It is interesting how you refuse to answer my question each time that I ask it.
You asked for my definition of orientation. I told you I will go with Wikipedia's. What more do you want?

No, not a choice, but from birth -- just as many are born heterosexuals (and don't choose it), others are born homosexuals (and don't choose it).

Really? And where do you find that in scripture, and why then are men able to choose?

Rom 1:18-32

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
NKJV

You asked for my definition of orientation. I told you I will go with Wikipedia's. What more do you want?

I keep asking you for a generic definition of what you believe an orientation is.

Why do you refuse?

So, humour me, what do you believe an orientation is?

I might be more inclined to humor you if it didn't seem so much like a pointless diversion. We're talking about sexual orientation. A definition of "sexual orientation" has been proffered. I can see no reason not to stay on subject. If the nautical meaning of "orientation" is relevant in any way, I confess I must be stupid, because I just don't see how.

Really? And where do you find that in scripture, and why then are men able to choose?
How old were you when you chose heterosexuality?

Really? And where do you find that in scripture, and why then are men able to choose?

Rom 1:18-32

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
NKJV

AMEN! How do you get around these verses? I don't get it. He says it is not natural.. to me that means they are NOT BORN THIS WAY!

AMEN! how do you get around these verses? I don't get it. he says it is not natural..to me that means they are NOT BORN THIS WAY!
Same question to you. When did you choose to be heterosexual instead of homosexual?

Wondergirl,

I was BORN that way. Want to know how I wasn't born... a drug addict. I chose that lifesyle when I got addicted to prescription drugs. Course the world tells me I was born that way but I know better. You take enough of those suckers and you are going to get addicted. It was MY choice to take the pills.
I don't pretend to understand homosexual tendencies but I do believe God's word and I'm not going to rationalize what he has said. It is wrong and I can't twist it to make it right.

he says it is not natural..to me that means they are NOT BORN THIS WAY!

What you think the word "natural" means? I ask because it's not obvious to me why not natural entails that they are not born this way. Do you regard birth defects as unnatural? People are born with those every day.

LOL... birth defects aren't sin. Sin is a choice.

Same question to you. When did you choose to be heterosexual instead of homosexual?

Scripture says that we are created man and woman, not created homosexual. As the quote that I gave from Romans says is that God has condemned homosexuals. Does God create people as homosexuals and then condemn them for being what He created them? Is that your view of God?

Scripture says that we are created man and woman, not created homosexual. As the quote that I gave from Romans says is that God has condemned homosexuals. Does God create people as homosexuals and then condemn them for being what He created them? Is that your view of God?

Tj3,

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I might be more inclined to humor you if it didn't seem so much like a pointless diversion. We're talking about sexual orientation. A definition of "sexual orientation" has been proffered. I can see no reason not to stay on subject. If the nautical meaning of "orientation" is relevant in any way, I confess I must be stupid, because I just don't see how.

Do you understand the word "generic"? You may wish to look it up in the dictionary. It does not mean "nautical". Your mis-understanding of what the word orientation means may explain some of the difficultly we are having in discussing this topic.

LOL...birth defects aren't sin. sin is a choice.

Right. So if someone is born homosexual, then they are not in sin just for being homosexual. If they act on that, though, that's another story. Right?

wondergirl,

I was BORN that way.
As were 98% of the homosexuals in the world.

Your drug problem was choice, as is cigarette smoking, overeating, drug use, driving without a license, and drinking to excess. You may have been born with a tendency/weakness for drug use, if one or both of your parents had their brain chemistry screwed up by drugs and thus your brain chemistry got screwed up too (synapses don't fire correctly, neurotransmitters go to the wrong receptors, etc.) -- you inherited those weaknesses. You could have said no, but it was easier to give in and it make your body happier when you gave in.

Right. So if someone is born homosexual, then they are not in sin just for being homosexual. If they act on that, though, that's another story. Right?

But saying that they are born that way contradicts scripture as I just showed.

Do you understand the word "generic"? You may wish to look it up in the dictionary. It does not mean "nautical". Your mis-understanding of what the word orientation means may explain some of the difficultly we are having in discussing this topic.

If you say so. I've already endorsed the definition Wondergirl provided, and nowhere in the definiens is the word "orientation" included, so I'm pretty sure I understand the definition. And I'm reasonably confidant that I understand the meaning of "attraction" as it occurs there. Do you?

As were 98% of the homosexuals in the world.

Really? That is contrary to both scripture and secular findings.

But saying that they are born that way contradicts scripture as I just showed.

See my reply to ClassyT: Depends how you understand "natural". If "unnatural" means something like "violates the law of God", then the Scripture you cited is perfectly compatible with one's being born homosexual. The word "natural" gets used in lots of different ways. One has to be careful how one uses it, and how one reads it.

Really? That is contrary to both scripture and secular findings.
And those are?

Wondergirl and Akoue,

I'm not the one who said it was unnatural... God did. I didn't define what sin was... God did. I didn't set the standard God did. I mean I am only getting my info from the word of God. I'm not hating on homosexuals, I'm not belittling anyone. I'm Not setting the standard of right and wrong. I'm getting this from the word.He said it is wrong and I agree with Tj3. Why would the Lord make someone homosexual and then condemn them for it??

If you say so. I've already endorsed the definition Wondergirl provided, and nowhere in the definiens is the word "orientation" included, so I'm pretty sure I understand the definition. And I'm reasonably confidant that I understand the meaning of "attraction" as it occurs there. Do you?

Again, "generic" does not mean sexual. If you think it does, you might have a rather embarrassing mis-understanding if you find out that your drug plan at work only pays for "generic" drugs.

And those are?

Wow - over 250 messages discussing scripture and you missed the entire discussion?

And from the secular world, not a single credible study has yet concluded that sexual orientation was something that people are born with.

Wondergirl and Akoue,

I'm not the one who said it was unnatural...God did. I didn't define what sin was...God did. I didn't set the standard God did. I mean I am only getting my info from the word of God. I'm not hatin on homosexuals, I'm not belittling anyone. I'm Not setting the standard of right and wrong. I'm getting this from the word.He said it is wrong and I agree with Tj3. Why would the Lord make someone homosexual and then condemn them for it???
Of course homosexuality was not part of God's plan when He created a perfect world. And yes, homosexuality wasn't part of the picture -- He created men and women to be fruitful and multiply. But then something happened to upset God's plan, didn't it. Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden tree. God's perfect plan was no more. The world became imperfect, and death happened. As people were born into the world, they were born imperfect -- with physical and mental defects and illnesses. They died before or at birth. They also were born not only as heterosexuals, but also as homosexuals.

Again, "generic" does not mean sexual. If you think it does, you might have a rather embarassing mis-understanding if you find out that your drug plan at work only pays for "generic" drugs.
Our discussion is about sexuality and sexual orientation. Why do you want to go orienteering?

Of course homosexuality was not part of God's plan when He created a perfect world. And yes, it's not natural in that He created men and women to be fruitful and multiply. But then something happened to upset God's plan, didn't it. Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden tree. God's perfect plan was no more. The world became imperfect, and death happened. As people were born into the world, they were born imperfect -- with physical and mental defects and illnesses. They died before or at birth. They also were born not only as heterosexuals, but also as homosexuals.

So you are saying homosexuality is a mental defect or metal illness?

Then why would God condemn those who are homosexuals?

BTW, in my opinion, I would think homosexuals would be more insulted by someone saying that they had a mental illness or defect at birth rather than that homosecxuality is what scripture says, a sin.

Jesus came and died on the cross that we have an answer for sin, and homosexuals have been changed by the blood shed on the cross according to scripture.

Our discussion is about sexuality and sexual orientation. Why do you want to go orienteering?

You and Akoue seem to have some difficulties with the English language, specigfically the words "generic" and "orientation". I never saw anyone with that specific problem before, let alone two. Perhaps there is something that scares the both of you about acknowledging what the word orientation means.

So you are saying homosexuality is a mental defect or metal illness?
No, if you read carefully, you will see that I said homosexuality came about because of the Fall -- like army ants and black widow spiders and weeds. None of those were part of a perfect Creation.

So you are saying homosexuality is a mental defect or metal illness?[quopte]
No, if you read carefully, you will see that I said homosexuality came about because of the Fall.

Then please be clear - are you saying that it is a mental defect or sin? You were the one who brought up the terms mental defect and mental illness.

You and Akoue seem to have some difficulties with the English language, specigfically the words "generic" and "orientation". I never saw anyone with that specific problem before, let alone two. Perhaps there is something that scares the both of you about acknowledging what the word orientation means.

Interesting that you would rush to that particular conclusion. Typically, when one or more person fails to understand what one has said, the first thing to pop into mind would be, "Gee, maybe it's my fault". Nope. Not you.

Then please be clear - are you saying that it is a mental defect or sin? You were the one who brought up the terms mental defect and mental illness.
No. I am saying it is not what God intended when he created the world.

Did He want us to have mental defects and diseases and mental illnesses?

No. I am saying it is not what God intended when he created the world.

You are still not being clear. In what way is it not what God intended? It is either a defect (and since it affects thinking it would be a mental defect) or it is sin.

Please stop beating around the bush.

Then please be clear - are you saying that it is a mental defect or sin? You were the one who brought up the terms mental defect and mental illness.

What color were Adam's and Eve's eyes?

You are still not being clear. In what way is it not what God intended? It is either a defect (and since it affects thinking it would be a mental defect) or it is sin.

Please stop beating around the bush.
Is a spider that bites you a sin?

You are still not being clear. In what way is it not what God intended? It is either a defect (and since it affects thinking it would be a mental defect) or it is sin.

Please stop beating around the bush.

Adam and Eve each had determinate physical and psychological properties. From that fact that, after the Fall, deviations from these properties emerged it does not follow that those deviations are defects or sins. They are just deviations from what was initially created.

Is a spider that bites you a sin?

First you won't talk about orientation, claiming that it is not part of the topic, now you want to discuss spiders. Why - do yolu think spiders are involved in sexual sin?

Why do you keep beating around the bush - you raised the point, so why are you so afraid to simply make it clear what you are trying to say.

Adam and Eve each had determinate physical and psychological properties. From that fact that, after the Fall, deviations from these properties emerged it does not follow that those deviations are defects or sins. They are just deviations from what was initially created.

So are deviation which is contrary to the design is not a defect? Failing to do what God commanded is not a sin?

And yet God condemns it.

First you won't talk about orientation, claiming that it is not part of the topic, now you want to discuss spiders. Why - do yolu think spiders are involved in sexual sin?

Why do you keep beating around the bush - you raised the point, so why are you so afraid to simply make it clear what you are trying to say.
Is a weed in your garden a sin? Is an avalanche a sin? Is it a sin when your wife burns a pan of cookies?

Is a weed in your garden a sin? Is an avalance a sin? Is it a sin when your wife burns a pan of cookies?

Boy you will do anything to distract from the topic when it gets uncomfortable, eh?

If you really believe what you are saying, why are you so afraid to answer the question?

If you really believe what you are saying, why are you so afraid to answer the question?
Please answer my questions. Humor me. They are pretty easy.

When chimps, engage in homosexual behavior, is it a sin?

Please answer my questions. Humor me. They are pretty easy.

You and Akoue won't answer mine all of which are on topic, so why should I bother with yours. A discussion is a two way street.

Why are you afraid to clarify you own statement?

When chimps, engage in homosexual behavior, is it a sin?

More to the point - do you believe that animals sin?

You and Akoue won't answer mine all of which are on topic, so why should I bother with yours. A discussion is a two way street.

Why are you afraid to clarify you own statement?
Um, I asked first. You have no answers? Just yes or no is OK with me.

Um, I asked first. You have no answers? Just yes or no are ok with me.

You clearly live in a different timeline if you think you asked first. Are you telling me that there is a distortion in the time-space continuum?

We will get nowhere this way. You made a statement - are you prepared to stand behind it or not?

You clearly live in a different timeline if you think you asked first. Are you telling me that there is a distortion in the time-space continuum?

We will get nowhere this way. You made a statement - are you prepared to stand behind it or not?
I'm so sorry you can't figure out the answers to my three easy questions or to Akoue's. Maybe classyT will return and answer them.

I'm so sorry you can't figure out the answers to my three easy questions or to Akoue's. Maybe classyT will return and answer them.

So I must assume that since you are avoiding my request for clarification, the fact that there is no third option between sin or metal defect / illness is something that you perhaps did not anticipate in your theory and now wish to avoid.

I understand.

Of course homosexuality was not part of God's plan when He created a perfect world. And yes, homosexuality wasn't part of the picture -- He created men and women to be fruitful and multiply. But then something happened to upset God's plan, didn't it. Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden tree. God's perfect plan was no more. The world became imperfect, and death happened. As people were born into the world, they were born imperfect -- with physical and mental defects and illnesses. They died before or at birth. They also were born not only as heterosexuals, but also as homosexuals.

I got to agree with you here. My nephew was born with autism. Was that God's plan? Maybe, just maybe classy t and is it Tom? (Sorry if I got your name wrong) Maybe something went wrong in the formation of "opposite sex attraction" just as something went wrong in the "brain activity" formation of my nephew. You don't see his "mis" formation being condemned. Why should you condemn homosexuality then? Why would God shun something like this. I don't believe he does and you can show me scripture to back up your assertion all day long, but I don't consider it as fact. It's just words written from long ago that could be misconstrued in many ways. Just like we humans are born with the possibility of our formation being misconstrued in many ways.

So I must assume that since you are avoiding my request for clarification, the fact that there is no third option between sin or metal defect / illness is something that you perhaps did not anticipate in your theory and now wish to avoid.

I understand.
Lolololololololol You can't answer my questions!!

lolololololololol You can't answer my questions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you wish to suffer under that delusion, I cannot stop you. But if that is you attitude, then I must assume that you are merely answer my request by confirming that you have no answer to mine.

If you wish to suffer under that delusion, I cannot stop you. But if that is you attitude, then I must assume that you are merely answer my request by confirming that you have no answer to mine.
Ah -- that means you know the answers. Do you remember the questions, or should I repost them?

I got to agree with you here. My nephew was born with autism. Was that God's plan?

Autism is a defect that occurs - we know that.


Maybe something went wrong in the formation of "opposite sex attraction" just as something went wrong in the "brain activity" formation of my nephew.

So you are saying that homosexual may be a brain defect.

If it were, God would not condemn it as sin. Why is it that homosexuals can change? Why is it that scripture records that homosexuals changed when they received Jesus as Saviour?

Ah -- that means you know the answers. Do you remember the questions, or should I repost them?

Sure - right after you answer mine.

How does this relate to Bobalina?

How does this relate to Bobalina??

The question was whether it is right to be a homosexual.

Wondergirl appears to be saying that it is okay because it is a mental defect of some sort, and scripture says that it is sin.

Oh, yeah -- you never asked my earlier question either: "At what age did you chose to be heterosexual?"

Oh, yeah -- you never asked my earlier question either: "At what age did you chose to be heterosexual?"

I did answer it - directly. I may have specifically responded to Akoue's variant of the question, but I answered it nonetheless. I guess that you skipped over that post. Go back and have a look.

Now, how about an answer to my questions i.e.:

- What do you believe an orientation is?
- Do you believe that homosexuality is a mental defect / illness or a sin?

I did answer it - directly. I may have specifically responded to Akoue's variant of the question, but I answered it nonetheless. I guess that you skipped over that post. Go back and have a look.

Now, how about an answer to my questions i.e.:

- What do you believe an orientation is?
- Do you believe that homosexuality is a mental defect / illness or a sin?

I'm unaware of having asked any version of that question. I noted that Wondergirl did and was interested to read your answer.

I gotta agree with you here. My nephew was born with autism. Was that God's plan? Maybe, just maybe classy t and is it Tom? (Sorry if I got your name wrong) Maybe something went wrong in the formation of "opposite sex attraction" just as something went wrong in the "brain activity" formation of my nephew. You don't see his "mis" formation being condemned. Why should you condemn homosexuality then? Why would God shun something like this. I don't believe he does and you can show me scripture to back up your assertion all day long, but I don't consider it as fact. It's just words written from long ago that could be misconstrued in many ways. Just like we humans are born with the possibility of our formation being misconstrued in many ways.
My older son is autistic. And no, autism was not in God's plan. There was no autism in the Garden of Eden (or in the perfect world God had created).

When a baby begins, it is female. Along the way, that little girl gets a bath in testosterone, a male hormone. Some of those little girls become little boys. Maybe that bath confuses things. I don't know. I do know some children are born with external sex characteristics that don't match their sex hormones inside. They grow up with a uterus and vagina but male hormones, or a penis and testicles but inside are female hormones. That's not what God intended. But should we condemn those children and the adults they become?

When a baby begins, it is female. Along the way, that little girl gets a bath in testosterone, a male hormone. Some of those little girls become little boys. Maybe that bath confuses things. I don't know. I do know some children are born with external sex characteristics that don't match their sex hormones inside. They grow up with a uterus and vagina but male hormones, or a penis and testicles but inside are female hormones. That's not what God intended. But should we condemn those children and the adults they become?

An interesting theory, but let's stick to the facts.

Should we condemn them you ask? We should condemn no one - But we should accept what God said and condemn the sin of homosexuality.

- What do you believe an orientation is?
- Do you believe that homosexuality is a mental defect / illness or a sin?
I have answered both of those. Go back and find my answers. They are there (somewhere in the debris of your obfuscating).

I have answered both of those. Go back and find my answers. They are there (somewhere in the debris of your obfuscating).

No, you altered the question - you did not answer them.

I'm unaware of having asked any version of that question. I noted that Wondergirl did and was interested to read your answer.

I stand corrected - she asked two variations of the question, so I did answer hers directly.

Now play by the rules, Wondergirl. Do as Tom says not as he does.

Now play by the rules, Wondergirl. Do as Tom says not as he does.

It always comes back to go after the person rather than issue, doesn't it?

You of course avoided my question about orientation also.

- What do you believe an orientation is?
- Do you believe that homosexuality is a mental defect / illness or a sin?
*with great patience*
I said I will go with Wikipedia's answer for sexual orientation, which is what we are discussing here. Not orienteering or even facing east.

No. Neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality is a sin.

Now answer my three questions, please.

*with great patience*
I said I will go with Wikipedia's answer for sexual orientation, which is what we are discussing here. Not orienteering or even facing east.

No one even discussed or asked about orienteering. I did however ask what you though "orientation" (as a generic term) means.

You still avoid it I see.


No. Neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality is a sin.

So you reject God's word regarding homosexuality?

Now play by the rules, Wondergirl. Do as Tom says not as he does.
I'm sorry, Akoue. I think it might be contagious. Be careful.

No one even discussed or asked about orienteering. I did however ask what you though "orientation" (as a generic term) means.

You still avoid it I see.
You never answered Akoue as to why defining such a broad term as "orientation" is relevant to this discussion about sexuality.

So you reject God's word regarding homosexuality?
I reject what you think God's word says about homosexuality.

It always comes back to go after the person rather than issue, doesn't it?

You of course avoided my question about orientation also.

I didn't avoid the question. I told head-on that I think it's a pointless diversion. I even invited you to tell me what on earth the relevance could possibly be, since we are talking about sexual orientation and have a definition of that on offer. You seem to think that talking about orientation in general is important. Unless you can explain why, I see no reason to indulge you. I'm not particularly interested in a definition of "orientation" in general, since that would have to apply to nautical usages as well as the one that is actually, you know, relevant, to wit, sexual orientation. Sometimes it's useful to "ascend to the universal"; here I think it would be obfuscating and distracting.

You never answered Akoue as to why defining such a broad term as "orientation" is relevant to this discussion about sexuality.

I did - I pointed out that if you and him are having such a problem with the word, mistaking it for things such as nautical orientation and orienteering, then it emphasizes the need to start at basics and make sure that you and Akoue understand what the word orientation means before we apply it to a specific area.

For example, if you did not understand what a "car" was, how could you be expected to know what a "blue car" was.

If you think that it is so easy or so obvious, just answer it and let's move on.


I reject what you think God's word says about homosexuality.

I quoted scripture, so you therefore reject God's word.

I didn't avoid the question. I told head-on that I think it's a pointless diversion.

You avoided it nonetheless, regardless of you attempt to rationalize your avoidance. Oddly though, you have put more effort into avoiding the question than it would have taken to answer it, and your avoidance to me seems to be a pointless diversion, including the silly attempt to suggest that nautical and sexual mean "generic".


I even invited you to tell me what on earth the relevance could possibly be

Which I have done twice now - but apparently you ignored that also.

I did - I pointed out that if you and him are having such a problem
It's "you and he" -- subjects of the clause, so nominative case.

orientation
The discussion is about sexual orientation only.

I quoted scripture, so you therefore reject God's word.
No, you quoted your version of Scripture.

You avoided it nonetheless, regardless of you attempt to rationalize your avoidance. Oddly though, you have put more effort into avoiding the question than it would have taken to answer it, and your avoidance to me seems to be a pointless diversion, including the silly attempt to suggest that nautical and sexual mean "generic".



Which I have done twice now - but apparently you ignored that also.

Yes, and I took your answer to be a joke, since it was pretty clear that I didn't mistake the relevant sense of "orientation" to be its nautical usage. I have endorsed the definition that Wondergirl has offered several times now, so you can safely assume that I understand what the term "sexual orientation" means. Is that good enough? Can you unstick yourself from this little ploy and move on? If it makes you feel any better, I have already consulted the OED and can see no relevant usage of "orientation" other than that provided by Wondergirl. If you find one or more of its other usages to be relevant, please explain which one and WHY.

Oh, and you should distinguish between reason and rationalization. I gave my reason for refusing to play along with what looks increasingly like a debater's ploy. That was me telling you right then and there why I'm not going along with that. If it isn't a ploy (one which is quite common in debating, as I'm sure you know), then you'll have to explain why on earth we should depart the present topic for another.

That was me telling you right then and there why I'm not going along with that.
Just curious -- is "telling" a gerund and needs a possessive pronoun, or is this construction acceptable?

It's "you and he" -- subjects of the clause, so nominative case.

Ho hum - if you were so picky about dealing with the issue at hand we would waste less time.



The discussion is about sexual orientation only.

You do not appear to understand the difference between orientation and orienteering. Do you think that we are discussing "sexual orienteerring"? Maybe you could study some of Akoue's "generic / sexual drugs".


No, you quoted your version of Scripture.

I did not translate the NKJV.

Just curious -- is "telling" a gerund and needs a possessive pronoun, or is this construction acceptable?

Yeah, that's okay. You could go with "my telling of you", but that sounds archaic and stilted.

Yes, and I took your answer to be a joke, since it was pretty clear that I didn't mistake the relevant sense of "orientation" to be its nautical usage.

Then it was a matter of avoidance.


I have endorsed the definition that Wondergirl has offered several times now,

She also avoided defining the term orientation.


So you can safely assume that I understand what the term "sexual orientation" means.

Not if you think "generic" means "sexual" and if Wondergirl thinks orientation is orienteering.

It always comes back to go after the person rather than issue, doesn't it?

You of course avoided my question about orientation also.

I'm so confused now:confused: I don't know what the original question OR answers are.
Could you just print this out in a nutshell?

ho hum - if you were so picky about dealing with the issue at hand we would waste less time.
Your occasional ad hominems are a bit wearing.

I did not translate the NKJV.
We long ago discussed the particular words in the verses you continually use as proof passages.

I quoted scripture, so you therefore reject God's word.[/QUOTE]

Assuming one believes scripture IS God's word. That is a HUGE assumption to believe that it is.

I quoted scripture, so you therefore reject God's word.

Assuming one believes scripture IS God's word. That is a HUGE assumption to believe that it is.

Good point. Maybe she rejects scripture as being God's word.

Good point. Maybe she rejects scripture as being God's word.
Only improperly translated and interpreted Scripture.

Your occasional ad hominems are a bit wearing.

Perhaps you should look up the term "ad hominem,s" also. If you are being so picky with others, you may want to consider your precision in the use of the English language.


We long ago discussed the particular words in the verses you continually use as proof passages.

So why are you still at odds with scripture? Is it as someone else suggested that perhaps you do not accept the Bible as God's word?

Only improperly translated and interpreted Scripture.

And are you telling me that the experts are wrong and that your opinion must be accepted?

So why are you still at odds with scripture? Is it as someone else suggested that perhaps you do not accept the Bible as God's word?
That's not what she said. Clean your glasses, please.

Whatever happened to your answers to my questions? I answered yours.

I'm so confused now:confused: I don't know what the original question OR answers are.
Could you just print this out in a nutshell?

Akoue and Wondergirl appear confused about what an "orientation" is and I am trying to get this clarified so that we do not continue to waste time I have asked both of them to tell me what they believe a generic "orientation" is.

Second, Wondergirl put up a post which appeared to suggest that homosexuality was a mental defect / illness or sin. She made it clear that she does not feel that it is a sin but when asked to clarify what she does think about whether she believs therefore that homosexuality is a mental defect / illness, she won't respond.

Is it as someone else suggested that perhaps you do not accept the Bible as God's word?
Methinks she was referring to you.

That's not what she said. Clean your glasses, please.

Well you keep beating around the bush - perhaps if we got some clear straightforward answers we would know what you are trying to say. But you keep avoiding the questions.


Whatever happened to your answers to my questions? I answered yours.

Where did you answer them? I have not seen the answers yet.

Autism is a defect that occurs - we know that.



So you are saying that homosexual may be a brain defect.

If it were, God would not condemn it as sin. Why is it that homosexuals can change? Why is it that scripture records that homosexuals changed when they received Jesus as Saviour?

I never said homosexuality was or may be a brain defect. We don't KNOW what happens. I don't know if autism is a brain defect, chromosome defect like fragile X syndrome or what. We just know that something occurred that was not "Gods plan"

The same goes for homosexuality. The male and female anatomy tells us God's plan was for these two sexes to come together to procreate. BUT, whether something "unplanned" happens in utero with the hormones, or brain activity, or whatever, something DOES happen that causes a person to be drawn to a same sex person. This is not a sin and should not be condemned as one. Especially by people that have not experienced it. It takes a lot of audacity to claim to know what God says about these people. It certainly does NOT square up with the all loving God we profess to believe in.

I don't believe homosexuals change. They may stop the activities, but they are still gay. It is not the action, it's the orientation. What scripture "records" is not necessarily fact.

Methinks she was referring to you.

The context does not appear to suggest so. And I have been abundantly clear that I accept scripture (66 books of the Bible) as the inerrant infallible word of God.

Can you say the same?

Akoue and Wondergirl appear confused about what an "orientation" is and I am trying to get this clarified so that we do not continue to waste time I have asked both of them to tell me what they believe a generic "orientation" is.

You keep saying that we are confused about what "orientation" means, but you haven't yet quarrelled with the definition we've endorsed. Please, explain, what leads you to suppose that we are confused. (Or is this some weird new mantra, in the way that, for a while "logic fallacy" was?)


Second, Wondergirl put up a post which appeared to suggest that homosexuality was a mental defect / illness or sin. She made it clear that she does not feel that it is a sin but when asked to clarify what she does think about whether she believs therefore that homosexuality is a mental defect / illness, she won't respond.

I think both Wondergirl and I are on record holding that sin and mental disorder are not exhaustive.

The context does not appear to suggest so. And I have been abundantly clear that I accept scripture (66 books of the Bible) as the inerrant infallible word of God.

Can you say the same?

Do you accept its literal meaning as inerrant and infallible?

Akoue and Wondergirl appear confused about what an "orientation" is and I am trying to get this clarified so that we do not continue to waste time I have asked both of them to tell me what they believe a generic "orientation" is.
It is not necessary to define orientation as it is not part of this discussion.

Second, Wondergirl put up a post which appeared to suggest that homosexuality was a mental defect / illness or sin.
No, she didn't.

"Appeared to suggest" is redundant.

It is not necessary to define orientation as it is not part of this discussion.

But it is. We need to help you understand the difference between orienteering and orientation before we can discuss specifics.



Second, Wondergirl put up a post which appeared to suggest that homosexuality was a mental defect / illness or sin.
No, she didn't.

Yes she did, and is refusing to clarify.

You keep saying that we are confused about what "orientation" means, but you haven't yet quarrelled with the definition we've endorsed.

Show me a definition of orientation (generic) and I'd be happy to comment. What do you fear?


Please, explain, what leads you to suppose that we are confused.

Well, if WG does not understand the different between orienteering and orientation, and you don't know the difference between generic and sexual or nautical, then clearly we need to get to basics.


I think both Wondergirl and I are on record holding that sin and mental disorder are not exhaustive.

Then what you do you think that it is?

But it is. We need to help you understand the difference between orienteering and orientation before we can discuss specifics.
Orienteering is using a compass to find your way. That also has nothing to do with the discussion on the table.

Yes she did, and is refusing to clarify.
Please c/p my comment.

"Appeared to suggest" is redundant.

I note that you did what you criticized earlier and edited your message. Appeared to suggest is not redundant. Since I asked for clarification, I am trying to be fear and pointing out how what you said appeared to leave the door open for you to provide clarification in case you meant something else.

Orienteering is using a compass to find your way. That also has nothing to do with the discussion on the table.

See - we are making progress. Now provide a definition for orientation and we can move past this point.

Methinks she was referring to you.

Tj said something to someone that not accepting the scripture means you are not accepting God's word. Then I said to Tj, You are assuming that we believe that the scripture IS God's word. Maybe it's not. We don't REALLY KNOW.. If you don't really know some, then that strikes at the credibility of all of it.

Show me a definition of orientation (generic) and I'd be happy to comment. What do you fear?

That you are using the very same debate tactic that I have seen you use before, as a way of derailing a discussion. That and I'm not interested in talking about orientation in general, since we are talking about sexual orientation (or trying to... this little tick of yours appears to be taking over the thread). You have refused several invitations to explain the relevance. That makes me think there isn't one.


Well, if WG does not understand the different between orienteering and orientation, and you don't know the difference between generic and sexual or nautical, then clearly we need to get to basics.

Well, she gave a definition of sexual orientation, so why not stick with that?


Then what you do you think that it is?

I've already suggested an answer, but you've been too fixated on the definition of "orientation" in general to attend to it. Not all deviations are defects.

Man, o man, you need a new bag of tricks. This junior high debate club stuff is b-o-r-i-n-g.

See - we are making progress. Now provide a definition for orientation and we can move past this point.
Which one do you want?

Tj said something to someone that not accepting the scripture means you are not accepting God's word. Then I said to Tj, You are assuming that we believe that the scripture IS God's word. Maybe it's not. We don't REALLY KNOW.. If you don't really know some, then that strikes at the credibility of all of it.

Ah, but you're trying to be rational. Can't allow that to happen.

What you say here makes me wonder why Tom doesn't want to say whether he takes the literal meaning of the Bible to be inerrant and infallible. He knows that if he says yes, then Ps.104.5 is waiting for him (it says the earth doesn't move) and he knows that if he says no, then that means the meaning of lots of passages that he wants to read literally is up for grabs.

It's just never a good idea to turn the Bible into an object of worship. That too is a kind of idolatry.

That makes me think there isn't one.
Oh, there is one. He used it to derail another discussion on homosexuality.

Paul --
1. felt tremendous guilt and shame
2. loathed himself
3. spouted self-judging rhetoric
4. had negative feeling toward his own body
5. felt controlled by something he had no power to change
6. experienced a war between what he desired with his mind and what he desired with his body
7. was driven to a legalistic religion of control
8. feared when his legalism was threatened
9. had an "interesting" attitude toward women
10. refused to seek marriage as an outlet for his passion
11. wrote, "And to help me keep from being too elated by the abundance of revelation, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I sought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; but he said to me 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness' " (2 Cor. 12:7-9)
12. also wrote, "You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first; and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus" (Gal. 4:13)
13. felt beyond redemption as per his Jewish upbringing and thus, even more, appreciated what Christ had accomplished

Yeah, yeah, the thorn was his eyesight.



You don't make sense. In your list you contradict yourself?



Galatians 2:21 (New International Version)
21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"




Ephesians 2
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.



I don't quite understand your defense of homosexuality not being a sin.

Sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sin. This includes homosexual sex, obviously, as well as heterosexual fornication and adultery.

Are you going to defend adultery as vehemently as homosexual sex?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to the argument that the Bible is written by men and not the inspired word of God...
Have a good day then... lets all believe what we think we should believe... how are you, one person, infallible compared to the thousands of years, the many scholars that have studied and debated what is in scripture?. why would someone believe what you have to say vs them?







G&P

Ah, but you're trying to be rational. Can't allow that to happen.

Maybe you, me, and she could come to some rational conclusions and wind up this discussion before I have to do my end-of-day litter scooping.

You don't make sense. In your list you contradict yourself?



Galatians 2:21 (New International Version)
21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"




Ephesians 2
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.



I don't quite understand your defense of homosexuality not being a sin.

Sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sin. This includes homosexual sex, obviously, as well as heterosexual fornication and adultery.

Are you going to defend adultery as vehemently as homosexual sex?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to the argument that the Bible is written by men and not the inspired word of God......
have a good day then........lets all believe what we think we should believe........how are you, one person, infallible compared to the thousands of years, the many scholars that have studied and debated what is in scripture?.......why would someone believe what you have to say vs them?







G&P

So you agree that we should accept the authority of Tradition and that it should guide and inform our understanding of the Bible? Great!

Sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sin. This includes homosexual sex, obviously, as well as heterosexual fornication and adultery.

Are you going to defend...homosexual sex?
We are talking about homosexuality (the sexual orientation), not homosexual sex (the behavior).

What you say here makes me wonder why Tom doesn't want to say whether he takes the literal meaning of the Bible to be inerrant and infallible.

Sigh - why do you mis-represent me. I have responded to this question dozens of times on this board alone, but I guess that the truth would ruin a good story.

I accept what scripture says in context, and I accept what it says word for word. I am not going to use the word "literal" because I have folk twist that to mean things that are not intended (i.e. that parables are never fictional, etc.).


He knows that if he says yes, then Ps.104.5 is waiting for him (it says the earth doesn't move)

You know, some atheists were saying that to me the other day, but when you read what it says in context, it does not say what you and the atheists claim. I will never understand why people who profess to be Christian wish to try to discredit the Bible.

But more importantly, why someone who claims that he does not want to distract from the discussion by providing a definition for a word being used the discussion continually tries to distract from the discussion by posting irrelevant items like this.


It's just never a good idea to turn the Bible into an object of worship. That too is a kind of idolatry.

Right - we should only give it the respect that is deserving of the inerrant, infallible word that God has revealed to us.

Now are you done with that distraction?

We are talking about homosexuality

You should remind Akoue - he keeps trying to distract from the topic (see his last message).


(the sexual orientation), not homosexual sex (the behavior).

But if you don't know what an orientation is, how can you possibly understand what a "sexual orientation" is?

If you think that you know what an orientation is, just spit it out, and let's move forward. What are you afraid of?

But if you don't know what an orientation is, how can you possibly understand what a "sexual orientation" is?
I stick by the definition of sexual orientation in Wikipedia.

If you think that you know what an orientation is, just spit it out, and let's move forward. What are you afraid of?
Why is this word so important to you?

inerrant, infallible
i.e. literally understood

I stick by the definition of sexual orientation in Wikipedia.

So you still refuse to answer the question asked.


Why is this word so important to you?

Do you ever actually read my posts? This was answered several times.

Just me, I don't think being tempted is a sin, but acting on that temptation is.




G&P

Just me, I don't think being tempted is a sin, but acting on that temptation is.


I agree. Temptation is external. Once one accepts that temptation, and accepts it as their own desire / orientation, then, according to scripture, a sin has been committed even before the physical act.

And from the secular world, not a single credible study has yet concluded that sexual orientation was something that people are born with.

No one's sexual identification is clearly expressed until about age 5. So whether you are born gay or straight or it develops sometime during those 5 years would be hard to pin down, but most researchers are looking at what happens in the womb during human development, not at what happens to toddlers.

Likewise, by the way, just for the record, human embryos do not all start female and then become male due the influence of testosterone. We start with no sex organs at all -- just as we have no kidneys, liver or any other organs. Early embryos have no testes, ovaries, or external genitalia and are described as being in the "indifferent stage" until about 7 weeks (9 weeks to a doctor).

Human embryos BEGIN to develop male or female organs between days 50 and 70 after fertilization, after which they are partly differentiated and everything can continue to develop. The Y antigen gene on the Y chromosome induces the development of the testes. If there is no Y chromosome, the embryo normally develops as a female, although there are exceptions. For example, the over expression of a single gene (WNT-4) can result in an XY female. That is, an individual who is genetically male but fully female otherwise. At about 20 weeks, the testes begin to secrete testosterone, which induce the development of the penis and scrotum. Intersex individuals--in which one sex is not easily assigned-- make up about 1 in 2500 births.

None of which has anything to do with gender identity, which as I say, finishes developing at around age five.

I agree. Temptation is external. Once one accepts that temptation, and accepts it as their own desire / orientation, then, according to scripture, a sin has been committed even before the physical act.
So until a homosexual accepts the temptation and acts on his desires, he has not sinned.

None of which has anything to do with gender identity, which as I say, finishes developing at around age five.

You don't have kids, do you?

No one's sexual identification is clearly expressed until about age 5. So whether you are born gay or straight or it develops sometime during those 5 years would be hard to pin down, but most researchers are looking at what happens in the womb during human development, not at what happens to toddlers.

Likewise, by the way, just for the record, human embryos do not all start out female and then become male due the influence of testosterone. We start out with no sex organs at all -- just as we have no kidneys, liver or any other organs. Early embryos have no testes, ovaries, or external genitalia and are described as being in the "indifferent stage" until about 7 weeks (9 weeks to a doctor).

Human embryos BEGIN to develop male or female organs between days 50 and 70 after fertilization, after which they are partly differentiated and everything can continue to develop. The Y antigen gene on the Y chromosome induces the development of the testes. If there is no Y chromosome, the embryo normally develops as a female, although there are exceptions. For example, the over expression of a single gene (WNT-4) can result in an XY female. That is, an individual who is genetically male but fully female otherwise. At about 20 weeks, the testes begin to secrete testosterone, which induce the development of the penis and scrotum. Intersex individuals--in which one sex is not easily assigned-- make up about 1 in 2500 births.

None of which has anything to do with gender identity, which as I say, finishes developing at around age five.

Oh so very helpful. Yet another "thank you" is in order, so here it is: Thank you.

So until a homosexual accepts the temptation and acts on his desires, he has not sinned.

Your question is a contradiction - until a person accepts the temptation for homosexual desires, it is not a sin. When the person agrees to become a homosexual, then sin has occurred because they have accepted those desires for themselves. A person is not a homosexual until the decision to accept the temptation has been accepted as their own desire.

Scripture is explicit that a sin occurs before the physical act has occurred.

A person is not a homosexual until the decision to accept the temptation has been accepted as their own desire.
Someone sure hasn't been reading these posts!

Someone sure hasn't been reading these posts!

Then by all means, take a few minutes and go back and read the ones that you missed.

I agree. Temptation is external. Once one accepts that temptation, and accepts it as their own desire / orientation, then, according to scripture, a sin has been committed even before the physical act.

Not sure how the "/" got slipped in between "desire" and "orientation" there. Get it out.

I agree. Temptation is external. Once one accepts that temptation, and accepts it as their own desire / orientation, then, according to scripture, a sin has been committed even before the physical act.

Why can't temptation come from within?

So whether you are born gay or straight
Thank you for all your clarifications, asking. I was hoping you would show up.

Not sure how the "/" got slipped in between "desire" and "orientation" there. Get it out.

Who do you think you are giving orders to others as what they can and cannot think or post?

Methinks you should take a night away from the board and until you can come down off your high horse and perhaps get a more realistic view of yourself.

Why can't temptation come from within?

It does not matter where you think that the original temptation occurred, the key point is whether the person accepts the desire / orientation for themselves.

It does not matter where you think that the original temptation occurred, the key point is whether the person accepts the desire / orientation for themselves.
So no desire, no sin.

So no desire, no sin.

If the person rejects the temptation for the homosexual desire / orientation, then they will not be guilty of the sin of homosexuality, and if they have no desire / orientation, then they will not commit the act and be guilty of the sin of committing the homosexual act either.

That does not mean that the person is sinless - they are not - we have all sinned (Rom 3:23). What I do not understand is why those who defend homosexuality treat it as a "special" sin that somehow differs from all other sins in the Bible. The fact is that whether a person is a homosexual or not, we have all sinned and all sins (other than the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) are all equal. So to make homosexuality into a lesser sin (where only the act matters) is entirely wrong.

If the person rejects the temptation for the homosexual desire / orientation, then they will not be guilty of the sin of homosexuality, and if they have no desire / orientation, then they will not commit the act and be guilty of the sin of committing the homosexual act either.

That does not mean that the person is sinless - they are not - we have all sinned (Rom 3:23). What I do not understand is why those who defend homosexuality treat it as a "special" sin that somehow differs from all other sins in the Bible. The fact is that whether a person is a homosexual or not, we have all sinned and all sins (other than the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) are all equal. So to make homosexuality into a lesser sin (where only the act matters) is entirely wrong.


What is the difference between rejecting the desire and not acting on the desire? How does one a reject a desire other than by refusing to act on it?

What is the difference between rejecting the desire and not acting on the desire? How does one a reject a desire other than by refusing to act on it?

If a man is tempted to lust after seeing an attractive woman, but rejects the desire to think of her with lust, then he have not committed the sin of lusting after her. That lustful thought must be accepted before this person would consider going the extra step of propositioning the girl into an adulterous act.

If a man is tempted to lust after seeing an attractive woman, but rejects the desire to think of her with lust, then he have not committed the sin of lusting after her. That lustful thought must be accepted before this person would consider going the extra step of propositioning the girl into an adulterous act.

One can have a desire before being fully aware of onself having it. It's only if one embraces the desire that sin has been committed (this seems to be the force of the example you give). This suggests that the mere desire isn't itself sinful. One has to do something with that desire in order for a sin to be committed, by embracing it (lust) or acting on it (adultery). If this is true, then it's unclear to me how the mere having of a homosexual desire is sinful.

I got so wrapped up in the details of sexual differentiation that I didn't make an important distinction. Gender identity is what sex a person thinks they are. So a five year old decides, "I feel male" or "I feel female." Most of the time that corresponds to both their genetic and physical sex, but, unfortunately, not always. That's why some people grow up in a male body feeling they are female or the reverse.

Which sex you are attracted to is a separate, independent issue. I am not sure when that becomes fixed, but I have heard plenty of anecdotal accounts of kids being vaguely attracted to the opposite sex at quite young ages.

The earlier information comes from a textbook of human development and from research by a pediatric surgeon who does sex assignment surgery to intersex infants. It was not my opinion.

One can have a desire before being fully aware of onself having it.

It is not a desire if one is unaware. If so you are saying that one can sin by lusting after a woman and not be aware that he is lusting after her.

I got so wrapped up in the details of sexual differentiation that I didn't make an important distinction. Gender identity is what sex a person thinks they are. So a five year old decides, "I feel male" or "I feel female."

Like I said, you don't have kids do you?

Like I said, you don't have kids do you?


The earlier information comes from a textbook of human development and from research by a pediatric surgeon who does sex assignment surgery to intersex infants. It was not my opinion.

It is not a desire if one is unaware. If so you are saying that one can sin by lusting after a woman and not be aware that he is lusting after her.

So you're saying the mere desire is itself already lust. If a desire pops into my head, even before I can refuse it, I've already sinned? I would have thought that in order for the desire to count as lust, I would have to affirm it in some way inwardly. But you appear to hold the view that the mere occurrence of the desire is already sinful. Is that right?

Like I said, you don't have kids do you?

Now THAT's ad hominem.

So you're saying the mere desire is itself already lust. If a desire pops into my head, even before I can refuse it, I've already sinned?

I think that you are mistaking temptation for the lust itself.

Now THAT's ad hominem.

Not at all.

The earlier information comes from a textbook of human development and from research by a pediatric surgeon who does sex assignment surgery to intersex infants. It was not my opinion.

Well, I guess that all kids under 5 that I have ever known, including myself must be exceptions.

I note that you did not address my point directly.

Well, I guess that all kids under 5 that I have ever known, including myself must be exceptions.

I note that you did not address my point directly.

I don't think my reproductive status is relevant. What is YOUR point?

Exceptions in what way? Were you sexually active at 3?

I think that you are mistaking temptation for the lust itself.

And I think you are conflating desire and sinful desire. The latter are typed not according the object of the desire but according to the attitude of the subject toward the desire. It is a subject's response to the desire, once it emerges, that either is or is not sinful.

I don't think my reproductive status is relevant. What is YOUR point?

Exceptions in what way? Were you sexually active at 3?

Are you now saying that you include sexual activity as an essential part of gender identity?

And I think you are conflating desire and sinful desire.

So you are trying to tell me that one can have a desire for sin without a sinful desire.

I guess that Jesus must have gotten it wrong.

Ah, but you're trying to be rational. Can't allow that to happen.

What you say here makes me wonder why Tom doesn't want to say whether he takes the literal meaning of the Bible to be inerrant and infallible. He knows that if he says yes, then Ps.104.5 is waiting for him (it says the earth doesn't move) and he knows that if he says no, then that means the meaning of lots of passages that he wants to read literally is up for grabs.

It's just never a good idea to turn the Bible into an object of worship. That too is a kind of idolatry.

I'm nothing if I'm not rational. That is what gets me into a lot of trouble with religious people and also the people on another topic about séances and making contact with evil spirits. I just have too much darn logic and rationale:rolleyes:.

Are you now saying that you include sexual activity as an essential part of gender identity?


I am saying that if you have a point to make about gender identity, make it.

I have no idea what you were attempting to imply by stating that I must not have children.

Edit: (Well, except for the totally obvious implication that you don't think I know what I'm talking about and this is all just my opinion. As I said, it's not my opinion but the statement of an expert in this field. The surgeon said that he wished he could wait to do gender assignment surgery until kids were old enough to tell him what sex they thought they were--about age 5--because in a significant percentage of cases, surgeons choose the wrong sex. The make a child "female" and the child grows up not knowing why they they feel male. Or the reverse. He said the surgery needs to be done early though because the family (and society) cannot handle not having a specific sex.)

You don't have kids, do you?

I have kids and Askings post makes perfect sense to me.

Not at all.

Why do you keep asking if Asking has kids. What kind of difference would that make? I don't get the connection.

Are you now saying that you include sexual activity as an essential part of gender identity?

Why do people keep answering questions with questions?

So, Tom, what about my statement about gender identity becoming established at age five do you disagree with? When do you think it becomes established? Earlier? Later?

And what makes you think that?

And why are you being so coy about it?

Am I missing something you think is terribly obvious?

I am saying that if you have a point to make about gender identity, make it.

I have no idea what you were attempting to imply by stating that I must not have children.

Well, let's just say my wife burst out laughing when I told her what you said about gender identity and questioned if you knew anything about children. I cannot imagine how anyone who was even around children could make such a statement.

So, Tom, what about my statement about gender identity becoming established at age five do you disagree with? When do you think it becomes established? Earlier? Later?

It would be hard to identify just how young children are by the time that they know they are boys and girls because it is probably well before they begin to talk.


And what makes you think that?

The fact that I have never seen or heard of an exception to it. And I have been around a lot of children.


And why are you being so coy about it?

Why are you accusing me of being coy. I have been quite open about my views on this.


Am I missing something you think is terribly obvious?

Apparently.

The earlier information comes from a textbook of human development and from research by a pediatric surgeon who does sex assignment surgery to intersex infants. It was not my opinion.

Why don't you tell who the author is and what the book is? Why are you being so coy?

Tom, It wasn't at all obvious why you thought it was a laughable idea. Apparently, science disagrees with you once again. But we are all used to that by now.

My source was Eric Vilain, MD, PhD
It was not a book, but a scientific lecture I attended.

Here's his webpage at UCLA.
UCLA Department of Urology Faculty Information - Eric Vilain, MD, PhD (http://www.uclaurology.com/physicians/Vilain_37.cfm)

Tom, It wasn't at all obvious why you thought it was a laughable idea. Apparently, science disagrees with you once again. But we are all used to that by now.

My source was Eric Villains, MD, PhD
It was not a book, but a scientific lecture I attended.

Here's his webpage at UCLA.
UCLA Department of Urology Faculty Information - Eric Vilain, MD, PhD (http://www.uclaurology.com/physicians/Vilain_37.cfm)
Thanks again, asking, for all your input. We needed it for clarity.

Vilain said "about five" and I never had the impression that he intended that to be exact. But I found a paper listed on his website that states:

"Gender identity development begins before the age of 3 years, but the earliest
age at which it can be reliably assessed remains unclear."

Consensus Statement on Management of Intersex Disorders
Consensus Statement on Management of Intersex Disorders -- Lee et al. 118 (2): e488 -- Pediatrics (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/118/2/e488)

That it begins before age three does not mean it is completed by age three, plus there is probably a lot of variation depending on the individual. Plus, there is the matter of being able to assess what is in the child's mind. Vilain stated that it was difficult to assess a child's own self identification (as opposed to, say, the parents') before about age five.

It's very easy for adults to impose their gender assumptions on a child without that having anything to do with how the child feels. For example, I have seen people walk up to a male baby and coo about what a darling she is with her beautiful long lashes, etc. This is one reason so many people punctiliously label their babies with denim dungarees or pink bows, accordingly.

So, Tom, I still don't know what you and your wife are laughing about. Unless you raised a transgender child, you would never have had your assumptions challenged, since the majority of girl babies grow up to self identify as girls and the majority of boy babies grow up to self identify as boys. You may think your 1-year old is "all boy." But he probably has no idea what that means.

Thanks again, asking, for all your input. We needed it for clarity.

You are welcome! And thank you!
It fun to find you all here arguing.

You are welcome! And thank you!
It fun to find you all here arguing.
Did you notice how well-behaved we all were? The thread hasn't gotten shut down yet...

More tomorrow night??

I'd like to know at what age a person feels attraction, however non sexual, for others. My first crush was in kindergarten.

Others want to contribute?

Gays in this thread give ages mostly from 4-11, with quite a lot of "7 or 8"s.
When did you realize you were gay? - Topix (http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TAPU12KSJM9UHDAD6)

My source was Eric Vilain, MD, PhD
It was not a book, but a scientific lecture I attended.

I mistook it to be a book because you indicated earlier that it was.


The earlier information comes from a textbook of human development and from research by a pediatric surgeon who does sex assignment surgery to intersex infants.

It is also interesting to note that you reference a man named "Vilian" who is not even mentioned or acknowledged in the paper that you linked.

Let's go on to the details about the theory.


Vilain said "about five" and I never had the impression that he intended that to be exact. But I found a paper listed on his website that states:

"Gender identity development begins before the age of 3 years, but the earliest
age at which it can be reliably assessed remains unclear."

Read further:

"Gender identity development begins before the age of 3 years,68 but the earliest age at which it can be reliably assessed remains unclear. The generalization that the age of 18 months is the upper limit of imposed gender reassignment should be treated with caution and viewed conservatively."

Now there was another "expert" in this field who believed that infants did not have gender identity, and thus sex could be changed and ruined the life of a man in one very famous incident widely reported in the news at the time. You may wish to read an article about John / Joan. The boy had damaged caused to his penis during electro-surgery when he was 7 months old, so they did further surgery to change him into a girl and his parents raised him as a girl. Here is an excerpt from the article:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a nutshell, the child never was and never became a normal girl. Now in his thirties, having married a woman with three children, John lives as a man. He, his mother and brother now recall that Joan regularly rejected girls' toys, clothes and activities. His mother says that, despite an attractive female appearance, Joan's movements and speech "gave him away and the awkwardness and incongruities became apparent." [18] Johns twin brother has said: "When I say there was nothing feminine about Joan, I mean there was nothing feminine. She talked about guy things, didn't give a crap about cleaning house, getting married, wearing makeup" (emphasis in original). At the age of six or seven, Joan told her brother she wanted to be a garbage man: "Easy job, good pay." [2] Despite the absence of a penis, Joan often stood to urinate. Other girls at school eventually barred her from their bathroom, threatening to kill her if she came in. Eventually she would use a back alley for urination. [25] Contrary to Money's earlier reports, Joan's behavior during childhood failed to be "so normally that of an active little girl."

Despite rearing as a girl, Joan dreamed of a future as a he-man type with a mustache and sports car. Although placed on estrogens at the age of 12, she often discarded the drugs, disliking how they made her feel. She was disturbed by her developing breasts. At one point she told her endocrinologist that she had suspected she was a boy since the second grade. She adamantly refused the surgery that would give her a vaginal opening and complained to her psychiatrist how she dreaded the trips to Johns Hopkins where people looked at her and showed her pictures of nude bodies. At the conclusion of her final visit in 1978, Joan told her mother she would kill herself if she had to go again. By 1980 Joan's relationship with her clinicians at Hopkins had reached impasse. "Do you want to be a girl or not?" her endocrinologist had demanded. "No!" replied Joan emphatically. At the age of 14, without knowing the history, she decided to cease living as a girl: Joan became John. [2, 25]

Following the transition, John's father, on the advice of a psychiatrist, revealed what had happened during infancy. Until that moment her parents and clinicians had tried to conceal all that was problematic about her gender, to give her the unambiguous rearing as a girl they were told to provide. Listening intently to his father tell the story of the botched circumcision and surgery, John experienced relief. A puzzling past began to make sense. At John's request, male hormones were subsequently administered, a mastectomy was performed, and surgeons eventually created a penis. John now takes satisfaction as a husband, father and breadwinner.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is more - John was not alone:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The outcome of the John/Joan case has been observed with comparable patients. In a recent and ongoing study Reiner tracked six boys who had lost their penises in infancy and were being reared as girls. These children behaved more like boys than girls and, in two cases, not knowing they were XY, the children autonomously changed gender and assumed male roles. [27] Reiner has stated: "it would be wrong to say that these two children wished to be boys or felt they were boys in girls bodies: they believed they were boys."(Quoted in Colapinto.) [2]

Another significant development has been the emergence of the Intersex Society of North America (ISNA) and related advocacy and support groups. The ISNA membership includes adults who were surgically "normalized" as children, generally without being told, and other intersexuals who have not had surgery. Having attempted unsuccessfully to dialogue with medical organizations in the U.S. some intersexuals have taken to picketing hospitals and conferences. [28] Unlike those with surgically corrected cleft palates, intersex patients are condemning physicians for their surgeries and for withholding the truth about their medical condition and treatment. The John/Joan case, the Reiner study, the activist protests and other cases reported in the literature, [29-31] strongly suggest that pediatric reassignment may often be failing the thank you test for clinical beneficence, [32] and that these poor outcomes may not be isolated droplets of misfortune in a downpour of excellent results.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You may wish to read the atrticle. This is the real world - not just someone's opinion.

Pediatric Ethics and the Surgical Assignment of Sex (http://www.ukia.co.uk/diamond/ped_eth.htm)


So, Tom, I still don't know what you and your wife are laughing about.

I did not think that you would.

I'd like to know at what age a person feels attraction, however non sexual, for others. My first crush was in kindergarten.

Others want to contribute?

Gays in this thread give ages mostly from 4-11, with quite a lot of "7 or 8"s.
When did you realize you were gay? - Topix (http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TAPU12KSJM9UHDAD6)

First grade, his name was Steve, I loved his cow lick at the front of his crew cut. I actually thought that meant a cow had come up to him, took a good lick, and it made his hair stay that way, permanently. I bet he does not have it today. If he is like his father, he should have "male pattern baldness." I went to school and church with him and had a crush on him up to grade 5, then I had to change schools.

I think being born into the wrong body would be one of the saddest things that could happen to anyone. But, I truly do believe that it happens and I just pray for peace for these people. Peace and acceptance from society. It is bad enough that they have this battle going on within themselves, but then for society to shun them too, or not believe them is just unforgivable.

It is bad enough that they have this battle going on within themselves, but then for society to shun them too, or not believe them is just unforgivable. Hello again, cozyk:

It IS unforgivable, especially from people who think they're so forgiving...

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

I did not think that you would.[/QUOTE]


I have to admit. I don't know what you and your wife are laughing about either. I'd be willing to bet though that you have not had either homosexuality or gender ID problems in your family.

I have to admit. I don't know what you and your wife are laughing about either.

It is good to admit that.


I'd be willing to bet though that you have not had either homosexuality or gender ID problems in your family.

No, they all accepted the way that God created them.

No, they all accepted the way that God created them.Hello again Tj:

That sounds exactly like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran when he said there were no homosexuals there...

And, he's nowhere near the Nile river.

excon

Hello again Tj:
That sounds exactly like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran when he said there were no homosexuals there....


Now slow down and read carefully. I do acknowledge that there are homosexuals. If there were not, we would not be having this discussion.

Lev 18:21-23
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. 23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.
NKJV

Now that's how we got AIDS...

now thats how we got AIDS...
Origin of AIDS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_origin)

snopes.com: The Origin of AIDS (http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/aids.asp)


Education is important.

Hello again, Tj:

I'm trying. I really am.. But, if God only designs people to be straight, then if they're OTHER than straight, it's by choice.

Therefore, if people CHOOSE to sin, then what? They're no different than ANY Christian who sins, no?

Is a homosexual sin different than any other?

excon

now thats how we got AIDS...Hello again, b:

No, that how your FATHER told you we got aids. But, he's WRONG on that too.

excon

I'm trying. I really am.. But, if God only designs people to be straight, then if they're OTHER than straight, it's by choice.

Therefore, if people CHOOSE to sin, then what? They're no different than ANY Christian who sins, no?

Is a homosexual sin different than any other?


GOOD QUESTION!!

The answer is NO - they are no different from anyone else, nor is that choice a different sin from any other. That is a point often find myself at odds with some Christians who either see homosexuality as an especially bad sin and thus differentiate it, or they see it as a "special" sin where the orientation is okay (unlike other sins). But scripture gives no special status to this or any sin other than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

The only difference comes when we receive Christ as Saviour - that is when our sins are forgiven. But none of us comes to Christ with any merit of our own - we are all equally sinners who need to be saved by God's grace.

It is good to admit that.



No, they all accepted the way that God created them.

Lucky for them, that they were created without any glitches that can sometimes happen when the human embryo is forming. Because if something did actually go awry , you would not stand for it.

Hello again, cozyk:

It IS unforgivable, especially from people who think they're so forgiving...

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

I know, isn't that ironic?

Lucky for them, that they were created without any glitches that can sometimes happen when the human embryo is forming. Because if something did actually go awry , you would not stand for it.

Fortunately, I am more able to stand for "glitches" than some folk who appear unwilling to accept disagreement without posting mis-representations.

Fortunately, I am more able to stand for "glitches" than some folk who appear unwilling to accept disagreement without posting mis-representations.
My wife and I are laughing over this.

Well I don't think anybody really knows where aids came from but I think that some guy thought 'hey I think ill try this' so he got it from a monkey and spread it not knowing well that's just what I think

I know, isn't that ironic?
EX and cozyk,
Come on.. that isn't fair. I am a Christian and I stand in judgement of no one. I forgive, I'm polite, and I give a biblical view point. Homosexuality according to the bible is wrong. It is a sin... a forgivable sin but nonetheless a sin. Why do you want to lump all Christians into a box? I thought you all were the ones with such open minds? Tsk tsk

Fortunately, I am more able to stand for "glitches" than some folk who appear unwilling to accept disagreement without posting mis-representations.

Not getting it:confused:

Not getting it:confused:

I am not surprised.

I am not surprised.Hello again, Tj:

Where in the proselytizing literature, does it say that you can win non believers over with arrogance?

excon

EX and cozyk,
Come on..that isn't fair. I am a Christian and I stand in judgement of no one. I forgive, I'm polite, and I give a biblical view point. Homosexuality according to the bible is wrong. it is a sin ...a forgivable sin but nonetheless a sin. Why do you want to lump all Christians into a box? I thought you all were the ones with such open minds? tsk tsk

Why can't some christians accept that people may be gay because of a glitch in utero and stop saying it is by choice and it is a sin. OTHER, than what it says in the bible because that proves nothing.

Hello again, Tj:
Where in the proselytizing literature, does it say that you can win non believers over with arrogance?


Maybe you missed the topic of this thread, excon, but it is not "Let's Attack Christianity". Check to see elsewhere. I am sure that there are flaming boards where that would be more appropriate and welcome.

Why can't some christians accept that people may be gay because of a glitch in utero and stop saying it is by choice and it is a sin.

Because we deal with reality rather than with what some folk would prefer to think happened.

I am not surprised.

What was I mis-representing? I got to go to the dentist now, but I'll check back with you later. Bye:)

What was I mis-representing? I gotta go to the dentist now, but I'll check back with you later. Bye:)

What I believe and said.

Why can't some christians accept that people may be gay because of a glitch in utero and stop saying it is by choice and it is a sin. OTHER, than what it says in the bible because that proves nothing.

cozyk,

Want a honest answer? Because I believe the word of God over what man says and thinks. Doesn't make me better.. or unforgiving

Maybe you missed the topic of this thread, excon, but it is not "Let's Attack Christianity". Check to see elsewhere. I am sure that there are flaming boards where that would be more appropriate and welcome.Hello again, Tj:

Here's the thing. You don't seem to read very well. I was quite clear. I attacked YOU. NOT Christianity... But, it's cool. I'm still on to you.

excon

GOOD QUESTION!!!!

The answer is NO - they are no different from anyone else, nor is that choice a different sin from any other. That is a point often find myself at odds with some Christians who either see homosexuality as an especially bad sin
He didn't ask about homosexuality. He asked about the behavior.

Heterosexuality is not a sin, but adultery is.

Maybe you missed the topic of this thread, excon, but it is not "Let's Attack Christianity".
No, it's "Let's attack those who aren't fundamentalist Christians."

I mistook it to be a book because you indicated earlier that it was.


I wrote: to quote your own quote of me in your next line:


Originally Posted by asking
The earlier information comes from a textbook of human development AND from research by a pediatric surgeon who does sex assignment surgery to intersex infants.


I capitalized "and" to help you see it.

Thus two sources.
1. A book (on human development) AND
2. research by a pediatric surgeon who does gender reassignment.

I hope this clarifies things.


It is also interesting to note that you reference a man named "Vilian" who is not even mentioned or acknowledged in the paper that you linked.

The paper wasn't meant to provide information about Vilain's credentials. His web page was. The paper was listed at his website under "additional information." As you'll see, most of the other papers listed there do have his name. I assume he probably reviewed this paper in manuscript. I listed it for informational purposes.

Here his website again, since you may have overlooked it.

UCLA Department of Urology Faculty Information - Eric Vilain, MD, PhD (http://www.uclaurology.com/physicians/Vilain_37.cfm)


The boy had damaged caused to his penis during electro-surgery when he was 7 months old, so they did further surgery to change him into a girl and his parents raised him as a girl. Here is an excerpt from the article:


Please give your references also.
There are hundreds of cases like this. I have heard of this particular case, as much has been made of it, probably because nothing seems worse to many people than condemning a man to be a woman. But there are many other people who feel they are women and were expected to behave like men.

These cases are very sad. It is especially sad when babies are born perfectly healthy but with mild intersex conditions, such as a micropenis in a boy or a too large clitoris in a girl. Often, looking at the genitals, the doctor has no idea what sex the child will feel s/he is when they grow up. Traditionally, surgeons have cut off a micropenis or large clitoris since they are "not big enough" for a man and "too big" for a woman, and attempted to turn boy and girl alike into proper girls. As you see by your own reading it often does not work and leads to terrible heartache.

That is why Vilain was saying that, in an ideal world, surgeons could wait until the child was old enough to say, "I am X." BUT, Vilain said, parents, grandparents, teachers and others will not put up with not knowing for several years. Indeterminancy creates serious social problems. Thus the feeling that surgery needs to be done early. He described gender assignment surgery as a sociomedical "emergency."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Following the transition, John's father, on the advice of a psychiatrist, revealed what had happened during infancy. Until that moment her parents and clinicians had tried to conceal all that was problematic about her gender, to give her the unambiguous rearing as a girl they were told to provide.

Lying to children is generally a disaster!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The outcome of the John/Joan case has been observed with comparable patients. In a recent and ongoing study Reiner tracked six boys who had lost their penises in infancy and were being reared as girls.

Italics mine.

It's rare for boys to "lose their penises". They don't just fall down the toilet one day. It generally gets removed by a pediatric surgeon in an effort to turn an unsatisfactory boy into a girl.

I think it's important here to distinguish among the various kinds of sexual identity.
1. Genetic sex is simply if you are XX (female) or XY (male).
2. Does the person have testes or ovaries?
Oddly enough, these things need not be correlated.
3. Does the person have the external genitalia of just one sex or of two sexes (e.g. hermaphrodites--penis and vagina)
4. Which sex are the external genitalia?
5. The sex in which they are reared by the parents.
6. What is the self-identified gender of the child?
7. Legal sex.

And separately.
8. To which sex is the person attracted?

NONE of these things absolutely predict any of the others. They can all vary independently. As I mentioned earlier, a person who is genetically female can be fully male in all other respects and a genetic male can develop into a fully functional woman. Every other combination also occurs, including people with both sets of organs.

In MOST cases, however, things develop as we expect.


they believed they were boys."(Quoted in Colapinto.) [2]

Right. Likewise, there are "boys" who *know* they are girls. Transgender persons may be the victims of gender reassignment or they may simply be people who developed a gender identity different from their apparent sex. This is consistent with what I am saying about all these different kinds of sex identity being independent.


28] Unlike those with surgically corrected cleft palates, intersex patients are condemning physicians for their surgeries and for withholding the truth about their medical condition and treatment. The John/Joan case, the Reiner study, the activist protests and other cases reported in the literature, [29-31] strongly suggest that pediatric reassignment may often be failing the thank you test for clinical beneficence, [32] and that these poor outcomes may not be isolated droplets of misfortune in a downpour of excellent results.

Tom, I couldn't agree more. BUT, at the same time, society demands that we decide on a sex for an infant when it's still not clear. For now, there's just no way to tell if a baby is going to self identify as a girl or as a boy. If we could accept some indeterminancy and wait until a child is old enough to say, I am a girl or I am a boy, so much heartache could be avoided.

The outcome of all these separate kinds of sexual identity is hard to predict and seems to result from processes that occur in the embryo/fetus during development. It's probably not all genetic. Just to give one non-genetic example, the youngest of several boys in a family (by the same mother) has a slightly increased probability of being gay. Something in the woman is slightly altered by carrying all those other boys for 9 months each.

My point is that none of these results is a "choice" made by an adult. I know that the question of whether someone can be ambivalent or bi in their sexual identity is controversial and I don't have anything to say about that. But it is clear that many people express at quite young ages an interest in a particular sex that does not change over their lifetime and which is independent of their own gender self identification ("I am a boy or girl").

My understanding is that Tom is saying that being born gay is no one's fault and not a sin. But acting on it is a sin comparable with other sins, neither better nor worse. I think this is a comparatively enlightened view.

My personal view is that acting on it is not sinful. But then I am not a Christian and basically do not believe in sin, at least not if it is defined as a narrow set of proscriptions from the Bible.

My understanding is that Tom is saying that being born gay is no one's fault and not a sin. But acting on it is a sin comparable with other sins, neither better nor worse. I think this is a comparatively enlightened view.
No. Tom says sexuality is chosen by each individual, and, if the choice is homosexuality, that is, in and of itself, a sin. Tom himself has chosen to be heterosexual.

Hello again, Tj:
Here's the thing. You don't seem to read very well. I was quite clear. I attacked YOU. NOT Christianity.... But, it's cool. I'm still on to you.


I see that you can't shake that obsession with me.

He didn't ask about homosexuality. He asked about the behavior.

Read the context more carefully - he said:

"But, if God only designs people to be straight, then if they're OTHER than straight, it's by choice."


Heterosexuality is not a sin, but adultery is.

So is lust.

Please give your references also.

Once again, read more carefully. I provided a link.



Right. Likewise, there are "boys" who *know* they are girls.

That is your claim. But so far you have not put forward a compelling argument which shows me that scripture is wrong when it makes it clear that such a decision is a choice.

No. Tom says sexuality is chosen by each individual, and, if the choice is homosexuality, that is, in and of itself, a sin. Tom himself has chosen to be heterosexual.

Sigh! I wonder why people choose to mis-represent others. Is the truth just too hard? If you are unable to be honest about what I have said, why not simply let me present my position? Or is it important for you to tell me what I am to believe?

No, Tom does not and never has said that. What I have said, and what scripture says is that God created us male and female, and that some choose to homosexuality rather than how God created us.

Scripture says clearly that we can change and that when we receive Christ we do change.

Scripture says that homosexuality is a sin, and that the act is also a sin.

I accept God's word.

My understanding is that Tom is saying that being born gay is no one's fault and not a sin. But acting on it is a sin comparable with other sins, neither better nor worse. I think this is a comparatively enlightened view.

No one is born "gay". Chosing to become so is a sin according to scripture. The same is true according to scripture for any sinful orientation (this is probably why some folk on here fear to discuss what an orientation is).

All sins, rather it be a sinful act or choosing a sinful orientation are equal sins regardless of what they may be - neither better nor worse whether your act on that chosen orientation.

Quote:

Right. Likewise, there are "boys" who *know* they are girls.
That is your claim. But so far you have not put forward a compelling argument which shows me that scripture is wrong when it makes it clear that such a decision is a choice.

I am not arguing about whether scripture is right wrong. That's not my department. I'm just trying to provide accurate information about the biological processes of sex and gender determination.

Tom, you just posted a really long discussion about a person being raised as a girl who knew nonetheless that "she" was a boy.

Are you saying it can't happen the other way around?

I thought we were in agreement on this.

I find your arguments frustratingly oblique at times. It's hard to discuss anything if you don't seem to commit to a definite statement. That I have misunderstood your point after reading so much of what you wrote and, I thought, responding carefully makes me feel like I am wasting my time. I am disappointed.

I am not arguing about whether scripture is right wrong. That's not my department. I'm just trying to provide accurate information about the biological processes of sex and gender determination.

Tom, you just posted a really long discussion about a person being raised as a girl who knew nonetheless that "she" was a boy.

Are you saying it can't happen the other way around?

I thought we were in agreement on this.

I find your arguments frustratingly oblique at times. It's hard to discuss anything if you don't seem to commit to a definite statement. That I have misunderstood your point after reading so much of what you wrote and, I thought, responding carefully makes me feel like I am wasting my time. I am disappointed.

Don't be disappointed, asking. It's not your fault. Apparently everyone on this board who doesn't agree with Tom is guilty of REFUSING to understand him. And so it must be, since we know it couldn't be Tom's fault for failing to make his points with adequate clarity and precision. That just could never be.

I am not arguing about whether scripture is right wrong. That's not my department.

This is the "Religious Discussions" board and that is what the topic is.


I'm just trying to provide accurate information about the biological processes of sex and gender determination.

As am I.


Tom, you just posted a really long discussion about a person being raised as a girl who knew nonetheless that "she" was a boy.

Are you saying it can't happen the other way around?

What - that a person born as a girl gets mutilated as a baby and they try to raise here as a boy, but she subsequently wants to be as God created her - a girl? Sure that could happen.


It's hard to discuss anything if you don't seem to commit to a definite statement.

I got a laugh about that. That is probably the first time anyone has said that. I have been accused of being too clear and blunt.

Don't be disappointed, asking. It's not your fault. Apparently everyone on this board who doesn't agree with Tom is guilty of REFUSING to understand him. And so it must be, since we know it couldn't be Tom's fault for failing to make his points with adequate clarity and precision. That just could never be.

Yep, here we go again, go after the person when you cannot deal with the issue.

I have been accused of being too clear...Wow, one really like to compliment one's self. Show where that has happened (being accused of being "too clear").

Wow, one really like to compliment one's self. Show where that has happened (being accused of being "too clear").

I could not care less whether you believe it or not. If you are under the mis-understanding that I am on here to defend the homosexual rights lobby of the American Atheists Association, then clearly you have not been reading clearly enough. That is not my issue.

in anybodys eyes do you think its right to be gay?

posted this for the "pet expert" but anybody can answer

Depending on which bible translation you read, homosexuality is not found in the translations although it's assumed sexual perversion holds the same meaning. I am not too sure of that since the Talmud makes pretty clear the sin of the Sodomites is the transgression of inhospitability not homosexuality. In fact the bible never really makes a clear line or distinction even in 1st Corinthians where various translations have interpreted the language as either homosexuality, sexual perversions, with no definite type, and bestiality. Since bestiality is clearly defined biblically and in the Talmud I am guessing this is one of the transgressions that would be considered sexual perversion, as well as what Paul would have done himself in the same time period: rape as a form of tax collection, bestiality, prostitution, orgies which were gaining popularity at the time, virgin baths, pedophilia. When he converted to Christianity he was probably still yearning for many of the sexually abusive temptations available to tax collectors at the time. It was Josephus who first put the world onto the notion that Homosexuality took place in Sodom. Considering the speed at which everything occurred within the passages leading up to sodom's destruction and the fact that Jesus himself called Sodom's transgression inhospitability, I am guessing that Sodom at the time of it's destruction was little more than a war ravaged town suffering from Drought and avarice of in Jesus's words "overfed and unconcerned women", they had recently been pillaged by foreign armies and only ten years previous within biblical context they had suffered a great drought and famine. So I am guessing with their relatively weak king that the city was destitute and made it's living as a port of sin, brothels, gang warfare, brigandry drugs and nationalism. Place reminds me of modern Thailand or Somalia, where daughters are sold as sex slaves to pay for parents drug addictions, and boys six and seven years old are sold to foreigners for sex to feed the family.

Is homosexuality a sin? Can't really tell you. If there was ever any biblical evidence that the 12 apostles had male sexual relations it was never mentioned and neither was it mentioned whether they had female sexual relations. That could mean that they did and it was not discussed or they did and it was removed, or they didn't have any relations at all. However the sin of coveting is discussed and to covet a neighbors manservant is a sin. That always made me wonder if manservant had more of a sexual connotation. Therefore it is all right for you to have a manservant (your boi) but you can't steal someone else's gay manservant. Again can't prove that either. Heck I can't even prove that the bible disapproves of incest since at least three relationships are incestous.

The point is you do what you believe, but Jesus himself said let he without sin cast the first stone, before you dig the thorn out of my pull the log out of your own. So regardless of whether it is a sin, I question whether a person should attack others for their beliefs. As for hand holding, they could be sisters. The fear of homosexuality has obviously insinuated itself in so much that people are willing to be inhospitable, which is a great sin according to Jesus.

... the homosexual rights lobby of the American Atheists Association, There is no such thing - you made that up.

It was Josephus who first put the world onto the notion that Homosexuality took place in Sodom. Considering the speed at which everything occurred within the passages leading up to sodom's destruction and the fact that Jesus himself called Sodom's transgression inhospitability, I am guessing that Sodom at the time of it's destruction was little more than a war ravaged town suffering from Drought and avarice of in Jesus's words "overfed and unconcerned women", they had recently been pillaged by foreign armies and only ten years previous within biblical context they had suffered a great drought and famine. So I am guessing with their relatively weak king that the city was destitute and made it's living as a port of sin, brothels, gang warfare, brigandry drugs and nationalism. Place reminds me of modern Thailand or Somalia, where daughters are sold as sex slaves to pay for parents drug addictions, and boys six and seven years old are sold to foreigners for sex to feed the family.

Wow - what a story.

Scripture is quite clear about the reason for Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction:

Jude 5-8
5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
NKJV

My Christian friends are always reminding me to love the sinner, but hate the sin. Sounds good to me, but then I ask what is the sin, and that answer requires much discussion.

in anybodys eyes do you think its right to be gay?

posted this for the "pet expert" but anybody can answer

Bobbalina,

Yes. It is right to be gay.

It is as right to be gay as it is right to be straight, to have brown hair or white or dark skin, to be a man or to be a woman. It is right to be smart and it is right to be not so smart. It is right to carry one of 16 different alleles for the same gene. It is right to carry another of the 16 alleles. It is right to be different.

It is right to be human.
It is not wrong.

Bobbalina,
Yes. It is right to be gay.


God has a differing view.

1 Cor 6:9-11
O not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
NKJV

Each of us has the choice to submit to God's view or the opposing view.

Wow - what a story.

Scripture is quite clear about the reason for Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction:

Jude 5-8
5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
NKJV

Strange flesh from the talmud and the torah both translates to bestiality. Flesh in itself is often a misnomer for sex which is a modern way of describing sex but in the greek histories, hebrew works including the Talmud and other works at the time flesh has a very specific meaning. Biblically before translation when describing the eating of meat they describe it as flesh Exodus 22:31 Leviticus 7:19, that same term is also used to describe the eating of a fig, or the internal workings or a human (like an open wound) leviticus 13:24. However it is not used when they are describing one's nudity Exodus 20:26. They have a different word to describe that. So contextually the bible almost always uses the term for flesh to mean animal. The exceptions to this are the interpreted meanings of strange flesh in Jude and another time in the NT which also relates back to Sodom and Gammorah. Strange that the term used to describe animal and sometimes fruit everywhere else in the bible replaces the term used everywhere else in the bible to describe sex. Possible conclusions you could derive from this are that the writers of that particular passage are taking poetic licensure and not using the standard wording or more likely strange flesh refers to bestiality. Now going back to the laws in the OT you find that bestiality is very specifically mentioned and in that passage the original term is not beast but the reflected term that is the same for flesh, unfortunately I don't have access to an online version of the hebrew otherwise I'd show you. Exodus 22:19 And lest I forget here are the sex laws very specifically discussing whom you cannot have sex with using the euphemism uncover their nakedness meaning Leviticus 18:6-18.

Strange flesh from the talmud and the torah both translates to bestiality. Flesh in itself is often a misnomer for sex which is a modern way of describing sex but in the greek histories, hebrew works including the Talmud and other works at the time flesh has a very specific meaning. Biblically before translation when describing the eating of meat they describe it as flesh Exodus 22:31 Leviticus 7:19, that same term is also used to describe the eating of a fig, or the internal workings or a human (like an open wound) leviticus 13:24. However it is not used when they are describing one's nudity Exodus 20:26. They have a different word to describe that. So contextually the bible almost always uses the term for flesh to mean animal. The exceptions to this are the interpreted meanings of strange flesh in Jude and another time in the NT which also relates back to Sodom and Gammorah. Strange that the term used to describe animal and sometimes fruit everywhere else in the bible replaces the term used everywhere else in the bible to describe sex. Possible conclusions you could derive from this are that the writers of that particular passage are taking poetic licensure and not using the standard wording or more likely strange flesh refers to bestiality. Now going back to the laws in the OT you find that bestiality is very specifically mentioned and in that passage the original term is not beast but the reflected term that is the same for flesh, unfortunately I don't have access to an online version of the hebrew otherwise I'd show you. Exodus 22:19 And lest I forget here are the sex laws very specifically discussing whom you cannot have sex with using the euphemism uncover their nakedness meaning Leviticus 18:6-18.

Very nice posts, CSlager. Thanks so much for your contributions to the discussion.

God has a differing view.

1 Cor 6:9-11
o not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
NKJV

Each of us has the choice to submit to God's view or the opposing view.

Strange but I just looked in the NKJV and my version doesn't even have that exact quote. However the online version does.
BibleGateway.com - Passage Lookup: 1 Corinthians 6 ; (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206%20;&version=9;)
this shall get you to Corinthians. Here is the problem with the text. Go to the New Standard Version, to the NKJV now to the KJV, now try the NLT, notice the difference? That's what happens when a version adds words. Catamite wasn't even in the pretranslated text that the NKJV used for its translation, it extended the original words to include catamites. The original text has arsen koite which if you read koine you'd know could mean about ten dozen things. However in this case interpretation has often been left to a certain group who always believed it meant homosexuality. Here's what else it could mean or allude: rapist, adulterer, male concubine, someone who ignores his sexual responsibilities to his race and generation (which is very much a sin dating back to genesis, but is somehow missed in this group), someone who commits incest. See all of those things are evil in someone's eyes and they could all be the translation of arsen koite, however it seems that translations often shorten it to mean exclusively singular man but the original was meant to represent a group of men, so if you take it that way it means those who violate the couch of mankind. That sounds suspiciously like the hebrew text from Genesis which uses a similar term to go forth, be fruitful and multiply. Then again if you look in 1 corinthians then you have to look no further to find the point where many biblical scholars sa you can pretty much ignore everything in the old testament that was a law except fornication (which is between a married man and a married woman or unmarried woman) But I don't need to continue this discussion despite it being interesting I need to eat lunch

Strange flesh from the talmud and the torah both translates to bestiality. Flesh in itself is often a misnomer for sex which is a modern way of describing sex but in the greek histories, hebrew works including the Talmud and other works at the time flesh has a very specific meaning. Biblically before translation when describing the eating of meat they describe it as flesh Exodus 22:31 Leviticus 7:19, that same term is also used to describe the eating of a fig, or the internal workings or a human (like an open wound) leviticus 13:24. However it is not used when they are describing one's nudity Exodus 20:26. They have a different word to describe that. So contextually the bible almost always uses the term for flesh to mean animal. The exceptions to this are the interpreted meanings of strange flesh in Jude and another time in the NT which also relates back to Sodom and Gammorah. Strange that the term used to describe animal and sometimes fruit everywhere else in the bible replaces the term used everywhere else in the bible to describe sex. Possible conclusions you could derive from this are that the writers of that particular passage are taking poetic licensure and not using the standard wording or more likely strange flesh refers to bestiality. Now going back to the laws in the OT you find that bestiality is very specifically mentioned and in that passage the original term is not beast but the reflected term that is the same for flesh, unfortunately I don't have access to an online version of the hebrew otherwise I'd show you. Exodus 22:19 And lest I forget here are the sex laws very specifically discussing whom you cannot have sex with using the euphemism uncover their nakedness meaning Leviticus 18:6-18.

Actually the word is not in hebrew but in Greek and the word can be translated either as "flesh" or as "meat", so it could potentially refer to either, but in the context of fornication and in the context of Sodom and Gomorrah where we know what their acts were, the meaning is clear.

Further, this was in response to a person claiming that the sin was inhospitality, so your post agrees more with what I was saying since bestiality would also be a sexual sin.

Strange but I just looked in the NKJV and my version doesn't even have that exact quote. However the online version does.
BibleGateway.com - Passage Lookup: 1 Corinthians 6 ; (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206%20;&version=9;)
this shall get you to Corinthians. Here is the problem with the text. Go to the New Standard Version, to the NKJV now to the KJV, now try the NLT, notice the difference?

I don't use various versions to find the one that I like - I don't think that is the right way to do it. The right way, if there is a question, is to go back to the original languages which I did in an earlier post, and that validates what I posted.

So you are trying to tell me that one can have a desire for sin without a sinful desire.

I guess that Jesus must have gotten it wrong.

What is lust? And how do you understand the relation between lust and desire?

What is lust? And how do you understand the relation between lust and desire?

Desire is a generic term, lust is a specific kind of desire.

Desire is a generic term, lust is a specific kind of desire.

Again, not very explanatory. What makes a desire lust? What distinguishes lustful desires from non-lustful desires? How do we tell them apart?

Again, not very explanatory. What makes a desire lust? What distinguishes lustful desires from non-lustful desires? How do we tell them apart?

Akoue,

As I have told you before, I don't play 20 questions. If you don't know what the word lust means, then get thee to a dictionary.

Akoue,

As I have told you before, I don;t play 20 questions. If you don't know what the word lust means, then get thee to a dictionary.

Well, you've done your fair share of asking questions. You've asked them of me, and you've asked them of Wondergirl (way more than twenty times). It appears you're more than fine with "20 questions" so long as you're the only one asking. You told me I was confused about desire and lust. So it's incumbant upon you to explain the nature of my confusion. Don't make claims you can't back up. If "desire" is a generic term, that there must be something in virtue of which a desire counts as a lustful desire. You ought to be able to explain what that is.

Well, you've done your fair share of asking questions. You've asked them of me, and you've asked them of Wondergirl (way more than twenty times).

And still waiting for some answers.


So it's incumbant upon you to explain the nature of my confusion.

I don't know the nature of your confusion. If you are confused, you are going to have to sort that out, and a dictionary is a good start since you are asking about definitions.

If you don't know where to find a dictionary or what that is, let me know. But I am not going to play games answering questions that could be answered simply by picking up a dictionary. If you are too lazy to do that, then you're probably confused about more things than I could ever help you with.

And still waiting for some answers.


I don't know the nature of your confusion. If you are confused, you are going to have to sort that out, and a dictionary is a good start since you are asking about definitions.

If you don't know where to find a dictionary or what that is, let me know. But I am not going to play games answering questions that could be answered simply by picking up a dictionary. If you are too lazy to do that, then you're probably confused about more things than I could ever help you with.

A bit acerbic. I wonder how much of that is "Biblical".

In any event, here's what the OED says:

Desire
1. The fact or condition of desiring; the feeling that one would derive pleasure or satisfaction from possessing or attaining something; a longing.
2. spec. Sexual appetite; lust.
3. An expressed wish, a request.
5. Something desired or longed for.

Lust
1. Pleasure, delight (also foll. By in, to, unto). Also (poet.), a source of pleasure or delight.
2. Desire, appetite, inclination; an instance of this.
3. A sensuous appetite or desire considered as sinful or as leading to sin.
4. Strong (esp.uncontrollable) sexual appetite or desire.
5. Vigour, life.
6. A passionate desire for, to do; a passionate enjoyment of.

So, according you, consulting a dictionary should clear up any confusion regarding the distinction between desire and lust. You've already claimed that lust is a kind of desire, that not all desires are lusts. Now according to the definition of "lust", a strong, uncontrollable sexual desire counts as lust. But you don't seem to think of lust as something that is limited only to certain sorts of sexual desire (i.e. the strong, uncontrollable ones). Lust is sinful desire, you've been clear about that. But presumably pleasure and delight isn't always sinful. Neither is desire, appetite, or inclination always sinful. Vigour and life don't appear sinful. A passionate desire or enjoyment isn't always sinful.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to explain what you take the defining characteristics of a lustful desire to be, since the OED doesn't appear to be able to clear this up. In fact, as #2 of the definition of "desire" makes plain, the words "desire" and "lust" can be used synonymously (in some cases, at least). But you seem to think that the difference between desire and lust is so plain to see that I must be kind of dim-witted to have missed it. Perhaps it's not quite as obvious as you would have me think. Why don't you give us all your take on the distinction between non-lustful desires and lustful desires. Unless you don't know, in which case some of your earlier claims would be cast in a rather different light.

So, according you, consulting a dictionary should clear up any confusion regarding the distinction between desire and lust. You've already claimed that lust is a kind of desire, that not all desires are lusts. Now according to the definition of "lust", a strong, uncontrollable sexual desire counts as lust. But you don't seem to think of lust as something that is limited only to certain sorts of sexual desire (i.e., the strong, uncontrollable ones). Lust is sinful desire, you've been clear about that. But presumably pleasure and delight isn't always sinful. Neither is desire, appetite, or inclination always sinful. Vigour and life don't appear sinful. A passionate desire or enjoyment isn't always sinful.

You seem to think that you are good at mind reading. You aren't.

Rather than trying to mind-read (which you are very poor at, why don't you just put forward your position and we can see where we differ and discuss.

You seem to think that you are good at mind reading. You aren't.

Rather than trying to mind-read (which you are very poor at, why don't you just put forward your position and we can see where we differ and discuss.

I did put it forward, and you told me I was confused. Since then I've just been asking you to explain what I got wrong, and the very best way to do this would be to explain the distinction between lustful desire and non-lustful desire. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you can explain it. Maybe I'm wrong to do so; maybe you don't know what you're talking about. There are others reading this thread; you have an audience. It's a great chance for you to set us all straight. Or are you just blowing smoke?

I did put it forward, and you told me I was confused.

It was you who said that you were confused. You keep asking me for dictionary definitions.


Since then I've just been asking you to explain what I got wrong, and the very best way to do this would be to explain the distinction between lustful desire and non-lustful desire.

I thought that you just looked in the dictionary. Do you know what the prefix "non" means?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you understand the English language and can read a dictionary. You claim to be a professor. Maybe I'm wrong to do so; maybe you don't know what you're talking about. There are others reading this thread; you have an audience. It's a great chance for you to set us all straight. Or are you just blowing smoke?

Like I said, I am always interested in helping those who care but when a person starts asking me dictionary definitions after I have answered their multiple questions. And yet claims to be a Greek expert and professor, then I find it hard to believe that they cannot figure out a dictionary.

It was you who said that you were confused. You keep asking me for dictionary definitions.
I also am confused as to what you mean by lustful desire and nonlustful desire. I learned in grade school that there is a terrific way to clarify: examples. Please provide us with examples of each. Those certainly will help us understand your thinking in this matter.

I also am confused as to what you mean by lustful desire and nonlustful desire. I learned in grade school that there is a terrific way to clarify: examples. Please provide us with examples of each. Those certainly will help us understand your thinking in this matter.

Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)

Wow, I just got hit by such a wave of nostalgia. Not since grade school have I had somebody parrot me back to myself. That's a couple of times on this very thread.

So the dictionary definitions have been offered above. They don't clearly demarcate lustful desires from non-lustful desires. Don't you have a "biblically-based" answer, Tom?

Wow, I just got hit by such a wave of nostalgia. Not since grade school have I had somebody parrot me back to myself. That's a couple of times on this very thread.

It seemed appropriate. Some of the behaviour have seen on here reminds me of grade school also.


So the dictionary definitions have been offered above. They don't clearly demarcate lustful desires from non-lustful desires. Don't you have a "biblically-based" answer, Tom?

Read Matthew 5.

Because we deal with reality rather than with what some folk would prefer to think happened.

Reality would mean that you knew factual causes of why someone would be gay or bi.
Have you been holding out on us? Do tell. What is the reason?

Reality would mean that you knew factual causes of why someone would be gay or bi.
Have you been holding out on us? Do tell. What is the reason?

Scripture is clear that it is a choice.

Matthew 5 tells us that lust is a sin. But it doesn't offer any account of the distinctive marks of lustful as opposed to non-lustful desires. It doesn't provide any criteria by which the two classes may be discriminated, nor does it tell us what the relation is between desire and lustful desire. It's a nice chapter, but it doesn't speak to the distinction you've been keen to draw.

If you are citing Mt.5 to help you out with the distinction you yourself had advocated it looks like you're reading into the Scripture something that is manifestly not there.

Matthew 5 tells us that lust is a sin. But it doesn't offer any account of the distinctive marks of lustful as opposed to non-lustful desires. It doesn't provide any criteria by which the two classes may be discriminated, nor does it tell us what the relation is between desire and lustful desire. It's a nice chapter, but it doesn't speak to the distinction you've been keen to draw.

Well, you claim to be both a professor and Greek expert. Why don't you tell us what you think Matthew 5 means when it speaks about lust. Indeed, tell us what you believe sinful lust is in the wider context of scripture.

While you are at it, why don't you answer my previous question question about what an orientation (generic) is?

Surely someone who claims to be a Greek Expert and professor could handle those questions.

No one is born "gay". Chosing to become so is a sin according to scripture. the same is true according to scripture for any sinful orientation (this is probably why some folk on here fear to discuss what an orientation is).

All sins, rather it be a sinful act or choosing a sinful orientation are equal sins regardless of what they may be - neither better nor worse whether or not your act on that chosen orientation.

How do you KNOW no one is born gay? Have you had personal experience? Because that is the only way you would know.

Scripture is clear that it is a choice.

Scripture is not necessarily factual. What else you got?

How do you KNOW no one is born gay? Have you had personal experience? Because that is the only way you would know.

I think that the creator of all that exists would know and I think that we can be safe and secure in taking his word for it.

Besides I know a person who was once a homosexual, and just like scripture records of those in Corinth who were once homosexuals, he was changed when he was saved.

Depending on which bible translation you read, homosexuality is not found in the translations although it's assumed sexual perversion holds the same meaning. I am not too sure of that since the Talmud makes pretty clear the sin of the Sodomites is the transgression of inhospitability not homosexuality. In fact the bible never really makes a clear line or distinction even in 1st Corinthians where various translations have interpreted the language as either homosexuality, sexual perversions, with no definite type, and bestiality. Since bestiality is clearly defined biblically and in the Talmud I am guessing this is one of the transgressions that would be considered sexual perversion, as well as what Paul would have done himself in the same time period: rape as a form of tax collection, bestiality, prostitution, orgies which were gaining popularity at the time, virgin baths, pedophilia. When he converted to Christianity he was probably still yearning for many of the sexually abusive temptations available to tax collectors at the time. It was Josephus who first put the world onto the notion that Homosexuality took place in Sodom. Considering the speed at which everything occurred within the passages leading up to sodom's destruction and the fact that Jesus himself called Sodom's transgression inhospitability, I am guessing that Sodom at the time of it's destruction was little more than a war ravaged town suffering from Drought and avarice of in Jesus's words "overfed and unconcerned women", they had recently been pillaged by foreign armies and only ten years previous within biblical context they had suffered a great drought and famine. So I am guessing with their relatively weak king that the city was destitute and made it's living as a port of sin, brothels, gang warfare, brigandry drugs and nationalism. Place reminds me of modern Thailand or Somalia, where daughters are sold as sex slaves to pay for parents drug addictions, and boys six and seven years old are sold to foreigners for sex to feed the family.

Is homosexuality a sin? Can't really tell you. If there was ever any biblical evidence that the 12 apostles had male sexual relations it was never mentioned and neither was it mentioned whether they had female sexual relations. That could mean that they did and it was not discussed or they did and it was removed, or they didn't have any relations at all. However the sin of coveting is discussed and to covet a neighbors manservant is a sin. That always made me wonder if manservant had more of a sexual connotation. Therefore it is all right for you to have a manservant (your boi) but you can't steal someone elses gay manservant. Again can't prove that either. Heck I can't even prove that the bible disapproves of incest since at least three relationships are incestous.

The point is you do what you believe, but Jesus himself said let he without sin cast the first stone, before you dig the thorn out of my pull the log out of your own. So regardless of whether it is a sin, I question whether a person should attack others for their beliefs. As for hand holding, they could be sisters. The fear of homosexuality has obviously insinuated itself in so much that people are willing to be inhospitable, which is a great sin according to Jesus.

TL;DR (Too long, didn't read):p

Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)

Lust –noun
1. intense sexual desire or appetite.
2. uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.
3. a passionate or overmastering desire or craving (usually fol. By for): a lust for power.
4. ardent enthusiasm; zest; relish: an enviable lust for life.
5. Obsolete.
a. pleasure or delight.
b. desire; inclination; wish.

Lustful -adj.
1. Full of lust; excited by lust. --Spenser. --Tillotson.
2. Exciting lust; characterized by lust or sensuality. " Lustful orgies." --Milton.
3. Strong; lusty. [Obs.] " Lustful health." --Sackville.

Syn: sensual; fleshly; carnal; inordinate; licentious; lewd; unchaste; impure; libidinous; lecherous.

Desire -noun
1. a longing or craving, as for something that brings satisfaction or enjoyment: a desire for fame.
2. an expressed wish; request.
3. something desired.
4. sexual appetite or a sexual urge.

Well, you claim to be both a professor and Greek expert. Why don't you tell us what you think Matthew 5 means when it speaks about lust. Indeed, tell us what you believe sinful lust is in the wider context of scripture.

While you are at it, why don't you answer my previous question question about what an orientation (generic) is?

Surely someone who claims to be a Greek Expert and professor could handle those questions.

I spoke to the first of these yesterday. See #382:


One can have a desire before being fully aware of onself having it. It's only if one embraces the desire that sin has been committed (this seems to be the force of the example you give). This suggests that the mere desire isn't itself sinful. One has to do something with that desire in order for a sin to be committed, by embracing it (lust) or acting on it (adultery). If this is true, then it's unclear to me how the mere having of a homosexual desire is sinful.

And again at #387:


So you're saying the mere desire is itself already lust. If a desire pops into my head, even before I can refuse it, I've already sinned? I would have thought that in order for the desire to count as lust, I would have to affirm it in some way inwardly. But you appear to hold the view that the mere occurrence of the desire is already sinful. Is that right?

See also #393:


And I think you are conflating desire and sinful desire. The latter are typed not according the object of the desire but according to the attitude of the subject toward the desire. It is a subject's response to the desire, once it emerges, that either is or is not sinful.

You didn't like my take on it, so I've asked you repeatedly to offer your own. You have refused--unless you regard referring me to a dictionary as offering an explanation of your understanding of the relation between desire and lust.

As for the second: I have explained to you about a half a dozen times why I regard the issue of orientation in general to be a red-herring. I am not the only poster to this thread who does not see the relevance of that. And you have not made any compelling case for its relevance. (In fact, all you've said about that is that you sometimes find it useful to consider a phenomenon in general first. Since we are discussing sexual orientation in general, your obsession with orientation in general looks like a ploy to derail the discussion.)

As for your concluding remarks: You seem to be unhealthily hung-up on my profession. You certainly bring it up with great frequency. Perhaps you should concentrate on the issues at hand, and leave off obsessing over my professional life.

Okay, I just saw this.

No, I didn't read the previous posts, sorry.

In your original post you say;


posted this for the "pet expert" but anybody can answer

There's more than one "pet expert" and I am one. Did you mean me?

If so, why?

I have no problem with anyone's sexual preference. I don't read the bible, because I find it too contradictory. I've said it many times, I do believe in God, not the bible and not organized relgion. I'm a Deist.

So, having said that, what do you really want to know?

You didn't like my take on it, so I've asked you repeatedly to offer your own.

For whatever reason, it appears that you have ignored or skipped over my responses.

As for orientation, you have continually resfused to answer, choosing instead to answer a different question.


You have refused--unless you regard referring me to a dictionary as offering an explanation of your understanding of the relation between desire and lust.

And I have no issue with the dictionary - do you?


As for your concluding remarks: You seem to be unhealthily hung-up on my profession.

You keep making these claims and then when the simplest possible matter arises, you slip into the 20 questions mode, just my kids who keep asking "why". Except I don't expect that when sharing views on an adult discussion board. I expect a two-way exchange, and I expect others to be able to check out word definitions for themselves without asking me for the definition of a word of no greater than 4 letters.

Besides I know a person who was once a homosexual, and just like scripture records of those in Corinth who were once homosexuals, he was changed when he was saved.[/QUOTE]

Now THAT'S the person I want to talk to. Someone that has had first hand experience. I'd ask WHEN, he decided to become gay, and what exactly happened to him when he was "saved." Did the feelings and desires stop or just the behavior?

If he was on the effeminate side, as some gay men are, did that disappear too? Was that also something he could turn on and off? I know some gay men are macho looking and acting and some are your stereotypical hair dressers, make-up artist, decorators, fashion designers, etc. They are effeminate in their mannerisms, their voices, their walk, and more. Are you also saying theses tendencies are also the result of choice and not something that was innate in their personalities?

For whatever reason, it appears that you have ignored or skipped over my responses.

As for orientation, you have continually resfused to answer, choosing instead to answer a different question.



And I have no issue with the dictionary - do you?



You keep making these claims and then when the simplest possible matter arises, you slip into the 20 questions mode, just my kids who keep asking "why". Except i don't expect that when sharing views on an adult discussion board. I expect a two-way exchange, and I expect others to be able to check out word definitions for themselves without asking me for the definition of a word of no greater than 4 letters.


The only sense I can make of your response is that you are under the misapprehension that lustful desires are one and all sexual. But, of course, that's just nonsense. Moreover, even if that were the case, the dictionary definition would go no way toward discriminating between non-lustful sexual desires and lustful sexual desires. If you think that the distinction between desire and sinful desire, or between non-lustful desire and lustful desire turns on the satisfaction conditions of the latter (sinful desire, lustful desire) involving sex, then I've been giving you WAY too much credit.

Now THAT'S the person I want to talk to. Someone that has had first hand experience. I'd ask WHEN, he decided to become gay, and what exactly happened to him when he was "saved." Did the feelings and desires stop or just the behavior?

If he was on the effeminate side, as some gay men are, did that disappear too? Was that also something he could turn on and off? I know some gay men are macho looking and acting and some are your stereotypical hair dressers, make-up artist, decorators, fashion designers, etc. They are effeminate in their mannerisms, their voices, their walk, and more. Are you also saying theses tendencies are also the result of choice and not something that was innate in their personalities?

I'm with you, cozyk. I'd like to hear a detailed, first-personal account of WHEN he decided to become gay and WHEN he decided to become straight. The accounts of this that I have so far encountered have been less than entirely credible. (Of course, we also have to bear in mind that first personal accounts can be riddled with the effects of psychological manipulation.)

The only sense I can make of your response is that you are under the misapprehension that lustful desires are one and all sexual.
All summer I lust after a good, crisp Mcintosh apple like I used to eat when I was growing up in western NY. I also lust after my mom's cinnamon-sugar-pecan (with a sprinkle of nutmeg) pull-aparts and vanilla frosted cinnamon-raisin breakfast rolls. In fact, I also lust after the flaky crusts on the fruit pies she makes.

All summer I lust after a good, crisp Mcintosh apple like I used to eat when I was growing up in western NY. I also lust after my mom's pecan pullaparts and vanilla frosted cinnamon-raisin breakfast rolls. In fact, I also lust after the flaky crusts on the fruit pies she makes.

So I guess that makes you polymorphously perverse! I never knew this about you, Wondergirl.

The only sense I can make of your response is that you are under the misapprehension that lustful desires are one and all sexual. But, of course, that's just nonsense.

Yes, to assume that I am suggesting that is nonsense.

Yes, to assume that I am suggesting that is nonsense.

In that case, your appeal to the dictionary is an utterly pointless exercise--or gambit. This isn't something that a dictionary can sort out. I'm guessing if you had any clue how to answer my question you'd have done so. Your recent posts have been little attempts at deflection because I doubt you know what to say.

In that case, your appeal to the dictionary is an utterly pointless exercise--or gambit. This isn't something that a dictionary can sort out.

You reject dictionaries?


I'm guessing if you had any clue how to answer my question you'd have done so.

If someone was truly interested in an answer, there would be two way interaction, not just another series of questions regarding word definitions, following by a stream of personal demeaning remarks. I am willing to put more effort and to spend the time in discussions with someone who has shown serious interest than someone asking 20 questions to waste my time (and unwilling to answer any asked of him).