Are Gay People Born Gay?

Chat about anything you like here that doesn't fit under Bible Doctrines. Keep the subjects clean and refreshing to all.
Forum rules
Matt 18:6; Eccl 7:9; 1 Pet 4:8 (If you're not sure what they say then please hover over them with your mouse or look them up in your own Bible before posting)
Message
Author
Samaritan Woman
Posts: 124
Joined: 7 years ago
Location: Michigan

Re: Are Gay People Born Gay?

#51 Post by Samaritan Woman » 2 years ago

Vox Ratio wrote:
2 years ago
Hi Samaritan Woman,

I wasn't sure if you were just being rhetorical or whether you were inviting an answer, so I hope you won't mind if I address your question anyway.
Samaritan Woman wrote:
2 years ago
My question is if it such an unnatural sin for some mammals ( humans) why not other mammals?
Thank you for answering the question. I did want peoples opinion especially considering the "born gay" seems to be most prevalent. If a person is born gay then that would make it inherent in their nature. In the animal kingdom some might chose to call it instinct.

You said that " a statistically significant proportion of mammals cannibalise their young, engage in brutalising rape, and assault other mammals for territorial gain. They steal, they conquer, and they establish violent hierarchies in order to continue to steal and conquer", I would say that human history is littered with and continues to be littered with the same.

We exhibit some of the same behaviors that other animals do and sometimes with less of a reason. I do understand that animals are limited in the ways they can progress. Yet I wonder why the same behaviour we see in animals that mimics our own can be so easily dismissed as sin and with such hatred, when it is observed without prejudice in nature?

My question relates less to the ethics of the bible and more to the the nature or embedded instincts mankind as an animal. The fact that it ,though rare, exists in so many species tells me that it is naturally occurring. Some may say that god cursed the earth and mankind but my question to them would be "Was it inevitable and caused by god?". It would seem ethically and morally hypocritical to create the circumstances where behavior deemed sinful would be deserving of death or punishment to one kind and no big deal in another kind.

Stranger
Posts: 2248
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: Are Gay People Born Gay?

#52 Post by Stranger » 2 years ago

Vox Ratio wrote:
2 years ago
For example, while beneficial behaviours that involve reciprocity are found within the animal kingdom, a statistically significant proportion of mammals cannibalise their young, engage in brutalising rape, and assault other mammals for territorial gain. They steal, they conquer, and they establish violent hierarchies in order to continue to steal and conquer (and no, I'm not discussing religion or politics). These behaviours are not disputed and have the benefit of being more broadly attested than observations of animal conduct that is often interpreted as homosexual in nature.
Hi Vox,

As always your voice sounds good against the origo mali. The simile you presented was in my opinion matchless.


Stranger, (Jer 13:15)

User avatar
Bruno
Posts: 2400
Joined: 6 years ago

Re: Are Gay People Born Gay?

#53 Post by Bruno » 2 years ago

Samaritan Woman wrote:
2 years ago
Some may say that God cursed the earth and mankind but my question to them would be "Was it inevitable and caused by God?".
I know this isn't at the heart of her question Vox, but it is a good question :)
Karl

Hisclarkness
Posts: 457
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Are Gay People Born Gay?

#54 Post by Hisclarkness » 2 years ago

Vox Ratio wrote:
2 years ago
Hi Samaritan Woman,

I wasn't sure if you were just being rhetorical or whether you were inviting an answer, so I hope you won't mind if I address your question anyway.
Samaritan Woman wrote:
2 years ago
My question is if it such an unnatural sin for some mammals ( humans) why not other mammals?
This statement begs the question that human and non-human mammalian behaviour is of equal moral significance. Yet, I see no reason how such an assumption could be grounded within biological taxonomies. In fact, it seems to me that attempting to evaluate human moral behaviour by appealing to similar conduct in the animal kingdom gives rise to an offensive and disastrous ethic.

For example, while beneficial behaviours that involve reciprocity are found within the animal kingdom, a statistically significant proportion of mammals cannibalise their young, engage in brutalising rape, and assault other mammals for territorial gain. They steal, they conquer, and they establish violent hierarchies in order to continue to steal and conquer (and no, I'm not discussing religion or politics). These behaviours are not disputed and have the benefit of being more broadly attested than observations of animal conduct that is often interpreted as homosexual in nature.

Consequently, any appeal to homosexual activity amongst non-human mammals as being evidence for the approval or disapproval of such behaviour in humans results in there being no non-arbitrary, non-question begging reason for thinking that these other behaviours ought to be approved or disapproved as well. In short, it would be prejudicial to selectively preference certain types of mammalian behaviour as warrant for human comportment while dismissing others.

Any strict naturalistic account of ethics is going to be red in tooth and claw. Moreover, any claim that humans can improve or transcend such an ethic has to assume an objective moral framework that a naturalistic account of ethics cannot - even in principle - supply. As a result, the wider effects of animal behaviour might move to and fro over time, but it can never progress or improve, since to do so would require a standard that nature qua nature has no knowledge of.

As I see it, the difference between humans and non-human animals is not a difference in degree, but in kind. The capacity for rationality, spirituality, and ethics sets humans far apart from all other mammals – even those that are anatomically similar. For this reason, I find that God is the best explanation for human exceptionalism and therefore in understanding why humans have a universal awareness of the moral-self also.

Hi Vox Ratio!

I don’t think bringing up homosexuality in animals is arguing that there should be a similar moral compass between humans and animals.

The current argument for many Christians who are against homosexuality is that while people might in fact be born that way, they are born that way because of inherited sin. And that that doesn’t excuse the “behavior”.

Hence, the argument for homosexuality in animals. If it is truly a sinful “inheritance” then why do we also find it in nature among other animals?

The current scientific theory is that homosexuality continued to stick around through the course of evolution because it was essential to the “pack” or family survival. There needed to be non threatening males around to protect the female and the kids while the primary male went out and found food. Males that weren’t interested in taking the female.

I am not at all well versed in the scientific theories or in evolution so please forgive me for that.

But the point is that there can be a very good argument presented that homosexuality is simply a natural variation in the evolution of animal and human sexuality.

Daniel12
Posts: 929
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: Are Gay People Born Gay?

#55 Post by Daniel12 » 2 years ago

Hi Samaritan Woman 💃

You asked;
Some may say that god cursed the earth and mankind but my question to them would be "Was it inevitable and caused by god?".
I guess the answer to your question would depend on what you mean by GOD!

According to some dictionaries.
Definition of god
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality:
The Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
Or
2. Anyone whose technology and knowledge supersedes your technology and knowledge. (For example; his technology would allow him to create life and destroy it)------That in itself could technically make him your God regardless of his Character.
I know, the reply sounds crazy, and it won't match with any of the other's replies, but then again, my lines of thought are coming from a generation that was born between the 2000s - 2010s

http://daytopnj.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... 413_ml.jpg


Our group is looking at other possibilities besides God or Evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJySMTRYg0g

What does that imply?

It implies that perhaps God's Character may not be what many believed it to be in the past.

A lot of people were thinking the same thing, so some with plenty of resources decided to make the idea come alive and made a movie to address the idea that was emerging with succeeding generations.

https://youtu.be/ZHpJr7_5Mjg?t=21

If you’ve seen the movie above; Prometheus, then you are aware that producer and director Ridley Scott continued the idea in a series of movies that told the story of the Gods that seeded the DNA on earth that was responsible for the human species.

These Gods were what Definition 2 above describes,( Anyone whose technology and knowledge supersedes your technology and knowledge)

So who were these Gods that started life on earth? What was the reason they created us? What kind of Character did they possess?

And the next installment addresses these questions.

They were not omnipotent.
They were not omniscient.
They were not Omnibenevolent.


And most interesting of all-----they were not everlasting, and someone or something else created them. :o

Nevertheless, they were just more advanced, more knowledgeable, had been around a lot longer than us humans, and so to us they were Gods. But most importantly, they were our Creators also. :shock:

Humans were on the same path. They had finally evolved to the point that they had become Creators also. Thus Gods to their Creation.

https://youtu.be/fBx4b-wND-8

And guess what, if you have read my other posts, you are probably aware that we are already knocking at the door of creating Artificial Intelligence - Life!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WnOv-QW5wA

It's only a matter of time now, and I might actually get to see it when the first AI life form comes out of the lab :o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgJs7uluwlU

Going back to the ideas presented in the movie franchise;

The fact that humans finally became Gods because of being able to create a living being, did not negate the fact that the human Character had developed into something that was undesirable in the Universe. :twisted:

Humans were violent, they had killed off billions of species, ruin the environment, murdered each other by the billions, they were greedy and show no consideration to the needy. And now they were walking the thin line of nuking the planet and destroying everything that breaths. :eek:

It was not the purpose of the space Engineers who created the human species, to enforce justice, mercy, and law.

Humans were given all the tools to figure out how to inhabit the planet and flourish. A brain capable of solving all kinds of problems. A wonderful body capable of anything. A huge population of humans capable of working together and thinking their way through any problem and solving it. But they had failed. :(

https://youtu.be/4Z-QCDyL2q4

The point I’m trying to make is to get you to see that the answer to your question;
"Was it inevitable and caused by god?". -------------
May have a lot more possibilities than you even considered. :o

The trial has begun. The lawyers are bringing in the evidence. Is it God’s fault, is it evolution's fault?

Or

Could it be something else that we are not considering at the moment?

https://www.canadianlutheran.ca/wp-cont ... n-door.jpg

Vox Ratio
Posts: 235
Joined: 6 years ago

Re: Are Gay People Born Gay?

#56 Post by Vox Ratio » 2 years ago

Hi Samaritan Woman,
Samaritan Woman wrote:
2 years ago
We exhibit some of the same behaviors that other animals do and sometimes with less of a reason. I do understand that animals are limited in the ways they can progress. Yet I wonder why the same behaviour we see in animals that mimics our own can be so easily dismissed as sin and with such hatred, when it is observed without prejudice in nature?
This is a great question, to be sure, but allow me first to clarify one of the points to which you were responding. Previously, I related animal behaviour that was couched in anthropomorphic language – language that has familiar human overtones. This was deliberate and was done for the purpose of demonstrating the arbitrariness of singling out as "sin" any particular behavioural overlap between human and non-human mammals. Yet, the acceptance of this fact is only a problem for those that would seek to ground human moral experience within some type of evolutionary paradigm (viz. Evolutionary Psychology, Social Darwinism).

However, this is not how I have come to actually view behaviour within the animal kingdom. There is no reason to think that non-human animals are capable of rational thought or can engage in indexical thinking. What this means is that since they are not rational and they cannot self-reflect, then they can no more act morally than they can immorally. Ergo, if they cannot behave morally then they have no moral culpability either. Hence, in answer to your question, this seems to be a reason why we can observe prima facie abusive behaviour in the animal kingdom "without prejudice", while simultaneously condemning it in humans.

The menagerie of biota on this planet requires precise conditions to thrive and the cycle of procreation and predation must exist for us to exist. It should therefore come as no surprise that these same conditions allow for human flourishing as well – especially since we share our habitat and many physiological systems with our animal neighbours.

Looking back over biblical history as well as what can be known about the science of an early Earth, it seems to me that God was preparing a home for humanity where they would learn to do most of the work themselves. Originally, humans were tasked with a project of exploration and discovery and to use their stream of acquired knowledge to nurture their environment and develop their creativity (cf. Gen 1:28; 2:19). Yet, in order for humans to grow and to truly own their own experiences, they would need a place within which to mature freely and to advance non-linearly. I believe only an environment that allows for these distinctives is one where embodied free moral agents could blossom and unfold all of their potential. It seems that only in a world where failure is a very real possibility can success be properly commended. If that's the case, then it follows that a world in which success could not be properly commended, is also a world in which humans would not reach their full potential.

But for now, we struggle. Yet, I still believe that a limitless God set before humans a life of limitless possibilities. Unfortunately, within this sphere the only possibility that would cause ruin was the one that was actually taken. The spirit is greater than the flesh, but without God's spirit the tendency of humans is to bend toward carnality. We were not derived from carnality, we arrived there. Likewise, God did not act to create this mess, but he's in it with us to help clean up our act.

In my estimation, the ultimate purpose of humans is to know and love the ultimate good, and the ultimate good is God himself. As such, if it is good for us to seek the good then any purposive action in our lives will only be best played out when we reflect the goodness of God back into the world. In time, I also see humans being set free and unleashed within the universe whereby they will be allowed to bring their glory – God's glory – into the far reaches of the cosmos.

User avatar
Bruno
Posts: 2400
Joined: 6 years ago

Re: Are Gay People Born Gay?

#57 Post by Bruno » 2 years ago

Hi Vox,

Great post. Very tasty. It had a lot of nice ingredients. It was layered and meaty just like the fossil record ;)
I reckon if you have a least 65% of it correct, then the rest I'm sure will fall into place over time....Daniel permitting of course.

I would like to see this fleshed out a little more, maybe in the form of a book? You write the book then Daniel and I will make the film. Stranger may even chip in with a music video.

Lets see what our Samaritan friend has to say first. See if we are on the right track?
Karl

Daniel12
Posts: 929
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: Are Gay People Born Gay?

#58 Post by Daniel12 » 2 years ago

Bruno wrote
I would like to see this fleshed out a little more, maybe in the form of a book? You write the book then Daniel and I will make the film. Stranger may even chip in with a music video.
Making a movie on a lot of the subjects we have discussed here,

Would be my dread come true :) :) :) :)

I've already been considering writing a somewhat of a Sci-fiction + a dab of reality book. It would be my dream come true if I got help from someone like Ridley Scott and turn it into a film which turned out to be more successful than Marvel's Endgame.

I like the fact that Ridley is 81 years old and still having fun producing movies and dating younger women :lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYC3xwE9zr8

User avatar
Bruno
Posts: 2400
Joined: 6 years ago

Re: Are Gay People Born Gay?

#59 Post by Bruno » 2 years ago

Daniel12 wrote:
2 years ago
Bruno wrote
I would like to see this fleshed out a little more, maybe in the form of a book? You write the book then Daniel and I will make the film. Stranger may even chip in with a music video.
Making a movie on a lot of the subjects we have discussed here,

Would be my dread come true :) :) :) :)

Don’t dread Daniel, the script does look a little challenging at the moment. But it has potential. We don't need Ridley just yet.

The basic ingredients are there, and most importantly it’s not about the money!

A Teddy bear who looks like Thor
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3263&p=40064&hilit=teddy#p40039

Men in black viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5078#p41261

Strangers car viewtopic.php?p=34881#p34881

A house well anchored viewtopic.php?f=3&t=416&start=70#p37419

and a mysterious tree holding the knowledge of good and evil.
https://typeset-beta.imgix.net/uploads/ ... crop=faces

Whatever the price tag, as long as everyone is dancing in the end, it will surely be worth it! :D
Karl

Proselytiser of Jah
Posts: 187
Joined: 2 months ago
Contact:

Re: Are Gay People Born Gay?

#60 Post by Proselytiser of Jah » 1 month ago

Personally, I believe the answer today to this question is "yes, people are born gay", but not that there is some "unique gay gene", but I believe it is possibly related to the Autistic Spectrum, perhaps exclusively "is" a form of it (as well as other "sexual deviations" such as "non-binary" people, "trans people", etc). It is common knowledge that many on the spectrum are ones who often come out as gay, bi, trans, pedophilic or something else where they are considered "not of the majority".

Allow me to explain:

To argue today that it is “unnatural”, most would see you as intolerant, old fashioned, evil, opinionated, and so on, overall a horrible and offensive person. Such see a person as calling a gay person unnatural, as the same as calling someone of a different skin tone unnatural. Such is automatically seen as “homophobic”.

Of course, I am not homophobic, it is not my buisness who has sexual relations with who, that’s their buisness, it does not affect my life. In fact I care greatly for a number of friends who are gay. However, I ‘am’ a person who would argue that same sex relations are not natural, but are again a result of in born mental imbalances, or psychological trauamas.

I am not a person who approves of disprespect or bullying of gay individuals. Such is very wrong on all levels, let God judge individuals for who and what they are.


If going purely by an athiestic viewpoint, then the only reason for sex is procreation, and as such same sex relations would not fit into that mechanic, but would be regarded as a “fault of evolution” or a mutation. Though same sex activites are seen in nature, these things are not the same as human motivated same sex relations. Typically in nature, animals have same sex relations to “bully” or “dominate” their competition, in order to win the ‘opposite’ gendered animal as a prize, and to control others in their packs, or societies.

Humans, of course, are not like this. In fact when humans engage in homosexual behaivour without medical intervention, the result is not more procreation and human numbers, but rather, the result is often disease and death.

((Though as a side note, I will state a brain tickling alternative personal theory for people identifying as homosexual, as being something possibly close to the animal kingdom’s rule of dominance, prize winning or attention. In the case of the lesbian, it being that, many men find lesbian couples sexually stimulating to watch or fantasise over. For that very reason, statistics state it’s one of the most popular forms of pornography of all time. If we were to view this rise in lesbianism in tandem with the rise of pornography accessibility, we could argue, many modern day women being raised in this environment and society, ‘subconsciously’ may be trying to attract the attention of the opposite sex for mating purposes, in that their actions attract the gaze of males, but of course this flawed “adaptation” to seeking out a male mate, blocks off the male of which the “subconscious lesbian attraction method” may have originally sought, due to the “conscious individual” not feeling any attraction to the opposite sex. A similar psychological mentality may be possibly applied to men too, on a subconscious level, in seeking the domination of male competitors, but consciously are not attracted to the opposite sex, this result of an "animalistic" subconscious behaviour, having unintended side effects on the conscious individual and their desires/identities. However, when it comes to the bisexual identification, this potential sexual adaptation finds a much higher rate of success, and interestingly, more women identify as bisexual than they do lesbian, and more women identify as bisexual than that of men, which feeds into the theory of the “adaptation of attraction” for the opposite sex. Addtionally, it may explain why most bisexual women statistically end up in long term relationships and marriages with men, rather than women. Whilst this is a far lesser likelihood though in my mind at the moment, it could also be a piece of a larger puzzle, where both views I have are correct, and that .. the neurologically flawed, are adapting to their environments in a flawed way)... including sexually. Flawed mechanics will lead to flawed solutions to presented problems)).

Interestingly, akin to gender dysphoric persons, and non-binrary persons, in my personal experience, I have noticed most if not ‘all’ people who have same sex relations also tend to have comorbid mental health condtions.

Whilst it is true, some is caused by social pressure, abuse and genuine homophobia, we live in a more accepting era than ever before, yet even those in fully gay accepting communities, with accepting families, still suffer these conditions. Which again says to me, it is not a coincidence.

I reason that like the other conditions, something is behind these behaviours and mentalities. Some caused by neurological roots, others from purely traumatic psychological roots, and more often than not I suspect it is a combination of both. Both nature and nurture.

Some who are gay, have been raised in families where abuse has taken place (and not because of their being gay), missing fathers, or mothers from the family unit, trauma involving a certain sex (such as being a victim of pedophilla or rape) and more. As a result, some become A-sexual, others become pedophiles themselves, and others… potentially become gay (perhaps subonciously rejecting the gender that physically, sexually or emotionally abused them if we wanted to get all “Sigmund Freud” about it). But these things happen I believe only when the brain is already “ripe” for such things, such as already having a disorder below the surface. Like ASD, ADHD, Bipolar and so on.

Not all those who are gay have had abuse, but regardless may have these other condition. I took up a personal study where I collect details on all people of LGBT standing I know, and continue to do so, making note of their upbringing and any known mental health conditions or otherwise. And so far, all but one (and this single one I do not know enough in regards to his personal life) have had comorbid conditions such as ASD, ADHD, Dysphoria, Bipolar, etc.


Thus, there appears to be a connection between having or being born with certain disorders and gender identity non-conformity and sexualilty. For those who are homosexual, for the dysphoric, and for those who identify as non-binary in the recent new wave of “gender studies” (which I also believe is largely a manipulative education system which is using semantics of "personalities and gender roles" and equates it to "gender identity" but I digress). All have seen to have at extremely high rates, similar mental conditions (and at times comorbid physical conditions), more often than not.

I say this, not as to be offensive, but again, merely as an objective observation.

Such of course can always be association fallacy, through bias targeting only those with such conditions and painting the entire LGBT community as all being akin. To ensure there is no association fallacy, it is why I took upon real recording of data must take place to observe these potential patterns, and an effort to be made to try and understand how they may be connected in a rational scientific manner.

To further investigate to see if there was any vadilty to my personal theories, I looked up to see if there were other studies with similar results, and there were.

https://sensooli.com/blog/is-there-an-o ... and-trans/
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/tra ... r-autistic
https://sparkforautism.org/discover_art ... -identity/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29159906/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tabo ... -qcxjfxs82

Thus, in the framework of "neuodiveristy", not the movement for rights, but the medical term, which identifies ASD, ADHD, Bipolar, etc as all being a "single condition" operating on a broad spectrum in various individuals, I would say homosexuality and similar sexual leanings, are one feature of such a spectrum. Which also may explain some of the more "eccentric behaviours" in some who are gay, such as flamboyancy, drag culture, dramatic personas, etc (though not all who are gay are like this, but stereotypes often echo some truths).



Now on handling this from a Christian perspective....


Dealing with homosexualilty in the modern day, is of course often a complicated and sensitive subject. Feelings of people are easily hurt, and such feelings in these times do not have a high threshold for patience in regards to what is seen as mere “outdated and ignorant prejudices”. It is why so many churches have decided to accept homosexual behaviours in their congregations, and have declared it not to be a sin. Afterall, we are not living in the year 1 C.E anymore, we understand today that there those who are perhaps quite literally biologically born with such sexual orientation, just as those of us who are straight have not “chosen” our own orientation. These are indeed all very valid points, and play very important parts to the way we as Christians should treat those who are gay… Yet the undeniable and unchangeable the law of Christ requires that people must strive to not live that life style or carry out such urges as they are described as being “unnatural and sinful”, just as those who are biologically born with a sexual attraction to children (who some of which end up becoming pedophiles and molesters), or those who are sexually attracted to animals (some of which end up committing acts of beastiality) are regarded as having unnatural sexual orientation despite being born in such a way.

Of course this is a hard pill to swallow, and when being born and raised in a modern society with modern understandings of the mind and brain, is it any wonder? Today, homophobia is comparable to racism (and I would say, rightly so), yet God’s word does not change, and has stated homosexualilty to be a sin which will be judged at the end of all things (and let’s remember, God can see the future, meaning the future of human society and all its advancements, yet made no exception to the written rule), and that’s not something I as a believing Christian can argue against, rather… it is something to be “understood”.

To truly understand the “biblical crime” of homosexualilty, and to best explain it to people of the modern day, especially to those who they themselves are gay, it must be looked at in the ‘historical’ context.

All of the laws of God are based upon “love”, aka “benefits”. Whilst at first this seems absurd to those of a gay orientation, considering their very “born identity” is put on trial by God (a very understandable feeling), we have to take a closer look to the time period and world people lived in when those words were first penned into the scriptures. A good example to start with is fornication; in an historical context, fornication (sex outside of marriage) was bad, why? Because they had no contraception, and survival was based upon the existence of the family unit in society back in those times. As a result of fornication, many fatherless and motherless children would be walking the streets homeless, and not to addtionally mention, STDs would have spread rapidly from person to person, causing multitudes of early, painful deaths. In that same stead, homosexualilty; back then, was seen as an almost global crime (with exception to a few groups and societies, of whom the rest of the world saw as corrupt or perverted). Without medication or condoms, likewise to fornication, rampant disease was the consequence (much more so for homosexual relationships). As such we would have considered the Biblical law in such a time and context to be a protection. But this is not all, to fully grasp why those things were considered “crimes”, and were listed next to things such as theft and murder in the Bible, lies in ancient society as whole in itself. Homosexual acts in ancient times were punishable by the same measure of murder and theft in those societies, on the basis of the natural consequences in nature that such life style entailed (of which spread disease and death to others), in a sense, it could be seen from their point of view as the prinicple of “an eye for eye”. That person’s actions was spreading disease and death to others, therefore, they were given death or imprisonment in turn, as an attempt to “match the punishment to the crime”.

Yet, even in such an ancient society with that line of logic, it is important to know that homosexuals were not not punished in the early Christian congregation (in terms of what people think of today in regards to “punishment”, such as being beaten, slapped, cursed at, imprisoned or put to death), rather those ones were simply told “don’t do it”. There was no scolding, torture, abuse, slapping, hitting, solitary confinement, or anything like that in the first century congregations (something which ‘did’ happen in general society back then, and of course the later corrupted Christendom churches). If someone committed such acts without repentence, the worse one could recieve was excommunication from the congregation (which simply means not being able to go to church anymore), and it was left to God and Jesus to ultimately judge that individual.

No doubt of course, people’s “views” (not actions) of such ones in general society back then, and even perhaps amongst Christians, would have been surely a tad judgemental, or homophobic by today’s standards, but again, this was on the basis of the global atmosphere of the time, and how most people saw gays, considering they did not have the luxury to say “I was born that way, I’m not hurting anyone, leave me alone”, for in fact… they ‘were’ hurting people (it was in fact the gradual acceptance of this life style along with sexual immorality in genere which contributed to the downfall of Rome’s society and Empire, as disease began to spread like wildfire).

If a pedophile says today “I was born that way, leave me alone”, the reactions sparked are often outbursts of disgust and anger. Even though they ‘are’ born that way, on the basis that they hurt children, it feeds into that 99% global agreement that sex with children is wrong. Same sex relations were viewed in that exact same light before the advancement of medical means. In ancient times, to act on gay impulses was seen to be a crime of selfish perversion and spreading of disease, and those who were born gay… grew up in such a society from birth, and so likewise they would have been seen to be as mentally comparable to a person today born a pedophile. He would grow up within that society knowing that his actions, even if they were an in-born impulse, would be universally seen as morally wrong, and they would feel the same sense shame, moral responsiblity and guilt with that, just as a modern day pedophile would. Those going out and actually commiting the act, would ones choosing to have the reputation of a criminal, in fact, not just the reputation, but to truly “be a criminal”, as the idea of being gay being an “evil crime” would have been as strongly implanted in a homosexual’s ‘own’ head from birth, just as much as it was in everyone else’s head from birth in 99% of the Earth’s ancient societies (some of which still retain this cultural outlook today, such as isolated tribes, or Middle Eastern cultures).

This is why the laws against homosexuals, in both society and religion, was not seen as some evil intollerant regime, either by those holding to those laws, or those who were victim to the punishments of those laws, that is, the gays themselves. Most if not all homosexuals in those days would have been ‘self professed’ “criminals and perverts” due to knowing no other way of life or society, just as a pedophile today would admit they were a self professed criminal for acting on ‘their’ in-born impulses, because of the society ‘we’ exist in.

But now society is different, and upon the basis of the Biblical Christian teaching of empathy and mercy based upon “ignorance” and understanding of the innerperson and heart over his outward apperance (just as when Jesus said to the pharisees that “those who are blind commit no sin”, or the example of Apostle Paul, being shown mercy after he stoned Christians, because he felt genuinly it was the morally right thing to do).

Today, a person who is gay may be anti-Christian because they believe it is the morally right thing to do from a good place in their heart. In that stead, we today understand people are born a certain way, that society is different (of which people are born into), as are the modern implications of living a homosexual life, and those acting on homosexualilty are not “evil perverts” (as opposed to those in ancient times). Of course, this does not suddenly mean, we are free to teach that acting on gay urges is “acceptable for a Christian”, but there is no condemning of such people either, just as in the first century, all that can be said is merely; “God said don’t do that”, it is not and should never be coupled with homophobia, but rather, understanding and mercy.

But this here lies the fault of many modern churches, who change God’s written laws to suit themselves. We cannot be ‘assumptive’ and change the commands of God to say it’s “ok” now. We cannot argue that “what God says is unnatural is now not a sin in his view because we put a bandaid on it to prevent the natural consequences”. But most certainly, homophobia (abusing, mocking, insulting, outcasting) is as wrong as racism is today, even by a Christian standpoint.

Jesus (of whom himself when on Earth ate with tax collectors and sinners), by God’s decree, will be the one responsible for reading people’s hearts and judging the everlasting fate of all inviduals at the end, he will know the situation of all individuals, and takes into accout the world and societies we live in, just as God did with the ancients (Matthew 19:8). But it ‘is’ the responsiblity of the Christian congregation not to tolerate “willful and unrepentant submittance” to these sexual urges by ‘practicing members’, that is, believeing Christians who fully accept God’s word as law, just as much as the congregation would not tolerate the sexual sins (such as fornication or adultery) of a hetrosexual (straight) couple.

When a straight couple commits sexual sin, we do not suddenly view them as “freaks”, to be victim to… “fornicaphobia” (just to make up a word on the spot to get the point across), rather they merely commited a sin of which they have chance to repent, as should it be with those who are gay, there is no need to “dehumanise” them, but at the same time, we cannot ‘announce the practice’ as “not being a sin anymore”, nor should such ones who themselves promote or willingly practice such a lifestyle be in teaching positions in Congregations (1 Timothy 3), as crude or “politically incorrect” as it may sound to others.

This is not to say that a man or woman born gay, or has a history of homosexuality cannot be a Christian teacher or hold a church position, but rather, it is the one without repentance, the one who “willingly practices and promotes” such things who is to be seen as unsuitable for such a position in the Congregation.

The chuches of many denominations now however, are accepting the very open practice of homosexuality and are appointing their various priests who are openly in such relationships. This is the extreme where “understanding and tolerance” (not bad things in themselves, as I have aformentioned) have overtaken God’s objective authority on the matter, for people are polarised in their mentalilty and cannot seperate “conscientious conviction to law” against “prejudice”, and as such, it has sadly blinded them into the acceptance of sin in the congregations.
"The fruitage of the Spirit is; love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control..." Galatians 5:22-23

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests