Rex Racer said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

My questions basically center on whether gays are born gay or not. And I personally do not think the science is settled there.
If they were created that way and I am not a Calvinist who believes God created people He preordains to hell. I have a hard time believing that is a damnable sin.
And the original Hebrew and Greek words used in Scripture in Leviticus and by Paul when studied closely suggest more of abuse by adult males of Temple young males.
But whatever, y'all are not going to believe that and think that I am "liberal" when I am actually being very conservative by exploring the translations deeper. And sure, every translator has a bias.
I will leave the judgement up to the Lord and love and pray for everybody.

---

You should read some Sam Allberry. He's a pastor who has always been same-sex attracted, but he does not act on it because that would be sin. The fact that he is same-sex attracted is not sin. If he engaged in sexual impurity of any kind (homo or hetero) that would be sin.

https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/the-christian-debate-over-sexual-identity

---

Thanks and very enlightening. If I had same sex attractions, I would do what Pastor Allberry has done.

dermdoc said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

I see I have poked the proverbial hornet's nest. Would encourage all to dialogue with lesbian and gay couples to better understand.

We can parse scripture all day, however, in the end it is about people.

---

Actually it is all about Jesus. And what would He do?

---

"What so ever you do TO the least of my brothers you do unto me." Mt 25:40

I'm not leaving Christ out, but it is not just one or the other but both and. Thx for pointing that out.

" but when it comes to homosexual behavior there are those who want to grant a free pass because the man was "born that way".

Who is saying this? I'm actually arguing for two similar moral frameworks - one for heterosexual persons and one for homosexual persons.

I have presented my opinion that some religions view sexual relations through one lens- heterosexual. This is because the family is a cornerstone of civilization (not the only one, but one). Anything outside of that view misses the mark- it's sinful.

""Born this way" prevents potential healing and true marriage."

I would argue that the first half of this statement presumes a failing whether physical or spiritual in need of healing. I realize that scripture cites "abomination" but in each of those instances there was no comparable long term, free, and committed relationship- instead those abominations were about sexual violence.

The other half of that statement presumes that so-called gay marriage is the same as marriage between a man and a woman. I would argue that they are not because the sex act for one (heterosexual) has a uniative and procreative aim, while the other is strictly uniative.

As it stands, the love between a man and a woman is sacred because it can bring forth life (children) through the blessing of God. This is why any form of contraception is immoral.

However, if - and this IS the key - if a person is born with same sex attraction and they meet someone else born with this same sexual orientation- then fall in love- love that they give freely and exclusive (as in gay marriage)- how then can that love be sinful?

Right now it is because we only have one way of looking at romantic love- heterosexual.

" The whole premise for Christians beginning to accept gay marriage is based on "born this way" and that's why it's important to show that it's incorrect."

As someone who values truth above all- there is no scheme in my observations. In a way the statement above is a means to an end sort of view. This is why I think it is important to get to know people who have a homosexual orientation.

What I have found is that they are incredibly similar to heterosexual persons when it comes to relationships. What caused me to revisit my previous understanding was witnessing authentic love between life long partners. You know this when you see it. I then had to ask myself, what am I seeing Lord? "True Love" was all I could understand.

It is written, "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" (1 Jn 4:8) - this is where I am at in this journey. I don't presume to know definitively anything other than what my church teaches and what I have observed. I do know that I am not the only one that sees this alignment.

PabloSerna said:

---

" The whole premise for Christians beginning to accept gay marriage is based on "born this way" and that's why it's important to show that it's incorrect."

As someone who values truth above all- there is no scheme in my observations. In a way the statement above is a means to an end sort of view. This is why I think it is important to get to know people who have a homosexual orientation.

What I have found is that they are incredibly similar to heterosexual persons when it comes to relationships. What caused me to revisit my previous understanding was witnessing authentic love between life long partners. You know this when you see it. I then had to ask myself, what am I seeing Lord? "True Love" was all I could understand.

It is written, "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" (1 Jn 4:8) - this is where I am at in this journey. I don't presume to know definitively anything other than what my church teaches and what I have observed. I do know that I am not the only one that sees this alignment.

---

I don't seek for "born this way" to be intended as a means to end homosexual acceptance. When I say it's important to show that this view is incorrect, I say that because it is verifiably true. I'm emphasizing that word again because it really is that clear for anyone willing to give it an honest consideration. Homosexuals are no more born homosexuals than you were born an architect (look up how genetics affect career choices and see they are on par with LGBT tendencies).

So to your bolded... I've suggested this multiple times, but now I'll simply ask it: how many (if any) testimonies have you heard from people who have left the homosexual or trans lifestyle? Have you listened to these men and women as they confront their woundedness? If you truly want to get to know people with this orientation, do you believe it is important to hear from those that have had lived that life and have chosen to follow God's call to reject it? Or should we only listen to people who agree with the 50 year old slogan (literally that recent) of "born this way"?

Even if "born this way" is true, acting on it is still sin.

This is a great interview with Sam Allberry about it.

https://credomag.com/2013/09/is-god-anti-gay-sam-allberry-answers/

PabloSerna said:

---

.

It is written, "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" (1 Jn 4:8) - this is where I am at in this journey. I don't presume to know definitively anything other than what my church teaches and what I have observed. I do know that I am not the only one that sees this alignment.

---

Love isn't love. "Agape" is not "Eros". It is much clearer when we keep that in mind.

https://biblehub.com/text/1_john/4-8.htm

It is Christlike for two, regardless of gender, to share Agape with each other. It is sinful, regardless of gender, to share Eros with each. The New Testament asks us to demonstrate a sacrificial love, agape, towards each other. Sexual activity not open to conception lacks the sacrificial element, Historically, women ran the 25-33% risk of dying in pregnancy or childbirth. Men would run the risk of having another mouth to feed. Without the potential for sacrifice, sex can eroded into Eros. The consistency to this idea is partly why the Catholic Church maintains its position on birth control. Both words translate to "love" in English but have very different meanings.

Would certainly like to meet people who have changed their orientation without some level of religious practice. If only because that presumes a "healing" from a defect.

If, as you say, this is indeed a choice, then we will have wide spread examples from multiple cultures and across religious intervention. Cherry picking is not a good way to prove a point. So let's see it.

Now, to your "verifiable" comment. There is abundance of research that says we are learning more about the biological basis for sexual orientation and it has not arrived at some definitive conclusion. However, it would seem that you don't think the sciences are integral into a more complete understanding - is that correct?

I am not saying that there is just one type of love (you can read that in my prior comments) - I am fully aware of the different types and the Greek used in the New Testament. What I am saying is that God is love.

So, if you will, what would you call the love that two people of the same sex profess for each other? Keep in mind that they are attracted to each other as well. Can it be romantic and sacrificial? Not unlike the love between a man and women in love. Given that love is not something you can pull out of your pocket to show to someone- we can only take their word for it and use what we know our faith teaches us.

Interested in your response.

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

You keep making comments that seem to imply that Calvinists believe gay people are doomed to hell…not so.

---

They have to be celibate, correct? If they are not, that proves they are not of the elect.

And I am not a Calvinist so I would seriously like to hear what a Calvinist thinks about gay folks. Thanks.

---

Do you think Calvinists believe the elect are sinless?

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

You keep making comments that seem to imply that Calvinists believe gay people are doomed to hell…not so.

---

They have to be celibate, correct? If they are not, that proves they are not of the elect.

And I am not a Calvinist so I would seriously like to hear what a Calvinist thinks about gay folks. Thanks.

---

Do you think Calvinists believe the elect are sinless?

---

No.

PabloSerna said:

---

I see I have poked the proverbial hornet's nest. Would encourage all to dialogue with lesbian and gay couples to better understand.

We can parse scripture all day, however, in the end it is about people.

---

To me, this is a very neo-Gnostic kind of view.

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

You keep making comments that seem to imply that Calvinists believe gay people are doomed to hell…not so.

---

They have to be celibate, correct? If they are not, that proves they are not of the elect.

And I am not a Calvinist so I would seriously like to hear what a Calvinist thinks about gay folks. Thanks.

---

Do you think Calvinists believe the elect are sinless?

---

No.

---

Ok, that's good; though I'm still not sure why you think Calvinists would view homosexuality any differently than, say, and Arminian.

We all struggle with sin; a proclivity toward certain ones. Temptation doesn't equate to sin, acting on the temptation does. Same-sex attraction itself isn't going to put someone in hell. Even falling into the temptation won't do it if there is genuine repentance. Same as with any other sin. Homosexuals can choose to follow their flesh or follow their Lord, same as a heterosexual.

PabloSerna said:

---

Would certainly like to meet people who have changed their orientation without some level of religious practice. If only because that presumes a "healing" from a defect.

If, as you say, this is indeed a choice, then we will have wide spread examples from multiple cultures and across religious intervention. Cherry picking is not a good way to prove a point. So let's see it.

Now, to your "verifiable" comment. There is abundance of research that says we are learning more about the biological basis for sexual orientation and it has not arrived at some definitive conclusion. However, it would seem that you don't think the sciences are integral into a more complete understanding - is that correct?

---

I've posted several articles. The biological basis of homosexuality is extremely limited and the reality that experiences are the primary driver of the attraction are substantial. Again, I've linked articles on this. Do you have any scientific evidence to refute it? The most pro-LGBT outlets out there agree that genetics play a very limited role, so I'm not sure why you're claiming the opposite. What else is there? Do you have a 3rd cause for human behavior outside of nature and nurture?

To your bolded, this seems to fly in the face of Christianity itself. Are you suggesting people should be able to receive the same level of spiritual and emotional healing without God as those who rely on Him? Saying that non-theist cultures should have the same result as theist cultures is very weird to me. What's the point of God's saving grace then? Should all cultures have the exact same results in terms of marriage or charity as Christians?

And again, the attraction is NOT A CHOICE! It is formed by experiences the person undergoes early in life. Unless you are suggesting that the abuse, neglect, feelings of social outcast, how they were parented, materials they were exposed to etc. are experiences young people choose, the attraction is not a choice. But it doesn't mean that they are "born this way"

10andBOUNCE said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

I see I have poked the proverbial hornet's nest. Would encourage all to dialogue with lesbian and gay couples to better understand.

We can parse scripture all day, however, in the end it is about people.

---

To me, this is a very neo-Gnostic kind of view.

---

Actually it is a very Aquinas type of thing to do.

Catching up on my day off.

First, I am saying that we cannot rule out biological underpinnings when it comes to sexual attraction. You seem to be arguing that there is none. I don't need to link any scientific articles because there are too many.

Second, yes- God's grace and salvation extend beyond the Christian flock. This is a Roman Catholic viewpoint, so unless you are of that persuasion you may not agree that Jews, Muslims, among others will go to heaven.

Third, I do advocate for dialogue with our LGBTQ brothers and sisters. If only because it is what Jesus commands. Love one another…

I have found that through an authentic dialogue, not some pretense to convert, rather a genuine chance to listen - is shocking. Just when you think you know enough -God takes us deeper.

"Two people using each other for sexual gratification"

I am not talking about this type of love and I know full well the various kinds.

I am stating that I know people of the same sex that love each other no different than a husband for his wife. The type of love that endures, is kind, everlasting- sacrificial. That kind of love. I know people of the same sex who love this way. How is that?

Zobel said:

---

love for another is subordination of our own desires to the benefit of the other's salvation.

if their emotional bond is rooted in a sexual desire that is sinful, and expresses itself through that sin, it is not to either of their benefit but to their harm, and is not for the other's salvation. it cannot be love.

---

Would you agree that there is a twofold inseparable dimension of conjugal love as described in Humane Vitae (c.1968)?

Uniative and Procreative. In the sacrament of Holy Matrimony we see where these two dimensions come together for the salvation of each and the reception of new life.

Again, I fully get the heterosexual moral framework. For this reason the love between persons of the same sex cannot be the same as marital love and I am not saying it is.

I am saying there is a quality of love that reflects God and I have seen this.

We do and have for some time. Nostra Aetate has this language.

PabloSerna said:

---

We do and have for some time. Nostra Aetate has this language.

---

Read your Catechism

"He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."

I'd probably check out what Aquinas might have written about regarding the topics in this thread.

PabloSerna said:

---

Catching up on my day off.

First, I am saying that we cannot rule out biological underpinnings when it comes to sexual attraction. You seem to be arguing that there is none. I don't need to link any scientific articles because there are too many.

Second, yes- God's grace and salvation extend beyond the Christian flock. This is a Roman Catholic viewpoint, so unless you are of that persuasion you may not agree that Jews, Muslims, among others will go to heaven.

Third, I do advocate for dialogue with our LGBTQ brothers and sisters. If only because it is what Jesus commands. Love one another…

I have found that through an authentic dialogue, not some pretense to convert, rather a genuine chance to listen - is shocking. Just when you think you know enough -God takes us deeper.

---

ETA to make sure you see this first: I have said on MULTIPLE occasions that biology has a minor role to play. If you think I have argued that there are zero biological factors, you didn't read anything I posted. Just like saying I claim homosexual feelings are a choice, despite saying otherwise multiple times. You are clearly misrepresenting what I have posted, intentionally or unintentionally. Christian to Christian, I will believe it is unintentional until you say otherwise.

First, we can rule out causal biological underpinnings. We absolutely can. You cannot link any reputable resources to say otherwise because they don't exist. Biology plays, at best, a minimal role in why same sex attractions occur. The genetics studies that keep coming up empty in their search for a biological impetus? All funded by pro-LGBT groups. They are literally looking for their trump card, spending good money to do it, and keep failing. Holding to the view that LGBT are "born this way" is not scientifically, rationally, logically or theologically sound. The only "ology" that can sustain this view is ideology.

I really don't like being this blunt, but you need to understand this. I don't expect to change your mind, but I do pray it changes. You've been lied to. And not by the LGBT people you talk to. If you say the source of your current position is coming from the LGBT people you talk to, you've misidentified the source. All you are receiving is their own confusion, that springs from the factually refuted claim of "born this way". They are the biggest victims of "born this way" ideology. I have prayed and will continue to pray you will come to understand this because it has potentially massive implications, as Pacifist is beginning to see.

Second: I do not hesitate to say that, without a TON of context, this is a borderline heretical statement. I am not accusing you of heresy or being a heretic, as both of those marks require intent. I cannot know your intent. But the statement is vague enough to infer some sort of universalism/religious indifferentism. What the catechism actually says:

Quote:

---

CCC 847:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience those too may achieve eternal salvation."

CCC 1260:

Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

---

"May". "Can". The one thing I can't find is "Will". If you're going to present your statement as the "Catholic viewpoint" please be precise.

That said, I am not trying to imply that salvation is not open to people outside of the Church. I am currently holding this view on another thread on this board. What I am saying is that expecting identical results for humanity apart from Christ and His Church is erroneous and makes the Church unnecessary. Why would you expect similar levels of spiritual and emotional healing to exist in non-Christian countries as in Christian countries? We created modern education, health care, orphanages, abolished slavery, and mainstreamed monogamy. Polygamy, easy divorce, promiscuity, and even homosexual sex, were all issues that Christianity helped to heal. Don't believe me? Read the OT. If that doesn't convince you, read up on homosexual relations in Roman culture. Two Roman emperors married men! It wasn't some unknown phenomenon.

Christianity has made a massive mark on the human condition, as should be expected with God as it's source of strength and truth. I have no idea why you'd want to cut away at that other than it helps fit a certain "ology" that you hold

I stand by the "will" but agree with you that it is more my understanding of the very parts of the CCC and other documents plus the inter-religious dialogue that has been going on since 1965. Fair enough.

Ok, so you are not shutting out biology as a factor in sexual attraction. We can agree on that but probably not on the amount that some have been finding.

What I will disagree with you is that I am being lied to- because it implies some level of dishonesty. I have always searched for truth honestly. I have stated numerous times that I do not know completely - but I what I do know suggest a quality that reflects the Divine.

I'm not seeking any concurrence on this - I am presenting my ongoing search. And to be clear it is my search and not some teaching so you can erase the heresy checkmark.

Oh about those OT passages on homosexuality- they are about sexual violence (gang rape, sex trafficking).

Noted and it is not what I have been writing about.

The key word is "knowing"- I'm not talking about those people. What about those through no fault of their own not having heard the Gospel?

PabloSerna said:

---

The key word is "knowing"- I'm not talking about those people. What about those through no fault of their own not having heard the Gospel?

---

Your exact words: " Jews, Muslims, among others will go to heaven." You never said about invincible ignorance. Which in today's world is a very small number of people

PabloSerna said:

---

I stand by the "will" but agree with you that it is more my understanding of the very parts of the CCC and other documents plus the inter-religious dialogue that has been going on since 1965. Fair enough.

Ok, so you are not shutting out biology as a factor in sexual attraction. We can agree on that but probably not on the amount that some have been finding.

What I will disagree with you is that I am being lied to- because it implies some level of dishonesty. I have always searched for truth honestly. I have stated numerous times that I do not know completely - but I what I do know suggest a quality that reflects the Divine.

I'm not seeking any concurrence on this - I am presenting my ongoing search. And to be clear it is my search and not some teaching so you can erase the heresy checkmark.

Oh about those OT passages on homosexuality- they are about sexual violence (gang rape, sex trafficking).

---

It's not the amount that "some" have been finding. it's is the consensus of findings stemming from studies paid for by groups searching for the opposite result. It's not even biased research. That's what so starkly contrasts the view you seem to hold. If you end up with homosexual attractions or not, your biology accounts for less than 30% of the "blame"

I say this again: There is a far more significant source of alcoholism in our biology that there is LGBT orientations. Are you willing to grant the alcoholic a "born this way" exemption as you seem to be willing to grant the LGBT person? If not, you may want to consider you are bigoted against alcoholics. Maybe they are living the life they were born to live. Or maybe we're all called to seek healing for our weaknesses

Again, I don't enjoy being this blunt, but you come across as willfully ignorant. As ideological, more than open minded. If I am misreading you, I apologize. Text does not convey intent very well.

Lastly, I will double down on both the fact that you are being lied to AND that the people you interact with on the ground are not the liars. The wonderful people that you meet, that are doing their best to walk through their life here on earth, have been sold a lie. I am willing to say that a number of them (can't guess an accurate figure) are invincibly ignorant of the cause of their desires. They've been told they were born this way, so introspective deep dives into how this may have happened isn't an option. With all this as context, I'll say this clearly: When you are lied to, it's not their lies, but the lies they were fed, which they propagate without any intent to lie to you. I do not assign intent to anyone giving you their life story. But their life story was shaped by others, for good or bad

Willfully ignorant? The need to judge could only seem to me as a tap out. Breakdown those words and ask yourself if someone were to accuse you as such.

Anyways. We have beat this horse dead.

PabloSerna said:

---

Willfully ignorant? The need to judge could only seem to me as a tap out. Breakdown those words and ask yourself if someone were to accuse you as such.

Anyways. We have beat this horse dead.

---

I'm going to quote myself here

Quote:

---

Again, I don't enjoy being this blunt, but you come across as willfully ignorant. As ideological, more than open minded. If I am misreading you, I apologize. Text does not convey intent very well.

---

You take this as a "need to judge"? Let's say you were to acknowledge that you may be misunderstanding someone, and go so far as to pre-apologize for doing so. Even add allowances for the misunderstanding to be contingent upon the imperfect medium of text. If that someone were to accuse you of being judgmental, do you think that would be a fair assessment of your position?