Re: Whatever Happened to Sin? ...One Christian Leader Suggests: it Could be in
| Posted On: 03/20/07 07:44:39 AM |
Age 200, MN |
I heard Dr. Mohler's broadcast and he was speculating IF a DEFINITE genetic connection were found. He specifically said he did not believe there was a genetic connection. Anyone who listens to or reads Dr. Mohler even a few times would be able to discern that he is entirely orthodox. I'm all for the truth and correct doctrine, but let's not shoot our best warriors in the back unnecessarily.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Re: Whatever Happened to Sin? ...One Christian Leader Suggests: it Could be in
| Posted On: 03/20/07 07:27:17 AM |
Age 78, VA |
Simply put, why would God, Who called something an abomination, then insert this so-called gene into His creation. The Bible says that God is not a man that He should lie, neither the son of man that He should repent. There are so many names we could press onto the enemy, but Jesus said it quite plainly, "that old serpent, the devil." So that old serpent will cause any kind of "discussion" to keep us from the deeper things of the Lord.
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Re: Re: Whatever Happened to Sin? ...One Christian Leader Suggests: it Could be in
| Posted On: 03/22/07 03:21:49 PM | | Age 39, CA |
Just God never created nor inserted sin into man's genes (through Adam), he would never insert such a gene. Such a gene "IF" it ever existed would be abnormal as a result of sin, just like all other genetic disorders (e.g. muscular dystrophy, clinical depression, hyperthyroidism, etc.).
Click here to reply to this post
Re: Whatever Happened to Sin? ...One Christian Leader Suggests: it Could be in
| Posted On: 03/20/07 07:17:06 AM |
Age 53, FL |
I read Steve Camp's article and then I read Al Mohler's. I can't believe the controversy. Camp picked on one point of 10 points Mohler made. Mohler clarified his Biblical stance clearly twice!(Points 4 and 10 in his article) Mohler said, "Scientific discovery will not change the very clear view of Scripture that Homosexual behavior is sin." It is like secular press to take something out of its context and make a case. Camp never referenced points 4 and 10 in his article which was very biased on his part. I agree with all 10 of Mohler's points and I am a very conservative, Biblical Christian with a Biblical worldview.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Context, Context, Context
| Posted On: 03/20/07 05:16:52 AM |
Age 25, GA |
While the majority of this article was excellent, the springboard for it is completely and totally incorrect. Albert Mohler never said there was a gay gene, he was simply paraphrasing the doctors who said there might be. He never suggested it could be in the genes.
To spread this complete and total fabrication is an insult to a great man of God, and a wordly attempt at gossip.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Re: Whatever Happened to Sin? ... Must be that Dr. M. overlooked ...
| Posted On: 03/20/07 03:04:20 AM |
Age 55, OH |
I must agree with Steve Camp's article. It must be that Dr. Mohler never read any of the actual scientific research papers written about the search for a "gay" gene. Otherwise he would have seen the multitude of hopeful "maybe"s,"might"s and "if"s. There is currently not a shred of actual evidence for a "gay" gene. Speculation about how hormones affect sexual selection and aggressiveness in sheep or trying to draw human inferences from aniimal studies is only wishful thinking. Far too many people are being persuaded by numerous repetitions of a wishful lie, instead of demanding hard evidence before second-guessing God. Certainly He knows what He is talking about in His own Word. God's viewpoint on sexual temptations: Giving in to sexual temptations in any form or format outside of genuine marriage is sin--as is giving in to temptation of any sort--because it is against His higher plan for making us holy & godly. He has promised to always provide us a way out, an 'escape' from temtation. We need to be willing to open our eyes and hearts and look for it.
Dr. Mohler would do us all a favor by not speculating on such flimsy so-called "evidence." Human beings can be 'turned on' by anything they can wrap their minds around. The better topic for discussion would be HOW to resist temptations, do what is right and keep the ungodly from exercising undue influence on us or our children--and how to counter the massive weight of falsehood that is swaying our society and culture.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Re: Whatever Happened to Sin? ...One Christian Leader Suggests: it Could be in
| Posted On: 03/20/07 01:29:50 AM |
Age 50, CO |
Steve,
While I agree wholeheartedly with the majority of your post (as I do with ALL your music), I'd like to suggest that "sin" actually IS a matter of genetics. Not in the sense that we can isolate a specific gene for a specific sin (like homosexuality), but rather as the mode of transmission of "original sin" through our species from the time of Adam. Since this feedback is supposed to be kept short, and I address this topic in my new book (due out in a few weeks) "Letter to a Christian Nation: Counter Point," let me refer you (and anyone else reading this) to an online excerpt from that book at http://www.thinkagain.us/counter_point.html. Blessings! (Never stop singing... my kids fall asleep to your voice...) RC
PS - From a Darwinian perspective (one I do NOT hold), if a gene for homosexuality ever did exist, it would have long ago been eradicated from the human gene pool, since its reproductive fitness for natural selection would be nil.
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Re: Re: Whatever Happened to Sin? ...One Christian Leader Suggests: it Could be in
| Posted On: 03/20/07 03:48:09 PM | | Age 48, NY |
I just wanted to say thank you for someone else who still has some common sense. All the hype and tit for tatting could all be done away with if people had common sense and realized that the gay gene theory is one of self termination. Gay families as they like to be called can only become a family by adoption or artificial semination as they choose not to reproduce God's way. Any type of "gay gene" would have no way of being passed on!
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: Whatever Happened to Sin? ...One Christian Leader Suggests: it Could be in
| Posted On: 03/21/07 05:42:26 AM | | Age 37, WI |
First, there is no gay gene. However, it is true that homosexuals also procreate. There are multitudes of people who have been married, had children, and then proclaimed themselves to be homosexuals. One of my friends from childhood did just that. After claiming to be a born-again believing Christian and living a totally heterosexual life and having a son and a daughter, she moved out of her home, left her husband and began living as a homosexual. I have seen many of these people on television.
On another point, for those he claim that hormonal imbalances in utero cause homosexuality, I know personally of several cases in which a woman bore children of both sexes. The female child is mannish and lives as a lesbian. The male child is effeminate and is "gay". If the mother's chemistry were the cause wouldn't both children exhibit either maleness or femaleness? But no, perversely, the girl is masculine and the boy is feminine.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Whatever Happened to Sin? ...One Christian Leader Suggests: it Could be in
| Posted On: 03/20/07 02:04:27 PM | | Age 28, KS |
<i>if a gene for homosexuality ever did exist, it would have long ago been eradicated from the human gene pool, since its reproductive fitness for natural selection would be nil.</i>
Only if it were a dominant gene. If it is recessive, it could be passed along through heterosexuals. For instance, suppose blue eyes caused people to die at the age of 5, with no exceptions. We would still see blue-eyed children up to 5 years of age, because plenty of brown-eyed people have the gene for blue eyes, they just also have another copy of a gene for brown eyes, which dominates. Just as two brown-eyed people can give birth to blue-eyed children, a recessive gay gene would allow two heterosexual carriers of the gene to give birth to a homosexual.
Also, some research suggests that homosexual males have (heterosexual) sisters with above-average fertility rates. So the lack of reproductive fitness of these males may be offset by the above-average reproductive fitness of kin who have the gene. (None of this is conclusive, but it suggests you can't dismiss homosexuality-as-genetic out of hand.)
Click here to reply to this post
Re: Whatever Happened to Sin? ...One Christian Leader Suggests: it Could be in
| Posted On: 03/20/07 12:41:12 AM |
Age 33, WA |
I have to respectfully challenge this article. I went to Dr. Mohler's blog and read both articles in full. Instead of defending or endorsing homosexuality, Dr. Mohler was trying to make a point about some possible dangers of embryonic selection that could result from future research about a "gay gene." Dr. Mohler was careful to state that there is currently no respected biological evidence for homosexuality, but that in our fallen world it is possible that there are some biological components to homosexuality.
I don't understand the opposition to his position. We are born sinful. I struggle with gluttony and have all of my life. My husband doesn't struggle with this, he has other areas of struggle. Some are born with a genetic predisposition to be more prone to alcoholism and other addictions. Far from releasing an individual from responsibilty for their behavior, genetic or inborn trends toward a particular sin are simply evidence of our falllen state even in utero.
Please take the time to read Dr. Mohler's blogs. I think he handled the issue of homosexuality with clarity and compassion. He did not leave any gray area around the sinfulness of homosexuality, but he also encourages Christians to have compassion towards those who struggle in this area, just as we should for all sinners.
I think we sometimes see this sin as different somehow. "I might be a gossip, a glutton and occassionaly greedy, but at least I'm not gay." I have witnessed some of the most powerful testimonies for the Lord from those set free from homosexuality. Let's get rid of our double standard about sin. I was born sinful, you were born sinful and gays are born sinful. How is that controversial?
Click here to reply to this post
|
Re: Whatever Happened to Sin? ...One Christian Leader Suggests: it Could be in
| Posted On: 03/19/07 11:47:46 PM |
Age 34, MO |
I read Al Mohler's original commentary.
I also read his response to Time's misquoting of him.
I've seen several other secular responses, each of which misses most of his points, and ride off on the gay lobby's talking points. From the secular perspective, this is not surprising.
What IS surprising, however, is that Steve Camp, an otherwise distinguished performing artist in the Christian community, is letting loose with his own "firestorm" of indignation.
I am almost completed with my seminary education. My years of studying, both the Scripture and man's word in addition, in trying to minister to people, leads me away from blowing up at people, and to try to get in the trenches with them. Right now, I need to get into the trenches with Steve, and feel his anger at a brother in Christ, whom by his own admission is orthodox, knows and understands and preaches the gospel, and figure out what set Steve off.
As for Al Mohler, I'm not worried. Al didn't suddenly come out and say that homosexuality wasn't sinful; he affirms it still it. He is simply responding to a secular article about the possibility (a point he emphasizes, unlike Steve) of a possible cause of homosexuality being in the womb.
This possibility may be observed in sheep, in whom such sexual behavior has been seen, and as per normal science, is being studied to see if it has any relivance to humans. It may, it may not.
Al does his usual business in a theological article, and asks us questions. In doing so, he demonstrates how many believers are simply not ready to deal with real-world issues regarding the Bible, their faith, and their lives. Al asks questions, LOTS of questions, about how people would react to the hypothetical notion of babies being gay in the womb. In doing so, he brings us face to face with the reality that perhaps, just perhaps, there may be biological reasons that some folks with homosexual inclinations are that way. This is not unusual, but is in fact quite pastoral and biblical.
He even goes out in great biblical detail regarding temptation, behavior, what's sin and what's not.
Unfortunately, someone like Steve Camp comes along, a believer with a name and reputation, and begins to emotionally throw out Bible verses without considering what he's doing, or saying.
I would like to think that Steve has known, and ministered to, people struggling with homosexuality. I point people reading this to web sites like www.lovinghomosexuals.com, to point them to resources about truly ministering to those who struggle with unwanted homosexual feelings, and are desiring the Christian community to love them, as Jesus would. This does not mean ignoring the sin, or calling sin good. It means looking past the sin, to the person, made in the image of God, and struggling with a fallen nature. It means getting in the trenches with someone who needs help, and love.
Tossing Bible verses around is true. But in this case, is it loving? Or perhaps merely a way of screaming out how holy you are? We are called to rest in Christ, and take comfort in the holiness of Jesus as OUR righteousness.
Steve has reminded us of what holiness and sin are. I would humbly suggest that Steve take a moment, and consider what grace and love, biblically, are, and how to express them first to Al Mohler, who has said and done nothing unbiblical or wrong, and second, how to speak in love and graciousness to someone who is struggling with homosexuality. Steve needs to step back from untimely passions, and examine all of this again in a sober, patient and godly manner.
Click here to reply to this post
|
|
|
|
