Is it possible to change your sexual orientation?

[handy]

I had stated before that I'm still hammering this one out. And, it was a post much like Drew's on a different site that caused me to pick up the hammer in the first place. Up until fairly recently I went along thinking that Jesus couldn't possibly of had a sin nature, and that it was a fairly logical conclusion on the part of more than one preacher I've heard that He didn't because He didn't have an earthly Father. But, every now and then, something, like this idea of Drew's comes along to challenge the assumptions and I think it's good to search the Scriptures and see if it bears up.

It seems as though the basic question to get to the bottom of is whether or not, when God sent Jesus to earth in the likeness of fallen man, He gave Jesus the nature of that likeness as well as the physical form.

The only thing is, this is a fairly deep theological question that really has nothing to do with changing one's sexual orientation. It's going to require going into the sustitutionary nature of the Old Testament sacrifices. I'd like to pursue it and see what some of the wise folks around here have to share regarding it. At this time, I'll defer to the moderators: Perhaps this topic should be brought up on Apologetics and Theology?

 

[Guest]

Romans 8 is speaking to the deliverance that is offered in Christ Jesus. It speaks to the difference between the Law and Christ.

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did...

I would suggest that this verse is not speaking that Jesus came in sinful flesh - but in "likeness".

In other words, Jesus Christ came as a man - he looked human. However, the verse does not say that Christ came in sinful flesh, but in the 'likeness'

 

[Drew]

Romans 8 is speaking to the deliverance that is offered in Christ Jesus. It speaks to the difference between the Law and Christ.

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did...

I would suggest that this verse is not speaking that Jesus came in sinful flesh - but in "likeness".

In other words, Jesus Christ came as a man - he looked human. However, the verse does not say that Christ came in sinful flesh, but in the 'likeness'

I do not think you can make this work for precisely the reasons I have previously expressed. I will claim that you are simply not taking Paul seriously when he writes that, through Christ, God condemned sin in the flesh. If Jesus was the bearer of God's wrath on the Cross, then Romans 8:3 tells us the details - God condemned sin in Jesus' flesh. Where does sin live? It lives in fallen flesh. It makes no sense for God to condemn sin in Jesus if Jesus in no sense carried the very sin nature where sin makes its home.

I suspect that the counterargument is that it is entirely possible for God to condemn sin in Jesus' "non-sin-nature" flesh. You may well ask me (Drew) why I paint a picture where Jesus has to partake in the "sin nature" in order to bear the sin of the world.

My response to this is that such an objection entails rejection of the necessary "mechanics" of original sin and implicitly believes that "sin" is a ghost-like quantity that "floats" in mid-air and does not really live in the very fabric of human flesh. Granted, if you believe this, you can indeed say that this "free-floating" sin is somehow "attached" to Jesus unfallen nature and then condemned by God. But then we have to claim that Paul really chose his words poorly when he claims that, in Christ, God condemned sin in the flesh. He really should have written something like "God condemned sin through (or via) Jesus's (unfallen) flesh".

Whenever we find ourselves having to do make such awkward interpretations, it is sign that something is wrong. It reminds me of the interpretation of the phrase "being made alive" in 1 Cor 15 as indicating the wrapping of an already fully conscious, functional spirit in a flesh shell. But that is another matter.

I think that my picture is much truer to working through the implications of original sin. On my view, original sin spreads to all of the material world (including people). So sin has a home - it lives in our very DNA. So it is not surprising at all that we are indeed "born sinners". If sin does not "have a home" and floats freely (so that God can later pin it to Jesus without Jesus needing to share in fallen sin nature), then it becomes very difficult to explain how it is that we are "born sinners". I would think that you would be forced to argue something like this: "God re-injects this free-floating sin into each baby that is born".

This sounds rather unworkable to me. I think that sin has a home - fallen nature. And God has to condemn it where it lives, namely in fallen flesh.

 

[Vic C.]

Here's something to think about.

It lives in fallen flesh. It makes no sense for God to condemn sin in Jesus if Jesus in no sense carried the very sin nature where sin makes its home.

God likens the state of man in sin and rebellion as a man with a heart of stone. He wishes to give that person a heart of flesh. Drew, that is contrary to what you have suggested.

Ezek 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:

and again in:

Ezek 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

 

[handy]

Here is a verse that seems to have bearing on this discussion:

"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." 2 Corinthians 5:21
The key seems to be to figure out just when Jesus was regarded as sin for our sakes. Was it at His birth, when He took on humanity or on the cross? It seems if we look at all the Scriptures, it was on the cross that He took on our sins. This was when the great break in the fellowship of the Trinity took place, as Jesus cried, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Until then, Jesus was without sin, or at least lived without sinning, as He always followed the will of the Father's.

Drew, I agree that sin is in our physical make-up, that it is our natural man, natural being the flesh, which speaks of the physical.

But, I'm not sure if we need to consider that Jesus also had sin, simply because He was a physical Man. I put forth the verse in 2 Corinthians because of the way that it states this important doctrine: Jesus knew no sin. God made Him be sin on our behalf. This 'making Jesus be sin' was an act of God's will rather than a desciption of Jesus' nature, was it not?

Perhaps a study of the cross, and what Jesus death on the cross accomplished would shed light on just when Jesus became sin.

 

[handy]

I was doing a quick Blue Letter Bible search on 'cross' and came up with this text which I also think will help answer the question as to when Jesus 'became' sin:

"And He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed." 1 Peter 2:24
It's easy to over look this text these days, because many are putting a twist on this text that really isn't correct, as to faith healing. But, this text seems to bear out that it was an act of His will that He bore our sins on the cross, rather that He was born with a sin nature like ours.

 

[Vic C.]

Handy, I'd like to add Matthew 27:46 to your "Cross" study:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

It was at that time that I believe Jesus took on sin, all sin, more than any mere mortal could have ever taken on at one time. That was awesome of Him to do that for me, for us. A question that could be considered, along with your comments, is: who was it that placed all this sin upon His head and shoulders?

 

[Drew]

Here's something to think about.

It lives in fallen flesh. It makes no sense for God to condemn sin in Jesus if Jesus in no sense carried the very sin nature where sin makes its home.

God likens the state of man in sin and rebellion as a man with a heart of stone. He wishes to give that person a heart of flesh. Drew, that is contrary to what you have suggested.

Ezek 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:

I think that I have been careful to qualify "flesh" with the word "sinful" when I am indeed talking about fallen flesh. Flesh can be unfallen - it was unfallen in Adam. So there is no contradiction - Ezekial is talking about the "new creation" that a person becomes once God has given that person His Spirit. As Paul clearly expresses, the new person has access to both the old fallen flesh and the redeemed "flesh" that is animated by the Spirit.

Romans 6:11 (and following)

In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace

Romans 8:11 (and following)

And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. Therefore, brothers, we have an obligationâ€â€but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

So I submit that Ezekial is referring to God's giving us access to a new redeemed heart (flesh). We believers alive today are presently living in a state between only having access to a fallen sin nature and the state to come - when Jesus redeems our fallen flesh totally.

One of Paul's central realizations was that what God had promised to do for Israel at the end of history, He (God) had done for Jesus (and therefore for Christians) in the middle of history - vindicate Him and raise Him from the dead. Remember Ezekial 37 and the dry bones - resurrection is the analog to the restoration of Israel. When Paul realizes that Israel's expectation of national restoration (as anticipated in Ez 37) has been mysteriously fulfilled in Christ through resurrection from the dead, he (Paul) sees the connection between, on the one hand, the exile of Israel and Jesus' death, and, on the other, the restoration of Israel and the resurrection of Jesus.

Why is this relevant? Because the covenant promises associated with the return from exile (that the Jews think lie in the future) have already come true in Christ and hence for beleivers. One of these promises is precisely the new heart of flesh as per the verse you quoted. But Paul also believes that the redemption is not complete (Romans 8:18 and following).

So I think it is clear, not least from the two snippets of Romans quoted above, that Paul thinks the church has access both the new "nature" and the old "nature". He certain admonishes the church in Rome in a manner that shows that this is what he believes.

 

[Guest]

If we are born with a sin nature - are we guilty of sin?

 

[Drew]

If we are born with a sin nature - are we guilty of sin?

Hello aLoneVoice:

To answer the above: When Adam sinned, the world changed and we are all born with a sin nature. Does this force us to sin? I have said in the past that I thought the answer was "no". I am open to reconsidering this in the light of the seeming universality of sin - the evidence suggests that we simply cannot resist the tendency to sin. I suspect you will argue that if sin nature forces us to sin, then if Jesus had the sin nature, then He too must sin. And obviously you and I agree that He did not.

Even if I agree that you and I cannot resist the sin nature, I can argue that Jesus is in a different category. He is "both man and God" - we are merely "man". So while I think I see your point, I can at least claim that His unique ability to resist the sin nature lies in his divinity.

In any event, I do think your take on what Romans 8:3 is certainly plausible at a "surface level" - the text allows the interpretation that sin gets somehow "connected" to Jesus unfallen nature and then somehow sin is condemned through Jesus even if not "in" his flesh. I still think this makes for a very awkward reading with all sorts of mysteries that the view I am espousing does not suffer from.

On your view there is no comprehensible way in way sin and Jesus are somehow brought together in one "place", since your view asserts that Jesus could not have sin "in his DNA". I think it makes a lot more sense to have Jesus carry our sin nature in his very DNA, thereby making it possible for God to condemn sin when He (God) smites Jesus. If Jesus does not carry the sin nature, it seems that God would "miss" sin when He smites Jesus, since Jesus does not, on your view, "contain" sin in any sense at all.

Your view seems to require that sin can "live" outside the fabric of the material world. I do not think the Scriptures allow this. The very penalty for sin - death - suggests that it has infected us like a virus and does not "float freely" as a fuzzy disembodied "spiritual" kind of thing. In Romans 8 and in various Psalms, it seems clear that when the problem of sin is solved, the results are distinctly manifested in the very "flesh" of the cosmos - our future is not "up there" in heaven, but is rather "right here" in a renewed physical world.

I suspect that few others find such considerations relevant and may wonder why I care so much about coming up with some plausible account of how sin and Jesus are "fused" into a single "substance" for God's wrath to be visited on. Perhaps most readers are satisfied with a "judicial" interpretation - one in which an "unfallen" Jesus pays the price for our sin in much the same way that an entirely innocent person can pay a fine on behalf of someone else.

These are good questions and I will not attempt to answer them in detail the present post. I do think, though, that there is a lot to be said for views that are sensible to us. And the Scriptures do teach that the physical world is tainted by sin and that "fallen" flesh is the abode of sin. I cannot really make sense of how sin can be condemned / dealt with if not in the very "place" that it is found. When we use antibiotics to cure an infection, we do attack the infection where it lives - in our very flesh.

As readers may know, I think we err when we divide the world into a physical "part" and a "spiritual" part. I think the correct distinction is a "new nature" vs "old nature" distinction and I think we superimpose Platonic dualist concepts onto our reading of the Scriptures. So I am skeptical that sin can be said to exist "outside" of fallen human flesh. And I therefore think that God has to "hit it where it lives" - in this very same fallen human flesh.

 

[Guest]

Drew - because of whose "sin" is the rest of humanity guilty of sin?

Now - who actually "sinned" first?

I would contend that the "sin nature" that you suggest is linked in our DNA (while I would not put it with the DNA, but with our spirit and flesh) comes from the father - not the mother. Therefore, Jesus did not receive a sin nature, because He did not have an earthly father.

Jesus was able to resist sin because He was not able to sin - in fact sin had to be "put on him". It was at this point when Jesus cried, "Father, why have you forsaken me." It would have been at that point that God "left" Jesus.

However, Jesus does provide for us exampls on how to resist sin - but living completely within the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not rely on His innate divinity, but on the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Just as we can and should.

 

[Vic C.]

Jesus was able to resist sin because He was not able to sin - in fact sin had to be "put on him". It was at this point when Jesus cried, "Father, why have you forsaken me." It would have been at that point that God "left" Jesus.

My point exactly; I agree. I even asked ,who placed sin on Jesus?

 

[Drew]

Jesus was able to resist sin because He was not able to sin - in fact sin had to be "put on him". It was at this point when Jesus cried, "Father, why have you forsaken me." It would have been at that point that God "left" Jesus.

My point exactly; I agree. I even asked ,who placed sin on Jesus?

I am not necessarily saying that it was possible for Jesus to sin. I may have said in the past that this is what I believed, but I am open on that one. I do think you guys are not taking Romans 8:3 seriously when it states that God condemned sin in Jesus' flesh:

"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 am aware of the counter argument that this really means that God condemned sin by offering up Jesus' as a "flesh target" that has the world's sin planced on (note the word "on") Him.

I think that creates at least 2 big problems.

First, I think you gloss over the "technical" problems with having the sin placed "on" rather than "in" Jesus. If it were possible for God to zap sin without it being "inside" a human target, why would a loving God smite His Son? He wouldn't need to do - sin is "out there in the open" and waiting to be condemned. It makes far more sense to believe that the very structure of reality is such that, like a virus, "sin" only lives in its host environment - fallen human flesh. Therefore God could not grant Jesus request that the cup pass Him by.

Second, on a related note, there is tons of Scriptural evidence to suggest that sin is "in" us and is not a quantity that can be "extracted" from its home in fallen flesh and placed "on top of" the non-fallen flesh of Jesus.

I think the popular view on this matter - that "sin" is a "disembodied ghost-like" quantity that can be, as you chaps say, "put on" Jesus is the product of the capitulation to Platonism that has taken place in the west in the last 200 years. I see no scriptural evidence that sin has this kind of "free floating" existence. Quite the opposite, consider Genesis 3:17, the first declaration of the curse of sin:

Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it';
Cursed is the ground because of you;
In toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
"Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the plants of the field;
By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return

Notice how the ground (emblematic of the created physical world) is cursed and how the consequence of sin is death - obviously realized through distinctly physical processes like disease and decay.

Sin is part of the created order - it lives in the very bones of us and the earth itself. It needs to be dealt with where it lives - in fallen flesh.

Not to mention the compelling argument that Israel was acting out the Christ-pattern through a long process of having the sin of the world "accumulate" on her (national Israel) so that it could then be passed onto Jesus and finally dealt with. This picture makes sense out of the otherwise mysterious text of Romans 5:20

"The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, )grace abounded all the more"

I think this is saying that one of the purposes of the Law was to gather the sin of the world onto national Israel who bear the terrible burden of national election to be cast away for sins of the world. And cast away they were (exile to Babylon).

Sin needs to be cornered. It needs to be localized in one "place". The final place where it is localized and finally dealt with is Jesus. I can imagine a number of rejoinders you may make about my own "theory" about this is being violated by what I am saying about Israel having sin accumulate on her. I will let you guys raise them if you wish.

 

[Vic C.]

Sigh, Drew, you're mincing over words. I know the meaning and message of Romans 8:3. I know it means God became incarnate in the flesh and body, in Jesus, to do away with sin, not through spirit, but by actually dwelling with man in the flesh. Even more, through Him, we are able to overcome the world's tribulation on His believers, which we are also in His debt. Without that, we can be forgiven of our sins and still be unable to cope with the world; through Him, we can do all things.

Saying sin was placed on Jesus is a figure of speech, like saying I have the weight of the world on my shoulders. Anyways...

Is it possible to change your sexual orientation?

 

[Drew]

Sigh, Drew, you're mincing over words.

I do not share your opinion about this. Incorrect theology almost always results in problems in how we live our lives. For example, people who believe that we all end up "in Heaven" and not here in a remade earth are more likely to have a gnostic take on the world. I would not be surprised at all if the acceptance of obesity in North American evangelicalism is the indirect result of believing that we will be "freed" of our bodies in Heaven - so taking care of the body is not really so important. If we (correctly, I claim) believe that our final destination is a remade Earth, then this will profoundly affect how we treat our bodies and how we treat creation.

I realize we have drifted off the OP but the issue of the nature of sin and exactly "how" Jesus dealt with it almost certainly has very important implications for building the Kingdom.

In any event, I think my opinions about this have been provided and, unless others pursue this "where can sin live" issue any further, lets get back to the sexual orientation question.

 

[Guest]

Sigh, Drew, you're mincing over words.

I do not share your opinion about this. Incorrect theology almost always results in problems in how we live our lives. For example, people who believe that we all end up "in Heaven" and not here in a remade earth are more likely to have a gnostic take on the world. I would not be surprised at all if the acceptance of obesity in North American evangelicalism is the indirect result of believing that we will be "freed" of our bodies in Heaven - so taking care of the body is not really so important. If we (correctly, I claim) believe that our final destination is a remade Earth, then this will profoundly affect how we treat our bodies and how we treat creation.

I realize we have drifted off the OP but the issue of the nature of sin and exactly "how" Jesus dealt with it almost certainly has very important implications for building the Kingdom.

In any event, I think my opinions about this have been provided and, unless others pursue this "where can sin live" issue any further, lets get back to the sexual orientation question.

Sad thing is Drew - you are the one with incorrect theology.

You prove this over and over again.

 

[Rick W]

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.'

"Senator Larry Craig was arrested and driven out of the Senate for allegedly soliciting public 'gay' sex, yet during this event the city of San Francisco suspends the law and allows 'gay' men and women to parade the streets fully nude, many having sex – even group orgies – in broad daylight, while taxpayer-funded police officers look on and do absolutely nothing."

'Que seru, seru.' is it?



'Gays' mock Jesus with Last Supper take-off"
Taxpayers subsidize event with nudity, orgies under watch of police

A taxpayer-supported "gay" celebration in San Francisco, featuring a poster portraying Jesus Christ and his disciples as "half-naked homosexual sadomasochists," has come under heavy fire from major Christian groups demanding that California lawmakers condemn it.

The poster by organizers of the Folsom Street Fair, sponsored in part by Miller Brewing, replaces the bread and wine representing Christ's blood and body with sadomasochistic sex toys.

"A picture's worth a thousand words," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues with Concerned Women for America.

Barber said his group wants California's elected officials – including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer – to "publicly condemn this unprovoked attack against Christ and His followers."

The annual street event, which includes displays of nudity and sexual activity – is scheduled for Sept. 30.

"We further challenge the media to cover this affront to Christianity with the same vigor as recent stories about cartoon depictions of Muhammad and other items offensive to the Muslim community," he said.

Barber said homosexual activists "disingenuously call Christians 'haters' and 'homophobes' for honoring the Bible, but then lash out in this hateful manner toward the very people they accuse."

He pointed out San Francisco taxpayers help foot the bill for the fair by providing police support – to shut down several city blocks and provide security.

A police lieutenant confirmed officers are on the clock during the event, not paid for by the organizers.

The Folsom Street Fair website also lists San Francisco's environment department and its Grants for the Arts –which comes out of the hotel tax fund – as sponsors.

"The most unimaginable and vile acts of debauchery are commonplace during the fair," Barber said.

"Senator Larry Craig was arrested and driven out of the Senate for allegedly soliciting public 'gay' sex, yet during this event the city of San Francisco suspends the law and allows 'gay' men and women to parade the streets fully nude, many having sex – even group orgies – in broad daylight, while taxpayer-funded police officers look on and do absolutely nothing."

Barber encouraged mainstream media to cover the event with cameras in hand.

"There's an unbelievable news story here," he said. "The Folsom Street Fair is reminiscent of biblical Sodom and Gomorrah, and the media should document exactly what the city of San Francisco is allowing to occur – in public – in the name of 'tolerance.'"

Catholic League president Bill Donohue urged Miller to pull its sponsorship of the event.

Donohue says his group is targeting Miller because it's the only national household sponsor.

"Furthermore, Miller has a record of acceding to requests from various segments of the population that have objected to certain ads: it has bowed to the wishes of Muslims, African-American clergy, lawyers and feminists by pulling ads deemed offensive," he said. "Surely it will do the same in this instance: the ad, like the event, is morally depraved. Indeed, it is the kind of ad that only the enemies of Christians would entertain."

Donohue said, "We have contacted Miller Brewing and expect that they will cooperate and do what is ethically right."

 

[Drew]

Sad thing is Drew - you are the one with incorrect theology.

You prove this over and over again.

I am more than happy to have readers objectively consider the content of my arguments and come to their own conclusions as to whether the "theology" I put forward is Scriptural or not.

 

[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.'

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

Hi Vic.
I have always been theologically conservative, and socially liberal.

 

[handy]

Just a note regarding Miller Brewing and that outrageous poster: They did have their logo stripped off the poster as of the 25th, several days prior to the fair.

You can file this one under either a: Satan is indeed the father of lies, or b: Just who does he think he's kidding:

Andy Copper, president of the group's board of directors, said there was no intention "to be particularly pro-religion or anti-religion with this poster; the image is intended only to be reminiscent of the 'Last Supper' painting."

"We hope that people will enjoy the artistry for what it is - nothing more or less," he said. "Many people choose to speculate on deeper meanings. The irony is that da Vinci was widely considered to be homosexual.

"In truth, we are going to produce a series of inspired poster images over the next few years," Copper said. "Next year's poster ad may take inspiration from 'American Gothic' by Grant Wood or Edvard Munch's 'The Scream' or even 'The Sound of Music!'"

Still, "I guess it wouldn't be the Folsom Street Fair without offending some extreme members of the global community, though," he added.
CNSNews.com September 26th, 2007

Yeah, right, un-hun.

And don't you love that it is the folks who are offended by the poster who are the extreme members of the global community?