Consider the following exchange:
"Non-Christian (A): Homosexuals are born that way."
"Christian (B): No they aren’t."
"Scientist (C): Let's go to the lab and find out."
ASSUMING that it were possible for science to be used to determine whether A or B is correct:
Do you expect the results to agree with your theology (assuming both are done correctly)?
If the results disagreed with your theology, would you change the theology or disbelieve the findings?
Is it proper to make theological statements (heresy) about issues which science can (conceivably) be used to make an assertion?
Or did you mean to limit your discussion to the mindsets of the participants and not to the truth of the argument?
Had you only stated in your post that whether homosexuality is a born or chosen trait is immaterial to God's moral requirements, I wouldn't have gotten to ask these interesting questions!
Alexander,
All that science can shed some light on is whether there is a genetic predisposition. A conclusive finding that there is a genetic predisposition hurts only the “Pelagian” Christian who argues that nobody is born that way.
From an Augustinian perspective, a conclusive scientific finding --either way --doesn’t matter. If people are genetic homosexuals, or genetically predisposed to this or that sin, I would just say that perhaps God encoded original sin in our genes. And if the science shows no predisposition, then (a) maybe our original sin is not gene encoded and/or (b) nothing from the Augustinian position says that you can’t learn to sin in a way you were not predisposed.
Both sides in my mini debate are dependent on a finding from science, which is why they like to argue about this or that finding in studies among twins. The Augustinian position is immune to how the science is finally settled. It is the only position consistent with (but not dependent upon) the present scientific ambiguity on this subject.
The comment above, attributed to "DWC", is mine. I picked the wrong item from the popup menu.
Well spoken, David. Both the original post and the response 
.
I've often been intrigued by how insistent many of my fellow Christians are that science WILL find that homosexuality is not at all genetic; such certainty doesn't seem reasonable, and as you've pointed out, isn't theologically needed.
I admit that based on what I know of sexual habits and the existing research on homosexuality, I do suspect that in the vast majority of cases, it's a formed habit rather than a genetic compulsion -- but I also see very little difference between the two (the formation of the habit is often beyond the control of the person, who is often abused as a child).
-Billy
I think you are absolutely right on this. That we are born in sin means that it doesn't really make much difference whether homosexuality is genetic or not. Either way, homosexual behaviour is "natural" to someone with a fallen nature. That the nature with which someone is born compels them to act in sinful ways is a biblical truth that Christians who insist that homosexuality cannot be genetic seem to be trying to avoid.
As people have said...
we are all born in sin. That some of us are not born homosexual does not mean we are any less sinful. Yes we do need the grace of God.
Hoever, we can still hold homosexuals to account for the sin...even if they were born that way inclined so to speak...just as everyone is held to account because of our sin.
An interesting thought relates to sanctification. This process is making us more like Christ getting rid of the "unnatural" sin in us. homosexuality is unnatural to the human race God created just as all original sin is. Surely this means that any saved homosexual (because of course they can be saved) through sanctification can eradicate that particular sin from their lives through prayer and effort just as in theory we grow in holiness.
apologies if that doesn't make sense and feel free to criticise me...
hmmm
i got all my our/ we/ they all confused
I am not and never was a homosexual although am probably more steeped in sin than many homosexuals...
hope it still made some sense :-s
James,
It is clear that God promises all of us that we can resist temptation. It is just as clear that we will often fail. My guess is that most Christian homosexuals, like the rest of us, will never achieve total victory over any given sin. And a Christian homosexual that sins is not any less a Christian. But a Christian homosexual must never view it as an acceptable lifestyle, even if it is in a loving, monogamous relationship. There must always be a desire for repentance and a desire for holiness, just like for all other sinners.
David, I agree with your analysis. However, what would you say to the non-christian (unfamiliar with Pelagius) who thinks that being born that way excuses him from responsibility?
Brett,
I don't know, I never witnessed to someone making that argument. I guess that I would tell him I believe him that he was born that way, then give the gospel, and hope that he asked more questions. I would try to explain how being born that way was no excuse, and how I was born a sinner too. What can we do but speak the gospel in truth and hope the Spirit moves in the person's heart?
Good points.
The argument "Its okay to be gay because I was born that way." never made sense to me. It could then be argued that child molestors are born that way. Does this make it okay?
I've often made a comparison with alcoholism. Just because someone has a genetic predisposition to it, doesn't mean it's OK for them to drink themselves unconscious every night.
I've long thought that all the following are true:
1. Homosexuality is almost certainly a result of some combination of genetics, social forces, or choice. Different cases have more influence from different sources.
2. Whether homosexuality is caused by genetics, social forces, or choice is almost completely irrelevant to the moral issues. We should oppose lots of genetically caused tendencies and dispositions. Also, the social cause view that gay rights people so often oppose is just as subject to morally deterministic thinking.
3. Many gay people ought, by their own standards, to feel insulted when someone tries to excuse their actions by saying they can't help it. No! They affirm the way they are as a good thing. Why would they want to allow people to treat it as bad by trying to find an excuse for it?
I think a large majority of Christians, including myself, have run into the discussion of homosexuality armed with a variety of reasons why homosexuality is not genetic with the premise that we must defend Christianity by proving that God would never intentionally make someone a homosexual. Many Christians feel that they must defend the faith in that way, and yet you have called that view into question. This was an excellent post, thanks.
What would make the inherited aspect of this relevant would be if the Bible asserted that an inability to keep the law would absolve one of the responsibility to keep the law. But it doesn't. In fact, it does the opposite. (Romans 7 & 
We are all bound to keep the law. We are all unable to keep the law. We all would be undone were it not for the work of Christ on our behalf. Whether our inabilty is rooted in the flesh (genes) as the Bible says it is, (Gal. 5:17) or whether it arises from experience/upbringing, etc., as it also says it is, (Prov. 22:6), doesn't really matter. We are all guilty and we all need Christ.
Why do we Christians try to complicate God's word so? It is irrelevant whether homosexuals are born that way or come to that behavior as a result of environment or simply as a faulty expression of the "natural" man. The reality is that Christians in their attempts to show homosexuals are not born that way contribute to more hatred of the homosexual than of the homosexual act. God calls us to love all sinners and to hate all sin. It is not a sin to be a homosexual nor is it a sin to be a heterosexual. It is a sin for either of them to have sex outside the bonds of matrimony as defined by God between a man and a woman. Fornication is the sin whether homosexual or heterosexual. If we would limit the argument to that point we would certainly reduce the harm caused by our inordinate desire to be correct about genetics.
This is completely wrong. The Christian faith states that homosexuals are born that way. The only sin is acting upon it. It's incorrect to say anything otherwise.
Uh, I'm both an alcoholic, in recover, and a gay woman. I'm also a Christian. BTW, alcoholism is totally destructive of the human personality, and of life itself, eventually. Where's the parallel with homosexuality?
But in fact I think you're going to have re-think this issue entirely, really, since the Bible contains no condemnation of Lesbianism.
The only verse thought to contain such a condemnation has been Romans I, in a very ambiguous reference - which, BTW, Augustine himself thought referred to something quite different. The other verses (all 5 of them, out of tens of thousands of verses, many of which are concerned with helping the poor and oppressed) are addressed, specifically, to men.
So please tell me why I should turn my entire life upside down in order to obey a non-existent rule. Just to make you folks happy, you think?
P.S.: Heterosexuals view homosexuality with disdain because they are grossed out by the idea of gay sex. It seems "unnatural" to them because it is unnatural to them. Just as heteroseuxal sex is unnatural to us.
That's the long and short of it, I'm afraid.
No one knows why there are gay people. There just are. If what you're saying is that we can't be Christians because of it, at least look that fact in the face. You are employing here, the reverse of the Great Commission, and you should acknowledge it openly.
Dear Not Again!,
I detect your frustration in the name you have chosen. We all want to be validated and none of us wants to be condemned. I hope you saw nothing in my early post that would indicate condemnation, because I surely do not condemn anyone who finds themselves convinced of their own homosexuality. Neither do I condemn anyone who finds themselves in a situation of genetice predisposition, percieved or otherwise.
"Because of this , God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even thier women exchanged natural relations for unatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for each other." Romans 1:26-27a
As you can see the Bible does refer to lesbianism one time and compares it to male homosexuality, "in the same way," and define it as unnatural. God's law is that sexual relations are to be used both for procreation and for the expression of the oneness that occurs in marriage between a man and a woman. We need not like God's laws or His design, but He is the Creator and we are the created. He is the King and we are the subjects of His rule, like it or not.
We can spend our lives opposing what God's word states, and if we listen to our hearts we will know He has written His word there as well, or we can capitualte to His rule and obtain the benefits of doing so.
It isn't about my way or the highway. It is about His way or no way at all.
If you want to live your life as a lesbian, then by all means do so, but have the honesty not to bend God to fit your requirements. If you won't bend for Him, then at least have the self respect necessary to walk away. I prefer that you seek God's loving arms and change in the way He requests and will give you the power to do, but if you are not going to do that, then go ahead and live the rest of this life as happily as you can.
In the mean time, I will pray for you and hope you will contact me so that we can talk together without invective or argument.
Yours in Christ,
biblemike
http://www.biblemike.blogspot.com
I have a hard time trying to comprehend what you are trying to say. It doesn't make sense to me. This is my perspective:
One camp says people are born homosexuals to justify its existance and that it isn't a sin. One camp says people are not born homosexuals to reference that it is a choice into sin.
The Bible speaks against homosexuality in both Old and New Testaments. If it were a born (natural) trait, then why did God warn against the behavior? It was a specified item, not generalized into the big bucket of sin. Yes, sin is sin. However, some sins were specifically called out instead of remaining generalized.
Why was Sodom and Gommorah destroyed by God? Why not all the other cities where there were obviously sinners? Why pick and destroy the two cities where homosexuality was rampant?
Elvis
To me, so much boils down to this: What exactly do you mean by "born that way"?
Infants are unable to lift their heads, unable to control the movements of their arms and legs, unable to control their bowels or bladders. They can't communicate in anything other than crying, cooing or gurgling. The were born that way.
If an adult behaved the same way an infant does and tried to justify it by saying he was born that way, would that carry any weight?
So what exactly do you mean when you say "homosexuals were born that way"? Until I know that, I can't even begin to discuss whether that view is Augustinian or Pelagian.
I had two friends who were involved in the adult leadership of my youth group. After graduating high school I found out that both of them had struggled with homosexual tendencies. One of them left the church and is now openly gay. The other is married and has two children. The first has rejected God because he feels he cannot change. The second realized the sin and fought it until God gave him victory. While I know that the second was sexually abused as a child I am not sure about the first.
"But a Christian homosexual must never view it as an acceptable lifestyle, even if it is in a loving, monogamous relationship. There must always be a desire for repentance and a desire for holiness, just like for all other sinners."
That is the point of it all. Some will accept it, others won't. Until someone is able to accept their own wickedness they will not see their need for a Savior.
>If what you're saying is that we can't be Christians because of it
No one here has said that. We're all sinners. Homosexual acts are sinful, but so are heterosexual acts outside of male/female marriage. If behavior determined Christianity, there would be no Christians.
David, it seems like "Christian homosexual" is an odd category because it subdivides Christianity by an act. It's going to take a lot of hyphens if we're going to describe ourselves by our sins. Try your paragraph again, this time for kleptomaniacs:
My guess is that most Christian shoplifters, like the rest of us, will never achieve total victory over any given sin. And a Christian shoplifter that sins is not any less a Christian. But a Christian shoplifter must never view it as an acceptable lifestyle
It just sounds strange.
God made us in his own image
we should not destroy the beauty of marriage
consider this
christ is the bride groom and the church is his bride......
I thoroughly enjoy the debate and think that the Augustine vs Pelagius forum is inspired. Possibly Augustine and Pelagius could debate the American Christian's pre-occupation with homosexuality and seemingly indifference to divorce? Maybe the debate would address which phenomena has more damaged families, wounded children and affected culture? Possibly it would tell us more about our real problems?
This is the most illogical argument on the internet, the fact that it comes from a scientist makes it even weaker and speaks volumes to the dicotomous mind concept.
You are ill David.
To blame someone for being born in a certain fashion is pathetic. To punish someone for doing something you placed into them is even worse.
I'm no fan of the homosexual, but you folks are less than they.
As a gay non-Christian, I find the terminology being used in some of this discussion both interesting and foreign to my own experiences. A lot of the questions and comments seem to center around why the nature/nurture question is even important. The person signing his comments as Elvis says, "One camp says people are born homosexuals to justify its existence and that it isn't a sin." I find this a fairly common sentiment- though far from universal- among people who identify themselves as Christians. But there is an easy alternative. Feeling that one was born gay is very much what many gay people actually experience of their own sexual orientation. Choice figured nowhere in my own emerging awareness of sexual orientation during adolescence. I realized that I was gay years before I even had a sexual experience. For my life partner that gap was over a decade. Similarly, when someone says, as Randy does, "it seems like "Christian homosexual" is an odd category because it subdivides Christianity by an act," it doesn’t comport with my own experience. The orientation is there independent of whether or not I’m actually doing anything. During my adulthood, I have experienced one prolonged (about 3-year) period of celibacy. I was gay the whole time. My point is, the issue is important because it’s an integral part of understanding what gay people experience of the world. For many of us, there is a great deal of frustration from being misrepresented by others ("homosexuals will tell you one thing, but here’s what they’re REALLY about…"). That’s why a position like David’s is actually somewhat refreshing. I may disagree with some of the conclusions that he draws, but he’s willing to acknowledge the reality of the situation.
I find myself in Kansas Bob's court. The damage done by divorce is just as much sinful as homosexual acts. I see that as fallen mankind we sin because we are sinners. That maybe simplictic to many people in this debate, but I try to simplify when I can as God saw fit to make me that way or I chose to be that way or for what ever reason that's the way I just see things! We just try to make God fit into our little boxes instead of letting Him speak (which He has) and then obeying, which we can't seem to do very well. People are people and God loves them all, for he said, 2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
This says it all for me.
Your post doesn't make the least bit of sense.
Commenting by HaloScan
