[Athos]

Actually, that's your reasoning. I've never said anything that foolish.

It was an analogy to your comment about Homosexual practices. Sorry you didn't get it.

That one made me laugh. I'm not sure how you go about elevating God's Word above God.

I'm glad you had a laugh. You know what they say about laughs (never mind).

You write about God's Word as though he were in the sky sitting on a cloud dictating to his many secretaries over the centuries - I count about 70. I don't have that literal belief about the Bible.

Then, to try and make your silly point, you make reference to a text from...the Bible!

Nothing silly about that. I'm surprised you said that. The Bible is eminently quotable. I gave you one of the best. Many authors over the last two millenia have quoted extensively from the Bible.

I would tell them??? Oh no. It is not me telling them, it is God's word telling them. And if you don't accept it as God's word, then why did you make reference to it (the first commandment) as though it is?

There is much in the Bible that is certainly suitable for quoting here and elsewhere. My objection - as already noted - is the literalness of God's dictation suggested by the phrase "God's Word".

It's hard to read your comments since they are so soaked in anger.

Ah, I was waiting for you to throw in the anger thing again. Yet, I read what I write and don't see anger anywhere. I DO see my understanding of these things but no anger. Dislike and anger for Trump? Yes. Most definitely. But that's another thread and I wonder why you display little anger when he locks children in cages separated from their mother. If ever there was justifiable anger, it is what Trump does. Like Jesus encountering the money changers in the Temple, He was justifiably angry. Had He seen what Trump does to those children ("Let the little children come unto me"), His anger would have been far greater than mine.

The reference to standing accountable before God as an ad hominem argument is ridiculous. That we will stand before God and give account is throughout the Bible. "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad."

The ad hominem part was your directing the threat against WG when you ran out of civil arguments to present. You have a tendency to do that - attack the person rather than the argument of the person. That's the meaning of ad hominem.

[jlisenbe]

I don't have that literal belief about the Bible. There is much in the Bible that is certainly suitable for quoting here and elsewhere. My objection - as already noted - is the literalness of God's dictation suggested by the phrase "God's Word".

That is the difference between us. When a person sees the Bible as a book of good advice, then they are free to pick and choose what to believe. The problem is, how would a person make that determination? And of course it is done on the basis of what that person considers to be sensible, and so they place their own convictions over the convictions of the Bible. I think that is backwards.

It was an analogy to your comment about Homosexual practices. Sorry you didn't get it.

I got your comment, but it was wildly inaccurate and in no way representative of the truth. The Bible says same gender sex is a sin. Now you can say you just don't agree with that. You have that freedom, but to say that the Bible is neutral, or even affirmative, about homosexual behavior is simply inaccurate.

Perhaps I misinterpreted your comments as stemming from anger. My apologies.

[Athos]

That is the difference between us. When a person sees the Bible as a book of good advice, then they are free to pick and choose what to believe.

Most Christians see the Bible as more than a book of good advice. See the following.

The problem is, how would a person make that determination? And of course it is done on the basis of what that person considers to be sensible

Of course! How else could a person read the Bible and not arrive at what his reason and judgement tell him? The Bible is replete with figures of speech and hyperbole and stories meant for ethics and morals, which, unfortunately, fundamentalists see as actual literal events. I need not list them here - they're easily googled.

and so they place their own convictions over the convictions of the Bible.

That depends entirely on the methodology of understanding the Bible. Each Christian group has more or less similar ways of reading the Bible, but few other than fundamentalists read it literally. A good start is Genesis - especially the Adam and Eve story.

I think that is backwards.

I think what you mean is believe first, examine second. Many noted religious thinkers have agreed with you over the years - I think Augustine, Aquinas and Luther are in that group. There is no question about the strength of their belief but their ability to examine has come a long way since their day. Present day evangelicals don't do much examining once the belief gains a foothold. I don't blame them. Everyone except a very few intellects believed the Bible was literal in the earliest days of Christianity. In 2,000 years we've discarded much of that literal approach. The metaphor needs updating.

[Athos]

I got your comment, but it was wildly inaccurate and in no way representative of the truth. The Bible says same gender sex is a sin. Now you can say you just don't agree with that. .

Perhaps I misinterpreted your comments as stemming from anger. My apologies.

I don't think I ever said that I disagree with the Bible teaching on same gender sex. In the exchanges here, you might have me confused with others.

My belief is that the Bible clearly DOES condemn same gender sex. The arguments citing the famous passages attributing the words to things like Roman practices, etc, are a stretch for me. But I do understand why dedicated Christians have a strong need to justify their choices from the Bible which they love.

It is easy to understand why nomadic tribes from the middle east condemned homosexuality. Procreation was critical to the survival of the tribe - it always needed new members. The condemnation goes way back into pre-history and is commonly found among all tribes/civilizations that have left written records - and for the same reason.

However, my belief reflects anthropological and recorded history. It does NOT reflect absolute morality. It has been proven (at least to my satisfaction) that SOME humans are same sex oriented from birth. There are many indications for this but those interested should search the internet for the many reasons.

Therefore, to accept the Bible teaching re homosexuality for all time is wrong, imo. This brings up the problem of whether the Bible is literally "God's Word".

I've become aware of too many gay people in loving long-term relationships and, when I add this personal experience to what science is discovering re brain chemistry of the foetus, I'm inclined to accept same sex as normal.


Apology accepted.

[jlisenbe]

However, my belief reflects anthropological and recorded history. It does NOT reflect absolute morality.

When you say that you agree the Bible does declare same gender sex to be a sin, but then excuse it due to "anthropological and recorded history", you are elevating those areas above the Bible. Is that not what I said earlier, to judge the convictions of the Bible by your own convictions?

As to homosexuals being born that way, identical twin studies tend to disprove that, but even if it is so, it also seems to be true that alcoholics and drug addicts have some genetic predisposition to such things. So should we excuse those as well? And suppose child abusers say their preference was established at birth. Would that excuse their actions?

The Bible plainly tells us that all humans are broken and predisposed to sin. I'm not sure why homosexuals should get a pass on that. Even more, those of us who believe in the life-changing power of Jesus think we are cheating these people if we excuse their sin.

I think what you mean is believe first, examine second.

Actually, I believe just the opposite. I have examined the Bible carefully to see if it has the mark of the Divine on it, that which sets it apart from all other works. I think it clearly does, and because of that, I believe it.

[Athos]

When you say that you agree the Bible does declare same gender sex to be a sin, but then excuse it due to "anthropological and recorded history", you are elevating those areas above the Bible. Is that not what I said earlier, to judge the convictions of the Bible by your own convictions?[

Do YOU not judge the convictions of the bible by your own convictions? When you examine a phrase like the 4 corners of the earth, are you convinced that your knowledge of the earth is incorrect and the Bible is correct? If not, then you are elevating your convictions above the Bible. Welcome to the club.

As to homosexuals being born that way, identical twin studies tend to disprove that

That is not true. Studies indicate the opposite - that identical twins mostly share a common gayness.

,it also seems to be true that alcoholics and drug addicts have some genetic predisposition to such things. So should we excuse those as well? And suppose child abusers say their preference was established at birth. Would that excuse their actions?

OF COURSE NOT! Who is claiming alcoholics and drug addicts should have their actions excused? And I'm sure you have "studies" that prove child abusers should be excused because they "say their preference was established at birth". I may start calling you Pinocchio.

The Bible plainly tells us that all humans are broken and predisposed to sin. I'm not sure why homosexuals should get a pass on that.

They get a pass on that because it's not true.

Even more, those of us who believe in the life-changing power of Jesus think we are cheating these people if we excuse their sin.

Most Christians who believe in the life-changing power of Jesus do NOT think "those people" are being cheated. It's only you and your friends.

Actually, I believe just the opposite. I have examined the Bible carefully to see if it has the mark of the Divine on it

Ok, I'll bite. What's the "mark of the Divine"?

[Wondergirl]

As to homosexuals being born that way

I lifted most of one paragraph from a very interesting article:

The default gender in the womb is female, which is perhaps hardly surprising given that the womb is an environment awash with female hormones. A genetically male fetus will therefore de­velop the female form of sexual organs until ‘maleness’ is switched on by the SRY gene on the Y chromosome, and the fetal testis starts to develop and then produce testosterone.
http://healthdoctrine.com/hormones-f...e-development/

So we all start out as female. And during the pregnancy, the fetus may be "washed" with additional estrogen or even testosterone (or related hormones) that the mother has been prescribed.

The Bible plainly tells us that all humans are broken and predisposed to sin. I'm not sure why homosexuals should get a pass on that.

They don't. Like the rest of us, including you and me, they sin daily -- lying, cheating, stealing, taking God's name in vain, gossiping, dishonoring their elders.

[Athos]

They don't. Like the rest of us, including you and me, they sin daily -- lying, cheating, stealing, taking God's name in vain, gossiping, dishonoring their elders.

I took jl's comment to mean that the sin is because of their homosexuality. I see now that is wrong and your take is the correct one.

On third thought. I think I was disputing the entire Biblical notion of we all sin.

[jlisenbe]

that identical twins mostly share a common gayness.

Not true. It is about a 30 to 40% correlation, and it can't be determined how much of that is due to a common environment during childhood. It is well known, as well, that there can be a genetic predisposition to alcohol addiction.

Do YOU not judge the convictions of the bible by your own convictions? When you examine a phrase like the 4 corners of the earth, are you convinced that your knowledge of the earth is incorrect and the Bible is correct? If not, then you are elevating your convictions above the Bible. Welcome to the club.

Not the same thing and not even close. It is one thing to recognize a metaphor, idiom, or analogy when you see one. We know, for instance, that Jesus is not literally a door to a sheep fold, nor is He light in the same way that a flashlight gives off light. But to take a clear moral declaration of the Bible and then let some supposed sociological factor, or perhaps an unjustified interpretation, flip the meaning of the passage is nonsense. I might as well say that God is actually all in favor of murder now. To take your approach is to rob the Bible of all meaning. You think you get to decide that same gender sex is OK but the first commandment still applies. No, I'm not at all in your club.

They get a pass on that because it's not true.

What's not true?

Most Christians who believe in the life-changing power of Jesus do NOT think "those people" are being cheated. It's only you and your friends.

That's a ridiculous statement. You have no way of knowing what my "friends" believe, just as you have no way of knowing what most Christians believe.

So we all start out as female.

Except, of course, that we don't. There's that troublesome little issue of the XY chromosome in males that even your article states makes the final decision.

They don't. Like the rest of us, including you and me, they sin daily -- lying, cheating, stealing, taking God's name in vain, gossiping, dishonoring their elders.

Why do you believe those things are sin? It can't be because the Bible says so since you have already discounted the authority of the Bible. So what makes those things sinful? And if those things are sinful, then why isn't same gender sex, or sex outside of marriage for that matter, a sin as well?

[jlisenbe]

Ok, I'll bite. What's the "mark of the Divine"?

Well, for just one thing, there is the remarkable prophecies of the Bible. Just look at Is. 53 or the prophecies of Daniel. Might also want to look at the promises of God to Abraham and how they relate to present day Israel.

[Wondergirl]

Except, of course, that we don't. There's that troublesome little issue of the XY chromosome in males that even your article states makes the final decision.

Your science is outdated. It's a bit more complicated than what you said.

From the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia:
"Early in fetal development, the tissue that will become the gonads (ovaries or testes) is undifferentiated and has the potential to become either ovaries or testes. Gonadal development is the result of a complex interaction between chromosomes and hormones."
https://www.chop.edu/conditions-dise...uous-genitalia

[jlisenbe]

Your science is outdated. It's a bit more complicated than what you said.

No. From your own article, "A genetically male fetus will therefore de­velop the female form of sexual organs until ‘maleness’ is switched on by the SRY gene on the Y chromosome,"

[Wondergirl]

No. From your own article, "A genetically male fetus will therefore de­velop the female form of sexual organs until ‘maleness’ is switched on by the SRY gene on the Y chromosome,"

Did you read the entire article?

[waltero]

What are you guys going on about now? Are you trying to tell us that they have found proof that people are Born gay???
It always amazes me when people say that they were born gay. Looking back on my own experience, I would never say that I was "born straight." I really didn't have any interest in females until about the seventh grade.

Scientists are asking whether homosexuality is natural when we can’t even agree exactly what homosexuality is.

[Wondergirl]

What are you guys going on about now? Are you trying to tell us that they have found proof that people are Born gay???
It always amazes me when people say that they were born gay. Looking back on my own experience, I would never say that I was "born straight." I really didn't have any interest in females until about the seventh grade.

waltero, please put the comic book away and pay attention!

[jlisenbe]

Did you read the entire article?

No, I did not read the entire Wikipedia article. I did, however, study the subject in college. Did you?

I did read the ambiguous genitalia article. I'm not sure what the application is. You did note that the symptoms described were due to chromosomal disorders?

If you intend to support the idea that the XY chomosomal pair is not the determining factor in male gender, then I think you have a hard row to hoe.

Since we have accepted Wiki as the standard, here is some more material.

The XY sex-determination system is the sex-determination system found in humans, most other mammals, some insects (Drosophila), some snakes, and some plants (Ginkgo). In this system, the sex of an individual is determined by a pair of sex chromosomes. Females typically have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), and are called the homogametic sex. Males typically have two different kinds of sex chromosomes (XY), and are called the heterogametic sex.

In humans the presence of the Y chromosome determines if an offspring develops as a male and the absence of the Y chromosome results in a female offspring. More specifically it is the SRY gene located on the Y chromosome that is of importance to male differentiation. Variations to the sex gene karyotype could include rare disorders such as XX males (often due to translocation of the SRY gene to the X chromosome) or XY gonadal dygenesis (due to mutations in the SRY gene). In addition, other rare genetic variations such as Turners (XO) and Klinefelters (XXY) are seen as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex...ination_system

[jlisenbe]

But even if I accept your premise, it still has nothing to do with our basic topic of morality as found in the Bible. You have rejected the idea of homosexual behavior being a sin, though you seemed fine with lying, cheating, stealing, and so forth still being sins. So I still wonder how you determine that the latter group are sins, but the area of sexual behavior has basically become every man for himself.

[waltero]

waltero, please put the comic book away

Uh, no thanks, I think I'll keep the comic book.


Scientists are asking whether homosexuality is natural when we can’t even agree exactly what homosexuality is.

[paraclete]

we can’t even agree exactly what homosexuality is.

Homosexuality is a mutation

[talaniman]

So they are less than human Clete? Some say that all humans are mutated apes.