Is having heterosexual feelings a choice?

[angus]

Angus, does it seem odd to you that the bible's over-riding objection to Sodom is different than the objection of your friends, even though they claim to be "serious Christians"?

well, yes and no.   I do believe they were good and decent people who just wanted to work and live and play and do good deeds like everyone else.  I can't comment on their objectivity or their religious value systems, other than to say they were, like you, very much into living in a way that they felt was consistent with the teachings of Christ. 

I recognize the possibility for different interpretations, not only of the Jewish and Christian holy texts, but also of the Qur'an, the tripitaka, or any other, and I'm not sure I agree in the notion of absolute universal value systems.  The thing is, with the possible exception of supersoulty, no one can debate you on theological matters because you always win.  Not because you're intrinsically right, but because it is so hard to keep up with your ability to call to mind any verse and chapter at a moment's notice.  The Dayton, Tennessee school board should have had you, instead of William Jennings Bryan, as their council when they tried Scopes. 

No, you don't need to continue.  there's a lot to digest there already. 

[opebo]

Any problem I have with others is a matter of perspective - I don't like murderers because I don't want to be murdered.  In other words it is in my interest to avoid them, murder them first, or some other solution that prevents my death. 

...O-kay....thank you for providing us with an example of moral dissipation.

Yes, we know you don't like my position.  In other words calling me 'dissipated' means you disagree with me.  

There is no reason that your point of view should be taken as moral and mine as dissipation.  They're just two individual preferences.  The only difference is that your claim of moral rightness and approbation by 'god' is just more subjectivity - anyone can make such meaningless and unverifyable claims.  You prefer something, and in order to aggrandize that mere personal preference, simply make the claim that it is a universal, and further go on to imagine an omnipotent fantasy figure who approves of your point of view, and yours only, and will smite those who disagree with you.
Now I ask you - why should anyone take what you're peddling seriously?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Now I ask you - why should anyone take what you're peddling seriously?

For one, most of us live in society consisting of a system of laws, unlike your total chaos of "murder them first before they murder you".

Your viewpoint is mainly unique.  You and I have no agreeable basis from which to debate.

[opebo]

Now I ask you - why should anyone take what you're peddling seriously?

For one, most of us live in society consisting of a system of laws, unlike your total chaos of "murder them first before they murder you".

Your viewpoint is mainly unique.  You and I have no agreeable basis from which to debate.

You are misrepresenting my viewpoint.  I explained the existence of society, the State, and law from a practical basis - a compromise between individual subjectivities.  I think a lot of this is similar to Hobbes.

The reason we have no basis from which to debate is because your entire world-view is based upon 'faith'.   How could anyone debate you?  You simply hold one view - your own subjective preferences - as being 'right', and fail to understand that to other people what you and your ilk believe means nothing. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The thing is, with the possible exception of supersoulty, no one can debate you on theological matters because you always win.  Not because you're intrinsically right, but because it is so hard to keep up with your ability to call to mind any verse and chapter at a moment's notice. 

Hogwash!  My point (and their point) was quite simple.

Did they not say, "the significant point of [the story of Sodom] is that all rape is considered horrible by God"?

Am I misrepresenting their view?  Or are we in agreement that they are saying that  the story of Sodom is a lesson about God hating the act of rape so much so that he destroyed the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah?

So, if we can agree on their point of view, can we then compare their point of view to the point of view of scripture?

Did I misrepresent the opinion of Jude 1:7 when I said it pointed to Sodom and Gomorrah's "sexual immorality and perversion" as the reason why God destroyed the towns?

...So now the question becomes:  Are they such novice students of the bible that they are ignorant of the opinion of Jude 1:7, or do they have motive to deliberately ignore Jude 1:7 in favor of their own interpretation?

Is that so complicated?

[opebo]

How about this for theological debate - the bible is hogwash.

Why should anyone take it seriously?

[angus]

yes, I think it is a bit more complicated than that.  I doubt that their omission stems from ignorance.  Mine, maybe, but not theirs.  I'm just saying your idea of "perversion" and their idea of "perversion" and anyone's idea of "perversion" doesn't have to be the same thing.  I think that's the central problem here.  It's not clear to me that "sexual immorality and perversion" doesn't mean rape, or attempted rape.  Sure, opebo put it crassly, but also accurately, when he stated that your unwillingness to accept that your standard interpretation of morality may not be the only valid viewpoint out there.   Five people can pick up a 3500 year old document written in Hebrew, or an 1800 year old document written in Greek, and even if they could read those languages, they might still take home five different messages, none of which is necessarily any less valid than any other.  Superimpose upon that a reliance upon Elizabethan English and you get even more room for interpretation.  I'm not sure what God had to say about any of this, but I think that if a loving, merciful God exists, I have a hard time believing he cannot accept ten percent of the human population for no other reason than homosexuality.  I really do.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

yes, I think it is a bit more complicated than that.  I doubt that their omission stems from ignorance.  Mine, maybe, but not theirs.  I'm just saying your idea of "perversion" and their idea of "perversion" and anyone's idea of "perversion" doesn't have to be the same thing.  I think that's the central problem here.  It's not clear to me that "sexual immorality and perversion" doesn't mean rape, or attempted rape. 

If you are familiar with the homosexual community’s scriptural interpretation, then you know that they believe that the men of Sodom were NOT homosexual, but rather hetero.  And that their attempted “rape” was NOT to satisfy their own sexual desires, but rather was an act of violence.

Now, looking at the language of Jude 1:7, what argument is there for interpreting it as saying the men of Sodom were not trying to satisfying their own sexual desires?  What evidence is there that Jude 1:7 should be interpreted uniquely, apart from the rest of scripture, and not be interpreted in the context of sexual lust?

The onus is on them to produce evidence that Jude 1:7 should not be interpreted to refer to sexual desire, for the language of Jude 1:7 is totally consistent with the bible’s portrayal of fornication and totally inconsistent with the bible’s portrayal of violence..

Obviously, their interpretation is not due to ignorance of scripture, they are turning a blind eye and twisting scripture to suit their own itchy ears -  they’re only buying what they want to hear.

They ignore the fact that the first mention of sex in the bible (Gen 4) was given in context of a man and woman in marriage.  They ignore the fact that sex outside the context of marriage is forbidden in both OT and NT. They ignore the fact every mention of marriage in the bible is in the context of members of the opposite sex.

They believe that their condition is totally ignored in the “ignorance” of the biblical writings, even though they admit all other conditions, both spiritual (sin) and physical (deformities), are scripturally addressed.  And they shamelessly claim that homosexuality was forbidden, but only among heterosexuals.  As if the commands against drunkenness only apply to the sober and not the drunks.  Reminds me of the line from Spiderman 2 when Jameson contemplates the irony of “A guy named Otto Octavius ends up with eight limbs. What are the odds?”

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, the bible clearly states that God can't accept ANY OF US being stained with any kind of sin.  So, why is it that YOU, not me, choose to single-out homosexuality?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

yes, I think it is a bit more complicated than that.  I doubt that their omission stems from ignorance.  Mine, maybe, but not theirs. 

Let's go for a less complicated argument then, shall we?

Let's contemplate their contention that "Jesus never mentions homosexuality, and thus, God doesn't forbid it."

Can we agree they are basically saying that the four Gospel's omission of homosexuality is basic proof that Jesus didn't consider homosexuality a sin?

If we agree, then I have three questions:
1) Do the Gospel's ever claim to be all-encompasing of the specifics of Christian doctrine?
2) Does the non-mention of "witch" or "witchcraft" in the four Gospels mean that Jesus didn't consider the practice of witchcraft a sin?
3) Are they ignorant of the fact that witchcraft is not mentioned by Jesus, making little ole me out to be more biblically knowledgable than the "largest gay Christian church in the US"...or are they, blinded by their sin, purposely conjuring up some half-baked twists of scripture to justify their homosexuality?

[danwxman]

jmfcst, you're getting your feelings mixed up. Greed is not the same as love...as a human being, you understand that, right? Love is above all else, the most natural feeling that one can have. When one feels love for another human being, it is not something that can be pushed inside and ignored. Trying to do that is sadly what causes so many gay suicides.

So, you're saying that "love" is an excuse?

So, it is ok for me to marry my daughter if we fall in "love"?

And it is ok for me to commit adultery with my neighbor if his wife and I fall in "love"?

And it is ok for me to steal because of my "love" for money?

Can I "love" both God and my dog's genitals at the same time?

Can I sow to the flesh and the Spirit at the same time, even though my flesh is the enemy of my soul?  Or, is the bible correct when it says, "The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life (Gal 6:"?

All irrelevant. Why do you compare two adult homosexuals to child rape? Not the same.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All irrelevant. Why do you compare two adult homosexuals to child rape? Not the same.

Ok, let's say when my daughter turns 20.  Would it then be ok for us to fall in love?

The bible condemns men having sex with men and me having sex with my daughter....and it does both without mentioning "love" because there is no exemption, not even love, that would make it ok in the eyes of God.

The bible does not say, "unless you are in love, don't have sex with...", it simply says not to do it. 

BUT...BUT...BUT...where there are exemptions to the sexual guidelines, the bible does indeed mention them:

Lev 18:18 Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

Lev 18:19 Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

---

But, there is no exemption in the following:

Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Which brings up a point.  If the bible does not mention homosexual intercourse, as the gay church says, but rather is talking about heterosexuals raping the same sex, then why does Lev 20:13 put both men to death?!

And, if the verse is not talking about either a rape or homosexual sex, then what would two heterosexual men be doing having sex with each other?!

[danwxman]

All irrelevant. Why do you compare two adult homosexuals to child rape? Not the same.

Ok, let's say when my daughter turns 20.  Would it then be ok for us to fall in love?

The bible condemns men having sex with men and me having sex with my daughter....and it does both without mentioning "love" because there is no exemption, not even love, that would make it ok in the eyes of God.

The bible does not say, "unless you are in love, don't have sex with...", it simply says not to do it. 

BUT...BUT...BUT...where there are exemptions to the sexual guidelines, the bible does indeed mention them:

Lev 18:18 Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

Lev 18:19 Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

---

But, there is no exemption in the following:

Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Which brings up a point.  If the bible does not mention homosexual intercourse, as the gay church says, but rather is talking about heterosexuals raping the same sex, then why does Lev 20:13 put both men to death?!

And, if the verse is not talking about either a rape or homosexual sex, then what would two heterosexual men be doing having sex with each other?!

I don't think you get it. The bible is irrelevant in this conversation. We are talking science.

[minionofmidas]

The bible is not irrelevant in this discussion...this is a good old jmf discussion (ah, how I missed them. Really.) and nothing else is relevant.

The thing is: jmf is right in his assumptions of what the biblical authors meant when they wrote what they wrote (some minor points of omission, and many points where I simply don't know what he's talking about, not having a bible on me, not knowing it by heart, excluded).
The main one of the points where he parts company with everybody else here in this thread is that the Bible is the Word of God.
Now that's what I indeed would call purely a personal taste of his.
Obviously, since he won't discuss that point (and I can totally understand why, from his point of view), and he won't be able to convince me, or I guess any other poster who isn't convinced already, to believe anything like that, these discussions will always be somewhat pointless.

[opebo]

The bible is not irrelevant in this discussion...this is a good old jmf discussion (ah, how I missed them. Really.) and nothing else is relevant.

We might as well have a discussion about the things my talking dog tells me.  Discussing others delusions is not all that fun.  Actually I'm kidding I don't have a dog, and my cat is back in the States.

[minionofmidas]

The bible is not irrelevant in this discussion...this is a good old jmf discussion (ah, how I missed them. Really.) and nothing else is relevant.

We might as well have a discussion about the things my talking dog tells me.  Discussing others delusions is not all that fun.  Actually I'm kidding I don't have a dog, and my cat is back in the States.

What's the point in trying to insult people, though?
Anyways it's not as if jmf were the only one who believes that.

What my cat tells me, btw, is that I commit a sin whenever I do something that I myself do not approve of, or would not approve of if others did it to me in the same circumstances.
My cat calls that the Doctrine of the Inner Light. Yeah, my cat is a Ranter or maybe a very early Quaker.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't think you get it. The bible is irrelevant in this conversation. We are talking science.

Sorry, I was using you to talk to angus since he is ignoring me.

My point to you is that I have MANY desires that I didn't choose to have;  they are simply part of my human nature.  But just because these desires happen naturally and are not by choice, that doesn't make it ok for me to attempt to satisfy those desires.   Agreed?

[opebo]

I don't think you get it. The bible is irrelevant in this conversation. We are talking science.

Sorry, I was using you to talk to angus since he is ignoring me.

My point to you is that I have MANY desires that I didn't choose to have;  they are simply part of my human nature.  But just because these desires happen naturally and are not by choice, that doesn't make it ok for me to attempt to satisfy those desires.   Agreed?

What possible reason could their be for thinking it wouldn't be 'OK' to satisfy homosexual desires?
They're:
1) private
2) consenting
3) harmless to those not participating
I mean really you might as well condemn masturbation.

[minionofmidas]

I don't think you get it. The bible is irrelevant in this conversation. We are talking science.

Sorry, I was using you to talk to angus since he is ignoring me.

My point to you is that I have MANY desires that I didn't choose to have;  they are simply part of my human nature.  But just because these desires happen naturally and are not by choice, that doesn't make it ok for me to attempt to satisfy those desires.   Agreed?

What possible reason could their be for thinking it wouldn't be 'OK' to satisfy homosexual desires?
They're:
1) private
2) consenting
3) harmless to those not participating
I mean really you might as well condemn masturbation.

For all you know, he might. Throughout the early modern ages (I'm not sure about before...but probably before as well) most Christian divines did.

[angus]

I don't think you get it. The bible is irrelevant in this conversation. We are talking science.

Sorry, I was using you to talk to angus since he is ignoring me.

I am not!  not, intentionally anyway.  lots to do.  new son.  new semester.  but those are weak excuses.  Shouldn't start what I can't finish. 

Like Lewis Trondheim, I always like reading these theological threads and am glad you're back, but I have a hard time debating you on these.  So I was going to try to light a fire and sneak away hoping a more patient and better informed poster would pick up the slack.  None has, so I'll give it another go.

for your three questions.
1.  Again, I'm no expert, but as I recall the first three are pretty much the same, the fourth is a bit different in some respects, and I'm not aware than any of them claim to be all-encompassing.  In fact, this exact point was settled some time back on this forum, as I recall.  Not between you and me, but between you and another poster.  I take it on both your authority that they do not make such a claim.
2.  Of course not, but it doesn't logically follow that just because that's (maybe) true for witchcraft then it must also be so for homosexual desire.  Arson may not be mentioned, but we can agree that arson is a great wrong against another, thus, in your view, against God.  Correct?  But taking a sip of tea isn't mentioned either, and you'll admit that it is perfectly fine to take a sip of tea.  So this argument won't work.
3.  Maybe so, I can't really get inside their heads.  But if it is possible that they are picking and choosing in order to suit their ends, then you might be as well.  And if it really is misinterpretation or ignorance on their part, then you (as you are also a man, and subject to fatigue, fallability, and misinterpretation) might be as well.

also, to your question about satisfying desires, you can't really equate the desire to, say, steal, which is specifically forbidden (as I understand it) in the old testament, with homosexuality and witchcraft, which (by your own admission) is not.  Not necessarily because it isn't specifically mentioned (also that), but because sins have degree, do they not?  So, while I agree that it is not OK to go around satisfying your desire to, say, beat to a bloody pulp a man who wronged you, it may be ok for two consenting adults to express their love physically.  While you may not agree with me about homosexuality being perfectly permissible, you have to admit that you do not equate the satisfaction of any one desire with the satisfaction of any other.  Didn't this come up before as well?

[minionofmidas]

also, to your question about satisfying desires, you can't really equate the desire to, say, steal, which is specifically forbidden (as I understand it) in the old testament, with homosexuality and witchcraft, which (by your own admission) is not. 

I think you meant New. All of them are explicitly forbidden in the Old Testament.

[angus]

also, to your question about satisfying desires, you can't really equate the desire to, say, steal, which is specifically forbidden (as I understand it) in the old testament, with homosexuality and witchcraft, which (by your own admission) is not.

I think you meant New. All of them are explicitly forbidden in the Old Testament.

I'm glad you think that 

the sad truth is that I'm in way over my head.  I'll sneak away quietly now...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What possible reason could their be for thinking it wouldn't be 'OK' to satisfy homosexual desires?
They're:
1) private
2) consenting
3) harmless to those not participating
I mean really you might as well condemn masturbation.

But, you are changing the discussion by adding caveats that are not there in the original question of this thread. So, since we are all getting off topic, can be return back to the original question?

If so, then can we agree that the thinly veiled “point” of this thread is to infer that since homosexual desires are not a choice, homosexuality shouldn’t be considered taboo and perverse?  Can we at least agree on that?

If we can agree that this is the “point” of this thread, can we also agree that the “point” doesn’t hold water when the “non-chosen homosexual desire” in the equation is substituted by other non-chosen desires?

[danwxman]

I don't think you get it. The bible is irrelevant in this conversation. We are talking science.

Sorry, I was using you to talk to angus since he is ignoring me.

My point to you is that I have MANY desires that I didn't choose to have;  they are simply part of my human nature.  But just because these desires happen naturally and are not by choice, that doesn't make it ok for me to attempt to satisfy those desires.   Agreed?

What is wrong with two adult consenting homosexuals satisfying their love for each other?

[opebo]

What possible reason could their be for thinking it wouldn't be 'OK' to satisfy homosexual desires?
They're:
1) private
2) consenting
3) harmless to those not participating
I mean really you might as well condemn masturbation.

But, you are changing the discussion by adding caveats that are not there in the original question of this thread. So, since we are all getting off topic, can be return back to the original question?

If so, then can we agree that the thinly veiled “point” of this thread is to infer that since homosexual desires are not a choice, homosexuality shouldn’t be considered taboo and perverse?  Can we at least agree on that?

If we can agree that this is the “point” of this thread, can we also agree that the “point” doesn’t hold water when the “non-chosen homosexual desire” in the equation is substituted by other non-chosen desires?

I didn't add any caveats, I was just engaging in description of the activity. 

As for choice, the point I have been making about it is that it doesn't matter at all whether it is chosen are innate, and that it is the private nature of sexual behavior that makes it absurd to proclaim it 'taboo' or 'perverse'.  Another person's choice (or innate tendency) regarding sexuality is just as good as yours jmfcst, simply because they're another person.  There is no reason for your taste to be given precedence in any way.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What is wrong with two adult consenting homosexuals satisfying their love for each other?

Nothing, except we are all wandering off the point of your original question.  Since none of us have reached agreement on anything, let's at least address the simple point that you and the majority of the gay community make:  "I was born with these feeling and therefore they're not my fault, rather they are perfectly natural; therefore, they are wholesome."

Now, I am perfectly willing to concede the issue that homosexual desires meet the following criteria:
1) the desires are innate.
2) the stress and temptation brought to bear by the desire are not chosen by the individual.

But, my problem is the conclusion that a desire meeting those criteria can't be immoral, for I can name many desires meeting those criteria which are universally viewed as immoral.

My point is that "I was born that way, so deal with it" is a red-herring and easily debunked.  It may be such a fine sounding argument that the elitists on ABC's Nightline grab onto it and devote entire programs to the idea, but it doesn't take any more than a simpleton like me to expose it as a house of cards.