Changing Sexual Orientation Is Possible, New Research Says

Hi Laurie,

I'm kinda asking: where does the "world" start? You know: "in the world, but not of the world." The "world" starts pretty close by if you're Amish! Homosexuals, to most of us, are out there in the world. A philosophical reading of the NT material as regards our obligation to the "world" seems to center on a sort of "live and let live", pragmatic outlook. But the rhetoric surrounding the political expression of the "Christian" position on homosexuality seems centered mostly on a perceived obligation to state what is tangential to an article of faith. If called upon, one is compelled by his faith to confess what he believes to be true. In people's real lives attitudes about homosexuality depend largely upon one's exposure to real homosexuals. People without gay friends have an imagined stereotypical caricature, and people who have gay friends have the same stereotypes plus a couple of real examples. Gay people live in mytholand, where they rave all night and design the future.

Chris

I don't think of gays as 'out there in the world,' but as my family, friends, and neighbors, you and me. I also don't think the NT says 'live and let live,' but 'love thy neighbor.' I personally think it is very unloving to be unaccepting of someone because they are gay, and unloving to tell them they are sinners. Huh! We are all beloved by God.

I also think it is lacking in justice, reason and compassion to try to prohibit a gay couple from having all the same civil rights as any other couple committed to each other in love for life.
 
Re: Homosexuality Is It A Sin?

---Quote (Originally by China Cat Sunflower)--- Homosexuals are going to fry like a Frito in the skillet of Hades. The Bible is clear on that. So the only question left concerns how one should treat a person who is destined for the Lake of Fire. Are they a neighbor who we have to, however begrudgingly love? They're surely not bretheren. Of course the Golden Rule applies to all. Does it depend on their level of penitence? Should we encourage them with the carrot of our kindness so long as they seem penitent? Is their punishment lessened by penitence which fails to change their behavior? If they mean well, and are trying their best to go straight, but die having been unable to because of their own weakness of will, do they get any kind of a break? To what extent are we commanded, or bound to exhort them? At what point do exhortations become stumbling blocks?

What, then, should we do? What is the reasonable limit of our duty toward recidivist sinners? We know what they should do, but what are our obligations toward them?----

Just exactly what part of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" specifies degrees of brotherhood, levels of penitence, or the extent of anything? Where is this "obligation" located? Which part of "Pharisee" have you not resurrected?
 
Gimmee a break.

How about coveting your neighbors wife, you've got a lot more of them to worry about then homosexuals. Get some focus. And theives and liars, and those keeping up with the Jones's (coveting their neighbor's house).

My question is, when it comes to sin there are a ton of things that 80% of the world is guilty of, why do you pick on the 10%???

It's because we are weirded out by it, and its the ONLY sin we can say we are not guilty of so it's easy to point fingers!

Pick up your stones let's go gettem!
 
Re: Homosexuality Is It A Sin?

Just exactly what part of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" specifies degrees of brotherhood, levels of penitence, or the extent of anything? Where is this "obligation" located? Which part of "Pharisee" have you not resurrected?
[/SIZE]

I'm asking what the obligation is. At what point has one discharged his duty toward unrepentant sinners? At what point does exhorting sinners fall under "casting pearls before swine"? If I was a sinner, which I'm not, I would want do-gooders to leave me the hell alone. So to satisfy the Golden Rule means an end to proselytizing and exhortation. But, there is another command to zealously preach the Gospel to every person. Does the sinner want the Gospel preached to them? If not, then you're violating the Golden Rule in order to uphold the Great commission. You're not treating them as you, in their position, would want to be treated. So there has to be a break even point somewhere in the middle. I'm asking what that point is. Where is that line drawn?

Chris
 
I don't think of gays as 'out there in the world,' but as my family, friends, and neighbors, you and me. I also don't think the NT says 'live and let live,' but 'love thy neighbor.' I personally think it is very unloving to be unaccepting of someone because they are gay, and unloving to tell them they are sinners. Huh! We are all beloved by God.

I also think it is lacking in justice, reason and compassion to try to prohibit a gay couple from having all the same civil rights as any other couple committed to each other in love for life.

So Laurie, are you saying that the Bible is wrong? I mean, the text is pretty unequivocal about the condemnation of homosexuality. If the Bible is just flat wrong about this, how many other things is it wrong about?

Chris
 
Of course the Bible is wrong about a lot of things. It's a book from primitive times, a valuable record of man's early struggles to grapple with the big questions. It contains great insights and gross ignorance, sound ethics and vile propaganda. If you want to figure out which is which, first and foremost you need to have a moral sense of your own.
 
Re: Homosexuality Is It A Sin?

I'm asking what the obligation is. At what point has one discharged his duty toward unrepentant sinners? At what point does exhorting sinners fall under "casting pearls before swine"? If I was a sinner, which I'm not, I would want do-gooders to leave me the hell alone. So to satisfy the Golden Rule means an end to proselytizing and exhortation. But, there is another command to zealously preach the Gospel to every person. Does the sinner want the Gospel preached to them? If not, then you're violating the Golden Rule in order to uphold the Great commission. You're not treating them as you, in their position, would want to be treated. So there has to be a break even point somewhere in the middle. I'm asking what that point is. Where is that line drawn?

Chris

I think you have a little problem, because the Great Commandment has no break even point. It doesn't even speak of unrepentant sinners. As far as the Great Commandment is concerned, there are no degrees to the love in play. There are no lines drawn. Oh, there may be everyday practical limits, after all Caesar must get his due, but to try to decide limits based on some "principle" leaves you praying in public.
 
If all that you know is that somebody *told* you it's wrong, and you have no understanding yourself of why they thought so, what good can you imagine you are doing by parroting words when you have no thought of your own to utter?
 
Just wanted to say sorry to all of those who are frustrated this thread was merged. I seconded Juan's idea. I guess I should have just let it be and ignored it. To be honest, I understand new people need to be able to discuss the issues, but we seem to go through homosexuality as a topic really frequently. What I find is a lot of people are not very educated about gender or sexual orientation, the science of it or how various denominations think about it. It gets old for some of us to reiterate the same stuff we've already posted over and over about a single topic. I suppose the answer is just not to respond, but I consider the issue of homosexuals' rights in the US a real civil rights issue, as well as an issue to love others and not judge. So I get tempted to respond each time because I feel strongly about it and I get tired of people attacking homosexuality more than other, more prevalent sins (divorce or adultery, any one? lust?) because it makes people feel smugly righteous to attack what is easy for them to avoid.

Maybe it's just the teacher in me, but I really wish new people *would* read some of the longish past threads if it's on the same old topic. I think that's partly the value of an interfaith forum- to have a backlog of ideas and information by which to inform yourself before bringing up a new topic. I've looked up old threads on here and found them very interesting. It doesn't mean you need to necro them, but it would help to know what responses you'd get and if you have a new angle or if it's just the same old thing.

Also, I realize this thread had unsavory bits, but I think it's valuable to know that the issue is that volatile, and what you're getting into by bringing it up. The issue brings up unsavoriness nearly across the board in the US right now; I think the thread is an honest representation of what happens all over the country in these discussions. Juan decided to merge, but I voted as another mod to second the motion. I figured this would be more informative overall than to restate all of our views yet again. We'd have the last 20 pages out of the way and can move on to any new facets of the issue at hand. And while 20 pages is a lot to read in detail, it isn't horrible to skim.

Just my 2 cents. Again, apparently it should have gone to a vote or something.
 
Last edited:
OK, so what if the Great Commission is forcing you to do things to others, like preach to them about sin, that they don't wish to have done to them. Isn't that a violation of the Golden Rule? You are not treating them as you would wish them to treat you were the roles reversed.

I said in my first post to this thread that the only thing left to debate is the extent of our responsibility toward "sinners". Does the sinner's intention toward or against repentance have any bearing on our responsibility toward them? No. That falls under judgment belonging to God. Can one commandment take precedent over another commandment where the two appear to be in conflict or contrary to common sense? No. The Golden Rule and the Great Commission have to co-exist in their entirety. Commandments, not rules mind you, commandments cannot conflict. So I would submit that there has to be a way to both completely love the sinner, without judgment, and without ever causing him or her pain or in any other way intentionally placing a stumbling block in front of them, and at the same time impart the Gospel.

I think that Christians of good will often feel pressed to make a public stand against sin and evil in the world. That's positive, and that's what religion should be doing. Standing up for what's right. MLK and the civil rights movement comes easily to mind. I think that Christians often feel as though the homosexuality issue has been thrown in their face, and would much prefer to be left alone about it, but when pressed, feel they must take a moral stand. But I also think that thinking Christians of good will would like to leave aside the politics of morality and find a way to genuinely love their sinner neighbors in a way where kindness in action naturally opens the door to the message.

Chris
 
It contains great insights and gross ignorance, sound ethics and vile propaganda.
It's a book from primitive times, a valuable record of man's early struggles to grapple with the big questions.

But what if we consider consider the possibility that the Bible never claimed such "high and mighty" things about itself, especially since it's not aware of its own existence. It was only a record of a people's experience of God and own aim should be to honour the memory of those people by trying to rediscover their world and their experience. It's just like you said. It was a "valuable record" of "man's early struggles" to "grapple with the big questions."

Some will think of the Bible as "promoting good" while others will thinking of it as "promoting evil" but my position is a neutral one as the Bible being just a piece of literature, has only as much value as the reader himself is capable of extracting from it. Great insights vs. gross ignorance? Hey if the Bible never claims to be "high and mighty" it can be seen as neither insightful nor ignorant. Sound ethics and vile propaganda? Same thing again. Does it really claim to "promote the highest good" or is it the vilest tool of deception ever formed? The stronger its own claims of virtue, the stronger the vice if those claims of virtue are overshadowed by arrogance, narcissism and control-freakiness (if that's a word). The "Bigger" the Bible claims to be, the "Bigger" its vices. The stronger its claims of insight and ethics, the stronger the ignorance and vileness if such insight and ethics is driven by arrogance and ethical/spiritual narcissism.

If the Bible doesn't claim to be Big then we don't have to judge, criticise or condemn it as a "Big Evil Scourge" because it has never sought out that status in the world. I suppose it's a kind of Tall Poppy Syndrome. The more Christians promote it, the more you have to oppose it.

To me it's not a question of whether the Bible is "wrong." It just never claimed to be right about certain things. Does the Bible say anything about stem-cell research and abortion? Is it "ignorant" of stem-cell research and abortion? No the authors of the Bible never knew the phenomenon, but can they be seen as "ignorant?"

To me ignorance isn't just lack of knowledge or experience. It's where you assert your views to a person or group of people and "assume," "act" and "believe" as if you are professionally, emotionally, mentally and intellectually qualified to tell them what to think and believe. Here I'm not talking just about the "definition" of "ignorance" but also what it means in a social context. Words are not limited to dictionary definitions, but also what they mean in a culture and society. So ignorance is more than just "lack of knowledge or experience."

Ignorance can be rude and offensive. When we go on a path toward such offensive behaviour, if we don't want to be offensive we can apologise or excuse ourselves.

So the Bible can be "ignorant" in the sense of making claims that are rude and offensive because they are wrong, and because the Bible is too stubborn to retract its view, but it depends a lot on how you interpret and apply its contents to the contemporary culture/reality/life experience. The Bible is only as "rude," "stubborn," "arrogant" or "ignorant" as it projects or promotes itself to be. The Bible is like a "virtual personality" that is maintained by beings that really do have "attitude" and "personality" and an image that can only exist because of the attitudes and behaviours of such entities (us, you and me).

The Bible doesn't claim to be able to dictate to us about stem-cell research and abortion, and most of it, from my impression, doesn't dictate at all. It expresses. It affirms. It promotes. But it doesn't dictate all the time. Often it's just Christians making it into something dictatorial. It's Christians being pompous about their Text. When that happens, they provoke the Tall Poppy Syndrome and bring it on themselves. The conflict between Christians and non-Christians is this Tall Poppy Syndrome thing. It's the knight-in-shining armour routine.
 
So Laurie, are you saying that the Bible is wrong? I mean, the text is pretty unequivocal about the condemnation of homosexuality. If the Bible is just flat wrong about this, how many other things is it wrong about?

Chris

The Bible has a lot of contradictions when you look at the level of the fne points of morality, and in other things as well. Conditional love or unconditional love? Both are in there.

I think there is such a thing as sexual sin, but to the best of my discernment it's not about who you have sex with so much as it is about idolatry, possessiveness, and taking what is not yours. Applies equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals.

I don't think women should be quiet in church and I don't think slavery is cool.

However, you have a point. I can't say I know we can just disregard this particular point from Paul. It's there and I think it is clear. A lot of thinking and prayer has gone into this question in my life. My hope is that somehow between my personal sense of what is right, what my Church/community says is right, what the Bible says is right, and my own interaction with the Holy Spirit, that I've come to a discernment that upholds the principles of Christ. I've chosen what I think is the right approach.
 
Last edited:
OK, so what if the Great Commission is forcing you to do things to others, like preach to them about sin, that they don't wish to have done to them. Isn't that a violation of the Golden Rule? You are not treating them as you would wish them to treat you were the roles reversed.

Where does the Great Commission state that you are to preach about sin?
 
Juan, I consider it an unkindness for you to have brought this thread back to the top.
Very well, Bob, I sincerely thought I was doing you a favor so you wouldn't have to repeat yourself. <shrugs>

That's what I get for looking out for others...
 
Sorry, Bob, I thought along the same lines as Juan. I figured you would be tired (as I was) of saying the same things over and over on this topic. Lesson learned for next time (unfortunately, there always seems to be a next time).
 
It's OK. Everyone has a right to their feelings and you aren't the only one who was frustrated that it was merged. I just wanted to make sure Juan doesn't get all the blame, since I had concurred.
 
It's OK path, I've got broad shoulders. I know I can't please everyone all of the time. I *can* sleep quite comfortably at night knowing I did what I did for the right reasons, even if not everyone else believed my motivation was well intended.

Bob, you have my apology. I will leave well enough alone next time.
 
"Azure fellow" You saying your angry at me? And why is this?

Perhaps try reading this thread in its entirety, and you will understand more of the dynamics of politics on this board relating to homosexuality, and where each of us is coming from. Then you will probably have a fair idea of why bob x would be angry with you, as well as what most of us think of your post (been there, done that).
 
Back
Top