Coming out testimonies reveal the source of same sex attraction

[BarneyFife]

St. SteVen said:
These are very complex issues that the church needs to address APPROPRIATELY.

LGBTQ is not the singular thing that Christians want to make it.
That was the reason for the topic linked below.

Unethical treatment of LGBTQ humans / Understanding LGBTQ - 101

I'm still trying to help Christians understand this COMPLEX issue that they have reduced to a knee-jerk reaction. Notice the term "LGBTQ humans" in the topic title. I need to remind Christians that these people are human. - Sigh. :( Because they are typically treated by Christians as subhuman...

www.christianityboard.com

Excerpt from the OP.

I'm still trying to help Christians understand this COMPLEX issue that they have reduced to a knee-jerk reaction.
Notice the term "LGBTQ humans" in the topic title. I need to remind Christians that these people are human. - Sigh.
Because they are typically treated by Christians as subhuman.

]

But there's no complexity to sexual deviation and there's no complexity to the practice of mean-spiritedness. Perhaps what you're terming as complexity is what I normally see as sophistry. I don't see anything complex about bad things. We often see sin and righteousness as being opposites along a linear scale like some kind of equal players. I don't look at them that way. I see a vast, perfect universe created by God for good works and the earth as a tiny anomaly where sin has been quarantined and is anything but normal or in any way equal to perfect holiness. We are in a profound minority here.

This also helps me to realize the unspeakable love that resides in the heart of Christ, that He would leave all of the splendor of the vast perfection and glory beyond to ransom us from the dominion of Satan. Time and space fails to afford a fitting expression of this magnificent reality.

Thinking frequently on these things makes it difficult for me to consider disobeying God's simple commands or to harbor any malice toward anyone who is bound in sin because of their blunted perception of God's love, especially considering I was once similarly bound, myself, and am in no way more worthy than they of the liberty I have been granted.

All sin is caused by a distortion of God's character. :)

.

 

[Arthur81]

A heterosexual pair of humans commit adultery. Was it a sin because they were of opposite sexes?

A homosexual pair of males engage in sex. Was it a sin simply because it was of the same sexes?

Isn't the sin in both cases, the type of sexual conduct that is being condemned in the context?

I find it deceptive when religious types wish to condemn all sex between males, using the psychological term, "homosexuality" to define the sin being condemned. These deceivers wish to use the term of psychology, "homosexuality", and put their own spin on the meaning, and presume to be the experts in psychology and biology.

As I've written before, the 1611/1769 KJV Bible, the translation blessed by God for centuries, is the safest and most accurate for use by anyone concerned with the gay question.

1 Cor. 6:9KJV - "nor abusers of themselves with mankind"
1 Tim. 1:10KJV - "them that defile themselves with mankind"

1828 Websters -
"ABU'SER, n. s as z. One who abuses, in speech or behavior; one that deceives; a ravisher; a sodomite. 1 Cor 6."
"RAV'ISHER, n. 1. One that takes by violence. 2. One that forces a woman to his carnal embrace"
"DEFILE, v.t. 5. To corrupt chastity; to debauch; to violate; to tarnish the purity of character by lewdness.
Schechem defiled Dinah. Gen 34." (Schechem raped Dinah)

The RSV 1st Edition in a misleading translation used the word "homosexuals", but when it was recognized that was a misleading translation, the later translations RSV Rev. Ed, NRSV and NRSVue as well as the UK translation the REB avoided that very misleading psychological word.

When I hear or read after those insisting on inserting a word and concept not heard of until 1900, back into the 1st century documents, the NT; I can only see the following -

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers." (Matt 23:2-4 KJV)

with the further description which continues the wicked picture -

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." (Matt 23:15 KJV)

"Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! ...." (Matt 23:28-29 KJV)

The attempt to hide behind the pious sounding phrase "hate the sin but love the sinner" cannot be held because of the clear hatred that radiates from most religious 'gay bashers'.

When pointing out who will not inherit the kingdom of God in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, how often do you hear that applied to the greedy, the covetous or revilers? Suppose a believer is greedy or covetous in a certain circumstance, and before he thinks to repent, he is killed in a car accident... I suppose he did not inherit the kingdom of God. Sounds a lot like a deceptive salvation by works!

 

[BarneyFife]

A heterosexual pair of humans commit adultery. Was it a sin because they were of opposite sexes?

A homosexual pair of males engage in sex. Was it a sin simply because it was of the same sexes?

Isn't the sin in both cases, the type of sexual conduct that is being condemned in the context?

I find it deceptive when religious types wish to condemn all sex between males, using the psychological term, "homosexuality" to define the sin being condemned. These deceivers wish to use the term of psychology, "homosexuality", and put their own spin on the meaning, and presume to be the experts in psychology and biology.

As I've written before, the 1611/1769 KJV Bible, the translation blessed by God for centuries, is the safest and most accurate for use by anyone concerned with the gay question.

1 Cor. 6:9KJV - "nor abusers of themselves with mankind"
1 Tim. 1:10KJV - "them that defile themselves with mankind"

1828 Websters -
"ABU'SER, n. s as z. One who abuses, in speech or behavior; one that deceives; a ravisher; a sodomite. 1 Cor 6."
"RAV'ISHER, n. 1. One that takes by violence. 2. One that forces a woman to his carnal embrace"
"DEFILE, v.t. 5. To corrupt chastity; to debauch; to violate; to tarnish the purity of character by lewdness.
Schechem defiled Dinah. Gen 34." (Schechem raped Dinah)

The RSV 1st Edition in a misleading translation used the word "homosexuals", but when it was recognized that was a misleading translation, the later translations RSV Rev. Ed, NRSV and NRSVue as well as the UK translation the REB avoided that very misleading psychological word.

When I hear or read after those insisting on inserting a word and concept not heard of until 1900, back into the 1st century documents, the NT; I can only see the following -

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers." (Matt 23:2-4 KJV)

with the further description which continues the wicked picture -

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." (Matt 23:15 KJV)

"Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! ...." (Matt 23:28-29 KJV)

The attempt to hide behind the pious sounding phrase "hate the sin but love the sinner" cannot be held because of the clear hatred that radiates from most religious 'gay bashers'.

When pointing out who will not inherit the kingdom of God in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, how often do you hear that applied to the greedy, the covetous or revilers? Suppose a believer is greedy or covetous in a certain circumstance, and before he thinks to repent, he is killed in a car accident... I suppose he did not inherit the kingdom of God. Sounds a lot like a deceptive salvation by works!

Sexual activity outside of the divine marriage institution is what constitutes sexual sin.

Examples:

Forcing sexual activity upon a member of a person of the opposite sex is a single step above the offense of consensual adultery.

Forcing sexual activity upon a member of a person of the same sex is two steps above the offense of consensual adultery between two members of the opposite sex.

No amount of sophistry will succeed in transforming this subject into rocket science. The bar of Heaven will see it as simply as it truly is.

Enumerating the scientific nuances of the mental machinations involved in the practice of breaking any of God's commandments will not prevail to move the heart of anyone to compassion whose heart has not been melted by the authentic transformation that results from beholding the crucified and risen Christ.

And let's not forget that every bit of influence we throw on the side of iniquity is paid for by the merciful Savior. When He hung on that cross He paid for the privilege of every sinner to continue drawing breath after each and every evil thought, word, and deed in the hopes that he might later repent.

While we practice our mental gymnastics to excuse sin, the Redeemer is taunted by the enemy of souls regarding the half-hearted service of His followers.

Iniquity is a mystery. To explain it to undue lengths is to excuse it.

.

 

[Jericho]

Three paragraphs lifted from that 2021 Psychology Textbook -

GENETIC INFLUENCES Studies indicate that “about a third of variation in sexual ori
entation is attributable to genetic influences” (Bailey et al., 2016). A same-sex orientation
does tend to run in families. And identical twins are somewhat more likely than fraternal
twins to share a same-sex orientation (Alanko et al., 2010; Långström et al., 2010). But because
sexual orientations differ in many identical twin pairs, especially female twins, we know that
other factors besides genes are also at work—including, it appears, epigenetic marks that
help distinguish gay and straight twins (Balter, 2015; Gavrilets et al., 2018).


The point to remember: Taken together, the brain, genetic, and prenatal findings offer
strong support for a biological explanation of sexual orientation, especially for men
(LeVay, 2011; Rahman & Koerting, 2008). Our increasing understanding of the greater
sexual fluidity of women suggests the need for more research on biopsychosocial influ
ences (Diamond et al., 2017).

Researchers have speculated about possible reasons why “gay genes” might exist in
the human gene pool, given that same-sex couples cannot naturally reproduce. One pos
sible answer is kin selection. Recall from Chapter 4 the evolutionary psychology reminder
that many of our genes also reside in our biological relatives. Perhaps, then, gay people’s
genes live on through their supporting the survival and reproductive success of their
relatives.

It seems strange that you would support your position not with the Bible but with a modern psychological textbook, one that espouses evolution no less. Ironically, psychology used to define homosexuality as a mental illness but has since bowed down to pressure from the LGBT activists.

No gay gene has ever been found, and it likely won't for several reasons. If there were a gay gene, it would have disappeared long ago since homosexuals cannot reproduce. They admit that identical twins, who are biologically the same, can have different sexualities. Plus, there is a whole community of ex-gays. So, any sort of genetic influence is largely overstated. It's likely a combination of hormonal, developmental, social, and environmental factors, among other possibilities.

A same-sex orientation does tend to run in families.

That would indicate that it can also be a learned behavior.

Might the structure and function of gay and straight brains differ? Researcher Simon LeVay (1991) studied sections of the hypothalamus taken from deceased gay and straight people. He found a cell cluster cluster that was indeed reliably larger in straight men than in straight women and gay men.

The question, which they also ask, is: when did that change occur? He admits that "sexual behavior patterns may influence the brain’s anatomy." It's conceivable that engaging in homosexual acts causes physiological changes in the brain.

 

[BarneyFife]

If there were a gay gene, it would have disappeared long ago since homosexuals cannot reproduce.

if the "gay gene" ever existed, it would have long since disappeared from the homosapien gene pool due to anal sex being 100% ineffective at producing offspring.

I honestly don't understand the logic here. It seems self-defeating and a non-starter.

How could any gene even exist or begin to proliferate through "sex" that quite naturally produces no offspring?

Am I missing something?

.

 

[Phoneman777]

I honestly don't understand the logic here. It seems self-defeating and a non-starter.

How could any gene even exist or begin to proliferate through "sex" that quite naturally produces no offspring?

Am I missing something?

.

Behavior is either learned or predisposed by genetics.

The community of rainbow reprobates claims that being gay is "not by choice" but that gays are "born that way" - in other words, "being gay is not a choice we make, but a genetically expressed fate".

That's how they both silence the conscience and escape condemnation: they can't be guilty before God if God made them that way in the first place, lest He be proved to be a celestial Degenerate Geneticist.

But if this fantasy "gay gene" really did ever exist, it would have long disappeared from the Earth because sodomy is and always will be a 100% ineffective way to pass the "gay gene" to offspring.

 

[St. SteVen]

I'm not sure that only genetics is the right way to look at this. As if sexual orientation was as common as blue eyes, or blond hair. Those are physical traits anyway.

There may be some genetic information that produces a female child with masculine characteristics, or vice versa. And body chemistry with high testosterone or estrogen. Environment might take it from there. What effect does life have on a person with these extreme physical characteristics?

If the boys were interested in more feminine girls, the girl with the masculine characteristics might be overlooked, or worse.

I'm rather short at 5'7" tall. I'm not attracted to tall women, though I may appreciate their beauty. My wife is 5'4". (if memory serves)

The point is that genetics may contribute to a life experience that sets a person up for same-sex attraction.

These factors could set a direction:
- The opposite sex seems uninterested.
- Solace is found in same sex friends.
- Deep relationships are formed.
- Person loses hope in opposite sex relationships.
- Same-sex attraction develops.
- Eventually the person comes to grips with this.
- Life decisions are made to suppress, or expand on true feelings.
- Choose a life of loneliness, or one of companionship?

So, who is to blame ultimately? Genetics? Environment? Or both? Where is God in this?

]

 

[Arthur81]

Sexual activity outside of the divine marriage institution is what constitutes sexual sin.

Examples:

Forcing sexual activity upon a member of a person of the opposite sex is a single step above the offense of consensual adultery.

Forcing sexual activity upon a member of a person of the same sex is two steps above the offense of consensual adultery between two members of the opposite sex.

No amount of sophistry will succeed in transforming this subject into rocket science. The bar of Heaven will see it as simply as it truly is.

Enumerating the scientific nuances of the mental machinations involved in the practice of breaking any of God's commandments will not prevail to move the heart of anyone to compassion whose heart has not been melted by the authentic transformation that results from beholding the crucified and risen Christ.

And let's not forget that every bit of influence we throw on the side of iniquity is paid for by the merciful Savior. When He hung on that cross He paid for the privilege of every sinner to continue drawing breath after each and every evil thought, word, and deed in the hopes that he might later repent.

While we practice our mental gymnastics to excuse sin, the Redeemer is taunted by the enemy of souls regarding the half-hearted service of His followers.

Iniquity is a mystery. To explain it to undue lengths is to excuse it.

.

You made the claim: "Sexual activity outside of the divine marriage institution is what constitutes sexual sin."

In what verse do you find that? Where is that "law" written? The Bible tells us that sin is transgression of the law -

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1John 3:4 KJV)

Religious humanism can conjure up, and reason many things, but in finding the statement from God's word they fail.

 

[Arthur81]

It seems strange that you would support your position not with the Bible but with a modern psychological textbook, one that espouses evolution no less. Ironically, psychology used to define homosexuality as a mental illness but has since bowed down to pressure from the LGBT activists.

No gay gene has ever been found, and it likely won't for several reasons. If there were a gay gene, it would have disappeared long ago since homosexuals cannot reproduce. They admit that identical twins, who are biologically the same, can have different sexualities. Plus, there is a whole community of ex-gays. So, any sort of genetic influence is largely overstated. It's likely a combination of hormonal, developmental, social, and environmental factors, among other possibilities.



That would indicate that it can also be a learned behavior.



The question, which they also ask, is: when did that change occur? He admits that "sexual behavior patterns may influence the brain’s anatomy." It's conceivable that engaging in homosexual acts causes physiological changes in the brain.

The study of homosexuality, which word and concept was first developed in 1869, has been in a state of increased understanding over the years. It is a psychological topic. Therefore, since it is admitted in the field of psychology, definitions, words and understandings are changing; how is it justified that so-called Christians use that word and concept when reading the Bible? The Bible has no words that equate to heterosexuality or homosexuality.

The Bible consistently condemns certain male to male sexual conduct, but it does not make a blanket condemnation of all male to male sexual conduct. That is why the KJV, RV, ASV, YLT, etc. are correct in their translation of arsenokoites where modern translations go off on a homophobic tangent. From the KJV on arsenokoites -

"abusers of themselves with mankind"

"them that defile themselves with mankind"

Those who make a blanket condemnation of male to male homosexuality; are in a difficult spot trying to explain why the Bible NOWHERE condemns female to female homosexuality! Don't bring up Rom. 1:26 because there is NOTHING in that verse stating females were having sex with females!

The homophobes wish to belittle research and study in field of psychology when it comes to "homosexuality", but they sure are eager to use the word in their ignorant condemnations of all gay people. It is no wonder thinking Christian people are becoming more and more disgusted with the hate in so much of fundamentalist/evangelical teaching.

 

[BarneyFife]

You made the claim: "Sexual activity outside of the divine marriage institution is what constitutes sexual sin."

In what verse do you find that? Where is that "law" written? The Bible tells us that sin is transgression of the law -

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1John 3:4 KJV)

Religious humanism can conjure up, and reason many things, but in finding the statement from God's word they fail.

No single, seemingly satisfactory, all-encompassing statement is necessary. The preponderance of Biblical evidence reveals the truth about sexual purity, but self-seeking and sophistry will always succeed in concealing it.

The only sexual framework that the Bible validates is that which derives from an avowed, committed, life-long arrangement between one man and one woman.

No one dared to deny this until the mid-to-late 20th century, and I'm sure not buying the idea that, for centuries and centuries after Christ's clarification of the matter, God's people had it all wrong.

It simply doesn't matter that so many people who understand the issue correctly also happen to be as mean as snakes.

Socrates, Augustine, and others rightly said that no belief system should be judged by its abuse. The truth is the truth—even when the devil himself speaks it.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

Those who make a blanket condemnation of male to male homosexuality; are in a difficult spot trying to explain why the Bible NOWHERE condemns female to female homosexuality!

As if God should have a wholly different standard of purity for women than for men?

Don't bring up Rom. 1:26 because there is NOTHING in that verse stating females were having sex with females!

There's quite enough expressed there to warrant due caution. Unless, that is, one is actively searching for syntactic loopholes to soothe her aptly agitated conscience.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

The Bible consistently condemns certain male to male sexual conduct, but it does not make a blanket condemnation of all male to male sexual conduct.

The image of a man lying with a man as with a woman is "blanket" enough for you?

.

 

[Arthur81]

I'd be curious as to how many readers, who do not post, are impressed by the homophobic blather on here that seems to never present the Scripture upon which they base their humanistic approach to their religion. If it is not based squarely on God's word, it is homophobic blather:

1Co 4:6 RV Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other.

Isa 8:20 RV To the law and to the testimony! if they speak not according to this word, surely there is no morning for them.

 

[Behold]

I'd be curious as to how many readers, who do not post, are impressed by the homophobic blather

Real Christians are not "homophobic".... we are Homo-Nauseous.

WE are tired of Courts defining God's morality as "hate speech".
We are tired of deceived and obnoxious incredibly carnal people who "profess to be Christian"... = cheerleading : Gay Sex Rights.

Try to understand this ....

 

[Arthur81]

The image of a man lying with a man as with a woman is "blanket" enough for you?

.

You paraphrased that from Leviticus, but are you an Israelite, at Mt Sinai, after coming out of Egypt?

Lev 26:46 RV "These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses."

Lev 27:34 RV "These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai."

"For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." (Rom 10:3-4 NRSV)

 

[BarneyFife]

I'd be curious as to how many readers, who do not post, are impressed by the homophobic blather on here that seems to never present the Scripture upon which they base their humanistic approach to their religion.

I'd be curious to know what would be the point of presenting Scripture to someone who has already perpetrated extensive historical criticism on all of the pertinent passages.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

You paraphrased that from Leviticus, but are you an Israelite, at Mt Sinai, after coming out of Egypt?

No, but I'm not the slightest bit dispensationalist, either. I believe that every follower of God, from Adam forward, has been saved by the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Sorry to disappoint.

.

 

[Behold]

You paraphrased that from Leviticus, but are you an Israelite, at Mt Sinai, after coming out of Egypt?

When God, in Genesis 19, burned an entire city of sexual perverts into black ash, He did this "before Moses Law".

 

[Arthur81]

When God, in Genesis 19, burned an entire city of sexual perverts into black ash, He did this "before Moses Law".

"But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;" (Gen 19:4 ERV)

The Hebrew here for "men" is enosh which means "mortals", in other words humanity. It was "all the people" who were involved in this sin of Sodom. The Hebrew for "males" is zakar and is not what is used here.

What was the sin of Sodom? It was attempted rape -

"And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door." (Gen 19:9-10 KJV)

Sounds like a similar account of history in the book of Judges:

"As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, beating at the door; and they spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly." (Judg 19:22-23 ERV)

These "sons of Belial" could not get the men so as to 'know' them, so they abused the female, the concubine -

"But the men would not hearken to him: so the man laid hold on his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judg 19:25 ERV)

The Sodom sin had nothing to do with an enduring gay relationship. The Lord GOD described the sin of Sodom, and it 'ain't' gay love!

"As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom; pride, fulness of bread, and prosperous ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." (Ezek 16:48-50 ERV)

The word "abomination" here is in Ezekiel about 40 times, and overwhelmingly referring to things connected to idols. The Hebrew of "abomination" is defined by Strong's -

"to ebah, Feminine active participle of H8581; properly something disgusting (morally), that is, (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol:—abominable (custom, thing), abomination."

When men PRESUME to teach others, they better know what they are talking about, for on the last day they/we will answer to the Lord!

 

[Behold]

"But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;" (Gen 19:4 ERV)

Have you ever actually read a Bible? @Arthur81

Try Gen 19...

Let me show you the situation.

Lot, and family, including daughters were about to leave Sodom, and 2 Angels were there...

The sexual perverts, in the City, tried to get Lot to send out the Angels so that they could RAPE THEM..

5 And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may have them.”

Lot said to them... """“I beg you,, do not act so wickedly.""""", and Lot offer them His 2 VIRGIN DAUGHTERS, instead.....

Lot said.. """""""Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you""""

These Sex Perverts tried to break down the door to get to the Angels, and the Angels caused those who were trying to come in to be BLIND..

Fast foward...

Lot and Family escaped, and God burned these sex perverts into BLACK ASH, and you can take a Trip to Israel and go to the area of Sodom, and see the ash in the Rock.

This is not a Myth.
God does not accept "gay sex, gay rights, gay marriage or gay adoption, or "christians" who try to sell it on forums, and from pulpits and in books and videos.