Posted by Pastor Steven on December 08, 1999 at 11:16:19:
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality as a "genetic" trait? posted by Andy on December 08, 1999 at 08:56:10:
: : : Here is my two cents.
: : : (First got to give my shout-outs) Howdy Bill, Steve, Martha, and anyone else that I know or who knows me.
: : : How can we consider the fact that homosexuality is genetically inherited.
: : : God states that homosexuality is a sin.
: : : God also states that he made us and knew us in our mothers womb.
: : : If both of those statements are true, then homosexuality must be a result of something that occurs after birth. Would God be justified in "making" a person a homosexual, then condemning them for that over which they have no control?
: : * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
: : Hi Skip! Thanks for posting! Here's my two-cents worth:
: : The law states that a rebellious child should be stoned. Aren't we all born rebellious? Did God make us that way? According to the reasoning above, He would have had to. Then would He not be unrighteous to command stoning? (I will not answer these questions; the point is simply a little Socratic method to test your thesis.)
: : People are "made" with all kinds of problems at birth. Did God then make the problems?
: : People are born in sin. Did God then make the sin?
: : Regarding your statement "Would God be justified in "making" a person a homosexual, then condemning them for that...", God doesn't do either:
: : God originally made us pure, but we embraced corruption. Since then, we have been born in it; after many thousands of years, the careful observer may conclude that we are born in many different varieties of it.
: : God has not condemned us for our sins, rather He condemned His Son Jesus for them, so that we could have the righteousness of God ascribed to us. He did not, however, stop us from being born sinners, nor stop the continuing effect of sin on us and on our society.
: : We are a product of BOTH our heredity AND our conditioning. I see this clearly in myself, and in those whom I have known well. We bear character traits that are clearly heredity, and we also bear those which are the result of childhood conditioning (and to some degree, post-childhood conditioning). The exact percentage of each cause responsible for a particular effect in our makeup (like homosexual orientation) will vary greatly, to be sure, but both clearly exist.
: : Our sinful state has evolved considerably since Moses' time, I suspect. True, the root nature is the same, but the complexity and variety of the effects have translated into all kinds of inherent hereditary dysfunctions that were not yet specifically manifested nor identified in the time of the Torah, nor even yet in the apostle Paul's time. Consequently, they are not specifically addressed biblically.
: : To use the Torah's commands regarding homosexuality or Paul's reference to the men of Sodom to disprove hereditary influence is just plain bad scholarship.
: : (Just one more opinion; not to be taken personally. Hope that's OK!) :-)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
: That's perfectly fine, I posted my opinion and that is what the board is for right? 8)
: I reply to your statements Steve: You say that we are all born into corruption. I define that as being born of sinful flesh. But was not Christ born of the same sinful flesh? Did he not suffer the same temptations as you and I? If Satin didn't think that he could tempt Christ into sin, why did he try so hard? Christ was an example to us. For Him to be a proper example, wouldn't it be HAVE to be possible for us to be like Him? (This is a question not a statement)If we could conceivably keep all of the laws as Christ kept all the laws, couldn't we be without sin ourselves?
+ + + + + + + + +
Responding to the statements of this pargaraph, in order:
1. Christ was born of sinful flesh, but was God Himself becoming flesh. Major difference here. More on that later in #3...
2. Satan is not all-knowing. Evaluating satan's actions is a bad way to learn theology.
3. Not necessarily. Pro football players are often role models (examples) for young boys, but not many of those young kids can be pro football players, can they?
It is possible for us to follow Christ's example to some degree (although impossible to do it perfectly) but never possible to be like Christ in essence. He is Creator, we are creatures. Big difference here also. Consider the often parroted saying "What would Jesus do?" OK, suppose he would throw over the tables of the money changes in the Temple, and drive them all out with a whip, then teach there authoritatively and rebuke the religious leaders. Should we do this? I think not. This WWJD paradigm of modern evangelical theology is clearly fraught with anomalies.
4. Christ did not "keep" all the laws (as written in the Torah), but seemingly broke them over and over (one of many reasons the law-keepers wanted to stone Him). Jesus often taught saying, "It was said of old...., but I say unto you....", clearly indicating that His teachings superceded the Law, being the embodiment of all Truth (which the Law was supposed to testify of). He came to fulfil the law, not to make it more comprehensive, nor to make us able to keep it.
So, as far as keeping the law - NO, we cannot and never could. Peter echoes this clearly when he says (of the Gentiles) "why place a burden on them which neither we nor or fathers were ever able to bear?" I remind you this is post-incarnation revelation; Christ's appearance didn't change our inability here. He didn't come to make us able to keep the law, he came to pay the price because we couldn't.
+ + + + + + + + +
: Now I am not sure if I am treading on shaky ground there theologically, but to me it makes sense. So in effect, "God originally made us pure, but we embraced corruption", to use your words. To me, the "embrace" is the key. We choose to sin, I choose whether or not to cut some guy off, I choose whether or not I LUST after an attractive woman, or hate my Christian brother for an imagined slight against me. Am I correct?
+ + + + + + + + +
You can not choose to be permanently sinless in nature. Try it for a week. Sin dwells in you and all your choosing cannot change that. (This is basic Christian theology.) The "embracing" I spoke of was in the Garden in Genesis 3. It has been many centuries since then, and ALL people have had this hereditary trait of inherent sinfulness passed on to them. (This is also basic Christian theology.)
The choices you speak of are situational (daily) decisions which should be made on the basis of who Christ has made you to be, rather than the sinful nature that dwells in you. This does not mean that you can "choose" not to be inherently sinful. The Bible clearly teaches otherwise.
* * * * * * * * *
: You said, ": People are "made" with all kinds of problems at birth. Did God then make the problems?"
: Are you referring to disabilities or problems of a sinful nature? If it is disabilities, then Yes, God did make them (as you surely know).
+ + + + + + + + +
No, I don't necessarily "know" this. Both the disabilities AND the sinful tendencies we bear and pass down to our children today are all results of the original fall from grace. This is not the way it pleased God to make us. One day this curse will be permanently undone, according to God's will, but for today, we still live with the drastic effects of that original sin. The fact that we are born with disability and sin does NOT mean that it was the perfect will of God for us to be so.
+ + + + + + + + +
: If it is of a sinful nature, I say again, how can God be justified in creating someone with sin and then condemning them for it.
+ + + + + + + + +
Read my original reply! I already answered this. God did NOT create us with a sinful nature, nor does He condemn us for it. Please read carefully:
We embraced sin in the garden, and the sinful nature was from that point inherent and hereditary in all humans. This fact does not mean it is God's "will" for us to be born sinful; it is simply the result of our own rebellion in Genesis 3. God would nonetheless be perfectly justified in "pronouncing" judgment (as the Bible clearly teaches), but He chose NOT to, and chose rather to pour His judgment out on His Son Jesus.
If God told me to stay off the highway, and still I chose to run in front of a speeding car, is it therefore God's sovereign will that "causes" me to die there? I think not.
* * * * * * * * *
: That would be like me buying a dog that I know chews stuff, then shooting him dead when he does. Maybe that analogy is a bit off, but I think that it is the principle.
* * * * * * * * *
This is a bit off the subject, but here goes:
Your "dog" story doesn't work, because a dog cannot sin. There is no ability in a dog to rebel against God. (The owner is not his God, only his master.) No matter where the dog poops or what he chews up, he is only being a dog, just as God made him to be. There was no point of original sin in Adam Dog and Eve Dog that caused them to become poopers and chewers; they always were. God is pleased in the inherent nature of the dog; it is exactly as God made it to be (unlike us).
My advice (for what it may be worth) is this:
Spend a lot more time testing your ideas by the Socratic method. In other words, try to be your own critic, and intelligently disprove YOUR OWN theories. Find (imagine) situations where your paradigm breaks down, and note them. You may be surprised to find that it is easy for you to do this. When you find substantial anomalies, it's time for a paradigm shift. Christianity is filled with ad hoc explanations where its theology has seriously broken down, and a major paradigm shift is long overdue. I hope for good things to come from today's young Christian leaders...
Now before you go firing off a reply, please spend some time really trying to apprehend what I have said. Some of your statements and questions in this post made it seem like you didn't think much about my last post at all.
* * * * * * * * *
: Just as a little reminder, I want to say again that I have no problem with homosexuals. It is the sin itself that I am discussing.
* * * * * * * * *
I certainly know you are not a stone-thrower, just searching to understand, as am I. Thanks, Skip.
Keep searching... :-)