AMERICAblog: Bishop Harry Jackson: Obama's 'misinformed' about homosexuality and faith
The Truth
· 10 months ago
If you are going to speak out against what Bishop Jackson is talking about. State the truth. You offered not substance or evidence to your discourse. What you state here is pure propaganda and rhetoric not Truth. Look at something as simple as the definition of truth--fidelity, constancy, the body of real things and facts: actuality. Let me answer that question by asking two of my own: "What if?" and "So what?" What if it could be demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is, as activists claim, genetic, biochemical, and neurological in origin? We would still want to know, so what? The homosexual activist community would have us believe that because their behavior is genetically programmed and beyond their control, it is morally defensible. That is not supportable. Most men have inherited a lust for women. Their natural tendency is to have sex with as many beautiful girls as possible, both before marriage and after. Abstinence before marriage and monogamy afterward are accomplished by discipline and commitment. If men did what they are genetically programmed to do, most would be sexually promiscuous from about 14 years of age onward. Would that make such behavior any less immoral? Of course not. What if a pedophile (child abuser) could claim that he inherited his lust for kids? He could make a good case for it. Certainly his sexual apparatus and the testosterone that drives it are creations of genetics. Even if his perversion resulted from early experiences, he could accurately claim not to have chosen to be what he is. But so what? Does that make his abuse of children any less offensive? Should society accept, protect, and grant special civil rights to pedophiles? Is it blatant discrimination that they are tried, convicted, and imprisoned for doing what they are "programmed" to do? No! The source of their sexual preference is irrelevant to the behavior itself, which is deemed to be immoral and reprehensible by society. What if it could be demonstrated conclusively that alcoholics inherit a chemical vulnerability to alcohol? Such is probably the case, since some races have a much higher incidence of alcoholism than others. But so what? Does that mean alcoholism is any less a problem for those families and for society in general? Hardly! I hope the point is apparent. Being genetically inclined to do immoral things does not make immoral behavior right. There are many influences at work within us, but they are irrelevant. I know of no instance in Scripture where God winked at evildoers because of their flawed inheritance or early experiences. In fact, the opposite is implied. In the book of Genesis we are told that an angel informed Ishmael's mother that the child she was carrying would be "a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers" (Genesis 16:12). In other words, Ishmael was genetically inclined toward violence and rebellion. Yet there is no indication that he enjoyed a special dispensation from God that excused his sinful behavior. Each of us is accountable for what we do, without excuses and rationalizations. That's why we all need a Savior who died to eradicate our sins, regardless of their source. There is one other "so what" with which we must deal. If homosexuals can claim to be genetically predisposed to lust after their own sex, why does that make their circumstances different from unmarried heterosexuals? Single individuals are certainly programmed by heredity to desire fulfillment with the opposite sex, but they are called to a world of purity. I know that is a tough requirement -- especially for those who will never marry -- yet this is my understanding of Scripture. Promiscuity for unmarried heterosexuals is the moral equivalent of promiscuity for homosexuals. Liberal ministers who are revising church standards to sanction sexual expression by homosexuals must, I would think, extend the same concession to heterosexual singles. But before they do, some scriptural justification should be found to support the "new morality." I think none exists.
Michael
· 7 months ago
Can I support the "new morality" if in the case of God, "I think none exists"?
Jim Olson
· 2 months ago
Its always about the sex, isn't it. I have to say, The Truth, that your, and other objectors, preoccupation with our sex lives is grounds for suspicion. Its not about the sex. It's about the civil rights. And, IMHO, the sooner that Christians of all stripes tend to our own issues and stop imposing a narrow, impossible morality on the world, the better. God is the one who chooses how to reveal him/her/or themselves to the world, and we do NOT have the exclusive right to impose some narrow morality on the rest of the world. We have the responsibility to speak the truth as we believe it revealed to us, and nothing more.
All Comments
Let me answer that question by asking two of my own: "What if?" and "So what?"
What if it could be demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is, as activists claim, genetic, biochemical, and neurological in origin? We would still want to know, so what? The homosexual activist community would have us believe that because their behavior is genetically programmed and beyond their control, it is morally defensible. That is not supportable. Most men have inherited a lust for women. Their natural tendency is to have sex with as many beautiful girls as possible, both before marriage and after. Abstinence before marriage and monogamy afterward are accomplished by discipline and commitment. If men did what they are genetically programmed to do, most would be sexually promiscuous from about 14 years of age onward. Would that make such behavior any less immoral? Of course not.
What if a pedophile (child abuser) could claim that he inherited his lust for kids? He could make a good case for it. Certainly his sexual apparatus and the testosterone that drives it are creations of genetics. Even if his perversion resulted from early experiences, he could accurately claim not to have chosen to be what he is. But so what? Does that make his abuse of children any less offensive? Should society accept, protect, and grant special civil rights to pedophiles? Is it blatant discrimination that they are tried, convicted, and imprisoned for doing what they are "programmed" to do? No! The source of their sexual preference is irrelevant to the behavior itself, which is deemed to be immoral and reprehensible by society.
What if it could be demonstrated conclusively that alcoholics inherit a chemical vulnerability to alcohol? Such is probably the case, since some races have a much higher incidence of alcoholism than others. But so what? Does that mean alcoholism is any less a problem for those families and for society in general? Hardly!
I hope the point is apparent. Being genetically inclined to do immoral things does not make immoral behavior right. There are many influences at work within us, but they are irrelevant. I know of no instance in Scripture where God winked at evildoers because of their flawed inheritance or early experiences. In fact, the opposite is implied. In the book of Genesis we are told that an angel informed Ishmael's mother that the child she was carrying would be "a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers" (Genesis 16:12). In other words, Ishmael was genetically inclined toward violence and rebellion. Yet there is no indication that he enjoyed a special dispensation from God that excused his sinful behavior. Each of us is accountable for what we do, without excuses and rationalizations. That's why we all need a Savior who died to eradicate our sins, regardless of their source.
There is one other "so what" with which we must deal. If homosexuals can claim to be genetically predisposed to lust after their own sex, why does that make their circumstances different from unmarried heterosexuals? Single individuals are certainly programmed by heredity to desire fulfillment with the opposite sex, but they are called to a world of purity. I know that is a tough requirement -- especially for those who will never marry -- yet this is my understanding of Scripture. Promiscuity for unmarried heterosexuals is the moral equivalent of promiscuity for homosexuals. Liberal ministers who are revising church standards to sanction sexual expression by homosexuals must, I would think, extend the same concession to heterosexual singles. But before they do, some scriptural justification should be found to support the "new morality." I think none exists.