I'm not interested in discussing it, because it feeds back into the idea that we can bring about change in someone's sexual orientation or gender identity (even if only be asking God to do it), and I see that as just a complete no-go zone.
Which seems to be related to:
One is not higher than the other. Both are sources of valuable information, and, when read well, neither should contradict the other.
Saying that general and specific revelation are two communications by God is quite true.
Saying that our limited understanding of nature through science is on the same level as Scripture means you are going to have quite a difficult time trying to convince pastors of your view.
But more to the point, you only want to reconcile science to an abridged version of Scripture that rules out God transforming people's minds. How is that helpful?
My understanding - and my original degree is in this field, although I've been out of it for some time now - is that for most people it's about conditions during embryonic development. So no, not one gene or a set of genes, but which particular genes were active (and how strongly) at key moments during brain development. That is to say, by the time a person's born, this stuff is already pretty much determined.
Post your studies please. At least in the monozygotic twin study info I have seen for gender dysphoria for instance there was certainly some indication of influence, but far from determinative as the large majority did not show concordance.
My understanding on sexual orientation is that the concordance is higher.
Both then still also allow for environmental factors. But more to the point the Creator of the environment can do anything He wants, and you consistently say that is a no-go--that is not reconciling Scripture to science. That is ignoring Scripture and going with your understanding of science.
But we don't - to take an unrelated sort of developmental difference - say to an autistic person that they must become neurotypical in order to be Godly, even though in many ways they would struggle less if they were neurotypical. And we would recognise that we have no way to make them neurotypical. I see this as analogous.
While autism presents a number of challenges it is not quite the same as same sex orientation as that directly tempts to a prohibited activity. Why not go with your earlier example of Kleptomania?
Does God still expect kleptomaniacs to not steal?
Can God change their mind?
Would you pray for God to change their mind?
Did God design Kleptomaniacs, and intend them?
If God didn't design them, how did they come about?
If God didn't design them, is there something about the nature of a kleptomaniac that is defective?
We could argue about whether such things are because of the fall, or whatever, but in the end for the person living with it that's a pretty irrelevant academic argument. They still have to live with it.
No, it is not academic when the Scriptures in Romans 1 do in fact spell out that people were handed over to such passions for same sex union as a result of specific rejection of divine truth (including natural revelation). How does that relate to your developmental framework?
For sure. Nobody is saying we should have one quick conversation with someone claiming gender dysphoria and the next day be signing them up for surgery and changing their birth certificates.
Do you want to discuss how close a few clinics get to that by looking at their own words?
And in many clinics they are prioritizing assuring ease of passing, and therefore using early interventions, rather than waiting for puberty and proper informed consent, which results in less opportunity for reflection as they go through actual development, the hormonal changes, etc.
The point of the bills is to protect people from harmful practices. That's something we should all be able to agree on. That a secular government is not then concerned with what is or is not sinful behaviour, from a Christian point of view, is not really the point. We don't have to agree on that point to be able to refrain from the harmful practices.
I cannot, and will not agree with a law that says I cannot discuss what the Bible actually says about our sinful nature, our desires, etc. and pretend that we as people are not in fact defective due to the effects of sin entering the world.
What she needs to hear is something quite different; that she is loved by God, that she has a place in the church, and that her gifts are worthy of celebrating, because it's those messages she hasn't heard enough.
And yet, we have said repeatedly that people do hear these messages in our churches. Because if they are walking in the Spirit they are every bit as much a part of Christ's body as us.
And if they are not believers yet then we are told in I Corinthians 5 not to judge them at all, but to leave that to God.
And we are to seek them as ones who need Jesus, just like the rest of us, because all of us are by nature objects of wrath.
That's not really where the issue is, though. Nor is blaming God the issue (although I'd suggest that anger is probably a necessary stage of healthy grief, when one realises that one's life perhaps isn't going to be what one imagined).
A number of Christians I have talked to with such issues are often quite upset with God.
And I would suggest that an actual discussion of the fall and its impact on humanity, and God's redemptive plan can give understanding and hope, rather than the notion you propose that it shames people who are walking in Christ. Those walking in Christ don't need to feel shame, because they are washed, sanctified, justified, and because they have something beyond biology at work in them--the Spirit of God. And while they may experience temptation due to the flesh, they are no longer slaves to sin.
The teaching of Scripture is that NONE of us can change our desires that come from the flesh and are opposed to God. But Jesus lives in us and says to crucify them.
tall73 said: ↑
Whereas we see any desire that is opposed to what God wants as a problem in itself, though not sin, but leading towards sin.
Perhaps so, but I'm not necessarily seeing same-sex attraction as any worse than all the other ways this happens to us.
Of course it is not any worse than all the other ways that happens to us. Which is the point. None of us can please God in our flesh. It is not wrong to explain that to homosexuals, or thieves or liars, or any of the other many groups of sinners that we all fall into somewhere. Our sinful nature IS defective. And it is not just because of a biological oopsy.
tall73 said: ↑
But in the final analysis your buffer of saying the attraction itself is not a problem doesn't do much to resolve the abuse problem if abuse is anything that goes against the notion that their orientation is just part of diversity, and is fine. Because if the orientation is just diversity and fine, then acting on it is also just diversity and fine.
Well, no. That doesn't logically follow.
It does according to the document you posted, because that is their logic. If there is no defect, then sexual orientation "diversity" is just an amoral thing. And carrying out the related action is just an amoral thing.
But if there is a moral principle at stake, and a desire to do things that God does not want was not in fact designed by God, but is a part of our fallen flesh, then we are all defective.
Which leads back to:
tall73 said: ↑
Why is the action sinful? Why is homosexual sex sinful?
I think that's probably getting way beyond what CF's rules would allow us to discuss in depth; but the short answer is because it's not within the parameters God's set up.
Well in many places without promotion it can be discussed, and in some areas it can be debated. But if you say that the orientation is an amoral biological quirk, then you need to explain why the action is a sin.
And you need to explain whether God planned that quirk.
And you need to explain why the Bible, which you say agrees with science, does not say it is a biological, unplanned oopsy, but says that they were given over to these passions as a result of a specific rebellion:
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
Rom 1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
Rom 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Rom 1:28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
Rom 1:29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,
Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Rom 1:32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Yes. Because I would accept them, support them, include them, and so forth, for who they are, and have no agenda for changing or shaming them.
And we also, if they are walking in Christ, support them, include them and consider them brothers and sisters in Christ.
However, we do not tell them that their nature is without defect--just as we don't tell anyone that, because all of our natures are deeply defective due to sin entering the world.
However, your source is still saying that people come in diverse orientation and you should affirm that. But they don't seem to mean it the way you do, where you don't have any issue with their attraction---but you do have an issue with their action if they carry it out. They sound like they affirm all of it, sex included. Because that is the end point of the logic of no defect. But the Scriptures say we all have a defect--the flesh, which cannot please God, that the law of sin is at work in our members, that we are in a body of death, that we are by nature objects of wrath--until Jesus who is rich in mercy saves us.
Now if Scripture and nature match up, then you should stop declining the interaction on these Scripture issues, or calling them obscure, or off-topic, etc.
They are not off topic to us at all, and you won't convince us without discussing it.
