Progressive errors on LGBT

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

Actually Sandy nearly anything I've read about sexual conversation therapy etc. has been shown to be bunk. There was even a big name conversaion therapy organization that shut down when its founders admitted it didn't work and apologized to the Christian community for their actions.

Certainly a person can choose to be celebate. Some people can manage to suppress their natural feelings. But just because someone does that is not evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit. Even if a person were to some how change their orientation, which I don't believe happens, that still is no proof the Holy Spirit is involved in the process.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Bonney]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Tim writes, " I haven't had clinical experience with bisexuals. But I know a number of persons who identify as bisexual who are in monogomous relationships. I'd also suggest that strictly heterosexual people have a hard time accepting their choices given the high rate of divorce and remarriage."

Id do not think a high rate of marriage, divorce and remarriage among heterosexuals is any part of 99.9 percent of homosexual choice. The vast percentage of heterosexuals who divorce chose some one of the opposite sex if and when they remarry. I have known homosexuals who where married to some one of the opposite sex in so called marriages of convenience. But here we are getting back to speculation.

[Tim Bonney]

So Ed in your estimation how does any difference between a gay or lesbian orientation and a bisexual orientation effect our discussion of their place in the church? By the way, one of the newer terms related to sexuality and bisexuality is "polyamorous" rather than bisexual which assumes that there is only "bi" two orientations.

[Haruo]

My impression is that polyamory can also involve the ethics of multiple (simultaneous and/or successive) sexual relationships. Don't know much about it, but I note that Peter Benson, who is both someone interested in shapenote stuff and the compiler of the largest published English-Esperanto dictionary, is also the author of a book on polyamory. (See .)

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

Sandy,

Medical and psychological sciences both would argue against changing one's sexual orientation. None of the latest versions of the DSM (Diagonostic and Statistical Manual) consider homosexuality a psychological disorder.

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

Make a Biblical argument for homosexual identity.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Dave Roberts]

Somehow, I really don't think the DSM can be used as an authoritative religious argument, pro or con.

[Sandy]

The acquisition of scientific fact is a process. Across the spectrum of science, continuous research and discovery have changed what is recognized as fact. And when I read those passages of scripture that warn against relying on human wisdom, without God's revealed knowledge, or the Spirit's discernment, I can certainly see why.

I'm certainly willing, within a context, to recognize that some aspects of science and human wisdom have done an excellent job of determining what is factual, and what works. Physical science, chemistry, meteorology, earth science, anatomy, medicine, are all areas where there is empirical and tangible evidence. Behavioral science, dealing with uniquely created beings that are all individual and different, not so much. In the education field, I see it all the time. Medication designed to help kids "focus", or gain an advantage over a learning issue, like "attention deficit disorder", or "hyperactivity" works in some cases, has the opposite effect in others, has no effect on some. I've seen psychiatrists and psychologists provide therapy that is highly effective for some, and fails with others. My observation is that those psychologists and counselors who understand Biblical principles related to human behavior, and incorporate prayer into their therapy have a greater measure of success.

If you can find biblical support for the idea that having a homosexual identity is the way God created someone, I'd consider that ahead of the secular DSM.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

[linda]

My arguments don't conflict with science. We have no science proving the cause of homosexuality, but even if we did, we still have the Scriptures forbidding the activity.

Bear in mind I have raised a child with a genetically verifiable tendency to crime. Not a hypothesis, but something that can be verified with a simple blood test.

Ah, but it is still sin if he kills, robs, rapes, embezzles, or EVEN focuses on and fantasizes about doing so, or so I get from the red letters.

Let's face it: we all are "born that way" meaning an inbred tendency to sin. So what if science is just now catching up with the Scripture? Even if we find a gene for everything forbidden in the Scripture, if it is forbidden it is still forbidden. This holds with sexual sin, also. Some are truly born with a tendency to promiscuity--it is a symptom of bi polar disorder. Some are just so highly sexed monogamy "feels" wrong and like it would be a death sentence. Acting on that feeling is still a sin. Some are born with poor impulse control--still a sin to beat a kid. See where this is going?

That is where we run amok: thinking if we can find a "cause" it gets a free pass and ceases to be sin.

Understanding the science may help us be more compassionate and less self righteous in dealing with folks struggling with particular sins. It just doesn't erase them as being sins, or give a free pass, or make those sins something we should embrace, celebrate, or support.

I wonder sometimes if we who do not struggle with same sex attraction want to give it that free pass so that when our own besetting sins are the topic, we have already set the precedent of rationalizing away sin?

[Tim Bonney]

Well reasoned Linda if, and only if, you believe homosexuality is sinful. That's the impasse for Christians on both sides of this issue. We can argue all around how we deal with or don't deal with sin. But some Christians believe this is sin and some don't.

So it is only "rationalizing away sin" if it is actually sin. You can also rationalize things that aren't sins as being sins. For example, it used to be rationalized that mixed race marriages were a sin.