In one of my Bible courses I had taken a few years ago, I refer to the chapter "Human Sexuality" in the book written by James P. Eckman, Ph.D. "Christian Ethics in a Post Modern World." Eckman states: In summary, the Bible resoundingly condemns the homosexual lifestyle as contrary to the ethical standard God establishes in His creation ordinance of marriage. Without some benchmark to settle the ethical debate on human sexuality, there will be continually heated confrontations within the culture. God's Word provides that benchmark; the human response of obedience is the only acceptable option.
James Eckman states later in the chapter that there is no sign that the homosexual issue will subside in the culture war raging in western civilization. Somehow the church of Jesus Christ must be able with one hand to declare this lifestyle is morally and ethically wrong, while with the other reaching out the hand of love, acceptance, and compassion. Only God, working through His Spirit to enable the Church, can accomplish this most difficult and seemingly impossible task.
I note that some claim the Bible does not condemn homosexual relations. I find that approach a bit humorous because it has many twists of illogic in trying to defend the indefensible. It is a confirmation of Romans 1, which noted that sin makes one stupid.Yes, it is true what you say. In this chapter I was speaking of mentions there is a great debate among psychologists and scholars over the causation (cause & effect) of homosexuality. Is it genetically determined or is it environmental? Those in the gay community argue passionately that being gay is genetically determined. Those who are in the religious gay community say that it is God's gift; claiming each is created by God and there is nothing anyone can do. Simon LaVay, a homosexual himself, has done tests on cadavers who were homosexual and has found that the pituitary gland of these homosexual men is larger than non-homosexual men. Jeffrey Satinover presents compelling evidence that questions LaVey's research and the research and data of all claims that homosexuality is a genetic issue. Satinover's conclusions seem to show rather conclusively that homosexuality is a learned way of life produced by circumstances in life which result in the choice of homosexuality.
I think most of us actually do that, being compassionate while not accepting immoral behavior. That is NOT what the homosexual activists want, however. They want our acceptance of immoral acts, calling evil good. Thus we will always be subject to labels of hate and phobia for not bending our morality. We have to be willing to endure such labels from many homosexuals while loving them because they are loved by God.You're totally correct of course. James Eckman states at this point and time, there is no consensus on settling this argument on the homosexual issue. Other serious researchers, some whom are evangelical Christians, still argue some kind of genetic role in the cause of homosexuality. One important point Eckman says we must remember is that even if there is a genetic role in homosexuality's cause, the Bible still condemns it and God's power is sufficient to overcome it, no matter what its cause.
A lot of such 'research' is based on special pleading and confusion of a minor factor or relation of any sort with a formal or major cause. Genetic factors never cause behavior, either physical or psychological, but may influence the sorts of choice people in any culture are given to making. A connection and a cause are very different things.
I do think however we can make a good case in the public square against the validity of homosexuality using simply natural law arguments. These may not indicate our reasons for our view, but they will indicate reasons valid in themselves that do not require a person to beleive the bible is true in order to agree with the logic on its own grounds. These sorts of arguments may not indicate our reasons to the fullest for our views, but they can and do give valid reasons for others to have similiar views in theri own terms or way of thinking. Thus such argument is useful in discussion fo public ethics, because it is not necessary to in usign such arguments cite as a source what others don't consider a sound source. This takes away from them the whole 'well, that's just your religion' sort of thing, as it is an appeal to necessary shared moral logic that exists, because God created us so, in all the world [Romans 1:18-2:16].
An example of this aproach can be found in a book edited by Christopher wolfe, HOMOSEXUALITY AND AMERICAN PUBLIC LIFE, Spence books, 1999. see esp. section 2.
<<Would you say heterosexuality is genetically determined or environmental?>>
“Hetero”-sexuality is the definition of nominal human functioning.
That human beings exist as male and female and only reproduce as such demonstrates that the sociological term “heterosexuality” describes the manner in which God has designed mankind or (if you prefer materialist fairy-tales) the way in which man has “evolved.”
“Homo”-sexuality has no practical purpose beyond self gratification. It is contrary to God’s will for man or, (again for the materialists) it is an evolutionary dead end.
And more than a dead end it is a waste of the genes of many brilliant and talented people which could have (should have) been passed on to future generations but were discarded because the gratification of the individual’s deviant (according to both God and evolution) sexual urges was placed above the well being of family of man (the species.)
As our society deteriorates into further decadence and self-centeredness, the deviant behaviors have been compounded to include so-called “bi-sexuality” and “trans-gender” homosexuality. The first is nothing more than the expansion of promiscuity and the latter adds surgical mutilation and a lifetime of hormone injections in order to have the appearance of being the opposite sex and the appearance of not being “homo”-sexual. It requires the person undergoing the mutilation to undergo extensive “psychotherapy” in order to be comfortable with their chosen insanity and to convince the mutilated person that they are really not crazy. (Psychotropic drugs are commonly used to “assist” the mutilated person in coping with their self destructive behavior.)
So genetics determine one’s sex.
Human beings are “designed” to be “hetero”-sexual.
“Homo”-sexuality is a deviation from that “design.”
If you believe in God then the practice of homo-sexual acts are sin.
If you don’t believe in God then you are your own god and good and evil are whatever you say they are. (It worked so well for world class atheists like Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot.)
So that’s my opinion. J
I hope you enjoyed it.
jim
<<I hope you enjoyed my opinion as much as I enjoyed yours.>>
I did!
If we hadn't been there, there wouldn't have been the huge number of prostitutes.
If we had supported Ho Chi Men in 1945 instead of helping the French try to re-establish their Empire there wouldn’t have been a Viet Nam war and we would have had a communist ally in southeast Asia instead of an enemy and wouldn‘t have wasted 58,000+ American lives and untold Vietnamese lives for absolutely nothing. And that’s not even mentioning the people still struggling with nightmares and PTSD from going through all that (stuff) for nothing at all.
(But I’m not still p###ed. Naw. Not too much. Really. Particularly since we're doing the same thing to this generation of man and women in Afghanistan just to find out what the Russians all ready found out.)
Thank you for your service.
Welcome home.
"Thank you for your service.
That's the good thing about gayness for a very overpopulated earth, Besides the fact that it does not lead people to abortions or unwanted and uncared for children.
I would say that this is a good excuse that may be the good thing about justifying gayness.
We're all different and perhaps for different reasons in each case.
Yes, so it seems that way, but not different in sexual orientation for different reasons because it was God's plan in the creation of humans. God gave us over to make our own choices/decisions whether it was right or was against His set standards for human sexuality. The Bible is God's instruction manuel for humans to follow. There is nothing in God's Word that permits or supports gay lifestyle and marriage unions between them. Of course many gays don't acknowledge God's set standards for humans, or they drum up their own private interpretation to make it look like God approves of it somehow...whatever.
For an example, Paul said "it's better to marry than to burn in your lust". Where did he say that gays were an exception?
Sorry...Paul was not including gays in that verse. Homosexual unions as you know well were not permitted or supported by God, and Paul knew God's standard for marriage between a man and woman.
