I really don't think that Jimmy Savile cared less if his victims were underage male or female, how do you account for that?
He had homosexual tendencies otherwise he would not have assaulted young boys.
I really don't think that Jimmy Savile cared less if his victims were underage male or female, how do you account for that?
Why is it that you won't answer the hypothetical posed earlier, concerning a lifelong friend coming to you desperately seeking help for homosexuality, when you present yourself as one concerned with the issue?
It is, to me, curious and troubling. If that matters.
You're really bending over backwards to keep from addressing this hypothetical in any way that establishes anything at all. You might just as well say you don't have an answer and have no clue. Honestly, I don't know why you don't do that. You'd look better than you do now.I wouldn't have a life long friend in the situation presented.
You're really bending over backwards to keep from addressing this hypothetical in any way that establishes anything at all. You might just as well say you don't have an answer and have no clue. Honestly, I don't know why you don't do that. You'd look better than you do now.
He also had heterosexual and paedophile tendencies too.He had homosexual tendencies otherwise he would not have assaulted young boys.
To be perfectly honest I stopped reading the question as soon as I realised it was hypothetical.
I don't involve myself or my time in such nonsense.
A conscious choice? Perhaps not. Though people do make conscious choices that lead them into unexpected perversions.
He had homosexual tendencies otherwise he would not have assaulted young boys.
Acts 10, Romans-Philemon.eating shellfish?
And we're still waiting for said evidence.still waiting for answer as to why all the evidence say that orientation is inborn
still waiting for answer as to why all the evidence say that orientation is inborn
when he underwent a series of genetic tests, he got more bad news. “I had all these high-risk alleles for aggression, violence and low empathy,” he says, such as a variant of the MAO-A gene that has been linked with aggressive behavior. Eventually, based on further neurological and behavioral research into psychopathy, he decided he was indeed a psychopath |
The question is; are these inclinations still a "sin" if they are the product of a person's biology?If a person engages in psychotic behavior after proving that the behavior is rooted in his/her genetic makeup, does that make the behavior acceptable?
To be perfectly honest I stopped reading the question as soon as I realised it was hypothetical.
I don't involve myself or my time in such nonsense.
The question is; are these inclinations still a "sin" if they are the product of a person's biology?
It's the answer to this question that many Christians don't want to face.
Have you ever looked at the various polls and studies where homosexuals of both genders are asked if they've ever engaged in sexual relations with the opposite sex, based on actual sexual attraction rather than some other convenience? It's rather overwhelming. Enough that you have to question just how many "true" homosexuals there are. Apparently, by your standard, it's extremely rare.If you're heterosexual you may make a conscious decision to be promiscuous etc, but any 'perversion' is going to be based on the opposite sex. Otherwise you're simply not straight.
Me too. Aren't they?I believe that homosexuals should be treat and have the same rights in society as any other law abiding citizen.
I don't see how you can be so sure without exploring the darkest depths of promiscuity. I rather advise against it, for the record, but I have no doubt that if you embraced perversion then this particular perversity would be explored sooner or later. I think the best you can honestly claim is that you would never be that perverse. And good for you. :up:At the same time I have an innate repulsion towards any sort of physical intimacy with my own gender. No amount of promiscuity could possibly change that.
Funny, it seems I've seen Christians face that question time and time again around here. Funny in the sense that so few, you among them apparently, seem blind to that no matter how many times it occurs.The question is; are these inclinations still a "sin" if they are the product of a person's biology?
It's the answer to this question that many Christians don't want to face.
But if the "desire" is actually a bio-genetic inclination; one that we are born with and cannot deny or control, how is it that we should be held accountable for this desire as a "sin"? What kind of God infects us with a desire that He then condemns us for having? Who would sanely choose to believe in such a malicious deity?I've said it before and I'll say it again, on this topic it would serve everyone better if we were all clear on whether we're talking about the desire (or "inclination", to use your term) and the act itself. And stop willfully confusing the two to cloud the issue, which I see a lot of as well.
And yet you have not done so.Once you define "sin" it's an easy question to face and an even easier question to answer, actually.
And yet you have not done so.
Really? You're really going there? I thought you were a Christian.But if the "desire" is actually a bio-genetic inclination; one that we are born with and cannot deny or control, how is it that we should be held accountable for this desire as a "sin"? What kind of God infects us with a desire that He then determines to condemn us for having? Who would sanely choose to believe in such a malicious deity?
Why aren't you answering my questions?Really? You're really going there? I thought you were a Christian.
As I hope I made clear already, how is homosexual desire different from any other sinful desire? Why aren't you making the same accusation against God for every other sin? For all sin? For our fallen, corrupt nature itself? Why aren't you accusing God of creating us corrupt and demanding an accounting for that?
Or are you?