Do you think that homosexuality is a choice?

[David Brider]

Them's the consequences!

It somehow makes them feel righteous when people express negativity about their obvious choices in life.

Were you maybe not paying attention to what CriticalMassKitten said?

Here it is again:

It wasn't a choice.

David.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Were you maybe not paying attention to what CriticalMassKitten said?

Here it is again:

It wasn't a choice.

David.

Were you not paying attention to my views? I said where it is not believed to be a choice, it is probably a spiritual stronghold.

It is always something that can be overcome in order to serve God in righteousness. No one is prevented from healing, except by their own will. Jesus always asked if people "will" be healed. If you aren't willing, then you won't receive it.

 

[David Brider]

Thank You for explaining your definition of agenda.

Could you maybe explain alittle better what you mean by remaining neutral, and how you believe one can do that on a debate forum?

Well, in the context of this particular debate, I try to read what the Bible says, and weigh that against what people say it says, and point out where there are contradictions between the two.

In general, I just try to remain fairly calm and polite and to remember that the people I'm debating with are real people with real lives, and that even though some of them may be driving me to despair, remaining polite and friendly with them is going to do everyone involved much more good than if I get angry with them.

David.

 

[David Brider]

Were you not paying attention to my views? I said where it is not believed to be a choice, it is probably a spiritual stronghold.

What about the situations where it's neither of those? From CriticalMassKitten's testimony there's no reason to believe it's either a choice or a spiritual stronghold.

It is always something that can be overcome in order to serve God in righteousness.

There are, of course, many homosexual Christians who are able to serve God in righteousness. So being homosexual isn't necessarily something that needs to be overcome.

David.

 

[David Brider]

No one is prevented from healing, except by their own will.

And conversely there are many homosexual Christians who, for whatever reasons (often because they're driven to feelings of extreme guilt by their fellow believers) pray ceaselessly that their homosexual orientation will be removed from them, but who do not see the "healing" you speak of, despite them seeking it wholeheartedly.

Jesus always asked if people "will" be healed. If you aren't willing, then you won't receive it.

Many homosexuals, Christian and otherwise, don't share your belief that being homosexual is something to be healed from in the first place.

David.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Well, in the context of this particular debate, I try to read what the Bible says, and weigh that against what people say it says, and point out where there are contradictions between the two.

In general, I just try to remain fairly calm and polite and to remember that the people I'm debating with are real people with real lives, and that even though some of them may be driving me to despair, remaining polite and friendly with them is going to do everyone involved much more good than if I get angry with them.

David.

Again, thank you very much for answering my question as I attempt to get a better understanding of your thoughts/opinions.

 

[savedandhappy1]

What about the situations where it's neither of those? From CriticalMassKitten's testimony there's no reason to believe it's either a choice or a spiritual stronghold.

David.

In Romans 1:26 we can see maybe a better way of understanding those feelings by looking closer at the Greek used.

Romans 1:26 For thisreason God gave them over (3SAAI) to degrading passions; for their women exchanged (AAI)[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva] [/FONT]the natural function for that which is unnatural * ([FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]NASB: Lockman[/FONT])

Passions (3806) (pathos from páscho = suffer) (3 uses: Romans; Colossians; 1 Thessalonians) primarily denotes whatever one suffers or experiences in any way; hence, an affection of the mind, a passionate desire. Pathos was used by the Greeks to describe either good or bad desires but in the NT pathos always refers to bad desires, especially of a sexual nature. Pathos means excited emotion, uncontrollable desire, compelling feelings, overpowering urges.


Pathos denotes not so much the violence of the feeling as its ungovernable nature. Note the derivation from the verb pascho to suffer which expresses the lustful feeling the individual suffers.
A passion is a drive or force that does not rest until satisfied. These are internal desires (emanating from our fallen sin nature) cause the victim to suffer and that have to be satisfied or they drive you crazy. A passion describes intense emotion compelling action; intense, driving, or overmastering feeling or conviction; ardent affection; sexual desire or an emotion that is deeply stirring or ungovernable. The word "desires" (when used as noun as in the present context) means to have a longing for and stresses the strength of feeling and often implies strong intention or aim; conscious impulse toward something that promises enjoyment or satisfaction in its attainment.

Here are some other words in the verse which I have seen some have problems with, and maybe seeing them broke down and explained might help with the scriptures.

Exchanged (3337) (metallasso from metá = change of place or condition + allásso = change) is used only in this verse and the preceding in the NT and means to cease one activity and to start something else in exchange. It denotes the giving up of one thing (the natural function of the woman, heterosexuality and child bearing) in order to receive another (the lie of lesbianism). Women became lesbians, practicing unnatural sex and knowing no shame.

The verb exchanged is aorist tense (action at a moment in time) and active voice (subject makes a choice of their will to carry out this action) indicating that these women made a deliberate choice to exchange the natural for the unnatural, which was a reflection of the influence of the degrading passions God had given them into the power of.

"Natural" (natural) (phusikos from phúsis = nature) means pertaining to things in accordance with nature or belonging to the naturally regulated order of things. Phusikos refers to those things which one does out of instinct. The idea is that something pertains to that which is in accordance with the nature or character of that thing. Thus it is natural for both men and woman to desire heterosexual relationships.

"Function" (function) (chresis from chráomai = to use) describes use or the act (usage) or manner (use) of using. It can refer to the habitual or customary usage of something. Chresis was commonly used of sexual intercourse, and in this context the term could refer to nothing other than intimate sexual relations and more specifically the perverted use of one's body and not the use specified in God's plan and order for men and women who were created in His image.

"Unnatural" is the same word for "natural" (phusikos) preceded by the preposition para (3844) which means alongside, beside or contrary. Thus their acts are "contrary to natural acts". Even most pagan societies have recognized the clearly obvious fact that homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural. It is also an abnormality that is unique to man.

 

[HannahBanana]

Even most pagan societies have recognized the clearly obvious fact that homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural. It is also an abnormality that is unique to man.

Just one quick note: "Normal" is a subjective term, which means that your personal definition of "normal" is no more true or factual than my definition of the word "normal." So just because you think that homosexuality is abnormal doesn't mean that it actually is abnormal.

Also, homosexuality is not unnatural at all, since it occurs all the time in nature. Here's proof:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
http://www.livescience.com/animals/061116_homosexual_animals.html
http://www.nhm.uio.no/againstnature/gayanimals.html

Those links also prove that homosexuality is not "unique to man." I suggest you do some research before you go making any more claims about homosexuality.

 

[Lupinus]

So does eating of an animals own young.

Doesn't make it natural or right for humans.

 

[HannahBanana]

So does eating of an animals own young.

Doesn't make it natural or right for humans.

How is something that occurs in nature not natural? The word "natural" is defined as:

a: being in accordance with or determined by nature b: having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

So, going by that definition, how exactly is homosexuality not natural?

Also, who are you to say what's right for humans? What gives you the authority to decide that?

 

[savedandhappy1]

Just one quick note: "Normal" is a subjective term, which means that your personal definition of "normal" is no more true or factual than my definition of the word "normal." So just because you think that homosexuality is abnormal doesn't mean that it actually is abnormal.

Also, homosexuality is not unnatural at all, since it occurs all the time in nature. Here's proof:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
http://www.livescience.com/animals/061116_homosexual_animals.html
http://www.nhm.uio.no/againstnature/gayanimals.html

Those links also prove that homosexuality is not "unique to man." I suggest you do some research before you go making any more claims about homosexuality.

I have seen all the stats where people try and compare humans who are created in God's image, and have had a souled breathed into them by their Creator, to animals that do not have a souled or a need for forgiveness from their sins, and who aren't made in the image of God before. Thanks for posting them even though they have nothing to do with man, God, sin, forgiveness, or homosexuality.

So maybe the research should be done on why anyone would think that the two have anything in common. Let me know before you make any more claims about me or homosexuality, ok?

 

[HannahBanana]

I have seen all the stats where people try and compare humans who are created in God's image, and have had a souled breathed into them by their Creator, to animals that do not have a souled or a need for forgiveness from their sins, and who aren't made in the image of God before. Thanks for posting them even though they have nothing to do with man, God, sin, forgiveness, or homosexuality.

So maybe the research should be done on why anyone would think that the two have anything in common. Let me know before you make any more claims about me or homosexuality, ok?

So you think that the Bible is more correct on this issue than science is? Since when did the authors of the Bible have even close to as much scientific knowledge as today's scientists do? Seriously, a 2,000-year-old book is not a good reference to look to for scientific facts.

 

[Lupinus]

How is something that occurs in nature not natural?

Not natural for humans. Many things happen among animals that would not be acceptable to humans, much of that behavior sinful.

Also, who are you to say what's right for humans? What gives you the authority to decide that?

I'm just passing along the message

 

[HannahBanana]

Not natural for humans. Many things happen among animals that would not be acceptable to humans, much of that behavior sinful.

Um...you do realize that humans are animals, don't you?

I'm just passing along the message

Any reason you didn't actually answer my questions? Here they are again: "Who are you to say what's right for humans? What gives you the authority to decide that?" Please actually answer those questions this time. Thanks.

 

[Lupinus]

Um...you do realize that humans are animals, don't you?

Complete twisting of things. You compared us to animals, I did the same to prove your argument wrong and irrelevant.

Any reason you didn't actually answer my questions?

I did. I'm just a messenger, IE, it's not my authority. I'm passing along the info we have been given.

 

[HannahBanana]

Complete twisting of things. You compared us to animals, I did the same to prove your argument wrong and irrelevant.

True. Okay, new argument. Humans invented war, rape, and hatred, so how are we any better than any other animals out there?

I did. I'm just a messenger, IE, it's not my authority. I'm passing along the info we have been given.

No, you are passing along your personal interpretation of the information we have been given. And there is nothing that makes your interpretation of that information any more "right" or "true" than my personal interpretation of it.

 

[Lupinus]

True. Okay, new argument. Humans invented war, rape, and hatred, so how are we any better than any other animals out there?

All irrelevant to the topic at hand. We are different then animals, anyone with a lick of sense can see comparing us to them is folly.

No, you are passing along your personal interpretation of the information we have been given. And there is nothing that makes your interpretation of that information any more "right" or "true" than my personal interpretation of it.

Sure there is a reason. I quote and follow directly from scripture as it says it, not how I would like to explain it or understand it.

 

[HannahBanana]

All irrelevant to the topic at hand. We are different then animals, anyone with a lick of sense can see comparing us to them is folly.

So it's not irrelevant to the topic at hand for you to point out that humans are better than animals, but it is irrelevant to the topic at hand for me to point out that humans aren't actually better than animals? Care to explain the logic behind that one for me?

Sure there is a reason. I quote and follow directly from scripture as it says it, not how I would like to explain it or understand it.

Look, if there were one right way to interpret the Bible then there wouldn't be thousands of Christian denominations. Just admit it, you're just as guilty of having your own interpretation of the words of the Bible as any other Christian is.

 

[Lupinus]

So it's not irrelevant to the topic at hand for you to point out that humans are better than animals, but it is irrelevant to the topic at hand for me to point out that humans aren't actually better than animals? Care to explain the logic behind that one for me?

I don't recall being the one who brought animals into the subject. I was merely refuting you points.

Look, if there were one right way to interpret the Bible then there wouldn't be thousands of Christian denominations. Just admit it, you're just as guilty of having your own interpretation of the words of the Bible as any other Christian is.

There are many reasons for this. The bible is very clear on this subject however.

 

[HannahBanana]

I don't recall being the one who brought animals into the subject. I was merely refuting you points.

Actually, you were the one who brought animals into the debate, in post # 291.

There are many reasons for this. The bible is very clear on this subject however.

Reasons such as...?

And no, the Bible is not clear on the subject of whether or not homosexuality is a choice, nor is it clear on the subject of whether or not homosexuality is natural or normal. The Bible doesn't mention the fact (yes, it is a fact) that there are many homosexual animals out there, nor does it mention the fact that the word "normal" is subjective, and thus, not everyone considers the same things to be "normal."