Nick Park wrote: » No, it doesn't mean He makes some people gay. I've already stated several times that the Christian doctrine of The Fall means that human sin has distorted the world we live in, and that includes our desires. At one point or another we all have our weak points and can be tempted to do stuff that deviates from God's plan for our lives. This human brokenness is manifested in many of our approaches to sexuality.
Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: » So you are saying that people aren't born as homosexual people, but they choose to partake in homosexual acts after giving into temptation. That sounds like you are saying it is a choice.
Me: You are clearly saying that being gay is a choice.
Nick Park wrote: » No, not if we're speaking English. Could you please cite where I said anything remotely like that?
Nick Park wrote: » Quite possibly because God didn't intend for people to be gay in the first place.
Nick Park wrote: » No, it doesn't mean He makes some people gay.
Nick Park wrote: » This is where the Christian doctrine of the Fall is important to understand. Christians believe that God created the world as a good place, but that through human sin it has become broken. Therefore all of us are born with inbuilt tendencies towards behaviours that are contrary to God's original purpose for us. Same sex attractions, by this thinking, would not be considered to be worse than the temptations that all of us face.
Nick Park wrote: » I think you're confusing two things. 'Being gay' may simply refer to the attractions one feels or one's sexual orientation. That may, or may not, be down to choice. As I said, I've not seen any conclusive scientific evidence one way or the other.
Nick Park wrote: » Participating in homosexual acts is a choice
Nick Park wrote: » I've already stated several times that the Christian doctrine of The Fall means that human sin has distorted the world we live in, and that includes our desires. At one point or another we all have our weak points and can be tempted to do stuff that deviates from God's plan for our lives.
Nick Park wrote: » This human brokenness is manifested in many of our approaches to sexuality.
Nick Park wrote: » Ah, so you think it's OK to allow Christians to discuss the Bible in the Christianity Forum on other subjects? But if we dare to discuss what the Bible says about homosexuality in the Christianity Forum then you will lecture us that we are missing the point? That's big of you to let us discuss some subjects at least.
marienbad wrote: » You don't discuss, you just lecture the same point over and over ..... and over
riveratom wrote: » Sure can:
Like the gay lifestyle?
Nick Park wrote: » You're making a rather large leap of logic, and that is causing you not to listen to what I'm saying and to wrongly put words into my mouth. You seem to assume that there are only two alternatives here: a) People are born gay (referring to orientation not actions) because God intended them to be that way. b) People choose to be gay. However, the Christian doctrine of the Fall, as I have explained on several occasions, means that the world we live in is not the world as God intended it to be. I had thought that explaining that would be sufficient and thought that spelling out the inevitable conclusion would be an insult to any adult . I therefore apologise for not making myself sufficiently clear, and will spell out what that means: c) It is entirely possible that people might be born gay, without that being what God wants. This is hardly a radical conclusion. I don't believe God wants people to be born with spina bifida, with a tendency towards alcoholism, or with an inbuilt tendency to construct idols and pray to them. But I am open to the possibility that people are indeed born with such inclinations.
Nick Park wrote: » I'd rather not use that phrase. I had a very pleasant chat over coffee with the editor of the Gay Community News recently, and he explained how he found the use of the word 'lifestyle' to describe his sexuality to be insulting. (I was thankful I hadn't used it - he was referring to the use of the phrase by Vincent Browne in a TV programme in which I had participated). Anyway, I thought his point of view was fair, so maybe we could have this discussion without using phrases that might be offensive to others or be seen as homophobic or demeaning?
lazybones32 wrote: » No-one knows the psychological genesis of homosexuality or heterosexuality. Academics are divided as to whether sexuality is solely genetic (nature), solely psychological (nurture) or a mix of the two. Seeing as the human mind cannot be quantified, there will be no definitive decision. Remember the Welsh man who went in to a coma and came out of it gay last year? He was a rugby player and engaged; suffered a serious head trauma and within a few months of waking, ended his engagement, quit his job, became a hairdresser and moved in with his boyfriend. Having heard him on some talk show, it is fully certain that he wasn't born gay but became gay after some 'interference' within his brain.
Nick Park wrote: » I have nowhere said that 'people aren't born as homosexual people'. I have stated now, several times, that I have not seen any conclusive scientific evidence to form an opinion on that one way or another. If such evidence is discovered then I would be cool with that. What I have said is that it is a choice whether someone chooses to partake in homosexual acts, or indeed in heterosexual acts. That is self-evident (unless someone is raped). It's a simple distinction, and I had thought that it was made clearly enough so that only someone misled by confusion or imprecision could continue to make the untrue claim about me that I had anywhere claimed that people are gay by choice.
Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: » Then what does that^ mean?
Nick Park wrote: » It means that saying 'someone was born as X' is not equivalent to saying 'God made someone X'. I don't think that is a particularly hard concept to grasp, no?
marienbad wrote: » Does it really matter if it is nature or nurture ?
riveratom wrote: » Being born with a medical condition is in no way comparable to being born gay so there's no point throwing that into the mix. It is also clearly irrelevant to the topic at hand so hopefully it is not an attempt at diverting the discussion.
We are getting somewhere though. If people are possibly born with some inclinations, then a situation can quite clearly arise where a man realises he is only attracted to other men (same for a woman), and not to women. Therefore, if he wants to do the right thing in the context of Christianity, he must forego any sexual intimacy with someone of the same sex.
Do you agree with this statement or not?If he wants to do the right thing by the Bible, he CANNOT and MUST NOT enjoy or experience sexual intimacy if he is only attracted to those of the same sex. It's quite simple, and really only requires a yes or no answer. We all know that there are people out there who are only attracted to people of the same gender, so it is a very pertinent question.
I have never heard the phrase being referred to as offensive, homophobic or demeaning before. Not once.
That must have been an interesting chat. Now how can the editor of such a publication express his sexuality, assuming he is gay?
In your view he should not express it if he happens (or happened) to be Christian, no?
lazybones32 wrote: » From the spiritual perspective; yes, it is very important. From the biological, psychological and social perspective; yes, it is very important. Given the argument that is on-going, it is important, apt and relevant.
Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: » But are we as humans not made in the image of God? Oh, and can you please not question my intelligence like that again. Thank you.
Nick Park wrote: » It is relevant, and there is a clear point to throwing it into the mix if we are engaging in genuine discussion rather than trying to score cheap shots. It demonstrates that it is perfectly logical to assert that someone might be born with a characteristic without having to assert that God made that person that way. And that does seem to be a concept that you are having difficulty in grasping - so much so that you have quite wrongly accused me of contradicting myself. Don't you think the discussion might progress better if we tried to listen to and understand each other rather than putting words into one another's mouth? That would certainly be my understanding of the situation (although some Christians would disagree with me on this point). I would also add that this applies to other people apart from those who are gay. For example, a good friend of mine has a wife who, due to a serious car accident, will never be able to have sexual intercourse with him again. If he wants to do the right thing in the context of Christianity then he also must forego any sexual intimacy with anyone of either sex. I feel deeply for his situation, but respect his integrity in remaining true to his principles. Just as I do with good friends who are attracted to the same sex but choose to remain celibate due to their Christian beliefs. I hope, if I were in either of those scenarios, that I would be similarly true to my convictions. It certainly can't be easy. If he wants to do the right thing by the Bible, he CANNOT and MUST NOT enjoy or experience sexual intimacy if he is only attracted to those of the same sex. I'm wary of those who try to insist on 'yes' or 'no' answers - as it often shows an unwillingness to listen and a desire to attack. I would broadly agree with that statement (without the shouting implied by capitalisation) and with the insertion of the words "according to his understanding" after the word 'Bible'. I prefer to see this as a personal matter of conscience, not one of compulsion or judging someone else. Neither had I, but since neither you nor I or gay, I think it much wiser for those who are gay to tell us if a phrase comes across that way or not. No? It was interesting. I found him to be a charming individual and good company. I sincerely hope that he left our meeting with a similar impression. How he expresses his sexuality is entirely his business not mine. I would not presume to lecture him on that. That is up to him. I have enough on my plate at times answering for my own beliefs and actions without deciding for him. If he had asked me for advice I would have given my opinion, but in that case it would be private and I would never assume to publicly speak of that. I only alluded to his views on the phrase 'gay lifestyle' because he has made those views public via his blog.
I would broadly agree with that statement (without the shouting implied by capitalisation) and with the insertion of the words "according to his understanding" after the word 'Bible'. I prefer to see this as a personal matter of conscience, not one of compulsion or judging someone else.
riveratom wrote: » I would also feel for your friend and his wife, but that is a rare edge case. What we are talking about here is the issue of a person being gay and the options open to them in terms of being able to be intimate with someone. The bottom line is that Christianity states that the only appropriate setting for sexual intimacy is between a man and a woman in marriage. This means that very large number of people find themselves at odds with this, simply because they know they are gay. This is what begs my question of why 'gay' exists at all. Why is it a thing?
You can't compare it with giving in to an inclination to steal, or defraud, or lie, etc. Those are choices you make, whilst being gay and only feeling attracted to someone of the same sex is not something you can help (at least that is the common understanding).
It is also 'more than a characteristic'. That is just a bit glib, no? Gay people are attracted to people of the same sex, not those of the opposite sex. I would say that is more than a 'characteristic', wouldn't you?
So let's take a gay Christian man whose understanding is that it is ok to be sexually intimate with another man, and that it is fine in his eyes as a personal matter of conscience. That means it is ok because it is ok by him - even though the Bible is quite clear that it is not?
That's funny because I didn't think people got to choose on that count on the basis of what they felt was ok! In fact I know that is the case, so I look forward to your replies on that..
Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: » So because Adam and Eve took a bite out of an apple, homosexual sex is now a thing?
Nick Park wrote: » Whether it's OK or not is between him and God. I have no interest in judging him. I'm much more concerned with judging myself and trying to be the best human being I can be.
Nick Park wrote: » Does it annoy you that I don't conform to a stereotype of a Christian who wants to judge others?
Nick Park wrote: » It's a free country with freedom of religion. Everyone gets to choose on the basis of what they feel is OK. They might well be wrong in their choices - but that's not really my business. I'll leave it to others here to judge and pontificate and criticise others who don't conform to their opinions. That kind of stuff doesn't really interest me.
Nick Park wrote: » And I think any thoughtful person will realise that the bad choices of others affect people from birth. That is why the majority of children born in the world live in poverty, and why people in Ireland care more about a few Garth Brooks concerts than they do about the plight of those children. It's a broken creation - and we are all complicit. But, hey, it's easier to blame God.
Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: » Could you clarify that bit, because I don't see how the choice of two loving people being in a non-childbearing relationship could affect other children from birth.
riveratom wrote: » Well that's news to me. That's amazing in fact. Is it therefore also ok for me to steal from my local Spar, if it is between me and God?
Are you saying that in some cases it may be ok for him to have sexual relations with another man, if it is between him and God? I am genuinely really wondering about what you actually believe here.
No not at all, but it is a bit irksome when you don't get straight answers but you do get wishy-washy replies, especially when the Bible is pretty unequivocal on these topics.
Now back to my question - is it ok for a gay Christian man to engage in sexual relations with another man, if he feels it is ok? Your answer is not you judging someone else, but simply you basing your answer on what the Bible clearly says. Quite frankly, if your answer to that question is anything other than no, then it would seem you aren't a real Christian at all because you are saying that it is up to the individual to decide what is right or wrong, rather than basing their choice on what the Bible clearly states on the matter
Nick Park wrote: » Neither do I, but maybe you should address that question to someone who has claimed anything remotely like that?
Nick Park wrote: » Your local Spar, or the Garda, might have something to say about that - but that's none of my business.
Nick Park wrote: » That's up to them to work out their own personal morality. Different Christians have different understandings of Scripture. I certainly don't see myself as being in a position to dictate to others.
Nick Park wrote: » I am happy to discuss my understanding of the Bible, and how I see that as relating to my choices and decisions. But I'm not particularly interested in passing judgement on others - I'm more of a live and let live kind of guy. (Unless of course, it comes to infringing on the rights of others - in which case I'll fight tooth and nail for justice.) Ah the old 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' game. If I condemn others then I'm an intolerant bigot. If I decline to condemn others then I'm being wishy-washy. Sorry pal, I'm not playing. I couldn't give a rat's ass how much it frustrates you that I'm not into judging others.
Nick Park wrote: » Ah, so now you feel you're qualified to judge who is a real Christian and who isn't? Well, if you want to judge what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms that's up to you. I prefer not to do so. And, thankfully, I've found that being a real Christian is about worshipping Jesus Christ, trying to live in a way that is pleasing to Him, telling others about His love - and not about judging others.
Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: » Well you talk about the choices people make affecting other people from birth, and since we're in a thread talking about homosexuality, I presumed you were talking about homosexuality.
If not, then I don't see why you need to mention it between Auschwitz and African poverty. Unless, and I really hope not, you are trying to slyly insinuate that the choice two loving people make to have sex is as bad as the choices that were made in Auschwitz or that lead to the majority of the African continent being left to live a life without some basic human rights.
