Parable of the Brown-Eyed Son

[Whag]

Again, you show that you are hardly worth responding to because you can't understand a simple concept. Mossy and I agree 100% on this topic and there is nothing contradictory in what we said. She was saying it would be wrong for God to create someone who was gay and them condemn them for being gay, but then there is some sort of glitch in your brain where jump straight to thinking that she is saying it would be wrong for God to condemn homosexual sex, which is anything but the case. Her very next sentence says it all comes down to the choice of those who sin. Being created gay isn't a choice and isn't a sin; homosexual sex is a choice and is a sin.

Everyone has a tendency to sin, but we all have a choice, so we are all responsible for our actions, so there is nothing wrong with a just God judging us for our sins. Homosexuals have a stronger tendency to sin sexually, alcoholics have a stronger tendency to drink excessively, kleptomaniacs have a stronger tendency to steal, etc. The list goes on, and we all struggle with sin somewhere in our lives, but we all have a choice, so we are all responsible.

Wrong. She literally asked if God could orient people toward same sex attraction and then condemn it. She saw that as an inconceivable conflict. You, however, said there'd be no conflict if hypothetically we determined homosexual orientation to be inborn.

[mossrose]

Wrong. She literally asked if God could orient people toward same sex attraction and then condemn it. She saw that as an inconceivable conflict. You, however, said there'd be no conflict if hypothetically we determined homosexual orientation to be inborn.

Soyeong is actually correct regarding the intent of my question. He perfectly stated what I was meaning. And you are also mostly correct when you state that I was asking if God could orient people toward same-sex attraction and then condemn it. Your error comes in using the word "could" instead of "would".

If God "would" do that, it would go against His nature. He does not condemn that for which we have no choice.

[technomage]

Um, Whag, Mossy was being rhetorical.

[mossrose]

Um, Whag, Mossy was being rhetorical.

[David Hayward]

Interestingly, we know for certain that god makes intersexed, hermaphrodites, and guys with overabundant estrogen with high voices. It is therefore not out of the question that He also makes babies to be attracted to their own gender (because we know that's a prevalent behavior in the animal kingdom and, I'm sure you know, we are animals--literally).

Here's a link to a BBC program about homosexuality in wild animals: The Hunt for the Gay Whale. (Link will expire soon.)

The introductory blurb includes, "Joan Roughgarden, a professor of biology at Stanford University catalogued hundreds of varieties of what she categorises as "homosexual" behaviour amongst animals for her book Evolutions Rainbow... Classic Darwinian theory posits that sexual activity is procreational in nature and serves the needs of evolution... Animal sex is seen as having one purpose: breeding... To that end, Darwin dismissed or recategorised animal sexual behaviours which did not seem to meet the procreational model... Roughgarden claims to have discovered regular same sex contact in 450 different species, proving, she says that homosexuality, far from being an anomalous condition which seems to be an evolutionary dead end, is an adaptive trait that has been carefully preserved by natural selection."

David

[Soyeong]

That sounds very much like "God didn't make people gay, but even if he did, it wouldn't matter, 'cus he's God."

And no, I'm not being sarcastic--I honestly wonder if that is your understanding of God.

I'm not sure how you got that impression and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. As I've said before, alcoholism is genetic, but drinking to excess is still a sin, and alcoholics are still responsible for their actions. Alcoholism might help to explain why they have a tendency to sin in this area, but it does not excuse it. Likewise, even if homosexuality is shown to be 100% genetic (though alcoholism is caused in part societal influences), they are still responsible for their actions, so it doesn't excuse anything.

The only reason I can think of to say that homosexuality is genetic is to attempt to bypass the Christian stance and go straight to trying to pass ridiculous hate crime legislation. Are we committing hate crimes against alcoholics when we teach kids in school about the dangers of drinking alcohol? Likewise, Christians are not being hateful when they warn homosexuals (and others) about the dangers of sinning sexually. I feel for the people who have been mistreated because of their sexual orientation, but please understand that no one within main stream Christianity supports their mistreatment. We have more in common with an average group of gay people than a group of people from "God hates fags."

[Whag]

Um, Whag, Mossy was being rhetorical.

I know. It's the same one you've been asking. That it's rhetorical has no bearing on my point, which is that mossy said the moral conflict would be significant while Soyeong would dismiss it as no conflict at all. In the end, they both agree that attraction to the same sex is tantamount to alcoholism.

[Soyeong]

Wrong. She literally asked if God could orient people toward same sex attraction and then condemn it. She saw that as an inconceivable conflict. You, however, said there'd be no conflict if hypothetically we determined homosexual orientation to be inborn.

I don't know if you're trolling or just not intelligent enough to pick up on the simple concept, but I'll give it one last try. We are making a distinction between God judging people based on who they are vs. what they have done. Regardless of whether homosexuality is 100% genetic, that is still who they are, so it would be wrong for God to judge them for it. However, it doesn't matter because they are still responsible for their actions and it is good for God to judge people based on what they have done.

[Soyeong]

In the end, they both agree that attraction to the same sex is tantamount to alcoholism.

[Whag]

I don't know if you're trolling or just not intelligent enough to pick up on the simple concept, but I'll give it one last try. We are making a distinction between God judging people based on who they are vs. what they have done. Regardless of whether homosexuality is 100% genetic, that is still who they are, so it would be wrong for God to judge them for it. However, it doesn't matter because they are still responsible for their actions and it is good for God to judge people based on what they have done.

And by comparing it to alcoholism, which destroys individuals and families, you've done an excellent job in conveying your point. =)

[Soyeong]

And by comparing it to alcoholism, which destroys individuals and families, you've done an excellent job in conveying your point. =)

The point that you're a troll?

[Whag]

Find another example other than alcoholism. That comparison doesn't work since homosexuality doesn't do harm, while alcoholism always does.

[Soyeong]

Find another example other than alcoholism. That comparison doesn't work since homosexuality doesn't do harm, while alcoholism always does.

More trolling or are you unable to understand the use of an analogy? Analogies are not saying two things are identical, but that certain aspects of one are like certain aspects of another. It should be obvious to anyone reasonably intelligent that by comparing homosexuality to alcoholism, I was not saying that homosexuality destroys individuals, or families, or that it causes people to drive recklessly, lose their temper, have hangovers, or have memory loss. Rather, certain aspects (such as I have mentioned) of alcoholism are like homosexuality in that they are genetic, they can lead to sin, and people are still responsible for their choices.

[Whag]

More trolling or are you unable to understand the use of an analogy? Analogies are not saying two things are identical, but that certain aspects of one are like certain aspects of another. It should be obvious to anyone reasonably intelligent that by comparing homosexuality to alcoholism, I was not saying that homosexuality destroys individuals, or families, or that it causes people to drive recklessly, lose their temper, have hangovers, or have memory loss. Rather, certain aspects (such as I have mentioned) of alcoholism are like homosexuality in that they are genetic, they can lead to sin, and people are still responsible for their choices.

Oh, I see your analogy. What I'm saying is that when you look for a comparison, you shouldn't pick addiction science. Pick an example that doesn't harm, and hence has no basis for being called "sin."

[Chrawnus]

Oh, I see your analogy. What I'm saying is that when you look for a comparison, you shouldn't pick addiction science. Pick an example that doesn't harm, and hence has no basis for being called "sin."

Otherwise Whag, who apparently has taken upon himself the roll of tWeb's resident troll, will try to nitpick any inconsequential and irrelevant detail, instead of answering the real point of your post.