Ashamed to be Texan - DPChallenge Forums

11/17/2005 12:47:46 PM · #1051

Originally posted by muckpond:

40. St. Innocent I (401 - 417)
First pope whose father was also a pope, Anastasius I.

So St. Innocent's father WASN'T innocent? :-\

11/17/2005 01:15:32 PM · #1052

Originally posted by scalvert:

Ron and others explain that the reason for this is that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle that goes against the bible. The logic is that everyone has a choice. You can choose to lead the virtuous life that the infallible word of God defines as heterosexual, or turn your back on God by choosing a sinful lifestyle that the Bible calls abhorrent. We must assume from this that homosexuality is not a genetic trait or pre-programmed at birth. Nobody is "born" gay because that would imply that God has created an abhorrence, and besides- we all have free will, right? Fine. I won't trot out links to studies showing that homosexuality IS genetic because it will just be countered by studies claiming it's not.

I'd like to respond, clarify and expand on some of the points and statements you made here, specifically on the question of genetics as it relates to sin and choice.

First, I'd like to draw a distinction between nature and behavior. From a biblical perspective, we are all born with a "sin nature" - that is, we have a predisposition to sin in general. (The fall, the curse, original sin - all that.) But this issue of the "sin nature" takes on an interesting new light when looked at with the insights of modern genetic research.

The assumtion is made (on both sides of the argument) that there is a binary option with regards to genetics and the bible as relates to homosexuality: either homosexuality is genetic, you are born gay, and it is not a chosen behavior, or homosexuality is a chosen, aquired or learned behavior. I do not believe that this is an accurate or adequate assumption.

As we all know, there are a great many behaviors which are "banned", frowned upon, called sin, whatever, by the bible - drunkeness and gluttony among them. However, we have learned, or at least heard research, in recent years that alcoholism and obesity may actually have genetic roots. In other words, you may be predisposed, genetically, to become an alcoholic or to have weight problems. So, that begs the question, if you are predisposed to alcoholism, does that exempt you from God's prohibitions on drunkenness? Of course not. You can choose whether to engage in the "behavior" - the consumption of alcohol - or not. Likewise, if you have a genetic predisposition to obeasity, this does not give you license to be a glutton by saying "I was born this way, I can't help myself". You have the choice to control your consumption of food. It may be more difficult given the fact that the consumption of food is required to stay alive (especially if, maintaining a reasonable diet, you are still not able to achieve the perfect dimensions imposed by Madison Ave.), however the charge, the requirement not to be a glutten still stands.

And, even if you are born with whatever genetic markers or traits which may define a homosexual (or an alcoholic, or an obese person), you still have the choice as to how you will behave. You still have the choice to follow the biblical guidelines which set this behavior apart as something to be refrained from, or you have the choice to follow your "natural" desires. Even in the broader spectrum of sexual behavior, there is much more than just homosexuality that is to be refrained from in your life - adultry, fornication (sex outside marriage) - in fact, by the strictest teaching of Christ, just lusting after someone.

So, on that basis, to address your various points: I'll accept that homosexuallity may be a genetic trait (I qualify it with "may" simply because research is always ongoing, conclusions are often refined and redrawn, and I personally have not reviewed all the research; but I accept it as the currently supported belief based on scientific research). No trotting necessary. However, this does not at all take free will and personal choice out of the picture. They are not mutually exclusive. Whatever your "genetic predisposition", you still have the power to choose the actions you take.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Alrighty then... so then I pose the question "what is the correct moral behavior for someone born transsexual?" I asked the question three times, but nobody wants to touch that one. Gee... I wonder why? They can't claim such people weren't born that way because clearly they were. They can't claim that everyone is free to choose a heterosexual lifestyle for obvious reasons. If everyone is God's creation and there is no possibility of significant "unguided" physical changes (macro evolution), then the idea that God has decreed as abhorrent any union that isn't between a man and a woman goes out the window because a perfect god would have then created an abhorrence or at least denied the promised free will to choose.

Like Joshua, I wouldn't consider myself well-versed on this topic, so I've not made any comments till now. But I've read the comments following this post (i.e. clarification of "hermaphrodite" vs. "transsexual"), plus you've expanded your own thoughts or arguments here, so I'll respond to them now, following on from my comments above.

The best, concise answer I can personally come up with to your question is: Abstinance. I don't really know what gender a hermaphrodite would be considered in the eyes of God, let alone science or society. But I would suggest that if someone doesn't or can't know the biblically correct behavior for a given situation, then the best course of action is to avoid that situation. In the context of this discussion that means abstinance.

I'm sure this will lead us back into the issue of rights. "Are you saying that a hermaphrodite doesn't have the right to engage in sex?" I'm not personally making a judgement one way or the other. I'm saying that, if you are choosing to believe on Christ for your salvation, that you are better off making the choice to avoid sex altogether. (If you are not choosing to believe on Christ, this is the only sin that matters - all the others pale.) "If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off." If a certain situation may lead you into a sinful act, then avoid it. Don't lead yourself down a path that may lead you to sin.

As far as the question of a hermaphrodite in the context of God's creation, the best I can offer is that, after the fall, mankind had deteriorated ever since. Within the light of our understanding of genetics, this could be explained as a genetic defect, part of the overall degredation of the genetic code caused by sin. There is no proof one way or the other, its simply a possible (I would contend plausible) explanation. Also, I don't think this would qualify as macro evolution - a change to a new species. Its arguable whether it even counts as micro evolution. I don't think that a mutation or effect can necessarily be equated to an adaptation or new trait. But if someone has an argument that it is, please comment.

Originally posted by scalvert:

I submit from this that the Emperor has no clothes... that any pretense of righteousness in banning gay marriage is imaginary and little more than an excuse to practice prejudice and bigotry.

"There is none righteous, no not one." Supporting or opposing gay marriage is not an question of "righteousness", but of "rightness".

11/17/2005 01:36:03 PM · #1053

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by ScottK:
Paul says in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Interesting that the passage references only MALE prostitutes, no? Unless female prostitutes are exempt, why narrow it down with a qualifier? Hmm...

Interesting that instead of substantively commenting on the content of my quote, you choose to quible over an irrelelvent (to the conversation) bit of trivia. Hmmm...

Nevertheless, to answer your question the best I can off the top of my head, I believe that male prostitution was an issue specifically affecting both the church in Corinth and the Greek churches in general. Additionally, female prostitution would certainly be covered under at least the category of "sexually immoral", as well as possibly "adulterers" if the person were married.

If you're truly interested, I can dig into the context a bit more later.

11/17/2005 01:41:31 PM · #1054

scott --

i have to say that i really do appreciate your thoughtful posts. the fact that you've even accepted the possibility that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality shows me that you're trying to be as fairly open-minded as you can.

this statement is also very telling to me:

Originally posted by ScottK:

I'm saying that, if you are choosing to believe on Christ for your salvation...

IF you choose to believe in christ, then you should be subjected to his whims and teachings. personally, i do not. therefore, i feel no obligation to those policies.

which begs the question: just because the majority of people who voted for this particular proposition do CHOOSE to believe, does that give them the right to legislate their beliefs so that they are imposed upon everyone? i think not, which is what is so frustrating about this situation.

if you choose to believe, that is absolutely your choice. rock on. you go girl. whatever. just get your choice outta my "choice"'s way. that's all i ask.

--
as for your comment comparing a genetic predisposition to homosexuality to that of one of drunkenness or gluttony, i understand the basis for your comparison. however, you then bring up that people CHOOSE whether or not to give into those urges in the face of them being frowned upon by the bible.

frankly, there are quite a few drunk believers out there. there are quite a few overweight believers out there. so why is their CHOICE to engage in these sinful behaviors overlooked so readily when you use the same arguments to preach against homosexuality? is it because drunkenness and fatness are so prevalent in our society that they teeter on becoming societal norms?

it is shown that approximately 30% of americans are obese. if we use the data that shows that 82% of americans are "christian" (therefore being voluntarily tied to the teachings of christ), we can say that 24.6% -- fully one-quarter of the U.S. population -- are obese christians.

now let's assume the common estimate that 10% of the population is homosexual. let's apply the same 82% rate to that population (because there are a LOT of gay people who are still religious, even though a large number have rejected their faith because it has rejected them, that's a very generous estimate). that means that 8% of the population of the U.S. is made up of gay christians.

(i know i'm using some fuzzy math here, as i know there are a lot of variables interacting with one another. just work with me. i would think people would be much more concerned if we worked it out so that the percentage of the population was any higher anyway.)

so if gay christians are only 1/3 of the number of overweight christians, why isn't there a huge push to counter the gluttony of those overweight people? why aren't we rushing to legislate the amount of food they consume and the amount of calories they must expend?

BECAUSE IT'S THEIR CHOICE. biblically speaking, it's still a sin. socially speaking, their gluttony presents a gigantic (no pun intended) burden on everyone as well -- the cost of their healthcare affects everyone else in the form of higher medical costs and increased taxes to pay for some of that care. it sounds to me like we should get on this right away.

but no one is out there proclaiming that "fat people are destroying the fabric of society as we know it!!" 'cause "fat" is, for the most part, socially acceptable even though it's sinful.

how fair is that?

Message edited by author 2005-11-17 13:43:41.

LoudDog

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/17/2005 01:47:10 PM · #1055

I found this quite interesting.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/17/2005 01:54:32 PM · #1056

Originally posted by ScottK:

I believe that male prostitution was an issue specifically affecting both the church in Corinth and the Greek churches in general. Additionally, female prostitution would certainly be covered under at least the category of "sexually immoral", as well as possibly "adulterers" if the person were married.

Plus, in the context of Biblical times, marriage was more often "arranged" than it was anything done by "romantic" choice. Female prostitution was a commonplace, even neccessary, accomodation at that time. Male prostitution, on the other hand, was a double abomination, so to speak.

Interestingly enough, even in relatively recent times in this country (USA) you can see parallels; in the old West mining camps, for example, prostitution was commonplace and effectively sanctioned by the authorities, if not by the church itself. There simply weren't enough women to go around, and miners were transients with home lives elsewhere; marriage was not an option.

Robt.

11/17/2005 01:57:04 PM · #1057

i like it!

11/17/2005 01:58:12 PM · #1058

Originally posted by ScottK:

Whatever your "genetic predisposition", you still have the power to choose the actions you take.

Say you enjoy food, wine and women. Now someone whose beliefs differ from yours institutes a law that says you must 1. eat less, 2. drink less and 3. prefer men instead or you can't be married.

1. Fine
2. Fine
3. Bite me!

Originally posted by scalvert:

"what is the correct moral behavior for someone born [hermaphroditic]?"

[quote=ScottK]The best, concise answer I can personally come up with to your question is: Abstinance.

First, we're talking about marriage, not sex. The law in question doesn't say gays can get married if they abstain. Second, so much for your "everyone has the power to choose" argument. *flush*

Originally posted by ScottK:

As far as the question of a hermaphrodite in the context of God's creation, the best I can offer is that ...this could be explained as... part of the overall degredation of the genetic code caused by sin.

AHAHAHAHAHA! So He's punishing a few people at birth for the past sins of others? Yeah, THAT'LL teach 'em! Hermaphrodites aren't a new phenomenon, and may or may not be increasing as a percentage of births. Why would you even speculate that mutations are an intentional "degradation of the genetic code"? Are cows born two-headed for THEIR past sins?

Originally posted by ScottK:

I don't think that a mutation or effect can necessarily be equated to an adaptation or new trait.

If one mutation is possible, then more than one mutation is possible. Pretty soon, toy poodles can't breed with great danes and they must go their separate evolutionary ways (thus becoming new species) or die out.

Originally posted by ScottK:

...opposing gay marriage is not an question of "righteousness", but of "rightness".

...but only to those who share your beliefs. I might believe in having a nice ribeye during Lent, and that's my choice to make, not yours.

11/17/2005 01:58:56 PM · #1059

Originally posted by louddog:

I found this quite interesting.

Not to quible with a bit of humor, but...

There's a contradiction in their statement. The site claims: "Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are an abomination before the Lord, just as gays are an abomination." Yet, the actual scripture later on the page is: "...they shall be an abomination unto you", or, as the NIV puts it: "...you are to detest".

God likes shrimp just fine. He just doesn't think they're good for his people.

11/17/2005 02:03:35 PM · #1060

Originally posted by ScottK:

Yet, the actual scripture later on the page is: "...they shall be an abomination unto you", or, as the NIV puts it: "...you are to detest".

God likes shrimp just fine. He just doesn't think they're good for his people.

Whew! All that spinning made me dizzy. %-(

Message edited by author 2005-11-17 14:03:45.

11/17/2005 02:08:14 PM · #1061

Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by scalvert:
[quote=ScottK]Paul says in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Interesting that the passage references only MALE prostitutes, no? Unless female prostitutes are exempt, why narrow it down with a qualifier? Hmm...

Originally posted by ScottK:

...you choose to quible over an irrelelvent (to the conversation) bit of trivia.

Pardon me! I was unaware that the bible contained any trivia. Given that "sexually immoral" is already covered, there would be absolutely no reason to specifiy MALE prostitution unless female prostitution were implictly allowed. If both were forbidden, it would have been simply "prostitution."

PS- I didn't respond to your post because I hadn't looked up that article. I've seen many similar claims over the past fews days, but didn't post them because the bible gang would just dismiss them as speculation. HERE'S something of an overview.

Message edited by author 2005-11-17 14:22:30.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/17/2005 02:13:29 PM · #1062

Scott,
Your post brings to mind a few questions I have, regarding the definition of "marriage".

If I follow you correctly, you are saying that banning homosexual marriage is a way to prevent "sinners" from engaging in immoral behavior. This takes me back to the "sanctity" of marriage. From what I understand of the Bible, it is a sin to commit adultery, or covet your neighbor's wife. By these standards, every person who looks at pornography is sinning. Not to mention every married person who has ever cheated on their spouse. What type of legislation do conservatives propose to protect the sanctity of marriage in these instances? By Christian standards these are problems of epidemic proportions. I assure you that many people enter into marriages with no intention of remaining faithful. Is there some way to prevent these people from sinning before the fact? Hopefully we'll be able to predict the future soon, and can impose a law of abstinence on all people who intend to deviate sexually, in any manner.

2) What is your definition of "abstinence"? I've read studies that suggest that lesbian couples often stop having sex entirely after a few years and simply cohabit as close friends. Would that be considered abstinence? Would they, then, be able to seek forgiveness from God, in the same way as a glutton who stopped overeating? And if they wanted to forge a union and apply their definition of "marriage" to it, why do they not have that right?

The Christian definition of the word "marriage" (as I understand it)is so narrow that, for one reason or another, everyone ceases to qualify if they live long enough to stop bearing children.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

11/17/2005 02:13:39 PM · #1063

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by ScottK:
Yet, the actual scripture later on the page is: "...they shall be an abomination unto you", or, as the NIV puts it: "...you are to detest".

God likes shrimp just fine. He just doesn't think they're good for his people.

Whew! All that spinning made me dizzy. %-(

There's an element of good science in this, historically speaking. Among its other many virtues, the Old Testament was a means of codifying certain practices for a good life, and not least of these were dietary restrictions. The ancient Jews were ahead of the curve here, in recognizing a correlation between disease and the ingestion of certain foodstuffs. They recognized, in particular, that shellfish frequently caused mortal illness (more recently we said you can't eat Oysters or Mussels in months with an "R" in them), as did pork (trychinosis was epidemic), so they instituted these proscriptions for entirely pragmatic reasons.

Not every proscription in the Old Testament is based on moral grounds; the book actually had "practical" uses as well as spiritual ones.

Robt.

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/17/2005 02:14:37 PM · #1064

Originally posted by bear_music:

The common thread here is neither religious nor moral; the Chruch was seeking to protect Her property...

Robt.

Exactly. And because the Church has historically been successful in protecting her property (whether through "christian" means or not), she has a high degree of probability of having in her archives any evidence (or lack of) to prove the accuracy of Scripture.

Some may argue a large and complex conspiricy by the Church to decieve the faithful into believing that which it knows is not true. On the other hand, I choose to believe that with all the historical originals vaulted away, it is likely that enough evidence exists to substantiate the basic tennents of the Christian Faith. I also believe, that there is enough historical phenomena (aka miracles) that has passed the Church's scrutiny, to indicate, at least for me, that the Bible is accurate enough for my needs.

May not be accurate enough for others, however that is not my affair.

11/17/2005 02:15:16 PM · #1065

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

By these standards, every person who looks at pornography is sinning. Not to mention every married person who has ever cheated on their spouse.

not to mention everyone who has two pieces of pumpkin pie while watching the game on thanksgiving day.

11/17/2005 02:19:23 PM · #1066

Originally posted by muckpond:

Originally posted by greatandsmall:
By these standards, every person who looks at pornography is sinning. Not to mention every married person who has ever cheated on their spouse.

not to mention everyone who has two pieces of pumpkin pie while watching the game on thanksgiving day.

LOL! Well, It's on my birthday this year, so I'm having cake, pumkin pie, pecan pie....and, I'll probably get liquored up too. See ya' in Hell muckpond;)

11/17/2005 02:20:22 PM · #1067

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by scalvert:
"what is the correct moral behavior for someone born [hermaphroditic]?"

Originally posted by ScottK:
The best, concise answer I can personally come up with to your question is: Abstinance.

First, we're talking about marriage, not sex. The law in question doesn't say gays can get married if they abstain. Second, so much for your "everyone has the power to choose" argument. *flush*

First, you said "correct moral behavior", so I answered on what I thought was a more general basis. Second, everyone has the power to choose - I used the word quite freely in my response. *flush* [/quote]

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by ScottK:
As far as the question of a hermaphrodite in the context of God's creation, the best I can offer is that ...this could be explained as... part of the overall degredation of the genetic code caused by sin.

AHAHAHAHAHA! So He's punishing a few people at birth for the past sins of others? Yeah, THAT'LL teach 'em! Hermaphrodites aren't a new phenomenon, and may or may not be increasing as a percentage of births. Why would you even speculate that mutations are an intentional "degradation of the genetic code"? Are cows born two-headed for THEIR past sins?

A "result" of our action is not "intentional" act by God. I was, in fact, countering your arguement that God "intentionally" created them that way at all.

As far as two-headed cows, the Bible says that all creation groans under the weight of the curse of sin. So the two-headed cows are paying for owr sin.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by ScottK:
I don't think that a mutation or effect can necessarily be equated to an adaptation or new trait.

If one mutation is possible, then more than one mutation is possible. Pretty soon, toy poodles can't breed with great danes and they must go their separate evolutionary ways (thus becoming new species) or die out.

Conjecture.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by ScottK:
...opposing gay marriage is not an question of "righteousness", but of "rightness".

...but only to those who share your beliefs. I might believe in having a nice ribeye during Lent, and that's my choice to make, not yours.

Truth and right exist seperate from our beliefs.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/17/2005 02:22:10 PM · #1068

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

See ya' in Hell muckpond;)

i'm buyin' the first round!

Flash

Nikon D700

11/17/2005 02:24:31 PM · #1069

Originally posted by ScottK:

Truth and right exist seperate from our beliefs.

Amen to that.

11/17/2005 02:25:50 PM · #1070

Originally posted by ScottK:

Truth and right exist seperate from our beliefs.

In other words, "right" is quantifiable and "righteous" is not?

11/17/2005 02:45:29 PM · #1071

Originally posted by scalvert:

What spinning?

11/17/2005 02:46:57 PM · #1072

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by ScottK:
Yet, the actual scripture later on the page is: "...they shall be an abomination unto you", or, as the NIV puts it: "...you are to detest".

God likes shrimp just fine. He just doesn't think they're good for his people.

Whew! All that spinning made me dizzy. %-(

There's an element of good science in this, historically speaking. Among its other many virtues, the Old Testament was a means of codifying certain practices for a good life, and not least of these were dietary restrictions. The ancient Jews were ahead of the curve here, in recognizing a correlation between disease and the ingestion of certain foodstuffs. They recognized, in particular, that shellfish frequently caused mortal illness (more recently we said you can't eat Oysters or Mussels in months with an "R" in them), as did pork (trychinosis was epidemic), so they instituted these proscriptions for entirely pragmatic reasons.

Not every proscription in the Old Testament is based on moral grounds; the book actually had "practical" uses as well as spiritual ones.

Robt.

Thanks for commenting on that. I was going to mention it, but didn't have any source available to back it up, and figured I'd be challenged on it.

11/17/2005 02:50:00 PM · #1073

Originally posted by muckpond:

Thanks. I truly appreciate the acknowledgement.

I want to respond to the rest of your post, but some of what I want to say is going to take a little time to work out (it kind of ties in lots of different themes that have come and gone throughout this thread). I just wanted to make sure I mentioned by appreciation and didn't seem to be ignoring it. (This thread is moving way too fast...)

11/17/2005 03:12:43 PM · #1074

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

Originally posted by ScottK:

Truth and right exist seperate from our beliefs.

In other words, "right" is quantifiable and "righteous" is not?

Digging back to the beginning of that line of thought, Shannon stated: "...any pretense of righteousness in banning gay marriage is imaginary..." I took the meaning or implication of his statement to be that he thinks that Christians oppose gay marriage out of a sense of self-righteousness - "We're righteous because we're hetrosexual [an allusion to another statement earlier in the same post], and you're not becaus your different." My response began with a bible quote: "There is none righteous, no not one." Which is to say, I make no claim to being righteous. We are all sinners, I no less than anyone else. I don't oppose gay marriage out of any sense of my own righteousness, but on the basis of what is right. Shannon responded with the "...only to those who share your beliefs..." response, but belief does not define what is right or wrong. If it did, then slavery (in particular, the form of slavery practiced in early America) was right 300 years ago, but wrong today. Hence my final comment, that truth and right exist outside our beliefs.

As far as your specific question, to be honest, I'm not sure I understand it. I suppose "righteous" would be quantifiable, in a sense, though I think its more of a binary trait - either someone is righteous or they are not, or more down to earth an action is righteous or it is not. I don't know if that fits what you mean by quantifiable. Is "right" quantifiable? I'm not sure I understand your context. I'm thinking not, but maybe I don't understand.