Can a Person be Born Homosexual?

[CadyandZoe]

Can a Person be Born Homosexual?


The very short answer to this, from the Holy Bible, is a resounding, NO!

Regardless of what so-called “science” may say, about some people who are born with a “homosexual gene”, the irrefutable evidence in the Infallible, Inerrant and Perfect Word of God, the Holy Bible, is very clear on this important subject.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for any human being, who is Created in the Image of Almighty God, though fallen, to be “born” as a homosexual.

In the first place, we read in Romans chapter 1, where Paul, writing under the Inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, says:

“For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due” (verses 26-27)

In this passage, we have the use of the Greek adjective, “physikós”, which is translated as “natural”. Here it has the literal root use of, “inborn”, which here means, “inherited from parents or possessed from birth”, as part of the humans DNA. God has made sure, that each and every person who is born, has from the time of conception, inbuilt in their DNA, the natural desire for the opposite sex.

In the second place, we also have the very clear Testimony of passages in the Holy Bible, where homosexuality is regarded as, and condemned as SIN.

‘You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination’. Leviticus 18:22

‘If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them’. Leviticus 20:13

‘For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error’. Romans 1:26-27

‘Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor persons who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God’.1 Corinthians 6:9-10

‘The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, persons who practise homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine’.1 Timothy. 1:9-10

If humans can be “born” as homosexuals, then God, Who is The Righteous Judge, would not have said in His Infallible Word, that homosexuality is “SIN”. Because, if a person can indeed be “born” homosexual, as from their birth, then it is something that is outside of their control, and they cannot have a real “choice” in this.

The Word of God is clear, that homosexuality is SINFUL, and therefore not as part of the humans DNA, from their Creation in their mothers womb.

“Science” is perverting what the Holy Bible Teaches on this subject, to justify the SINFUL lives of those who CHOOSE to be homosexual, which is clearly against what God says.

It might be helpful to draw a distinction between a feeling and a practice. Homosexuality, from the Biblical perspective, is NOT a feeling but a practice. As someone has said here, we can't help what we feel, but in my opinion, we CAN help what we do about it.

A man isn't required to sleep with another man. The man can abstain. He can admit to himself, I have these feelings, but for the sake of my soul, I choose not to sleep with a man. In the mean time, he can ask himself, "from where do these feelings come?"

Science has give us an answer, which I believe is faulty. A group of scientists dissected the brains of known homosexuals and found a difference between the brain of a heterosexual person and a homosexual person. Scientists, then, concluded that homosexuality is an inherited trait and for that reason, laws against homosexuality must be rescinded.

In my view, science drew the wrong conclusion from their studies. The brain chemistry and structure of a homosexual brain was the result, not the cause of his homosexuality. The brain of a homosexual changes as the result of his practice. Human beings aren't born with a fully developed brain that never changes. No, rather, human beings are born with a brain that constantly changes as human beings learn new things. As a homosexual gains more experience in his homosexuality, his brain changes in response to his experience.

No one is born with homosexual tendencies. We are hardwired to love our father and mother. Homosexual feelings are not the result of brain chemistry; they are the result of natural affections for father and mother damaged by early childhood trauma.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

which is why i demurred, Rn
have a nice thanksgiving

You as well!

But to be clear, you made the statement and you will not defend or define it?

 

[Webers_Home]

.

"every man" as you seem to understand it, must also include Christ if it includes
infants and those born with severe mental disabilities, no exceptions are made.

Jesus had a very big advantage over everyone else, He was not only David's
progeny, but also God's. Had he been only David's, then "every man" would
apply to him the same as all the rest of us. But his divine genetics (so to
speak) rendered him unable to be dishonest.

• 1John 3:9 . . No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed
abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. (cf. Col 2:9)

FAQ: Why aren't born-gain Christians sinless? Weren't they born of God too?

REPLY: Jesus is God's direct descendant, viz: His next of kin. In point of
tact, Jesus is God's one and only direct descendant (Luke 1:35, John 1:14,
John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, Heb 11:17, 1John 4:9) whereas born-again
Christians are first of all God's handiwork (2Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15, Eph 2:10,
Eph 4:24, Col 3:10) and then adopted (Rom 8:15, Gal 4:5, Eph 1:5)

Adopted kids have a right to their dad's name, a right to a place in his home,
a right to his providence, and a right to inherit just the same as the man's
real children. But of course there is no way for adopted kids to be a chip off
the olde block.

However, according to certain promises, God equips the adopted kids with
His spirit, which assists them to be as close to replicating God as most folks
could possibly hope for. (Ezekiel 36:24-27, 2Pet 1:3-4)
_

 

[bbyrd009]

You as well!

But to be clear, you made the statement and you will not defend or define it?

i would consider it more of a postulate
if you catch me making statements, beware imo!

 

[dhh712]

Jesus had a very big advantage over everyone else, He was not only David's
progeny, but also God's. Had he been only David's, then "every man" would
apply to him the same as all the rest of us. But his divine genetics (so to
speak) rendered him unable to be dishonest.

Right. If Jesus was just like every other man, then yes He would also have sin. Yet Jesus is the God-man: a man in every way except without sin. The only begotten Son of God. All of us are adopted sons and daughters of God. Jesus is the only one who is directly from God similar to the way a child is naturally born of his or her parent (though the comparison is not a direct one).

 

[Ronald Nolette]

i would consider it more of a postulate
if you catch me making statements, beware imo!

Well then we shall end it here, before I lose what little respect I have left for you. People who make brash statements and then refuse to defend them are not worthy of time or much respect.

 

[bbyrd009]

Well then we shall end it here, before I lose what little respect I have left for you. People who make brash statements and then refuse to defend them are not worthy of time or much respect.

ah well i hope i didnt make any lol; not that i recall

 

[bbyrd009]

and ill repeat them even though i hesitate to do so, bc i can only poorly describe what i have seen, and another might come along with a clearer vision or description, but our Congess “Old Boys Club“ might be a good analogy

i mean what does “might be” mean to you Rn

pls take that rhetorically, and have a happy ok
bye

 

[CadyandZoe]

.


Jesus had a very big advantage over everyone else, He was not only David's
progeny, but also God's. Had he been only David's, then "every man" would
apply to him the same as all the rest of us. But his divine genetics (so to
speak) rendered him unable to be dishonest.

• 1John 3:9 . . No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed
abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. (cf. Col 2:9)

FAQ: Why aren't born-gain Christians sinless? Weren't they born of God too?

REPLY: Jesus is God's direct descendant, viz: His next of kin. In point of
tact, Jesus is God's one and only direct descendant (Luke 1:35, John 1:14,
John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, Heb 11:17, 1John 4:9) whereas born-again
Christians are first of all God's handiwork (2Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15, Eph 2:10,
Eph 4:24, Col 3:10) and then adopted (Rom 8:15, Gal 4:5, Eph 1:5)

Adopted kids have a right to their dad's name, a right to a place in his home,
a right to his providence, and a right to inherit just the same as the man's
real children. But of course there is no way for adopted kids to be a chip off
the olde block.

However, according to certain promises, God equips the adopted kids with
His spirit, which assists them to be as close to replicating God as most folks
could possibly hope for. (Ezekiel 36:24-27, 2Pet 1:3-4)
_

Divine genetics? Jesus doesn't have freedom of the will?

 

[HIM]

I'm not having a language problem. Both the act and the thought are tainted with sin. That means we're born with rebellion, along with a variety of inclinations towards sin that are in us and in the world.

Perhaps there can be a proclivity towards being gay. But the point I wish to make is that one is not "born gay," which is a language issue, because it suggests to many, whether it does to you or not, that they cannot help being gay.

You may mean that these homosexual inclinations or temptations come with being born. Perhaps, but that isn't the point. We are not born *to be that way.* If we are, then being gay is God's fault. And that's absurd.

You're born male or female, unless you're a morphydite. And you're born with conflicts due to the *rebellion* you're born with. Being that it is rebellion, you're tempted to oppose what you're actually born with. Being born with the sin does not mean you're born a female in mind when you're male in body.

Even as a heterosexual I did not become interested until the idea was introduced to me. A lot of other sins were the same way. I believe the only thing for me that came naturally was lying. And that was to avoid being in trouble. For the most part we are our environment.

well, you are reading a translation, right
so go ahead and make “homosexuals” into sinners for now, but understand that there might be more steps on that ladder ok

imo anyone who spends like 20 minutes in arsenokoitai would have a…diff perspective

Maybe 25 minutes is what it takes to get to the truth if we have predisposed disposition. These verses are clear. And the context of these start back in verse 16 just in case one has been led to believe these verses are speaking about people who did not know God.
(Rom 1:26 [KJV])
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

(Rom 1:27 [KJV])
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

(Rom 1:28 [KJV])
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

 

[bbyrd009]

Even as a heterosexual I did not become interested until the idea was introduced to me. A lot of other sins were the same way. I believe the only thing for me that came naturally was lying. And that was to avoid being in trouble. For the most part we are our environment.

Maybe 25 minutes is what it takes to get to the truth if we have predisposed disposition. These verses are clear. And the context of these start back in verse 16 just in case one has been led to believe these verses are speaking about people who did not know God.
(Rom 1:26 [KJV])
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

(Rom 1:27 [KJV])
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

(Rom 1:28 [KJV])
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

im not disagreeing, and that might be all it is about, too!

ntmy, im mark

 

[Ronald Nolette]

ah well i hope i didnt make any lol; not that i recall

Making a bold statement (another level) and not defending it becomes very brash!

 

[Lambano]

Y'know, with all the verses in the Bible about the total depravity of the human race ever since the Fall, I'm astonished anyone would ask the question about whether we're born with an inclination to sin.

Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (Psalm 51:5)

The doctrine of Depravity is the one Christian dogma that is empirically verifiable. - G.K. Chesterton.

So, once we've conceded innate human depravity, that brings up two questions:

Q1: Are individuals born inclined to particular sins? (Answer: Are heterosexual men innately inclined to lust for women?)

Q2: How will God justly hold individuals accountable for the moral choices made in this life when we are born sinful? When lust in the heart is equivalent to committing adultery and anger and hatred in the heart is equivalent to murder? And make no mistake about it, the Bible does teach human responsibility.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I published the following video a few weeks ago.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Even as a heterosexual I did not become interested until the idea was introduced to me. A lot of other sins were the same way. I believe the only thing for me that came naturally was lying. And that was to avoid being in trouble. For the most part we are our environment.

I don't believe that. What does it mean to be "part of our environment?" ...That I have the same consistency as all the evil people who wish to permanently rebel against God? Of course not!

You say you would have no interest in being a heterosexual unless someone introduced the idea to you? I suppose a bug has to be taught to mate? Why on earth would you even respond to heterosexual ideas unless it was already in you?

You seem to deny free will, and claim we can't help being born in whatever state of sin we are so inclined towards? The truth is, we were born either male or female, both physically and psychologically. But our sin nature can be played up and extract proclivities that are "unnatural" to the moral creatures God made us to be. We were born with a conscience, but we can to pulled away from our righteous intentions by paying us off in lustful, covetous desires.

Maybe 25 minutes is what it takes to get to the truth if we have predisposed disposition. These verses are clear. And the context of these start back in verse 16 just in case one has been led to believe these verses are speaking about people who did not know God.
(Rom 1:26 [KJV])
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

(Rom 1:27 [KJV])
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

(Rom 1:28 [KJV])
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

What Paul is saying in Romans 1 is that all men were born with a conscience, and with a sense of Deity. That knowledge can be covered up, just as homosexual lusts can cover up our natural heterosexual impulses.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

.


Jesus had a very big advantage over everyone else, He was not only David's
progeny, but also God's. Had he been only David's, then "every man" would
apply to him the same as all the rest of us. But his divine genetics (so to
speak) rendered him unable to be dishonest.

• 1John 3:9 . . No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed
abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. (cf. Col 2:9)

FAQ: Why aren't born-gain Christians sinless? Weren't they born of God too?

REPLY: Jesus is God's direct descendant, viz: His next of kin. In point of
tact, Jesus is God's one and only direct descendant (Luke 1:35, John 1:14,
John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, Heb 11:17, 1John 4:9) whereas born-again
Christians are first of all God's handiwork (2Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15, Eph 2:10,
Eph 4:24, Col 3:10) and then adopted (Rom 8:15, Gal 4:5, Eph 1:5)

Adopted kids have a right to their dad's name, a right to a place in his home,
a right to his providence, and a right to inherit just the same as the man's
real children. But of course there is no way for adopted kids to be a chip off
the olde block.

However, according to certain promises, God equips the adopted kids with
His spirit, which assists them to be as close to replicating God as most folks
could possibly hope for. (Ezekiel 36:24-27, 2Pet 1:3-4)
_

If "ALL" in Rom 3:23 is unconditionally universal including every single person, then it would for a fact include Christ and you are creating an exception were none exists.

Heb 2:17 "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."

Phil 2:7-8 "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

Since Christ was made "like unto His brethren", and if His brethren were born with OS/sin nature/total depravity then Christ equally would have been born with these things also else it cannot be accurate to say Christ was like unto His brethren, made in the likeness of men. If Christ had no OS/sin nature/total depravity then He could not understand what it was like to be a real human being born with an innate sinful nature/total depravity that forces men to sin whereby men have no other choice but to sin. And Christ, being made like unto men, would have to physically die as all men must (Heb 9:27) else he would not be made like unto men having to face physical death yet men do not die from inheriting Adam's sin but die as a consequence of Adam sinning.

Not only does OS define sin in a way the Bible does not, but it creates a probelm in having Christ born with OS/sinful nature/total depravity also.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Divine genetics? Jesus doesn't have freedom of the will?

Jesus being made like unto His brethren had freedom of will but He used His free will to choose not to sin.

 

[Randy Kluth]

If "ALL" in Rom 3:23 is unconditionally universal including every single person, then it would for a fact include Christ and you are creating an exception were none exists.

Since Christ was made "like unto His brethren", and if His brethren were born with OS/sin nature/total depravity then Christ equally would have been born with these things also else it cannot be accurate to say Christ was like unto His brethren, made in the likeness of men. If Christ had no OS/sin nature/total depravity then He could not understand what it was like to be a real human being born with an innate sinful nature/total depravity that forces men to sin whereby men have no other choice but to sin.

Sorry, that's heresy. Christ could not redeem men from sin if he had sin himself. The argument in Hebrews was that the priesthood under the Law could only provide temporary redemption until Christ came, because they were imperfect whereas Christ is perfect and divine.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Sorry, that's heresy. Christ could not redeem men from sin if he had sin himself. The argument in Hebrews was that the priesthood under the Law could only provide temporary redemption until Christ came, because they were imperfect whereas Christ is perfect and divine.

It is OS that is the heresy here for if OS were true, then Christ must have been born with OS SInce no one is born a sinner but all are born innocent including Christ, then CHrist was not born a sinner for He was "made like unto His brethren" who also were born without sin.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It is OS that is the heresy here for if OS were true, then Christ must have been born with OS SInce no one is born a sinner but all are born innocent including Christ, then CHrist was not born a sinner for He was "made like unto His brethren" who also were born without sin.

OS meaning "Original Sin?" Original Sin applies only to those who were not born God.

I don't agree that people are not born a sinner. They are born already under condemnation due to their mixed spiritual endowment. God cannot allow into the Kingdom of heaven people who have mixed spirits unless they are provided a covering from Christ through his atonement. That is doctrinal orthodoxy. Speculations in alternative scenarios are heretical.