Jews are (despite them maybe using the argument "If God had chosen us, or come to us, we wouldn't have screwed up as bad") Instead, Paul makes it clear that none are without excuse. All are guilty. Equally guilty. In his argument, though, he shows the process of sin, and how twisted and yes, unnatural, it can become. Heterosexual sex is natural. It works that way. Our bodies were made for it. The tools fit. It's plain, Aquila. Fornication is even natural in this regard! Homosexuality is not. It's unnatural. This is why some quacks have called homosexuality a psychological disorder. I disagree with those fringe psychologists. I think, whether direct choice or not, it's a product of sin -- but sin that has produced depraved and unnatural affections. It's marred. It's certainly due to our fallen nature. But not all sin is 'unnatural.'

I don't pretend to have it figured out, and like you, I agree it's complex. What I do know, is that there is hope. But to say there's on difference in homosexuality than heterosexual fornication is naive at best.

Parents aren't always the blame for environment. It's not always directly something they did (where environment does, in fact, play a part), but rather something the child was exposed to. But if parents have guilt for abusive parenting, then there's nothing wrong with them feeling guilty. It's not a bad thing. That's a God-thing to bring them back on track. When people point back and say they were "gay at 8," call me cynical, but I find that hard to believe. I think it's a form of personal historical revisioning. It doesn't ruin any argument or theory if they do feel that way, and indeed it is true.

I also agree it's sometimes a kink -- not necessarily that they prefer, but that they ended up with. For others it's related to trauma or identifying due to difficult circumstances, insecurities, physical differences, etc.

I believe a child can be born "more inclined" or "more susceptible" but I simply cannot accept, at this point, that there is any truth to people being born homosexual. If I'm wrong, that's okay too. People are born with many disorders -- and if it were a DNA thing, I would definitely point to homosexual as a genetic disorder.