celebrity talk
-
joe
- Newbie Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 8:41 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
celebrity talk
Hello all, I am new to this board and just looking for answers I guess. I consider myself a good person, a good christian, church going,God fearing. I was on the computer yesterday surfing for alternative energy sources and the tv was on but I wasn't paying much attention. My wife was watching Oprah and she had some people on her show that were having problems like all of us. She had a couple of ministers on her program as guests to help with solutions. One person came on who was gay and was having monetary problems. Not keeping track of his checking account and would always be overdrawn etc. It seemed to be normal discusion unti one of the ministers said "being born gay is a gift from God". I couldn't beleive my ears. I don't consider myself to be a hateful person. I respect other peoples beleifs. I don't get into deep discussions about religion because I am not that schooled on the subject. For myself and people close to me I try to follow the 10 Commandments of God. What this minister said really bothers me. Maybe someone on here can help me to understand why I feel this way.
-
cslewislover
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2333
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:09 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Creation Position: Undecided
- Location: Southern California
- Contact:
Re: celebrity talk
There are a number of verses that indicate the God does not at all approve of homosexuality. So that minister was not using the bible for his answer, and I'm sure that's why you feel bad! I'm sure there's an article or two on the main site about it. I'm going to go look . . . well, I actually didn't find much. Here's just a short thing on homosexuality, from "Answers to Tough Questions," through RBC.
What is the sin of homosexuality?
People on both sides of the issue often misunderstand the sin of homosexuality. In trying to argue that there are acceptable types of homosexual relationships, some try to define the sin of homosexuality by limiting it to specific forms of sexual behavior between those of the same gender such as pederasty (sex between men and boys). Defining unhealthy same-sex behavior in this manner, however, does not reflect the spirit or language of the Bible.
On the other side of the issue are those who fail to recognize the difference between experiencing same-sex attractions and choosing to pursue homosexual lust and/or behavior. Generally speaking, those who feel same-sex attraction experience desires that are not initially chosen. They are conditioned. The attractions usually stem from early influences and are developed outside of a person's conscious awareness (see Do people choose to have sexual attractions for the same gender? ).
Feeling sexual desires for the same gender is not the sin of homosexuality. Romans 1:26-27 elaborates:
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Phrases such as "inflamed with lust" and "men committed indecent acts with other men" show that the homosexuality the apostle Paul had in view was lust and behavior, not merely feeling sexual attraction for same gender. Many who have felt unnatural sexual attractions for those of the same sex have not crossed a moral line into sexual lust and behavior any more than those who naturally feel sexual attractions for those of the opposite sex. It's not until they cultivate fantasies about or engage in sexual behavior with another person of the same gender that they commit the sin of homosexuality.
As with any type of immoral thought or behavior, homosexuality is fundamentally a sin of the heart. Paul's statements about women who "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones" (v.26) and men who "abandoned natural relations with women" (v.27) demonstrate that the sin of homosexuality comes from a heart that rebels against God by forsaking His natural design for relationships and pursuing abnormal relations with those of the same sex.
Jeff Olson
http://www.rbc.org/questionsDetail.aspx?id=45870
What is the sin of homosexuality?
People on both sides of the issue often misunderstand the sin of homosexuality. In trying to argue that there are acceptable types of homosexual relationships, some try to define the sin of homosexuality by limiting it to specific forms of sexual behavior between those of the same gender such as pederasty (sex between men and boys). Defining unhealthy same-sex behavior in this manner, however, does not reflect the spirit or language of the Bible.
On the other side of the issue are those who fail to recognize the difference between experiencing same-sex attractions and choosing to pursue homosexual lust and/or behavior. Generally speaking, those who feel same-sex attraction experience desires that are not initially chosen. They are conditioned. The attractions usually stem from early influences and are developed outside of a person's conscious awareness (see Do people choose to have sexual attractions for the same gender? ).
Feeling sexual desires for the same gender is not the sin of homosexuality. Romans 1:26-27 elaborates:
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Phrases such as "inflamed with lust" and "men committed indecent acts with other men" show that the homosexuality the apostle Paul had in view was lust and behavior, not merely feeling sexual attraction for same gender. Many who have felt unnatural sexual attractions for those of the same sex have not crossed a moral line into sexual lust and behavior any more than those who naturally feel sexual attractions for those of the opposite sex. It's not until they cultivate fantasies about or engage in sexual behavior with another person of the same gender that they commit the sin of homosexuality.
As with any type of immoral thought or behavior, homosexuality is fundamentally a sin of the heart. Paul's statements about women who "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones" (v.26) and men who "abandoned natural relations with women" (v.27) demonstrate that the sin of homosexuality comes from a heart that rebels against God by forsaking His natural design for relationships and pursuing abnormal relations with those of the same sex.
Jeff Olson
http://www.rbc.org/questionsDetail.aspx?id=45870
Last edited by cslewislover on Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
BavarianWheels
- Prestigious Senior Member
- Posts: 1806
- Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 12:09 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Southern California
Re: celebrity talk
.
.
I don't condone homosexuality...but being born at all is a blessing of sorts from God. I don't think adding the gay part is much different.
.
.
.
I don't condone homosexuality...but being born at all is a blessing of sorts from God. I don't think adding the gay part is much different.
.
.
-
cslewislover
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2333
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:09 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Creation Position: Undecided
- Location: Southern California
- Contact:
Re: celebrity talk
Hi BW, hi Joe. I guess I'm into it this morning, although I was trying to find an article with the verses in it. Anyway, this one is interesting, so I'll post it as well.
Were Old Testament and New Testament writers unaware of the existence of the congenital or “natural” homosexual who didn't choose to be attracted to men but was born that way?
Apologists for homosexual behavior often attempt to distinguish between “born” homosexuals and people who engage in homosexual behavior for other reasons. This distinction is usually combined with the claim that approximately 10 percent of the population is exclusively homosexual. Both of these claims are false. Further, they are misleading because they provide a rationalization for “normalizing” harmful behavior.
Science has not yet discovered any genetically dictated behavior in humans. So far, genetically dictated behaviors of the one-gene-one-trait variety have been found only in very simple organisms…. But if many genes are involved in a behavior, then changes in that behavior will tend to take place very slowly and steadily (say, changes of a few percent each generation over many generations, perhaps thirty). That being so, homosexuality could not appear and disappear suddenly in family trees the way it does. (Whitehead, Genes, 209, quoted in The Bible and Homosexual Practice)
Desires and inclinations don't constitute identity. We all have desires and inclinations we must choose to resist. Certainly, while there is overwhelming evidence that genetic predisposition alone is not sufficient to produce a homosexual identity, the biology and early childhood experiences of some individuals strongly combine to give the impression of being “born” homosexual. Such people should never be condemned for such feelings, but viewing such feelings as “identity” would be a serious mistake. Authors Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse explain why in their book, Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate.
Science has not eliminated responsibility for sexual behavior…. The church's moral concern is with what an individual does with his or her experiences of same-sex attraction. Only in the case of extreme biological determination at the level of individual acts would moral culpability be seen as obliterated. Homosexual persons are not subhuman robots whose acts are predetermined. They are moral agents who inherit tendencies from biology and environment, and who share in shaping their character by the response they make to their life situations. Like all persons, they must ask, “This is what I want to do, but is it what I should do?” The existence of inclinations or predispositions does not erase the need for moral evaluation of those inclinations (pp. 89-90).
Would it be helpful to view some people who have committed murder as “born killers” whose behavior is genetically “caused”? Would it serve any good to hold forth the possibility that some people have no choice but to identify themselves as “killers” who have no other choice but to live out their violent identity? A government report on the origins of violence states:
[Violent behavior is caused by] interactions among individuals' psychosocial development, neurological and hormonal differences, and social processes. . . . These studies suggest at most a weak role for genetic processes in influencing potentials for violent behavior. . . . If genetic predispositions to violence are discovered, they are likely to involve many genes and substantial environmental interaction rather than any simple genetic marker.1
A realistic perspective views both violent passion and sexual desire (both homosexual and heterosexual) as inclinations that can either be misused or kept within proper bounds.
Further, the idea that there is a difference between “genuine” homosexuals and people who engage in homosexuality for other reasons is countered by the evidence. Most of those who refer to themselves as “exclusively” homosexual have on some occasion(s) been sexuality intimate with the opposite sex.2 In terms of common sense and practical judgment, how could one objectively distinguish between a “genuine” homosexual who has nevertheless experienced sex with a member of the opposite sex, and a person who is “not genuinely homosexual”? For that matter, can one differentiate in any ultimate sense between the passions that aroused ancient Assyrian soldiers to rape their defeated enemies and the passions that motivate prisoners in exclusively male prisons to engage in sodomy? Can we clearly distinguish between the desire of a married adult man for an attractive adolescent male (as was common among the Greeks) and the desperate longing of a lonely, unloved adolescent to be touched? How are these passions less “genuine” than those of people who believe they are “constitutionally gay”?
Sexual passion above all other kinds of passion is likely to generate rationalizations. This is why the Bible doesn't base the morality of sexual behavior on subjective feelings.3 Many pedophiles insist that they genuinely love the children they abuse. Adulterers often claim that they never were genuinely in love with their wives, but have found true love in the arms of another woman. Some adulterers (both male and female) claim that their love is too great to share with merely one individual, and can only be expressed in an “open marriage” enhanced by other liaisons. There is nothing new about the subtlety of sexual temptation and the rationalization of sexual sin. Scripture takes an unequivocal stand against homosexual behavior because it is an inherent violation of human dignity and barrier to spiritual growth.
1. The 1992 United States National Research Council Report on violence and genes, quoted by Whitehead, Genes, 215-216.
2. Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), 53-61, 286-94.
3. Finally, we want to briefly return to a matter raised earlier. We quoted McNeil, who stated “Only a sadistic God would create hundreds of thousands of humans to be inherently homosexual and then deny them the right to sexual intimacy.” To this we must respond, “Who made sexual intimacy a right?” Rather than a right, Scripture would seem to paint sexual chastity as an obligation for those who, for whatever reasons, do not find themselves married (whether those reasons are an unwanted divorce, lack of available partners, death of a spouse or because of a religious vow). Homosexual persons have the same capacities for all other sorts of intimacy, other than erotic sexual intimacy, that serve to sustain and nourish us. (Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate, p. 90)
Dan Vander Lugt
http://www.rbc.org/questionsDetail.aspx ... &Topic=620
Were Old Testament and New Testament writers unaware of the existence of the congenital or “natural” homosexual who didn't choose to be attracted to men but was born that way?
Apologists for homosexual behavior often attempt to distinguish between “born” homosexuals and people who engage in homosexual behavior for other reasons. This distinction is usually combined with the claim that approximately 10 percent of the population is exclusively homosexual. Both of these claims are false. Further, they are misleading because they provide a rationalization for “normalizing” harmful behavior.
Science has not yet discovered any genetically dictated behavior in humans. So far, genetically dictated behaviors of the one-gene-one-trait variety have been found only in very simple organisms…. But if many genes are involved in a behavior, then changes in that behavior will tend to take place very slowly and steadily (say, changes of a few percent each generation over many generations, perhaps thirty). That being so, homosexuality could not appear and disappear suddenly in family trees the way it does. (Whitehead, Genes, 209, quoted in The Bible and Homosexual Practice)
Desires and inclinations don't constitute identity. We all have desires and inclinations we must choose to resist. Certainly, while there is overwhelming evidence that genetic predisposition alone is not sufficient to produce a homosexual identity, the biology and early childhood experiences of some individuals strongly combine to give the impression of being “born” homosexual. Such people should never be condemned for such feelings, but viewing such feelings as “identity” would be a serious mistake. Authors Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse explain why in their book, Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate.
Science has not eliminated responsibility for sexual behavior…. The church's moral concern is with what an individual does with his or her experiences of same-sex attraction. Only in the case of extreme biological determination at the level of individual acts would moral culpability be seen as obliterated. Homosexual persons are not subhuman robots whose acts are predetermined. They are moral agents who inherit tendencies from biology and environment, and who share in shaping their character by the response they make to their life situations. Like all persons, they must ask, “This is what I want to do, but is it what I should do?” The existence of inclinations or predispositions does not erase the need for moral evaluation of those inclinations (pp. 89-90).
Would it be helpful to view some people who have committed murder as “born killers” whose behavior is genetically “caused”? Would it serve any good to hold forth the possibility that some people have no choice but to identify themselves as “killers” who have no other choice but to live out their violent identity? A government report on the origins of violence states:
[Violent behavior is caused by] interactions among individuals' psychosocial development, neurological and hormonal differences, and social processes. . . . These studies suggest at most a weak role for genetic processes in influencing potentials for violent behavior. . . . If genetic predispositions to violence are discovered, they are likely to involve many genes and substantial environmental interaction rather than any simple genetic marker.1
A realistic perspective views both violent passion and sexual desire (both homosexual and heterosexual) as inclinations that can either be misused or kept within proper bounds.
Further, the idea that there is a difference between “genuine” homosexuals and people who engage in homosexuality for other reasons is countered by the evidence. Most of those who refer to themselves as “exclusively” homosexual have on some occasion(s) been sexuality intimate with the opposite sex.2 In terms of common sense and practical judgment, how could one objectively distinguish between a “genuine” homosexual who has nevertheless experienced sex with a member of the opposite sex, and a person who is “not genuinely homosexual”? For that matter, can one differentiate in any ultimate sense between the passions that aroused ancient Assyrian soldiers to rape their defeated enemies and the passions that motivate prisoners in exclusively male prisons to engage in sodomy? Can we clearly distinguish between the desire of a married adult man for an attractive adolescent male (as was common among the Greeks) and the desperate longing of a lonely, unloved adolescent to be touched? How are these passions less “genuine” than those of people who believe they are “constitutionally gay”?
Sexual passion above all other kinds of passion is likely to generate rationalizations. This is why the Bible doesn't base the morality of sexual behavior on subjective feelings.3 Many pedophiles insist that they genuinely love the children they abuse. Adulterers often claim that they never were genuinely in love with their wives, but have found true love in the arms of another woman. Some adulterers (both male and female) claim that their love is too great to share with merely one individual, and can only be expressed in an “open marriage” enhanced by other liaisons. There is nothing new about the subtlety of sexual temptation and the rationalization of sexual sin. Scripture takes an unequivocal stand against homosexual behavior because it is an inherent violation of human dignity and barrier to spiritual growth.
1. The 1992 United States National Research Council Report on violence and genes, quoted by Whitehead, Genes, 215-216.
2. Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), 53-61, 286-94.
3. Finally, we want to briefly return to a matter raised earlier. We quoted McNeil, who stated “Only a sadistic God would create hundreds of thousands of humans to be inherently homosexual and then deny them the right to sexual intimacy.” To this we must respond, “Who made sexual intimacy a right?” Rather than a right, Scripture would seem to paint sexual chastity as an obligation for those who, for whatever reasons, do not find themselves married (whether those reasons are an unwanted divorce, lack of available partners, death of a spouse or because of a religious vow). Homosexual persons have the same capacities for all other sorts of intimacy, other than erotic sexual intimacy, that serve to sustain and nourish us. (Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate, p. 90)
Dan Vander Lugt
http://www.rbc.org/questionsDetail.aspx ... &Topic=620
-
joe
- Newbie Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 8:41 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
Re: celebrity talk
Hi BW and cslewislover,
Thanks for the response. Sometimes when people make these types of statements it really sets me off. I'm going to have to stop taking some of these people so seriously. Anyway, thank you both.
Joe
Thanks for the response. Sometimes when people make these types of statements it really sets me off. I'm going to have to stop taking some of these people so seriously. Anyway, thank you both.
Joe
-
zoegirl
- Old School
- Posts: 3927
- Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:59 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: east coast
Re: celebrity talk
CsLewislover and BW did a great job. I really can't add to this other than to commiserate. I really can't watch Oprah anymoer, especially since she's had Eckardt Tolle (sp?) (although her having Tom Cruise really started the animosity)
"And we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Jesus Christ"
-
rodyshusband
- Established Member
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:23 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Upstate New York, USA
Re: celebrity talk
When I think of Oprah, I think of Exodus 20:3:
"...Do not have other gods besides Me..." (Holman CSB)
"...Do not have other gods besides Me..." (Holman CSB)
“Christianity provides a unified answer for the whole of life.” -- Francis Schaeffer
-
Harry12345
- Valued Member
- Posts: 378
- Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:12 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: The U.K.
Re: celebrity talk
Well, I suppose he MAY be onto something.joe wrote:Hello all, I am new to this board and just looking for answers I guess. I consider myself a good person, a good christian, church going,God fearing. I was on the computer yesterday surfing for alternative energy sources and the tv was on but I wasn't paying much attention. My wife was watching Oprah and she had some people on her show that were having problems like all of us. She had a couple of ministers on her program as guests to help with solutions. One person came on who was gay and was having monetary problems. Not keeping track of his checking account and would always be overdrawn etc. It seemed to be normal discusion unti one of the ministers said "being born gay is a gift from God". I couldn't beleive my ears. I don't consider myself to be a hateful person. I respect other peoples beleifs. I don't get into deep discussions about religion because I am not that schooled on the subject. For myself and people close to me I try to follow the 10 Commandments of God. What this minister said really bothers me. Maybe someone on here can help me to understand why I feel this way.
Paul said that not marrying is a gift of sorts. Being born with your sex drive being geared towards members of the same gender precludes you from marriage.
If he's suggesting that having sex with someone who is not your spouse is a gift, then no, he's misguided.
If you're born once, you die twice; but if you're born twice, you die once.
-
cslewislover
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2333
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:09 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Creation Position: Undecided
- Location: Southern California
- Contact:
Re: celebrity talk
I don't think God would use that method, though, right? Lol, that would be a bit torturous (not sure of the spelling there). God may possibly give a person the gift of celibacy, but as a gift from God, it wouldn't involve another type of sin or potential sin, right? Never heard of that one.Harry12345 wrote: Well, I suppose he MAY be onto something.
Paul said that not marrying is a gift of sorts. Being born with your sex drive being geared towards members of the same gender precludes you from marriage.
-
Harry12345
- Valued Member
- Posts: 378
- Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:12 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: The U.K.
Re: celebrity talk
Yes, I'd agree with you, but I was just trying to find some reasoning/ logic in what the guy said.cslewislover wrote:I don't think God would use that method, though, right? Lol, that would be a bit torturous (not sure of the spelling there). God may possibly give a person the gift of celibacy, but as a gift from God, it wouldn't involve another type of sin or potential sin, right? Never heard of that one.Harry12345 wrote: Well, I suppose he MAY be onto something.
Paul said that not marrying is a gift of sorts. Being born with your sex drive being geared towards members of the same gender precludes you from marriage.
If you're born once, you die twice; but if you're born twice, you die once.
-
N4SC
- Familiar Member
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:38 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Re: celebrity talk
It seems that you have a sense that it's wrong, and you're right (although the first part about being a good person=wrong if you read the Bible).
You probably feel as though what the minister said was wrong. It was. God would not give a sinful "gift", and certainly not one that goes against His design.
I would suggest that you get "schooled" on Christianity, though. It helps to actually know about what you believe, ja?
You probably feel as though what the minister said was wrong. It was. God would not give a sinful "gift", and certainly not one that goes against His design.
I would suggest that you get "schooled" on Christianity, though. It helps to actually know about what you believe, ja?
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
C. S. Lewis
C. S. Lewis