Is having heterosexual feelings a choice?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Did you wake up this morning and decide to be attracted to the opposite sex?

No, but...
... neither did I wake up and decide to have greedy thoughts, the greed just comes naturally, but it is my responsibility to control those innate desires of my sinful nature.  Although I do decide to refuse to follow my sinful nature and be considerate of others.
... neither did I wake up and decide to lust after a woman other than my wife, it just comes naturally, but it is my responsibility to control those innate desires of my sinful nature. Although I do have to decide to refuse to follow my sinful nature and flee temptation.
... neither did I wake up and decide to want to place a bat upside the head of the next person who cuts me off in my car, it just comes naturally, but it is my responsibility to control those innate desires of my sinful nature. Although I do have to decide to refuse to follow my sinful nature and ignore the jerk in the other car.
... neither did I wake up and decide to envy those who have more money and are better looking, it just comes naturally, but it is my responsibility to control those innate desires of my sinful nature…Although I do have to decide to refuse to follow my sinful nature and be content.
…neither….etc, etc…..

So, what exactly is your point?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

JMF's position, of course, is the orthodox theological one.
That doesn't care about that neocon "it's a choice" crap...it simply denies that just because something is natural and normal means it's allowed.
I could never subscribe to that view myself - I don't wage war on natural man - , but I have to say, it's a valid standpoint.

Not only is it valid, it is also the most consistent and most logical view.

The “if it feels good, then do it” crowd is obviously warped…It would feel good to rob a million dollars from a bank, but that doesn’t make it right.

The “homosexuality is a choice” religious crowd is flawed in its consistency because the theory runs contrary to the bible’s teaching of a sinful nature, which each one of us is born with as a result of Adam’s sin.

Even your own statement “I don't wage war on natural man” is riddled with inconsistencies…unless you think it is unnatural to lie, cheat, steal, and murder.  Even Nature’s animals cheat, steal, and murder each other.  Are you going to argue that there should be no human laws against lying, cheating, stealing, or murder?

Human civilization does NOT subscribe to “the law of the jungle”, even though the “the law of the jungle” is evident in “Nature” and completely “natural”.  Therefore, the human conscience bears witness to the fact that humans are NOT animals, rather it testifies that we are set apart from the animals.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

There is nothing 'logical' about a belief in a universal right and wrong.  Its just a matter of taste - you dislike certain thing in others, so you call them wrong.  Doesn't mean anything to anyone else.

So, then, are you saying you have no problem with those who lie, cheat, steal, and shed innocent blood?  Or, are you saying you do have a problem with them, but the problem actually lies within your personal tastes and not with the one doing the stealing, lying, and murdering?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jmfcst, what do you do with homosexuals, then?  I understand you're not a bigot, and you're one of the most logically consistent posters on this forum.  but the question that I've always had for those who are certain it is wrong to lie down with men is:  If a man isn't into women, and if, by the laws of leviticus, not allowed to lie down with men, then must he accept a life of solitude and loneliness?  Is the god of Israel and Muhammed and father of Jesus so determined to ensure that Man remains true to his own heterosexual image that no mercy can be shown to the ones who don't fit well into that mold?  Or doesn't homosexuality, as I think I understand it, exist?  Is it just a passing man-lust that can be cured with either therapy, love, or stoic acceptance of the laws of the One True God of all men?

First, let us set the record straight that biblical restriction against homosexual behavior (not desires) is not limited to the book of Leviticus, but rather is uniform throughout scripture.

Second, God has already provided the answer for the homosexual (or anyone else enslaved in any other type of sin) in that they can have their nature changed:

1Cor 6:9-11 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11{b}And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God


2Cor 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

So, it seems that homosexuals are in the same boat as the rest of us: each and every one of us has to die to our sinful nature and be given a new life, if we are to be saved.



BUT, BUT, BUT...it is NOT our duty to be born-again, nor is being born-again a matter of personal effort.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

(I truncated the last portion of my post, it should have read...)

BUT, BUT, BUT...it is NOT our duty to be born-again, nor is being born-again a matter of personal effort:

Gal 3:3 "Are you so foolish that you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?"

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Angus,

Beware of wolves dressed in sheep's clothings…

From http://www.cathedralofhope.com/homosexuality/index.php:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

jmfcst response:  Ignores the rest of scripture – pre-Leviticus and post-Leviticus.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

jmfcst: Jesus is also not quoted in saying anything about witchcraft…so are Christians permitted to indulge in witchcraft?  Of course not.  You can’t use the quoted text of Jesus’ statements to be all inclusive in order to exclude parts of scripture you don’t like.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

jmfcst:  This is nonsense.  That’s like saying God only commands non-alcoholics from getting drunk. It also makes a mockery of scripture since it insinuates that scripture (which is supposed to be God-inspired) is ignorant of homosexuals.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

jmfcst:  Really?  The over-riding lesson of Sodom is not that homosexuality is bad; rather it is that rape is considered horrible by God?

Wow, I am impressed!  But….let’s get the bible’s opinion as to what was the over-riding fault of Sodom and Gomorrah:

Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.

BINGO!!!  So, the overriding point of the story of Sodom was NOT their violence and attempted rape; rather it was their SEXAUL IMMORALITY AND PERVERSION.

Angus, does it seem odd to you that the bible's over-riding objection to Sodom is different than the objection of your friends, even though they claim to be "serious Christians"?

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jesus himself refers to the inhospitality of Sodom. (Luke 10:10-13)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To the contrary, Jesus is making a contrasting comparison with Sodom (as he also did in Mat 10:15,11:23-24; ) by claiming that even Sodom would have been receptive of the Gospel (Mat 11:23), unlike the towns that were rejecting Jesus.  Christ was basically saying that the towns rejecting his message were WORSE than Sodom and that is why Jesus said  “ it will be more bearable on [the day of judgment] for Sodom than for that town (who rejected my ministry)” (Luke 10:12). 

***THIS IS NOT AN INNOCENT MISINTERPRETATION ON THEIR PART, for no one reading Jesus’ other references to Sodom would ever interpret Luke 10:10-13 in the way they chose to do.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

jmfcst;  Again, this is nonsense and is like saying “the verses condemning sex with animals do not deal with people whose sexual orientation was toward animals nor is there any exclusion of genital love between a woman and a dog.”

Need I continue?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst, you're getting your feelings mixed up. Greed is not the same as love...as a human being, you understand that, right? Love is above all else, the most natural feeling that one can have. When one feels love for another human being, it is not something that can be pushed inside and ignored. Trying to do that is sadly what causes so many gay suicides.

So, you're saying that "love" is an excuse?

So, it is ok for me to marry my daughter if we fall in "love"?

And it is ok for me to commit adultery with my neighbor if his wife and I fall in "love"?

And it is ok for me to steal because of my "love" for money?

Can I "love" both God and my dog's genitals at the same time?

Can I sow to the flesh and the Spirit at the same time, even though my flesh is the enemy of my soul?  Or, is the bible correct when it says, "The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life (Gal 6:"?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Any problem I have with others is a matter of perspective - I don't like murderers because I don't want to be murdered.  In other words it is in my interest to avoid them, murder them first, or some other solution that prevents my death. 

...O-kay....thank you for providing us with an example of moral dissipation.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Now I ask you - why should anyone take what you're peddling seriously?

For one, most of us live in society consisting of a system of laws, unlike your total chaos of "murder them first before they murder you".

Your viewpoint is mainly unique.  You and I have no agreeable basis from which to debate.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The thing is, with the possible exception of supersoulty, no one can debate you on theological matters because you always win.  Not because you're intrinsically right, but because it is so hard to keep up with your ability to call to mind any verse and chapter at a moment's notice. 

Hogwash!  My point (and their point) was quite simple.

Did they not say, "the significant point of [the story of Sodom] is that all rape is considered horrible by God"?

Am I misrepresenting their view?  Or are we in agreement that they are saying that  the story of Sodom is a lesson about God hating the act of rape so much so that he destroyed the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah?

So, if we can agree on their point of view, can we then compare their point of view to the point of view of scripture?

Did I misrepresent the opinion of Jude 1:7 when I said it pointed to Sodom and Gomorrah's "sexual immorality and perversion" as the reason why God destroyed the towns?

...So now the question becomes:  Are they such novice students of the bible that they are ignorant of the opinion of Jude 1:7, or do they have motive to deliberately ignore Jude 1:7 in favor of their own interpretation?

Is that so complicated?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

yes, I think it is a bit more complicated than that.  I doubt that their omission stems from ignorance.  Mine, maybe, but not theirs.  I'm just saying your idea of "perversion" and their idea of "perversion" and anyone's idea of "perversion" doesn't have to be the same thing.  I think that's the central problem here.  It's not clear to me that "sexual immorality and perversion" doesn't mean rape, or attempted rape. 

If you are familiar with the homosexual community’s scriptural interpretation, then you know that they believe that the men of Sodom were NOT homosexual, but rather hetero.  And that their attempted “rape” was NOT to satisfy their own sexual desires, but rather was an act of violence.

Now, looking at the language of Jude 1:7, what argument is there for interpreting it as saying the men of Sodom were not trying to satisfying their own sexual desires?  What evidence is there that Jude 1:7 should be interpreted uniquely, apart from the rest of scripture, and not be interpreted in the context of sexual lust?

The onus is on them to produce evidence that Jude 1:7 should not be interpreted to refer to sexual desire, for the language of Jude 1:7 is totally consistent with the bible’s portrayal of fornication and totally inconsistent with the bible’s portrayal of violence..

Obviously, their interpretation is not due to ignorance of scripture, they are turning a blind eye and twisting scripture to suit their own itchy ears -  they’re only buying what they want to hear.

They ignore the fact that the first mention of sex in the bible (Gen 4) was given in context of a man and woman in marriage.  They ignore the fact that sex outside the context of marriage is forbidden in both OT and NT. They ignore the fact every mention of marriage in the bible is in the context of members of the opposite sex.

They believe that their condition is totally ignored in the “ignorance” of the biblical writings, even though they admit all other conditions, both spiritual (sin) and physical (deformities), are scripturally addressed.  And they shamelessly claim that homosexuality was forbidden, but only among heterosexuals.  As if the commands against drunkenness only apply to the sober and not the drunks.  Reminds me of the line from Spiderman 2 when Jameson contemplates the irony of “A guy named Otto Octavius ends up with eight limbs. What are the odds?”

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, the bible clearly states that God can't accept ANY OF US being stained with any kind of sin.  So, why is it that YOU, not me, choose to single-out homosexuality?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

yes, I think it is a bit more complicated than that.  I doubt that their omission stems from ignorance.  Mine, maybe, but not theirs. 

Let's go for a less complicated argument then, shall we?

Let's contemplate their contention that "Jesus never mentions homosexuality, and thus, God doesn't forbid it."

Can we agree they are basically saying that the four Gospel's omission of homosexuality is basic proof that Jesus didn't consider homosexuality a sin?

If we agree, then I have three questions:
1) Do the Gospel's ever claim to be all-encompasing of the specifics of Christian doctrine?
2) Does the non-mention of "witch" or "witchcraft" in the four Gospels mean that Jesus didn't consider the practice of witchcraft a sin?
3) Are they ignorant of the fact that witchcraft is not mentioned by Jesus, making little ole me out to be more biblically knowledgable than the "largest gay Christian church in the US"...or are they, blinded by their sin, purposely conjuring up some half-baked twists of scripture to justify their homosexuality?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All irrelevant. Why do you compare two adult homosexuals to child rape? Not the same.

Ok, let's say when my daughter turns 20.  Would it then be ok for us to fall in love?

The bible condemns men having sex with men and me having sex with my daughter....and it does both without mentioning "love" because there is no exemption, not even love, that would make it ok in the eyes of God.

The bible does not say, "unless you are in love, don't have sex with...", it simply says not to do it. 

BUT...BUT...BUT...where there are exemptions to the sexual guidelines, the bible does indeed mention them:

Lev 18:18 Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

Lev 18:19 Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

---

But, there is no exemption in the following:

Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Which brings up a point.  If the bible does not mention homosexual intercourse, as the gay church says, but rather is talking about heterosexuals raping the same sex, then why does Lev 20:13 put both men to death?!

And, if the verse is not talking about either a rape or homosexual sex, then what would two heterosexual men be doing having sex with each other?!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't think you get it. The bible is irrelevant in this conversation. We are talking science.

Sorry, I was using you to talk to angus since he is ignoring me.

My point to you is that I have MANY desires that I didn't choose to have;  they are simply part of my human nature.  But just because these desires happen naturally and are not by choice, that doesn't make it ok for me to attempt to satisfy those desires.   Agreed?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What possible reason could their be for thinking it wouldn't be 'OK' to satisfy homosexual desires?
They're:
1) private
2) consenting
3) harmless to those not participating
I mean really you might as well condemn masturbation.

But, you are changing the discussion by adding caveats that are not there in the original question of this thread. So, since we are all getting off topic, can be return back to the original question?

If so, then can we agree that the thinly veiled “point” of this thread is to infer that since homosexual desires are not a choice, homosexuality shouldn’t be considered taboo and perverse?  Can we at least agree on that?

If we can agree that this is the “point” of this thread, can we also agree that the “point” doesn’t hold water when the “non-chosen homosexual desire” in the equation is substituted by other non-chosen desires?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What is wrong with two adult consenting homosexuals satisfying their love for each other?

Nothing, except we are all wandering off the point of your original question.  Since none of us have reached agreement on anything, let's at least address the simple point that you and the majority of the gay community make:  "I was born with these feeling and therefore they're not my fault, rather they are perfectly natural; therefore, they are wholesome."

Now, I am perfectly willing to concede the issue that homosexual desires meet the following criteria:
1) the desires are innate.
2) the stress and temptation brought to bear by the desire are not chosen by the individual.

But, my problem is the conclusion that a desire meeting those criteria can't be immoral, for I can name many desires meeting those criteria which are universally viewed as immoral.

My point is that "I was born that way, so deal with it" is a red-herring and easily debunked.  It may be such a fine sounding argument that the elitists on ABC's Nightline grab onto it and devote entire programs to the idea, but it doesn't take any more than a simpleton like me to expose it as a house of cards.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

That has never been debunked...millions of people just didn't decide to lie about themselves.

That is not what I was saying....nevermind.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

for your three questions.
2.  Of course not, but it doesn't logically follow that just because that's (maybe) true for witchcraft then it must also be so for homosexual desire.  Arson may not be mentioned, but we can agree that arson is a great wrong against another, thus, in your view, against God.  Correct?  But taking a sip of tea isn't mentioned either, and you'll admit that it is perfectly fine to take a sip of tea.  So this argument won't work.

My argument does work because arson doesn’t have to be specified; it is simply an act stemming from an underlying motive that could be classified under hatred, or envy, or lawlessness, or etc.  In any case, the bible DOES address damage to property caused by fire:  Exodus 22:6 “If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed [therewith]; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.”

I could invent a thousand ways to show my hatred for someone, but the individual acts don't have to be mentioned in the bible since they would simply fall under the category of hate.

(Notice I didn’t have to add a long list of caveats to prove my point about arson, I simply had to examine the motive.)

---

Now, let’s bring the argument full circle:

Since motive alone is proof that arson is immoral, does the good intentions of two homosexuals being in “love” purify their actions?

The answer can be found by substituting the homosexual subjects with a heterosexual brother and his heterosexual sister….If you think the “love” between a consenting brother and sister justifies incest, then I guess you would have no problem with homosexuality…but just be prepared to deal with the societal consequences reaped by incest.

But if you feel that incest is a perversion not justified by any amount of “love”, then you can see my point.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

(this is a continuation of the biblical branch of this argument)

And far from all arson is committed due to hatred or envy (or covetousness, for that matter.) I'd want a theological definition of "lawlessness" before I can decide whether that captures it.

In regard to lawlessness:  Submission to human law is commanded (Rom 13:1,3; Heb 13:17; 1Pet 2:13).  So arson is a sin simply because it is criminal activity.

---

But, going further (not that it is needed)…arson is just another form of vandalism.  And the motive of the vandal is to take control of another person’s property (a form of theft) in order to derive pleasure in destroying the possessions of others.

At least the normal thief steals in order to profit from his take (at least he makes some use of another’s property), but the vandals seek no profit (unless arson is committed against one’s own property in order to defraud their insurance company), they simply want to gain psychological power over people by spreading fear and anguish…..vandalism is a form of torture and therefore their motive is hatred.

----

But your arson mention is from the Old Testament, J. That won't do.

Actually my OT quote wasn’t even in the context of arson.  It simply addressed the need for restitution in the case of a fire accidentally getting out of control and destroying another’s property.  And restitution is a concept that is carried into the NT. 

The same is true in our society, which is the purpose of liability insurance.

But, like I said, I can invent a million ways to carry out my evil motives, but scripture doesn't have to name each way I invent, for my motives are going to fall into a standard set of categorized sins.  Men don’t invent sin, they simply invent ways of committing sin: “they invent ways of doing evil” (Rom 1:30).

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

[this the scientific branch of the argument]

There is no way that love can either purify or impurify any sex acts, either hetero or homosexual.  This is because these acts are neither pure nor impure.  Any judgement made about the preferability of one sex act over another is purely subjective, and in fact the very concept of 'purity' is a nonsensical attempt to apply one's subjectivity to other individuals.   

No, it is NOT subjective, for we can test the impact of such acts objectively:  Incest destroys a society.  period.

But, it seems you and I agree on three points:
1) "I was born that way" doesn't make it right
2) "We both consented" doesn't make it right
3) "But, we love each other" doesn't make it right

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

yes, I know, and in a real sense, it's "gotcha!"  Jmfcst is sharp that way.  Mostly I'm just buying time so I can think of a good counter-argument. 

I simply break the problem down logical parts. 

Their arguments all take the same form: 

“Act abc is ok because it contains traits xyz.” 

The traits xyz they point to are:
1)   “we were born that way”
2)    “we consented”
3)    “we’re in love”

So, since the traits xyz are their justification in equating an action to being ok, we can simply substitute actions that have the same traits in order to test their logic. 

At which point it is very easy to prove that, individually or collectively, these traits have nothing to do with making an action acceptable or profitable to human society. 

And their argument is exposed for what it is:  a red-herring.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As for 'destroying society', what nonsense.  Can you prove that?

The British Monarchy

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Your opponents' mistake it to accept the idea that they need to justify their practices to intolerants.

The whole thrust of the homosexual movement to become morally accepted. 

---

As for applying the criteria of what is 'profitable to human society' to the judgement of individual acts - how absurd!  Nearly everything most people do, from sitting around watching TV to masturbating, or in fact any recreational activity fails this test. 

You are being extreme.  Relaxation (TV, sports, etc) is healthy, IF done in moderation.  But 99% of people wouldn't tolerate the excuse:  my sister and I have sex, but only in moderation.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Most European monarchies actually(the French had it bad, too

You mean I had the chance to call most of Europe "crackers" and missed the opportunity?! 

Man, I hate when that happens.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Reason does not work with those who would justify incest. 

So I guess I'll just have to get use to being called "intolerant biggot" for not accepting siblngs who want to have sexual relations with each other.