So what is the Cause?

[Franklin]

I categorically reject the notion that there is, or ever was, a "gay gene". It is behavior, not genetic. So no, Christians are not at all responsible in the manner you described.

Doesn't all behavior have a genetic component? Everything about any living thing is a result of both genetics and the environment.

[Ernie]

I think there are quite a number of causes...

1. There are some people who cannot remember a time when they were attracted to the opposite gender. I think this condition is a result of the Fall in the Garden of Eden.
2. Some people have been abused by people of the same gender, which in turn creates sexual confusion and deviance.
3. Some children grow up in homes in which the parents do not fulfill their roles in the home as God intended. This can result in abnormal social development for some children, which can result in sexual confusion and deviance.
4. It is a current fad.
5. Rebellion against God and a reprobate mind.

I believe that Satan is behind all of the above situations. But God is a Redeemer, and He can redeem even the worst situations when people cooperate with him!

Quite. Another question worth asking is:
Can tolerating, even following fads send a soul to hell?

Sin sends us to hell. This applies to any sort of sin that is persisted in and not repented of.

[Bootstrap]

Excellent interview with a former lesbian Rosaria Butterfield which is helpful here.

I think she has just the right balance. Righteousness with hospitality and love.

[Bootstrap]

To me, a sin is something that harms society and in almost every case that something is labeled a sin in the Old Testament, I understand how society is harmed. I don't understand how homosexuality would harm society, so given a choice, I wouldn't consider it a sin. Things like promiscuity and divorce harm society, so are generally sinful.

Do you think eating pork harms society? Do you think having a foreskin harms society?

Eating pork was unhealthy at that time, before refrigeration, so it harmed society. Having some identifiable mark like circumcision was good because it meant that men couldn't just run away in war and pretend not be Israelites.

I don't think the Israelites could pick or choose based on whether they thought something harmed society. I don't think we can either. I do think circumcision and pork are different issues for New Testament believers than for the Israelites, but I think sin is anything that violates God's command, whether or not you or I think it harms society.

All of God's commands require interpretation. Those who claim sola scriptura are actually just lying because there is always an interpretation based on something. For example Protestants interpret the Bible based on modern cultural degeneracy. I interpret the Old Testament based on the idea that God is only speaking for our benefit, so the interpretation that benefits us most is the one most likely to be right.

I agree that all of Scripture requires interpretation. For Old Testament commands, for instance, Christians need to understand the original intent and decide whether a command applies to Christian Gentiles according to Acts 15. I think we need to understand what it meant to them then, and why, then ask how that applies to us now. We are not, for instance, wandering through the desert or building tabernacles, but we have a lot to learn from the Old Testament. Gentile Christians may be able to eat pork, but holiness is still relevant. Circumcision may not be the sign of the covenant for Christian Gentiles, but we are still set apart for God.

To the ancient Israelites, I don't think obedience to God was based on our ability to understand his commands and see the benefit. I think they understood that God is God, and we are not, and his understanding is beyond ours. The same act might be good when God commanded it and bad when he did not - we see this in Joshua, for instance.

I think that is different from your approach, where it is only sin if you can see the harm to society. That is actually a modern utilitarian approach, and I do not see it anywhere in either the Old Testament or New Testament. And it builds in whatever cultural blindness you and I have in our own modern culture - it's based on OUR ability to see the harm or benefit. That's one of the benefits of looking at what God said to the Israelites in a very different time and culture. But I agree that there is then a step of interpretation.

There is one kind of utilitarianism that I find helpful: if the first commandment is to love God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength, and the second commandment is to love our neighbor as ourself, are we acting in a way that does that? If we are called to holiness, are we living in holiness, as God defines it for New Testament Christians? Are we living according to the spirit of the law or the letter of the law? Does this build our Christian community or tear it down? These kinds of questions are useful for deciding how to apply Scripture today. And to some extent, even for understanding what these things meant to them then. They focus on whether the way we apply Scripture helps us to obey the most central commands that Jesus gave us in order to build the Kingdom of God.

In this case, I think the New Testament tells us that homosexuality is still wrong for Christians, both Jewish and Gentile Christians. For me, that's often decisive in deciding how to approach Old Testament commands.

[Bootstrap]

I thought I'd ask ChatGPT how these two sentences differ:

Please explain the difference in meaning between the following two sentences:

וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃

וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב כְּמִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃

I just checked with a human expert on Hebrew. Here's what he said:

I don't see any real difference in Hebrew. The first uses 'woman-lyings' as an adverb, the second marks 'woman-lyings' with a preposition of comparison.

I trust his opinion a lot more than I trust ChatGPT.

[Sudsy]

Another question. Do we assume a confused spirit, a
rebellious spirit? A complete lack of faith in God will leave one's soul open to enemy occupation

I believe it is the lack of either having the Holy Spirit living within, being born again, or having the Holy Spirit but grieving Him by not being open to His guidance. If a professing believer does not know the promptings of the Holy Spirit in their life regarding sin, then it is really doubtful that they have been born again. These, to me, are the causes.

The solution is to be born again and allow the Holy Spirit to guide us in the way that we should live. The more we get to know the Holy Spirit in a personal relationship, the more He reveals to us how to grow spiritually and He doesn't choke us on steak when we are still only able to take applesauce.

The Holy Spirit is the Person who points us to Jesus and empowers us to live as Jesus would live in our situations. Our life is to be a relationship with Jesus through the Spirit. This, I believe, was an emphasis by early Anabaptists but reading the conversations here, it seems that the Holy Spirit gets little mention. This could be due to the observance of other spirits causing Christians to do weird stuff and saying they are Spirit lead and so other believers have shut out the real Holy Spirit in their lives.

Well, I guess this is a whole topic in itself but these are my thoughts on the cause and the need.