Is it possible to change your sexual orientation?

[MrVersatile48]

Christianity Today Poll

Is it possible to change your sexual orientation?

Yes.
39%

No.
19%

It's possible but rare.
23%

It's possible but dangerous.
3%

I don't believe in sexual orientation as a construct.
16%

See Romans 1:18-32 @ http://www.BibleGateway.org

Ian

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/features/poll.html

 

[MrVersatile48]

Homosexuality Dispute Could Cut Attendance at Key Anglican Meeting

Stephen Mbogo
Correspondent

Nairobi, Kenya (http://www.CNSNews.com) -

Some sections of the global Anglican Church opposed to the consecration of homosexual bishops will stay away from next summer's Lambeth Conference, a once-a-decade meeting of bishops from around the world, Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi of Kenya has confirmed.

The conference in England is where policy issues that will guide the Anglican Church for the next decade are decided.

"Some provinces [country branches] are saying they will not attend a meeting where decisions are agreed upon but are not implemented," Nzimbi told Cybercast News Service in an interview. "We agreed [at the last Lambeth, in 1998] that we should delay the consecration of gay bishops but the American church went ahead and did it."

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11553939/

 

[Steve]

First of all, i do not believe that a person's sexual orientation defines them or is a big deal. What goes on in a person's bedroom is between that person and their partner. I think we are born whatever it is we are and that's that.
And, as Archie Bunker always said: 'Que seru, seru.'

 

[Rick W]

What goes on in a person's bedroom is between that person and their partner.

Would that the gays keep it that way instead of flaunting their sexuality on the streets like it's "a big deal". Seriously, the last thing I need to see walking down main street is a guy in lipstick and glitter wearing small butterfly wings and a scanty thong throwing kisses at everybody.

 

[Vic C.]

First of all, i do not believe that a person's sexual orientation defines them or is a big deal. What goes on in a person's bedroom is between that person and their partner. I think we are born whatever it is we are and that's that.
And, as Archie Bunker always said: 'Que seru, seru.'

Steve, you aren't serious, are you? I thought you were more conservative than that.

... Would that the gays keep it that way instead of flaunting their sexuality on the streets like it's "a big deal". Seriously, the last thing I need to see walking down main street is a guy in lipstick and glitter wearing small butterfly wings and a scanty thong throwing kisses at everybody.

Hmm, maybe Steve has become desensitized to all this. After all, he's used to lurking on the streets of NYC. : What you just described, is a every day occurrence in the West Village. :o

 

[Drew]

My guess is that sexual orientation is largely determined genetically and / or through "involuntary" life experiences - things one basically has no control over.

Does this mean that I share Steve's view? Not necessarily. I think that there is growing evidence that a lot of our tendencies are "in the genes". This does not mean that we cannot talk about a meaningful distinction between tendency and behaviour. A person may be born with an innate urge to drink or eat to excess, but I am inclined to think that in the vast majority of cases, we can control whether we act on such impulses.

I find it a little strange that so many Christians seem to resist the "it was the DNA that made me this way" explanation for homosexual orientation. Given the doctrine of original sin, I would think it entirely plausible that, if one concludes that homosexual activity is indeed sinful, that it is part of the very fabric of our fallen nature. I think we "over-spiritualize" sin and see it as an abstract ghost-like entity detached from our physical world.

If homosexual inclination is in the genes and if acting on that inclination is indeed sinful, can the inclination be changed (which would obviously be desirable under the stated assumptions)?

This is an interesting question that generalizes beoynd the specific issue at hand (homosexuality) and connects to the "new creature" vs "old creature" distinction. I think that we are presently in a "intermediate state". Through baptism into Christ, we should indeed be fundamentally changed. Yet as Paul opines in Romans 8, we still await the full redemption.

So this is a long-winded way of saying "I don't know".

 

[Vic C.]

My problem with it being genetic is that several years after the so-called gay gene was discovered, the person in charge of the research openly admitted he was gay and the findings were biased. Why don't more people know about this???

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS00D2

http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/tabor/050216

Frontline - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... eview.html don't skim on this and miss this part:

To begin with, we must ask what LeVay and Hamer have not shown. LeVay has found no proof of any direct link between the size of INAH 3 and sexual behavior. Size differences alone prove nothing. He was also unable to exclude the possibility that AIDS has an influence on brain structure, although this seemed unlikely, since six of the heterosexual men he studied also had AIDS. Moreover, Hamer did not find a gene for homosexuality; what he discovered was data suggesting some influence of one or more genes on one particular type of sexual preference in one group of people. Seven pairs of brothers did not have the Xq28 genetic marker, yet these brothers were all gay. Xq28 is clearly not a sine qua non for homosexuality; it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause by itself.

I'll end this post with a link to the organization who first uncovered this gene "lie":

http://www.family.org/lifechallenges/A000000186.cfm

 

[handy]

My problem with it being genetic is that several years after the so-called gay gene was discovered, the person in charge of the research openly admitted he was gay and the findings were biased. Why don't more people know about this???

Because the left leaning media doesn't really want us to know. If it's not reported in the 'news' then it isn't true. As long as it's 'only' Christian web-sites and conservative radio talk shows that discuss this little known but perfectly true fact, then the 'fact' becomes just part of right-wing lunacy.


As far as the question goes, I think that some are tempted by homosexuality. I have no problem calling this one's orientation. And, no, I don't think that it changes much.

However, this isn't to say that a person who is tempted by homosexuality cannot go on to have a fulfilling marriage and life with a person of the opposite sex. There are scads of homosexuals who, upon being regenerated in Christ, leave homosexual sex and marry and live happily.

But, I would imagine that the temptation of same-sex sexuality will most likely be there. Much like the temptation of a former smoker to light up is always there, or the temptation of an alcoholic to take a drink is always there.

Drew, I agree with your idea that the doctrine and DNA may indeed be linked. I do believe that we are genetically suseptable to certain sins. Someone who would never in a million years shoot herion can get addicted in a heart beat to pornography. Someone who would never be stimulated by pornography will lie through their teeth.

The problem with homosexuality is that the church itself is so over the top in its reaction to this sin. When it is dealt with as a sin, and dealt with in the spirit of 1 Corinthians 6:11, there is no reason why those with homosexual temptations cannot be fully embraced by the church.

I think the main problem is the fact that everyone, Christian and gay alike, are too apt to describe the person AS the sin. Sam IS a homosexual. Bob IS an alcoholic. This is wrong. No-one IS a homosexual or an alcoholic. They are a PERSON, create in the image of God, who struggles with the temptations of this world. We really need to stop defining others as sins and loving them as a person whom Christ went to the cross for. After all, isn't this what "loving the sinner, hating the sin" means?

 

[Vic C.]

Because the left leaning media doesn't really want us to know. If it's not reported in the 'news' then it isn't true. As long as it's 'only' Christian web-sites and conservative radio talk shows that discuss this little known but perfectly true fact, then the 'fact' becomes just part of right-wing lunacy.

Good job. You answered a question that was rhetorical, I guess; that wasn't stated though... my fault. 8-)

However, this isn't to say that a person who is tempted by homosexuality cannot go on to have a fulfilling marriage and life with a person of the opposite sex. There are scads of homosexuals who, upon being regenerated in Christ, leave homosexual sex and marry and live happily.

Yes... this was addressed in one of the links I posted.

 

[Vic C.]

Handy, after rereading your post, I'm a bit confused.

In one statement you said:

Because the left leaning media doesn't really want us to know. If it's not reported in the 'news' then it isn't true. As long as it's 'only' Christian web-sites and conservative radio talk shows that discuss this little known but perfectly true fact, then the 'fact' becomes just part of right-wing lunacy.

In another, you said:

Drew, I agree with your idea that the doctrine and DNA may indeed be linked. I do believe that we are genetically suseptable to certain sins. Someone who would never in a million years shoot herion can get addicted in a heart beat to pornography. Someone who would never be stimulated by pornography will lie through their teeth.

Not all the links were Christian links. The PBS Frontline link sure isn't, but they went on to say there was homosexual gene found. I find it comforting that a secular show like Frontline reveals such findings. Did you read any of the links I posted? If so, that is what confuses me... you can't link DNA to any doctrine if said DNA doesn't actually exist.

I might concede to chemical compositions and how they affect the brain and the brain's structure, over the idea that genes are responsible for any sort of sin. Just my opinion for now though. 8-)

 

[handy]

I read very few links, mainly because my dinosaur of a computer either a: takes forever to pull up a lot of links or b: locks up. So, no, I didn't read any of the links.

However, there may be, in our genetic make-up or even in "chemical compositions", predispositions to certain sins. I do believe that Adam's sin had a profound impact on us, not only on our souls, but on our very body. If, as many preachers say, Jesus didn't inherit sin because He did not have an earthly father, only an earthly mother, perhaps the 'sin gene' is passed via the father.

Ultimately though, it makes no difference. We can't claim DNA as an 'excuse' for sin, any more than we can say "The devil made me do it." We are responsible for our actions, whatever may prompt them.

It would be most interesting to see if, on Judgment Day, anyone is actually going to stand face-to-face with God and say, "Well, it's Your fault. You made me this way!"

Doubt that will happen.

 

[Guest]

I read very few links, mainly because my dinosaur of a computer either a: takes forever to pull up a lot of links or b: locks up. So, no, I didn't read any of the links.

However, there may be, in our genetic make-up or even in "chemical compositions", predispositions to certain sins. I do believe that Adam's sin had a profound impact on us, not only on our souls, but on our very body. If, as many preachers say, Jesus didn't inherit sin because He did not have an earthly father, only an earthly mother, perhaps the 'sin gene' is passed via the father.

Ultimately though, it makes no difference. We can't claim DNA as an 'excuse' for sin, any more than we can say "The devil made me do it." We are responsible for our actions, whatever may prompt them.

It would be most interesting to see if, on Judgment Day, anyone is actually going to stand face-to-face with God and say, "Well, it's Your fault. You made me this way!"

Doubt that will happen.

I think Adam already tried that...

 

[Vic C.]

: Scott, that is funny. :-D

Ultimately though, it makes no difference. We can't claim DNA as an 'excuse' for sin, any more than we can say "The devil made me do it." We are responsible for our actions, whatever may prompt them.

It would be most interesting to see if, on Judgment Day, anyone is actually going to stand face-to-face with God and say, "Well, it's Your fault. You made me this way!"

Doubt that will happen.

Amen Handy! That was on my mind last night (almost verbatim too), when thinking about this topic. Man is always looking for an excuse and I'm of the camp that believes that man does have some responsibility concerning his overall behavior.

 

[Drew]

If, as many preachers say, Jesus didn't inherit sin because He did not have an earthly father, only an earthly mother, perhaps the 'sin gene' is passed via the father.

I know that many (including the referenced preachers) will disagree with me on this, but I believe that Jesus did indeed enter the world in the form of "sinful flesh" and yet did not sin.

It does not make sense for Jesus to come to earth in a form where He did not have the sin nature. Why? Because that was the state where Adam started - and Christ has come to solve the problem that Adam created. So He (Christ) needs to pick up where Adam finished, not where Adam started.

Besides we have this from Romans 8:

"For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man[/b]"

God needed to condemn sin in the "place" where it reigned - in sinful man. Jesus had to be offered up in the form of sinful man in order to achieve this.

And I am not suggesting, of course, that Jesus sinned. As Vic has pointed out, and as I have also argued, one cannot argue that my "sin nature" forces me to sin. Jesus was in the world in the form of sinful man - he had than nature - and yet He did not sin. Quite the accomplishment, to understate things.

 

[handy]

Drew, I'm no so sure I'd disagree with you on this. Whether or not Jesus was born with a sinful nature, just as any other man, is something I'm still hammering out. It seems paradoxical that He could have both a sin and a divine nature, but then, when you think about it, Jesus as both God and Man is pretty paradoxal in the first place.

One thing I think is very certain: Whether Jesus had the sin nature of man or not, He lived life sinless because He consciencely submitted His will to the Father every time, not because of His divinty. Of course as God, He could not sin. But, as a Man, He was tempted and countered that temptation with the Scriptures, not with His divine power.

I don't know about you, but that gives me a lot of hope in my own struggle against sin.

 

[Vic C.]

... One thing I think is very certain: Whether Jesus had the sin nature of man or not, He lived life sinless because He conscientiously submitted His will to the Father every time, not because of His divinity. Of course as God, He could not sin. But, as a Man, He was tempted and countered that temptation with the Scriptures, not with His divine power.

I don't know about you, but that gives me a lot of hope in my own struggle against sin.

Amen.

My thoughts; He didn't come to face temptation and then shun it. His time in the wilderness being tempted by Satan was more an exercise in futility on Satan's part than it was a struggle for Jesus to avoid temptation. Remember God can't be tempted.

Jesus came to face Tribulation and conquer death; for us, because we are unable to do so on our own. He is that bridge over the chasm between God and Man. He may have been capable of sinning up until the time of His baptism and anointing, but not afterwards.

John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Man, I live by the light of that verse every day! :angel:

 

[Guest]

If, as many preachers say, Jesus didn't inherit sin because He did not have an earthly father, only an earthly mother, perhaps the 'sin gene' is passed via the father.

I know that many (including the referenced preachers) will disagree with me on this, but I believe that Jesus did indeed enter the world in the form of "sinful flesh" and yet did not sin.

It does not make sense for Jesus to come to earth in a form where He did not have the sin nature. Why? Because that was the state where Adam started - and Christ has come to solve the problem that Adam created. So He (Christ) needs to pick up where Adam finished, not where Adam started.

Besides we have this from Romans 8:

"For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man[/b]"

God needed to condemn sin in the "place" where it reigned - in sinful man. Jesus had to be offered up in the form of sinful man in order to achieve this.

And I am not suggesting, of course, that Jesus sinned. As Vic has pointed out, and as I have also argued, one cannot argue that my "sin nature" forces me to sin. Jesus was in the world in the form of sinful man - he had than nature - and yet He did not sin. Quite the accomplishment, to understate things.

First - Adam did not start with a sinful flesh.

Second - likeness and carbon-copy are two seperate things.

 

[Drew]

First - Adam did not start with a sinful flesh.

Note that I never stated otherwise. To use my exact words:

It does not make sense for Jesus to come to earth in a form where He did not have the sin nature. Why? Because that was the state where Adam started -

So I have been clear - Adam did not start with a sinful flesh. And so we agree on this.

Second - likeness and carbon-copy are two seperate things.

I am just reading the Scriptures and taking them at their word. Here is Romans 8:3 again:

"For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh"

I think it will be very hard to argue for the "likeness vs carbon-copy" distinction that you refer to. First, while this distinction does indeed have some validity in some domains - a portrait of Fred is not a "carbon copy" but it is indeed a "likeness".

However, I think that the Scriptures do not allow this analogy to apply to man's nature. Man is either fallen or he is not - there are no gradations upon which the "likeness" vs "carbon copy" distinction can gain any purchase. Adam started out in an "unfallen" state. He then transitioned to a fallen one. So there are only two options. So I think that coherence forces us to conclude that Romans 8:3 tells us that Jesus was offered forth "as sinful flesh"

Second, the text itself solves the issue for us. God comdemned sin. Where? In the flesh. Whose flesh? Jesus' flesh. How can God condemn sin in Jesus' flesh if Jesus does not, in fact, "possess" flesh that bears the sin nature? It seems that some of you think Paul meant "God condemned sin in Jesus' non-fallen flesh." But that is not where sin reigns - it reigns and lives in sinful (fallen) flesh.

Of course, I am not saying that Jesus committed any sin. I am just saying that He had to be walking around in the same "fallen" flesh that you and I have.

 

[Guest]

Drew - it sounds pretty clear to me that you are suggesting that Jesus had a sin nature. And you also made it sound like Adam started with a sin nature as well:

It does not make sense for Jesus to come to earth in a form where He did not have the sin nature. Why? Because that was the state where Adam started -

In other words you are saying (to turn it into the positive) "It does make sense for Jesus to come to earth in a form where He did have the sin nature. Why?"

You are asking "Why it makes sense" and your answer is "Because that was the state (which state? - having a sin nature - where Adam started"

Again - Adam did not start with a sin nature.

Does the Scripture say that Christ was made to be sin? That does not mean that Christ had a sin nature or that He Himself sinned.

 

[Drew]

Drew - it sounds pretty clear to me that you are suggesting that Jesus had a sin nature. And you also made it sound like Adam started with a sin nature as well:

It does not make sense for Jesus to come to earth in a form where He did not have the sin nature. Why? Because that was the state where Adam started -

I apologize - I misconstucted the sentence you quoted above and did not realize it until now. Let me be clear and correct my position on Adam:

Adam started his life without a sin nature.

When Adam sinned, he transitioned to a state where he had a sin nature.

Nevertheless, I do not see how one can avoid concluding that Jesus had the "sin nature" as well. In Romans 8:3 it is clearly stated that God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and that He (God the Father) condemned sin in the flesh. Sin only "lives" in fallen flesh - it has no home in unfallen flesh. Therefore it seems unavoidable but to conclude that Jesus had "fallen" flesh. As I have repeatedly said, and no one has counterargued this, having a sin nature does not force us to sin. If it did, the whole concept of being responsible for our actions would be incoherent.

How, and please be specific, do you reconcile Romans 8:3 with the view that when Jesus went to the Cross, He did so with an "unfallen" nature? How could God then condemn sin in Jesus' flesh if you believe that a Jesus with an "unfallen" nature?