Obama: I won’t make churches conduct gay marriages

Larry… you are treading in dangerous territory. If you say that homosexuality is caused by a biological disposition, you are in essence saying that God created that person as a homosexual. And that person is being tempted his whole life by the desires that God gave him.

Larry… you also say that we cannot prove this biblically. Yet I would say that we can. Scripture clearly teaches us that sin, any sin, is committed due to a condition of the mind and the heart of man.

I agree with Mr. Harding. If we were talking about any other sin, we would laugh at someone telling us that they have a gene that causes pushes them to commit that sin. The only reason that we are even discussing this topic now, is because for the past few decades we have been continually exposed to homosexual propaganda(TV, movies, newspapers, activists, etc), that has painted homosexuality as normal, acceptable behavior, a lifestyle choice so to speak. And anyone who says otherwise is a hate filled, intolerant, bigot. It is because we have become desensitized to the wickedness of our times, and because we care about the World’s acceptance, that we have allowed this to get as far as it has.

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

And one other thing… to all of you who are saying that it makes no difference whether or not homosexuality is influenced by biology, as long as we call it sin…

This is also a dangerous way of thinking. For once you accept that idea, you open up Pandora’s box, and all kinds of nasty legal precedents…

Now that homosexuals are ‘equal’ under the law, what then do we do with transgender people? If they were born that way, do we then give them special restrooms? Do we begin to put an extra check-box on all forms for those people that choose not to be identified by labels such as ‘male’ and ‘female’? Will it be considered a hat crime to speak against sexual deviancy?

[Mike Harding] If we were talking about necrophila, pedophila, pederasty, palingamy, bestiality, molestation, or incest instead of homosexuality, I don’t think the genetic predispostion argument would be foisted because of the current social abhorrence to those depraved and corrupt behaviors.

I realized that I was just about to post a response that would include all of the same content as my previous posts. I also realized that just about everyone in this forum has also posted about a half-dozen times with approximately the same content in all their posts. Apparently we have reached an impasse.

Gentleman, I thank you for your time. I trust that Christian charity will allow us to respect each others opinions without calling for public burnings.

I love homosexuals because I know that God loves them. I know that God will have to draw them to himself and conform them into his own image. We don’t have to agree on the cause to understand the solution.

Larry… you are treading in dangerous territory. If you say that homosexuality is caused by a biological disposition, you are in essence saying that God created that person as a homosexual. And that person is being tempted his whole life by the desires that God gave him.

Not at all. I believe in traducianism, that specific human existence is not the result of the direct act of God in creation, but rather the result of the normal processes of procreation. Yes, God has a sovereign hand in that, but that does not mean that God is the author of it. When people say, “God made me this way,” they don’t understand the way that humans come into existence. Don’t we all acknowledge that we live in a broken world because of sin and that includes our bodies? Why would it be surprising that the effects of sin on our bodies affects these kinds of things, whether food, drugs, sex, depression, etc? I don’t know how one can make a definitive declaration about the biology of it. I will entertain the idea, but you’re going to have to make an argument for it. Until then, I am agnostic.

Larry… you also say that we cannot prove this biblically. Yet I would say that we can. Scripture clearly teaches us that sin, any sin, is committed due to a condition of the mind and the heart of man.

Yes, but the Bible does not, to my knowledge, teach that there are no other factors.

If we were talking about any other sin, we would laugh at someone telling us that they have a gene that causes pushes them to commit that sin.

We probably shouldn’t laugh. It’s not good pastoral practice, or even Christian practice, to laugh at people, particularly when they are hurting because of sin. As I said, in this case, I would focus on the Bible’s teaching on sin, and the need to repent. I have had people in my office telling me that they have this biological issue—an illness. I used to discuss it with them, but now I wonder why? I don’t know what’s going on in their bodies. And you don’t either. But what we do know is that whatever the cause, it is sin. And we do know how to address that. So I tell, “Fine, I don’t know. But here is what God says.”

Remember what I have said:

1. I am unpersuaded by the biological argument. I don’t think it has been proven, and I don’t think it can be.
2. In pastoral counseling and teaching, it is irrelevant. It is the wrong battle. With sin, it matters not the cause. There is no justifiable cause. It is sin that needs to be repented of. We don’t let them off the hook with the biological excuse. We are all called to live in self-control in God’s purposes. To do otherwise is sin, no matter the cause. We say the same thing about anger, gluttony, lust of others types, laziness, etc.

And one other thing… to all of you who are saying that it makes no difference whether or not homosexuality is influenced by biology, as long as we call it sin…

This is also a dangerous way of thinking. For once you accept that idea, you open up Pandora’s box, and all kinds of nasty legal precedents…

I wasn’t talking about legality of it. Quite frankly, there are a lot of things that are legal that are quite sinful and dangerous, that have nothing to do with biology. I think part of the problem is that we confuse the Bible with law. On this fourth of July, it is a good time to remind ourselves that the Bible, the gospel, and the church is our focus and our hope. While we can and should be thankful for our country, we should recognize that the gospel transcends nationalities and ethnicities. And the gospel has long prospered in countries with a far different legal system, even where, dare I say it, things like homosexuality, polygamy, child marriage, and other things have been accepted. Having moral laws do not make righteous people. It may create false hope.

Now that homosexuals are ‘equal’ under the law, what then do we do with transgender people? If they were born that way, do we then give them special restrooms? Do we begin to put an extra check-box on all forms for those people that choose not to be identified by labels such as ‘male’ and ‘female’? Will it be considered a hat crime to speak against sexual deviancy?

[Chip Van Emmerik]

[Mike Harding] If we were talking about necrophila, pedophila, pederasty, palingamy, bestiality, molestation, or incest instead of homosexuality, I don’t think the genetic predispostion argument would be foisted because of the current social abhorrence to those depraved and corrupt behaviors.

When considering whether we can speak authoritatively from scripture on this issue, I think Pastor Harding has nailed the crux here. We only consider the biological angle because proponents of homosexuality have claimed it to be so. There is no other indicator for such a belief besides the imagination of men.

But again, all this is is one possible factor among many that lead to homosexuality. And in the end, no matter what the possible causes, the only answer is found in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I completely agree with everything Larry wrote above.

Greg,

The key is whether these things are biological. While we all agree we are born with sinful tendencies, we are not all agreed about how we come to possess those tendencies at birth. Saying “I have a temper because I am Irish” is not proof of anything (any more than claiming homosexual tendencies by genetics), and blaming it on “my dad” (even if it is true though also unproven) is still more likely a nurture issue than a nature issue. My point is there is no evidence, none, for arguing for sinful tendencies from a biological point of view. Everything in scripture points in a volitional direction. This seems to be nothing more than the unsearchable wickedness of the human heart groping for a more modern form of blame shifting that has been going on ever since Eve blamed the serpent and Adam blamed God.

Oops, forgot your third point about the immediate family. Again, more evidence for nurture than nature. Furthermore, struggling with a sin is a biblical concept (Hebrews 12:1) but does not in any way point to biology. Doesn’t it also follow the volitional thread woven throughout scripture in combination with the opportunities provided within our environment?

My point is there is no evidence, none, for arguing for sinful tendencies from a biological point of view.

Out of curiosity, Chip, how many of the studies on the biological/genetic issues have you studied to reach the conclusion that none of them contain evidence? And how do you know there is no evidence that is as yet undiscovered?

While it may be true that the Bible does not explicitly give evidence of biological/genetic causes, it seems consistent with living in a broken world where we are told that sickness and death are the result of sin. On what basis can we say that brokenness absolutely preclude biological or genetic tendencies towards sin?

That Scripture focuses on volition is clear, and so we should clear on that. I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to stay out of the other stuff since we simply don’t know.

Larry,

To date, there are no studies that support this theory. It was proposed originally in the 70’s and quickly heralded as “the answer.” Unfortunately, despite the almost immediate debunking of the study which first proposed this theory, the theory will not die. Like evolution, despite fervent hope by adherents (not lumping you are anyone else on this thread into this group), there remains no scientific evidence to actually support the claim.

I have no issue that there are individuals born with a pre-disposition to certain sins, homosexuality being one of them. I think there is ample Scripture evidence to indicate the presence of such “designer lusts” unique to any given individual.

Where I think we go wrong is in debating the source. Satan is a very powerful foe. It is quite clear from Scripture (especially through the Gospel records) that there were individuals who were possessed/oppressed by demonic influences from birth, apparently through no choice of their own or of their parents. Talk about “unconditional election,” who can determine why Satan influences one individual from birth more so than another with his evil designs? Satan hates and loves to destroy. I have no problem with answering the question “why do I struggle with same-sex feelings (or similar)” with “because Satan really hates you and wants nothing but your destruction.”

Probably, if we were all honest and transparent, we’d all have to cop to a specific, identifiable facet of our make-up that is prone to specific sin, and confess that it is an area of struggle constantly—has been since we can remember remembering; will be as far into the future as we can see. My guess is that most of us are just glad that it is not homosexuality or one of the other truly appalling sin scenarios.

The problem is Satanic no matter how it appears to play out in individuals and society.

Actually Chip, there are studies that support the theory. Here’s a link to a report about one. You can use Google and come up with many more. The question is whether or not they are legitimate or conclusive, and about that, there is debate. Which leads me to reemphasize the point that this is the wrong battle for several reasons.

First, most of us do not have the expertise in science to discuss the theories or to evaluate the studies. That means we probably shouldn’t discuss it, at least dogmatically. It seems that the response of most people is “That study is wrong.” “Why?” “Because we know that’s not true and any study that says it is is simply wrong.” That’s not an argument; it doesn’t disprove anything. It’s the same thing the evolutionists do against creationists: “That creationist study is wrong.” “Why?” “Because we all know it doesn’t work that way. Any study that says it does is just bad science.”

In a debate with someone who is struggling with the issue and believes it is genetic/biological, it is the word of a pastor, at best with an MDiv, or if he has reached the pinnacle a PhD in Bible or Religion debating genetics with PhDs in chemistry, molecular biology, and the like. In a discussion about biology, who will win? People tend to believe the PhDs in biology over the MDivs, and with good reason. Sure they may be wrong, but proving that is a different matter.

In my estimation, it would be wiser to focus on what we do know, and what we know is that regardless of cause, Scripture declares it to be sin. We need nothing else. Scripture is sufficient for these things.

Second, even if you were able to convince someone it isn’t genetic or biological, you still have to convince them that it is wrong, and that it matters. People who live this way do it because they like it. They don’t think it matters. They think they should be able to pursue whatever they desire. So even if it isn’t biological, it is what they want. And you have to convince them that what they want is wrong. That’s probably harder than the biological argument. But if it’s wrong and it matters, then biology is irrelevant.

So in the end, do you want to convince people of two things (one of which doesn’t matter) or one thing (which absolutely matters)? I think convincing them of one thing that is objectively verifiable in the Scripture is sufficient. Scripture is the authority; not science or studies. So I think it is sufficient to use the Scripture to say, “God says it is sin.” Science will never change that, though it may come up with a genetic or biological theory or theories. Relying on Scripture seems the better course of action.

Larry,

The article says:

Rice and his team created a mathematical model that explains why homosexuality is passed…

Rice’s model still needs to be tested on real-life parent-offspring pairs, but he says this epigenetic link makes more sense than any other explanation…

As I said, no scientific evidence, just theories.

Even the scientist in the study acknowledges what I have said. “…Rice says studies attempting to explain why people are gay have been few and far between.”

I would caution against that response because when Christians say things that are demonstrably inaccurate, or at best misleading, it calls into question our credibility on other things as well.

Anyone with a few seconds and Google can find out that the statement “There is no scientific evidence” and “There are no studies” are demonstrably wrong, unless one wants to quibble over the meaning of “scientific” in which case it is at best misleading. There are studies and they are scientific in the way they are being carried out. They are, IMO, inconclusive at best. And more importantly, to repeat myself, they are irrelevant to the issue.

And that’s one reason this continues to be the wrong fight. The moment we tell a struggling person that “There are no studies and no evidence,” he recalls everything he has heard and seen, and what he or she has personally experienced in his or her own desires often from as early as they can remember, and then he doubts us even more.

And it’s not just the individual he or she doubts. It is all Christians because to this person, they are likely to be all the same.

The battle over homosexuality is not going to be won over biology, the credibility of studies, or the like. BTW, I doubt that studies or genetics are even that relevant on an individual basis. I imagine for most, they practice homosexuality because of their desires. The existence of studies only support what they already believe and experienc4e. If those studies didn’t exist, they would still feel as they do, and they would have to deal with that.

So again, I say stick with the Bible and its sufficiency. But acknowledge that there are studies of people trying to prove genetics, and we just don’t know. The Bible’s doctrine of the fall leaves room for the possibility of a predisposition. It leaves no room for sin. So we must repent.

In a debate with someone who is struggling with the issue and believes it is genetic/biological, it is the word of a pastor, at best with an MDiv, or if he has reached the pinnacle a PhD in Bible or Religion debating genetics with PhDs in chemistry, molecular biology, and the like. In a discussion about biology, who will win? People tend to believe the PhDs in biology over the MDivs, and with good reason. Sure they may be wrong, but proving that is a different matter.

In my estimation, it would be wiser to focus on what we do know, and what we know is that regardless of cause, Scripture declares it to be sin. We need nothing else. Scripture is sufficient for these things.

Second, even if you were able to convince someone it isn’t genetic or biological, you still have to convince them that it is wrong, and that it matters. People who live this way do it because they like it. They don’t think it matters. They think they should be able to pursue whatever they desire. So even if it isn’t biological, it is what they want. And you have to convince them that what they want is wrong. That’s probably harder than the biological argument. But if it’s wrong and it matters, then biology is irrelevant.

Larry’s post is exactly why I’m not willing to rule out a genetic cause for homosexuality. There is evidence that genetics does not cause homosexual/lesbian behavior - there was a study a few weeks ago of four or five identical twins where one twin became homosexual and the other did not - but I’m not willing to be super dogmatic, because I’m over my head on the science stuff. We need to stick with what the Lord has called it - sin. Same as all other sexual lusts.

I think to even argue the genetics is to miss the point. Heterosexual men are genetically wired to sleep with multiple women (even if for just recreation), and we tell them that the Bible is clear - marry one woman and settle down with her to raise a family. I fail to see why the argument could/should be any different for homosexuals, lesbians, or bisexuals. Let’s be honest - our bodies do not work the way they are supposed to, as Romans teaches. Ever hear of cancer or autism?

Is it hard? Yes, absolutely. Is it commanded by Scripture? Yup. And this is just one of the many ‘offenses’ that Christianity presents to a lost world. I’d rather lose a battle I know I can’t win than give away the authority of God’s word for moral behavior.