NOTE: The following exegesis is in response to an email that proposed the following quoted points regarding Hebrews 2:1.

Verse in Question: “We must pay greater attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it.” (Hebrews 2:1)

1. “the Word of God” and Holy Tradition? “
   

   “First, note that the verse below seems to be clearly saying that the Word of God was imparted orally (it was heard); this is, I believe, a basic part of what Catholics refer to as holy tradition, i.e., the oral transmission of normative doctrine and practice from the apostles to the Church (very similar to the rabbinic understanding of “oral Torah”).”

2. Eternal Security?
   

   “Second, note that there is an equally clear suggestion that those under the sound of apostolic teaching (doctrinal and otherwise) are exhorted to observe it so as not to become apostate (drift away).”

Point of Hebrews: To express the superiority of Christ to the glory of the old covenant (Heb. 1:1-2, 1:4-6, 3:3, Joshua 4:8, 4:14-5:10, 7:1-28, 8:1-10:18). Christ is shown throughout those verses to be superior to the prophets, the angels, Moses, Joshua, the OT priesthood and high priest, and most importantly the sacrificial system and sanctuary. In Hebrews 10:38, the author seems rather concerned about Christians “shrink[ing] back”. Perhaps this is in response to the magnificence of Herod’s temple (where house churches would pale in comparison). It would provide further understanding to Hebrew’s effort at establishing Jesus’ authority against the above mentioned. The focus on Hebrew’s expressing Christ’s superiority in reference to all these OT covenants hints again at preventing individuals from “drift[ing] away from it.” What then, is this “from it” that Heb 2:1 speaks of? The pretext of Chapter one provides an explanation, as seen below. One must understand that when we speak of ‘tradition’, it is in reference to this long narrative of God’s redemptive plan in humanity. The Holy Tradition then, is the prophetic coming of Jesus in which it finds it’s climax. The tradition is an understanding of the Christ in the Old Testament, and the Jesus in the New Testament. The tradition is then a profession of this coming, the Gospel, the Good News.

The Focus of Hebrews: On Christ’s bringing a New Covenant (of salvation by Christ’s shed blood). It is this covenant that is superior to the previous one (of obedience to the law).

• The Superiority of God’s New Revelation (1:1-4)
  

1. 1. “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed their heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.” (Hebrews 1:1-2)
      

• • • What have we heard? We have heard Jesus. God has “spoken to us in his Son”. This is the Gospel, the proclamation of Jesus. The chapter continues in settling Jesus’ superiority against angels, etc.
      

• Christ is Superior to the Angels (1:5-2:18)
  

• Danger of Neglecting the Truth About Jesus
  

• • 1Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.
    

• • • The pretext to Ch. 2 concerns how God has spoken to us in his son. This is what is I believe the author is concerned about when he opens the chapter “we must pay greater attention to what we have heard.” He had opened Ch. 1 with what we have heard, and what we have heard was spoken to us through the coming of Jesus. Clearly this verse is focused on warnings against neglecting salvation (further seen in the title of the chapter, ESV). We may understand it both from the pretext (Ch 1 and God speaking to us in his Son), and Heb. 2:3. This is not a warning that we must adhere to the “sound of apostolic teaching (doctrinal and otherwise) are exhorted to observe it so as not to become apostate (drift away),” but that we must not drift away from Jesus himself. The pretext of Heb 1:1-2 clarifies that this is what “we have heard”, and the following verse further puts it in context.
      

• • 3dhow shall we escape if we eneglect such a great salvation? It was fdeclared at first by the Lord, and it was gattested to us hby those who heard,
    

• • • This verse does well to explain the context of 2:1. The concern is neglecting “such a great salvation,” or understood as Christ himself. Attested to us refers to those who evangelized this good news. We must understand that the Gospel began with Jesus’ teaching. It was the apostles  and Church’s work of taking this Gospel as taught by Christ, and evangelizing it to the world. The authority is not found in an apostolic tradition in the sense you assumed (we would have to define ‘apostolic tradition’, versus ‘bishop catholic authority’), but within the Gospel of Jesus. As Paul explains in Galatians 1:11: 1”For uI would have you know, brothers, that vthe gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel”. Authority is in the Gospel, which is found in inspired form within the Scriptures. God himself brings together the Gospel in written form as to provide to man and the Church an authoritative presentation of God’s grand redemptive plan, and it’s fulfillment in his Son. As apostle says, he preaches a gospel not of man. The Word of God, or the tradition of understanding that Jesus is the fruition of God’s redemptive plan (the Christ of the OT and the Jesus of the NT, which we may call the apostolic tradition as we find their writings, such as this one, focused on relating Jesus to the Christ of the Old Testament), is what individuals attested to them. The verse here establishes the authority of the teaching of Jesus. This all provides little reason to believe it suggests an authority of anything more than the Gospel of Jesus and attested by those who heard (accepted Jesus). The attesting was evangelism of the Good News by those “who heard” this Gospel of Jesus. The concern is a rejection of this Gospel, Jesus himself, which was declared first by God through Jesus.
      

• • 9But we see him owho for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, pcrowned with glory and honor qbecause of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might rtaste death sfor everyone.
    

• • • Why does Jesus taste death for everyone? The grace of God. God’s motivation is here established: Grace. Christ suffered death so that, by God’s Grace, he may die for us. It is Jesus suffering and death that provides us freedom from death (not an accompanying of work). This is fueled by God’s grace. To depict works in any of this is to take away from Jesus’ suffering, as it makes an argument that Jesus suffering of death, so that we may not taste death, is conditional on our behavior or association. This is similar to the Old Covenant more than the new. The author is seeking to establish Christ’s superiority against the Old Covenant, in that continual sacrifice is not needed, but that Jesus’ single death and shedding on the cross conquers on our behalf. It is this fullness of grace and his work that provides us life eternal. We see further clarification as follows.
      

• • 10For it twas fitting that he, ufor whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons vto glory, should make the wfounder of their salvation xperfect through suffering.  11For yhe who sanctifies and zthose who are sanctified aall have one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them bbrothers,
    

• Christ is Superior to Moses (3:1-4:13)
• Christ is Superior to the Aaronic Priests (4:14-7:28)
• The Superior Sacrificial Work of Our High Priest (Hebrews 8-10)
  

• • 15Therefore he is vthe mediator of a new covenant, so that wthose who are called may xreceive the promised eternal inheritance, ysince a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.1 (Heb. 9:15)
    

• • • Who is our mediator of this new Covenant? Christ. Those who are called to Him (Christian believers), are promised eternal life. Through what? Not some condition of living or continual repentance, but because “a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions.” It is the death of Jesus that redeems us and provides eternal inheritance. An object of Grace as above mentioned. I could see how someone could read this text and assume that his death merely forgives the precious sins, however by first covenant the author is suggestion the entirety of the sacrificial system. Jesus’ new covenant provides a continual mediator on our behalf, who dies once, and provides in this promised eternal inheritance.
      

• • 2Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and fwithout the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
    

• • • This the necessity of the death on the cross, and the shedding of Christ’s blood. No longer is forgiveness found in the repentance of a sacrificial system, but in the purification of Jesus’ blood. Jesus blood provides us forgiveness of sins, and it is not a sacrifice we participate in. Sure, human hands nailed Jesus to the cross, but the work of salvation is found in Jesus’ shed blood, not no act of our own.
      

• • 23Thus it was necessary for gthe copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.  24For Christ has entered, not into holy places hmade with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God ion our behalf.  25Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as jthe high priest enters kthe holy places every year with blood not his own,  26for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, lhe has appeared monce for all nat the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.  27And just as oit is appointed for man to die once, and pafter that comes judgment,  28so Christ, having been offered once qto bear the sins of rmany, will appear sa second time, tnot to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly uwaiting for him.
    

• • • The author of Hebrews spends the previous chapters going through Christ’ superior nature to the Aaronic Priests and the Old Covenant. The above verses were selected to respond to the inquiry of eternal security. The entire book of Hebrews discusses the superiority of Christ sacrifice and this new covenant. What makes it superior to the old covenant? For one, the Old Covenant was conditional. Righteousness as seen alongside the sacrificial system (forgiveness of sins/repentance), and faith. However, this is inferior to the new covenant of Jesus. His sacrifice, by grace, has forgiven us “once and for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” It is not conditional. Conditional would reflect more the Old Covenant than the New. It would also make little sense as to the superiority of this one. As the author explains, “nor was it to offer himself repeatedly.” His one time shedding of the blood is what forgave us of our sins. You must understand how this is an expression of faith more than a condition of works. It is not our behavior, nor our continued repentance, that brings about salvation. Christ continues as mediator to the Father on our behalf (as long as we don’t reject him, Heb 1:1-2, 2:1, 2:3). His one-time sacrifice, not some repeated dying, is what has forgiven us of our sins. We join this grand New Covenant through Jesus, by accepting this Good News. Hebrews continues later with an exhortation on Holy Living.
    • In addition, how does this relate to the Catholic understanding of the Communion? Hebrews is saying Jesus petitions on our behalf as a mediator at the presence of the father. He does not die continually, but once, for our behalf. He does not suffer repeatedly. Forgiveness is found in one single act: the Cross. I wonder how this relates to the Catholic understanding of the elements in the bread and wine. Does Catholic communion convey a repeated dying of Jesus for our forgiveness? If so, it would go against the narrative of these verses.
      

• Exhortation on Holy Living, Danger of Refusing this Message (12:18-29)
  

• • 15See to it that no one vfails to obtain the grace of God; that no w“root of bitterness” springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled;
  • 24and to Jesus, kthe mediator of a new covenant, and to lthe sprinkled blood mthat speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. 25See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For nif they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven. (Heb. 12:24-25)
    

• • • “mediator of a new covenant.” Here again we see the reminder of the new covenant (Heb. 8:6,8). We are called to recognize the covenant brought about by the work of Jesus, and by grace. It continues with a reminder that within our new mediator is a greater covenant than that of righteousness by the law (the works of the jews). The usage of “sprinkled blood” can allude to the covenant of God and the Israelites (blood of the passover, blood of the covenant, blood of the legal sacrifices, etc), and how this new sprinkled blood is superior. The blood of Jesus brings about justification, pardon and cleansing.
    • In addition, it is extremely clear that by ‘him’ they do not refer to the apostles, but to Jesus. It is Jesus whose sprinkled blood speaks better than the blood of Abel. What we should not refuse is him who is speaking, or Jesus himself.
      

• • This final chapter expresses the author’s warning to the danger of refusing the ‘message’ of Jesus’ work (as we see in Heb 12:24-25, this is Jesus himself). The final verses end with a warning of the rejection of this message (“our God is a consuming fire.” Heb. 12:29)
    

I hope this exegesis provides a clarification on “to what we have heard” refers to, and it’s role in eternal security. It is good to follow this with a reading of Romans 5:12-20. “Sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.” (Romans 6:14). “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift od God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23). “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.” 9Romans 8:1-2).

God’s Blessings!

IS SEXUAL IDENTITY FIXED? RESPONDING TO THE WILDFIRE MYTH OF ‘GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY’

A Research Paper

Presented to

Professor Daniel R. Heimbach

In partial fulfillment of the requirement for

ETH6550B Moral Foundations of Marriage & Family

Leonard O Goenaga

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

December 10, 2009

IS SEXUAL IDENTITY FIXED? RESPONDING TO THE WILDFIRE MYTH OF ‘GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY’

As a youth pastor, I am in the front lines of the culture war. The number of questions we receive, from sex to salvation, are quite diverse. Having an open question policy, a student of mine recently approached me with the following. A friend from school had made the statement that homosexuality was genetic, and thus fixed and unchanging. The friend had quoted an article from the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay-friendly activist organization within the Republican Party, as proof.[1] Within this article were numerous studies by researchers and psychologists I had never heard of. However, understanding God’s revelation on sexual morality, and the serious threat immorality poses upon both society and faith, I sought to do some research and provide my student with an answer. What I discovered was simply shocking: “contrary to what many Americans believe, there are no replicated scientific studies demonstrating that homosexuality is determined by biological or genetic factors.”[2]

From here I began to pour through the research and dig through various journals and studies, finding this statement affirmed within the scientific record. I had written these findings in a short essay and provided them to my student to share with his friend. This essay was then posted on my Facebook, with the following remarks from friends: Female 1: “The fact that you are arguing that homosexuals CHOOSE this life style is hatred in itself,” Female 1: “But the Bible says nothing against homosexuality.” Male 1: “And to think if being gay were truly a matter of choice, why would I, or any one else bother to pick it?” Male 2: “And for the record, I think Homosexuality is genetic, and there are many geneticists who believe so.”[3] In short, I was again in shock.  Why would I have received such comments? Was the evidence not studied? What assumptions were being made? Where did this claim that homosexuality was genetic come from, and how has it been absorbed so fully by the public? To answer these various questions, as well as provide a detailed exploration, I had done the following research. The claims made by such individuals needed answers, and it is the purpose of this paper to do so.

One more concern must be clearly expressed before the evidence is presented is the spirit of this research. In all things, we must have love. Our presentation must always be one of grace. However, we must not mistake this for political correctness, or a fear of man. The very motivation of love should motivate us to share knowledge with one another, regardless of one’s subjective preference. To share in a civil and well-supported manner cannot be perceived as hate simply because it brings about an opposition to emotionally attached issues. Such is the method of suppressing exchange, which is true bigotry (to simply toss the hate sticker at anyone who disagrees). Rather, a deconstruction of presuppositions must occur, and the approach to the evidence must be done with honesty. In this paper, I will explore the initial groundbreaking studies that lead to the myth of genetic homosexuality, and critique them both on scientific and moral grounds, as well as on biblical exegesis. I will argue that the idea that homosexuality is genetic and thus fixed is simply unsupportive, and contradicts the works in which the myth stems, as well as the body of scientific research. I will summarize the essential studies in which this myth arose (LeVay, Swaab & Hofman, Bailey & Pillard, and Hamer), as well as the vehicles that propagated the myths. After analyzing the source of the myth and how it spread, I will critically analyze the above individual’s work, place focus on the scientific community’s reaction, and the earlier mentioned researchers own later conclusions. Following this critical analysis, I will proceed to develop an understanding of homosexuality and it’s source of origin. When this framework is established, I will explore God’s Word on the subject, and refute contaminated readings of key topical passages. When the presentation is complete, I will conclude the paper by asking whether change possibly exists.

Sparking the Myth: Root of ‘Genetic Homosexuality’

In his study of the male brain, Dr. LeVay takes three subject groups (presumed heterosexual men, homosexual men, and women), and studies four cell groups (INAH 1, 2, 3,and 4).[4] The specific area of study is the anterior hypothalamus, which regulates male sexual behavior. Dr. LeVay takes postmortem tissue measured from the three subject groups, and finds no grave difference in the measurement of INAH 1, 2, and 4. However in INAH 3, Dr. LeVay discovers twice a difference between the amount in heterosexual men versus homosexual men, and women.

In addition to the LeVay brain studies, a second source of research studied the cell groupings in the brain and their relation to homosexuality:

The Swaab and Hofman research studied the volume of the suprachiasmatic nucleus [SCN]…in homosexual men. The SCN is a cell group located in the basal part of the brains of mammalians. It has been thought to be the principal component of the biological clock that generates and coordinates hormonal, physiological and behavioral body rhythms…it has been thought to have involvement in sex because of the varying body rhythms in sexual desire as well as the sexual changes that come with aging.[5]

The study conducted by Swaab and Hofman studied the brains of 34 subjects, divided into several groups. The first group was one of reference, consisting of eighteen males who died of various causes. The second group consisted of ten homosexuals who died of AIDS. The third group consisted of six heterosexuals who had also died of AIDS. The final group consisted of four males and four females. The study concludes: “…the human hypothalamus revealed that the volume of the…SCN in homosexual men is 1.7 times as large as that of the reference group of male subjects and contains 2.1 times as many cells.”[6]

In addition to the brain studies, a major area that contributed to the ‘genetic homosexuality’ illusion is that of twin studies. In J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard’s “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” research was conducted upon identical twins with the intention to show a high concordance rate (the rate at which both twins are homosexual). Their findings concluded with a 50% concordance rate for identical twins.[7] The concordance rate for non-identical rates hovered around 22%.[8] Their claim was that “the pattern of rates of homosexuality by type of relative was generally consistent with substantial genetic influence…”[9]

Complimentary to the works on brain studies and those of twins, proponents have cited gene studies by Dean Hamer. Geneticist Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute released a study by a team he led that studied genetic material on the x chromosomes of homosexual twins. Dr. Hamer states, “The goal of our work was to determine whether or not male sexual orientation is genetically influenced. We used the standard techniques of modern human genetics, namely pedigree analysis and family DNA linkage studies.”[10] Hamer’s study led him to conclude that “We have now produced evidence that one form of male homosexuality is preferentially transmitted through the material side and is genetically linked to chromosomal region Xq28…[and that it] contributes to homosexual orientation in males.”[11]

Fanning the Flames: The Media Response

Although the various studies may have sparked the myth of genetic fixed homosexuality, it is clear the media’s response fanned the flames. From Larry Thompson’s “Search for a Gay Gene,” in TIME magazine, to Newsweek’s “Is This Child Gay?” numerous stories propagated the myth in their headlines. Other works worth mentioning include the Wall Street Journal’s July 16 1993 headline, “Research Points toward a Gay Gene,” and the New York Time’s “Report Suggests Homosexuality is Linked to Genes.” Predictably, these various pieces did a poor job providing the fullness of the research and its opposition, and instead provided headlines that easily sway simple readers into leaving with the conclusion that homosexuality is genetically fixed. We cannot underestimate the profound impact such media stories have had on the public, and their failure to provide the substantial volume of scientific work clarifying and critiquing the above-mentioned studies.

Spreading the Flames: Gay Activists

In addition to the work of the media, gay activists have played a major role in spreading about the genetic homosexuality myth. One accompanying statistics that needs to be addressed before we go further is in reference to the myth of the homosexual population size. “John Money of Johns Hopkins University, a well-known sex researcher, defined a homosexual as one who had six or more sexual experiences with members of the same sex. Using this as the definition, he found that 13% of adult males were gay and about 7 percent of adult females were lesbians.”[12] However, John Money’s estimations appear quite high.[13] [14] A study of adult men in the U.S. published 1989 by Charles F. Turner, Robert E. Fay, Albert D. Klassen and John H. Gagnon provide lower estimations.[15] According to the study, 20.3% of adult males had participated in some same-sex experience by the age of 21. However by the age of 20 the percentage of 6.7% is given, arguing for such an exploratory stage between the ages of 20 and 21. The value of the study comes in the percentages post-20 years of age. The study suggests that as few as 1.8% of males rarely had a same-sex encounter, 1.9% occasional had them, and 1.4% had them quite often.[16] With this, statistics of the numbers of homosexuals begs the question, what is a homosexual? Clearly one cannot define a homosexual by an unrepeated sexual same-sex act. It is better defined as continual same-sex activity, and as the study shows above, keeping this in mind provides a drastically lower percentage.

What is most troubling is the politicization of the above-mentioned research and homosexual population estimations. From Log Cabin Republicans to Bruce Voller’s National Gay Task Force, many homosexual advocacy groups have touted the numbers and claims in an effort to develop political collateral. Offering the public the illusion that homosexuality is genetically fixed fostered sympathy and political justifications for claims of violations. In addition, the claim of 10% homosexuals tricks the public into believing one out of every ten Americans is gay. No better can political abuse upon science be seen then with the handling of homosexuality within the American Psychiatric Association.

The point worth mentioning is in regards to the American Psychiatric Association’s removal of homosexuality as deviant behavior. Many proponents point to this change as evidence of some internal fixed nature of homosexual attraction. However, one must understand the political reasoning for this change. In the words of Dr. Charles Socarides, a longtime APA member who witnessed the change:

The change in the diagnosis was strictly a political one. No scientific evidence was produced. A board of trustees heavily weighted towards gay activism took charge and removed it without scientific study whatsoever. No scientific study had been done. And nor had the experts in the field – like Irving Bieber, myself, and other people – never were we asked for our opinion. It was just rammed through without scientific study and without evidence…The organization was under political assault by gay activists – some of them members of the APA itself. It was easier for the leadership to switch than fight.[17]
Dr. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe add additional insight on the issue in relation to psychiatry around the world: “According to a 1992 study of 125 psychiatric associations around the world, all but three still consider homosexuality a mental illness or sexual deviation. That means that U.S. psychiatrists are joined only by Denmark and South Africa in their liberal stance,”[18]

Putting out the Fire: Refuting the Work of LeVay, Swaab & Hofman

First thing we must acknowledge regarding the works of LeVay and Swaab & Hofman, is the sample size. We address both studies collectively as they address similar issues as well as fall under similar critique (although most focused of our critique would be the work of LeVay, as it focuses directly on an area of sexual response). Within the Swaab & Hofman study, merely ten homosexuals are studied (out of a sample size of thirty-four).[19] Within the work of LeVay, the number is slightly higher (nineteen).[20] A total sample of twenty-nine homosexual men is quite immature to make universal claims.

In addition to a critique of the tiny sample sizes, there was a presumption of the heterosexual samples that must be explored. Within the heterosexual sample of Swaab and Hofman, eighteen heterosexuals were presumed to contain such sexual preference. However, as Swaab and Hofman acknowledge, “Sexual preference of the subjects of the reference group was generally not known.”[21] As for the work of LeVay, the same presumption was made. Within his very sample of assumed heterosexuals, six had died of aids. Regarding the sample, he himself stated that they were “men who were presumed to be heterosexual.”[22] There are also a myriad of homosexual activity that leaves further questioning regarding the male samples. As John Frame explains in his massive work of ethics, The Doctrine of the Christian Life:

People have bisexual inclinations, and still others are largely heterosexual, but willing to enter homosexual relationships under certain circumstances (experimentation, prison, etc.). Is there a genetic basis for these rather complicated patterns of behavior? Neither LeVay nor anyone else has offered data suggesting that.[23]

In addition to the weakness of sample size, and the presumption of heterosexual sexual orientations, their work comes into an additional problem: the cause of changes within the INAH 3 cell groupings and brains. First, all homosexual subjects studied died of aids, which could mean that a possibility of the change was not an object of ingrained sexual orientation, but the effect the disease could have upon their brains. Others have argued for other such unknown causes, as seen in the work of Mariage Barinaga[24]

One final point worth mentioning regarding the work of LeVay, Swaab & Hofman, is whether changes within the brains were the cause or consequence of sexual orientation. It is basic biological fact that, much like physical exercise, behavior can issue forth changes within the body. Besides the obvious physical changes that occur with bodily exercise, certain patterned behaviors exercise specific areas of the brain. These areas then change according to the practice, and this understanding may be applied to the work of LeVay, Swaab & Hofman. How can we remain assured that homosexual orientation is the product of such brain sizes, and not the cause there of?[25]

Putting out the Fire: Refuting the Work of Bailey and Pillard

Before critiquing the finds of Bailey and Pillar, we must acknowledge their potential research bias. It must then be observed that Michael Bailey is openly sympathetic to gay politics, while Richard Pillard identifies himself as a homosexual. Although we cannot cast aside their research on such grounds, it is fruitful to keep this in mind when we evaluate their findings and observations. Besides acknowledging potential bias, a solid refutation occurs within an analysis of the concordance rate. Jeffrey Satinover, the author of the work Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, provides a solid critique on the concordance rate of the study:

If ‘homosexuality is genetic,’ as activists and their media supporters repeatedly claim, the concordance rate between identical twins [monozygotic twins] – that is, the incidence of the two twins either both being homosexual or both being heterosexual – will be 100 percent. There would never be a discordant pair – a pair with one homosexual twin and one heterosexual twin.[26]
Within identical twins we always find the exact eye color, as determined by their genes. To make the suggestion that homosexuality is genetic, is to expect the same results. However, this clearly is not the case.[27]

Within Satinover’s work, five essential objectives are raised. First, the author claims that the determining factor was genetic, which makes little sense given the shared environmental factors, specifically amongst identical twins.[28] Second, homosexual twins were sought after in gay magazines, thus polluting the study (homosexual twins are more likely to answer such an advertisement versus homosexual/heterosexual twins).[29] Third, sexual orientation was assessed by a report from the respondent (the inaccuracy of this method is overt). Fourth, the absolute similarity of genes can exaggerate the concordance rate, given the similarities. Fifth, Bailey and Pillard predicted an early childhood genetic nonconformity, which simply did not occur to any significant degree.[30]

Hardly do their conclusions verify the claim that homosexuality is genetic. If anything, it enforces the idea that several shared environmental factors play key roles. When other twin studies were pursued, conflicting conclusions were found. Regarding monozygotic and dizygotic twins, The Journal of Sex Research concluded, “for men, no significant genetic effects were found for number of opposite- and same-sex sexual encounters, not for sexual orientation.”[31] Bailey and Pillard admit other studies they conducted “found a strong familiar resemblance, but had insufficient power to determine whether that correlation was due to genetic or environmental factors or both.”[32] In the British Medical Journal, Miron Baron concludes regarding the report that “most of these results are un-interpretable because of small samples or unresolved questions about phenotypic clarification…the finding that the adoptive brothers of homosexual twins are more prone to homosexuality than the biological siblings suggests that male homosexuality may well be environmental.”[33] [34]

Putting Out the Fire: Refuting the Work of Hamer

In addition to LeVay, Bailey, and Pillard, we must first establish the existence of any bias, and come to discover that like LeVay and Pillard, Dr. Hamer is also a self-professed homosexual. By Hamer’s earlier mentioned conclusion of his study, the novice may leave with an impression that Xq28 somehow causes homosexuality. However this was never Hamer’s conclusion, regardless of the direction of his language. It is important to clarify what he did not find: 1) That homosexuality is directly inherited, and 2) That all homosexuals contain this gene marker.[35] What then can we conclude? Perhaps the analogy of a basketball player is best used. Searching the genetic traits of professional basketball players, we may find specific genetic markers that contribute to their ability to perform as professional basketball players (genes for body mass, lean muscle, ambidexterity, etc). However, these specific gene markers will not be found in every professional basketball player, nor can we assume that the presence of such gene markers absolutely predict whether one will be a basketball player. Rather, such genetic traits may incline someone to play basketball, but there is no ‘basketball player gene’! The same can be said of the misleading nature of Hamer’s research. Specific genetic markers may incline someone to homosexual desires, however they do not absolutely predict a fixed homosexual orientation. If anything, it will merely highlight the willful response towards such inclinations.

The most damaging evidence to Hamer’s research is that it has not been replicated (as can be said of all the studies in question). George Rice’s 1999 study in the journal Science failed to provide Hamer’s results. As their work concludes “It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer’s original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer… we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as was reported in the study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position Xq28.”[36]

Perhaps the best evidence regarding the works of these individuals is their own words. Regarding his work, LeVay states,  “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work.”[37] In his work, Bailey claims he “did not provide statistically significant support for the importance of genetic factors” for homosexual orientation.[38] As for Dr. Hamer he comments “Homosexuality is not purely genetic… Environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay… I don’t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay.”[39]

To Rebuild: Presentation of a Defense

In addition to the works of LeVay, Swaab & Hofman, Bailey, and Hamer, others have suggested hormonal irregularities as a cause to predispose one towards homosexuality. This is found within such works as G. Dorner’s, which studied the imbalance of sex hormones in rats. Within his work, prenatal development and hormonal irregularities during the fourth-seventh week may incline them to homosexuality.[40] However, other scientists have not confirmed Dorner’s work.[41] In addition, hormonal treatment for homosexuality has been rather unsuccessful, leading some to presume that perhaps the cause is more psychological than physiological.[42] If we have been able to readily dismiss the argument of genetic homosexual, as well as having observed the weakness of some hormonal imbalance as its cause, where then shall we go? How shall we approach the cause of sexual orientation? Our answer shall be two-fold: In the observance of research and consensus, and the revelation of biblical insight.

In discussing the source of homosexuality, a useful tool is to probe into the research of Irving Bieber and others. Regarding a study done on numerous homosexuals and their family background, Bieber and his team found that “a ‘triangular’ pattern in the family backgrounds of many male homosexuals [exist].[43] These men reported an emotionally detached or hostile father and an enmeshed, ‘close-binding’ mother who tended to ‘minimize’ her husband.”[44] Also in agreement, Mark Siegelman found that “homosexuals, in contrast to the heterosexuals, reported their fathers to be more rejecting and less loving. The homosexuals also described their mothers as more rejecting and less loving… homosexuals indicated less closeness to their fathers than the heterosexuals.”[45] Finally, Columbia University professors Richard Friedman and Jennifer Downey conclude the following on the issue of homosexual orientation, “The assertion that homosexuality is genetic is so reductionistic that it must be dismissed out of hand as a general principle of psychology… It is apparent that biological, psychological and social factors interacting in complex and various ways shape human sexual orientation.”[46]

After having reviewed the false evidence for a genetic justification for fixed orientation, as well as the myriad of factors that possibly result in homosexual attractions, we must make something clear. Regardless of future evidence, and whether or not we advance in some discovery that shows such attractions to be biologically advanced, we must understand that it does not make it natural or excusable. It has been known that an individual may have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism, yet that by no means makes it excusable. The same can be said of violence and other such factors. We cannot excuse all actions on the basis of some predisposition within the biological genetic makeup, as accountability for actions would be impossible. In addition, we cannot hold to some subjective moral understanding. God had designed his moral law to be objective and absolute, and some predisposition does not justify disobedience. In relation to this concern, John Frame provides the following conclusion:

Would a genetic predisposition for homosexuality eliminate the element of choice? Certainly not. A person with a genetic propensity for alcoholism still makes a choice when he decides to take a drink, and then another, and then another. If there is a genetic propensity for homosexuality, then those with that makeup face greater temptation in this area than others. But those who succumb to the temptation do choose to yield to it, as do all of us when we succumb to our own besetting temptations… they are not forced to do this by their genes or by anything contrary to their own desires.[47]

A Biblical Perspective on Homosexuality: ‘Gay Christianity’

In addition to the problem of interpreting the above critiqued work to argue for genetic and biological reasons for unchanging sexual orientation, individuals have made the claims that the practice of loving same-sex sexual union is compatible with the teachings of scripture. The modern protestant church is engulfed with the flames of such a controversy. From the Anglicans heresy trial of Bishop Righter, to the United Methodist Church convention’s 2000 riots caused by sexual revisionists, to the various mainline denominational splits that have occurred over the issue of revised sexual policies, the arguments are not merely within the homosexual community. Rather, they stretch much further, to the very reformed understanding of Scripture and it’s authority.[48] Such a revisionist understanding of homosexuality’s relation to Christianity is seen within Walter Barnett’s work, which he states “Some theologians and a number of Gay Christians, working from a growing understanding of the biblical texts, have come to the conclusion that the Bible does not exclude homosexual people from the Christian fellowship…”[49] In addition to Walter Barnett, John J. McNeill states that according to scholars, “nowhere in the Scripture is there a clear condemnation of a loving sexual relationship between two gay persons.”[50]

Beyond merely arguing that scripture lacks a condemnation of homosexual sexual relationships, some have even stated that there is something intrinsically divine regarding ‘coming out’, and that even the process may be considered sacramental. Dr. Daniel Heimbach identifies this ‘Sacrament’ of coming out, as well as a general morphing of sexual morality and theology to support fixed homosexual orientations, in his book True Sexual Morality: Recovering Biblical Standards for a Culture in Crises. Surveying the works of James B. Nelson, Eugene Rogers, Chris Glaser and others, Dr. Heimbach shows the compulsive direction theology and sexual morality descend upon observing sexual orientation as fixed, and ignoring specific biblical revelations on sexual behavior. As clarified in his work, we may see the danger of such descent by quoting Glaser from his Sacrament of Coming Out: “those of us who come out as bisexual and lesbian and gay reveal a glory larger than our self-identity: we reveal the glory of sexuality itself, a divinely created and graciously given glory… because we have seen in our sexuality the glory of God.”[51] It is interesting to note Glaser’s assumptions as they relate to the debunking of fixed genetic homosexual orientation listed previously. Glaser assumes homosexual, bisexual, and lesbian orientation to formulate self-identity, and that it is even a divinely created gift. Besides having acknowledged the removal of his assumption (gay orientation being fixed, let alone one’s very self-identity), what may we discover within scripture regarding the claim that homosexuality is a “divinely created and graciously given glory”?[52] What clarification does the work of God offer on this subject? Does my friend’s charge that “the Bible says nothing against homosexuality” hold true? We will study four major proof-texts on the subject: Gen. 19:1-11, Lev. 18:22, Lev. 20:13, and Rom. 1:26-27.000214

A Biblical Perspective on Homosexuality: Genesis 19:1-11[53]

One of the first major objections to the text by proponents is found within the claim that the passage merely condemns acts of rape. As defended by Walter Barnett in “Homosexuality ad the Bible”, the crowd sought to gang rape Lot’s visitors. They then argue that the act to be condemned is not homosexuality itself, but any form of rape. However, this understanding is quite lacking. Feinberg and Feinberg in their work Ethics for a Brave New World provide a clarification and refutation of this:

Nowhere does the text even slightly hint that what the men of Sodom wanted to do would be permissible if only Lot’s guests had consented. Moreover, this interpretation does not account for the fact that God’s judgment fell upon two entire cities. Was homosexual rape a common practice and thus brought the judgment of God? It could have been, but such is not stated in the text. What is more damaging is that God’s judgment on homosexuality in Sodom and Gomorrah is quite in harmony with his prohibition and denunciation of this sin in other Scriptures properly interpreted. It is not as though this is the only time homosexuality is denounced and judged.[54] (p. 190)

In addition to the argument of rape, a second popular explanation is offered. This argument is founded upon an understanding that the Hebrew word yada is used only 10 out of the 943 times in the OT to refer to sexual relations.[55] [56] For a response to this argument, known as the argument of hospitality, we must remember that mere statistics of word usage cannot account for meaning. We must take the word yada, and look at it within its context and author. Of interesting note, given the earlier statistic, is that seven usages of yada in the sexual sense occur within the book of Genesis (Gen 4:1, 17, 25; 24:16, 38:26, plus those in question). Given that proponents of the hospitality argument acknowledge that, absent of the two usages of yada in question, only ten usages refer to sexual acts, and half of these occur in Genesis. We have evidence to suggest that it’s author, Moses, would have used the word stylistically to refer to sexual acts.[57]

However, the best understanding of this text must be an evaluation in context. If we take yada to refer to some hospitable act of getting to know each other, how does Lot’s offering of his daughter make any sense? To quote the text, “Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man,” (Genesis 19:8, ESV), however if understood absent sexual relations, we must take this to mean Lot’s daughters have never become acquainted with and met men. This makes no sense, simply because their father, Lot himself, is a man. In addition, it is impractical to assume they had never before met men, and as such the sexual understanding makes more sense. Lot was offering his daughters up for the men sexually, and their rejection points in the way of homosexual desires. It would then make most sense, given the sexual understanding of yada in Genesis 19:8, that it’s usage in Genesis 19:1-11 would mean the same.[58]

Finally, in response to this argument, we may cross-check it with other references in scripture. Jude provides commentary on the actions and judgment cast upon Sodom and Gomorrah, stating: “just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire,” (Jude 1:7, ESV). The cause stated was ’sexual immorality’, and the Greek used is σαρκπσ ἐτερασ, which describes unnatural sex. As Feinberg and Feinberg explain, “Jude uses the verb porneuo with the preposition ek, which means they gave themselves up to sexual immorality completely and utterly! This is an extremely strong statement!”[59] When we take this in combination with the fact the city was punished, and not Lot (who would have breached the hospitality code and merited punishment), we see how weak such an understanding is.
A Biblical Perspective on Homosexuality: Leviticus 18:22, 20:13

The next set of major texts on homosexuality includes Lev. 18:22[60] and 20:13[61], which attempt to define Holy Living for the set apart people of the Israelites. The texts seem quite clear on restricting the acts of homosexuality, however this has not stopped proponents from formulating several interpretations. Perhaps the majority of these include an understanding of the practice to be directly tied to pagan idolatrous worship. The homosexuality in question is simply a form of idolatry, and not essentially evil. The pagan worship, which included homosexual acts as found within the practices and prostitutes of their neighbors, was the ‘abomination’ in question.[62] Furthermore, given the preceding texts regarding idolatrous sexuality, it is argued chapter 18 specifically seeks to set apart the Israelites from pagan worship, and must then be understood in this context.[63]

This argument is wrong, given several reasons. It is perhaps best to understand it in light of other biblical prohibitions. In relation to this issue, Feinberg and Feinberg provide the following clarification:

In the Leviticus Code incest, adultery, child sacrifice, bestiality, spiritism and the cursing of one’s parents are all prohibited. Only one act condemned in the Code has cultic or symbolic significance – child sacrifice, and it is condemned whether associated with religious worship or not. Child sacrifice was practiced in pagan religious rites, but it was wrong on two counts – in itself and because of its association with idolatry… Moreover, homosexuality is condemned in the context of adultery, bestiality, and incest. Clearly, those practices were not prohibited simply because of their association with idolatry or Egyptian and Canaanite cultures.[64]

A Biblical Perspective on Homosexuality: Romans 1:26-27

In addition to Genesis and Leviticus take on the issue, we may find prohibitions on homosexuality within the New Testament. Perhaps our best proof-text occurs within Romans 1:26-27, where Paul discusses the moral descent and heart-hardening that occurs within fallen humanity. Here Paul specifically discusses the practice of homosexuality and lesbianism.[65]

Similar to the approach taken above for Leviticus, proponents seeking to justify homosexuality argue that Romans 1:26-27 is to be taken within the context of idolatrous pagan practices.[66] It is argued that the context of the text provides the context of adultery to the homosexuality and lesbianism described in Romans 1:26-27.[67] However, this is poorly deceptive, as it ignores Paul’s clarifications of the acts as ’sexual impurity’ and ’shameful lusts’. In addition, Paul clarifies his statement by proclaiming the actions ‘unnatural’, as opposed to God’s natural creation. Being against God’s design is clearly a product of sin, and taken together with the clarifications as sexual impurity and shameful lusts, we may understand the act of homosexuality beyond idolatry or pagan worship, but a perversion of God’s created order, and something immoral in and of itself. If Paul sought to simply condemn pagan prostitution, which included heterosexuals, why leave this absent? Rather, Paul’s clarification as being ‘unnatural’ and growing out of lust is enough to understand the text as a condemnation on the act, and not merely it’s association with pagan practice.

One further point of clarification on Romans 1:26-27 is the argument of ‘unnatural’. Proponents such as Sherwin Bailey in his work Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition have argued that Paul merely refers to acts of ‘unnatural’ homosexuality. He then argues that, given sexual orientation is fixed, a constitutional gay individual committing homosexuality is in accordance to nature. A heterosexual committing the act of homosexuality, or a homosexual committing the act of heterosexuality is thus unnatural and within the condemnation of Romans 1:26-27. However, this is perhaps the great flaw of leftist theologians in general. They place man’s works as a filter for God’s Word. Clearly Bailey and others make the presumption that sexual orientation is fixed, however the science, as shown above, is simply absent to make such an absolute genetic charge. It also assumes Paul knew of such fixed orientation, which is unlikely. As such, we can see the initial error in such proponent’s presuppositions. Additionally, it fails to take God’s mega-narrative on sexuality. From the very beginning in Genesis, man was created for woman, and the two were committed to exclusive sex within the confines of marriage. Scripture is quite clear on the reservation of sex to marriage, as outside of it produces adultery. As such, we can apply these principles to understand that any sex outside of marriage is immoral, and this would include homosexual relations. Marriage is clearly defined as between a woman and man (affirmed by Jesus in his divorce statements), and thus any committed sexual homosexual engagement is thus unnatural, and thus immoral.[68] A removal of the presuppositions of fixed homosexual orientation, a proper exegesis on the words ’sexual impurity’ and ’shameful lusts’, and an understanding of the grand narrative of sexual morality debunk the proponent’s assumptions in Romans.

Opportunity from Ashes: Hope and Healing

Having analyzed the evidence, we may safely verify our initial statement: no replicated scientific studies exist that prove individuals are born homosexuals. Rather, it is a combination of complex environmental, social, and biological factors. In addition, we may trace the root of this myth not only to the studies mentioned, but the work of several over-eager activists and media sources. Further more, we may turn to the vast body of research to verify this claim, as well as a proper exegesis of Scripture that illuminates homosexuality. We are left now to ask two questions: 1) Why embark on such research, and 2) Is there a possibility for change?

With the utmost concern and love for humanity, I must humbly profess the following: lying to the public regarding homosexuality being genetic is damaging. This is not to be stretched as some wild call for punishing homosexuals. This is simply to say that a message is being conveyed to youth and the public that they cannot help being gay, regardless of a desire to be straight. There is an irony in this: in their attempts to verify homosexual identity, and claim a fixed constitutional sexual orientation, they trap individuals into the belief that their desires are unchangeable, regardless of an assumption of normality. As much as gay activists may assume, some individuals may not desire such sexuality (as made clear by the thousands of individuals who seek help), and to tell them there is no other way, given the clarity of research I provided, is unfair. This also begs the question whether aspects of homosexuality are unhealthy, and if so, it adds a real physical danger to misleading someone into believing they are fixed and unchanging.[69] However, let me again recall for the need not to allow one’s emotions to get the best of them, but to evaluate the evidence as is.

This leads us to ask if change is available and possible for those desiring to remove unwanted homosexual desires. We can answer this in the affirmative. Both secular and religious help exist, as we’ll make evident. An example of secular treatment that has seen some success is found in Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D. and NARTH (the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality) founder’s Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach. On the issue of success rate, and debunking the activist’ claim that change is not possible, the following sample is found regarding counseling:

Of 49 patients… 31 (63 percent) were contracted for follow-up. The average period since the end of treatment was 4 years. Nineteen subjects (61 percent) have remained exclusively heterosexual, whereas nine (29 percent) have had homosexual intercourse. Heterosexual intercourse was reported in 28 (90 percent), including the previous nine subjects. Thee (10 percent) subjects have had neither homo nor heterosexual intercourse.[70]

The Masters and Johnson program has had similar results over a five-year follow-up, showing a 65% success rate.[71]

In addition to secular therapies for unwanted homosexual desires, numerous Christian treatments are available. Perhaps best known is Exodus International, an open-ended organization across denominational lines. An example of one of Exodus International’s ministries involves Desert Stream in Los Angeles. It is led by Andrew Comiskey, a former homosexual, and seeks to train ministers via his method and book Pursuing Sexual Wholeness (a biblical approach to removing unwanted homosexual desires).[72] A host of other resources are available as well.[73]

In conclusion, I have dug through the sources and research on the subject, providing corresponding information and findings when necessary. We have seen, by the individuals behind the studies’ own admission that “it’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work.”[74] Hopefully, I have clarified LeVay’s very statement by providing evidence to refute the common misinterpretation of his work. It is also my hope that this paper serves as a tool, to those who desire it, to aid them in bringing about change. I must also clarify a motivation behind this work. If I am to truly love my neighbor, then how much would I have to hate people not to speak to them the truths of God? For this reason, I hope proponents will understand, that regardless of how they react to the research, that it is my servant and loving heart that drives me to share what I understand to be purely beneficial. To do otherwise would be unloving and hypocritical on my part. In conclusion, I will end with a simple meditation of God’s Word that offers hope and change regarding the topic:

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 men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:9-11, ESV)[75]

Bibliography

Bailey, Michael J.  “Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orienation and Its
Correlates in an Australian Twin Sample,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 78 (2000): 534.

Bailey, Michael and Richard C. Pillard. “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,”
Archives of General Psychiatry 48 (December 1991): 1089, 1094.

Barinaga, Mariage. “Is Homosexuality Biological?,” Science 253 (1991): 956.

Barnett, Walter. Homosexuality and the Bible (Wallingford: Pendle Hill Pamphlets, 1979).

Baron, Miron. “Genetic Linkage and Male Homosexual Orientation,” BMJ 307, no. 337 (August
1993).

Biracee, Tom and Nancy. Almanac of the American People (New York: Facts on File, 1988).

Dutari, Cantom. “Combined Intervention for Controlling Unwanted Homosexual Behavior,” (),
269-74.

Diamond, Milton. “Homosexuality in Different Populations,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 22
(1993): 303.

Family Research Council, Getting it Straight: What the Research Shows About Homosexuality,
ed. Peter Sprigg and Timothy Dailey (Washington DC: Family Research Council,
2004).

Fay, Albert D., Klassen, John H. Gagnon and Charles F. Turner, “Prevalence and Patterns of
Same-Gender Sexual Contact Among Men,” Science, 1989: 338-348.

Feinberg, John S.  and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton: Crossway
Books, 1993).

Fergusson, D. M., L. J. Horwood and A. L. Beautrais, “Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental
Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?,” Archives of General Psychiatry 56
(1999): 876-80.

Frame, John M. The Doctrine of the Christian Life (Phillipsburg: Crossway Bibles, 2001).

Friedman, Richard C. and Jennifer I. Downey, Sexual Orientation and Psychoanalysis: Sexual
Science and Clinical Practice (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002).

Glaser, Chris. Coming out as Sacrament (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1998).

Greenwood, G. L. “Battering Victimization Among a Probability-based Sample of Men Who
Have Sex with Men,” American Journal of Public Health 92 (2002): 1964-69.

Hamer, Dean H. “A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual
Orientation,” Science 261 (1993): 321-327.

Heimbach, Dr. Daniel. True Sexual Morality: Recovering Biblical Standards for a Culture in
Crises (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004).

Hershberger, Scott L. “A Twin Registry of Male and Female Sexual Orientation,” The Journal of
Sex Research 34, no. 2 (1997): 212.

Hogg, R. S.  “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,”,”
International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657-61.

Kennedy, Dr. James and Jerry Newcombe, What’s Wrong with Same-Sex Marriage? (Wheaton:
Crossway Books, 2004).

Laumann, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael and Stuart Michaels, The Social
Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1994).

LeVay, Simon “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual
Men,” Science 235 (August 1991): 1034-1037.

Masters and Schwartz, “The Masters and Johnson Treatment Program for Dissatisfied
Homosexual Men,” American Journal of Psychiatry 141: 173-81.

McNeill, John J.  “Homosexuality: Challenging the Church to Grow,” Chr Cent, March 1987:
246.

Micthell, Nancy “Genetics, Sexuality Linked, Study Says,” The Standard Examiner, April 30,
1995: 7-B.

Nimmons, David “Sex and the Brain,” Discover 15, no. 3 (1994): 64-71.

Owen Jr., W.E. “Medical Problems of the Homosexual Adolescent,” Journal of Adolescent
Health Care 6, no. 4 (1985): 278-85.

Rice, George, Carol Anderson, Neil Risch and George Ebers, “Male Homosexuality: Absence of
Linkage to Microsatillite Markers at Xq28,” Science 284, no. 666 (April 1999).

Sandfort, Theo G. M. “Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders,”,” Archives of
General Psychiatry 58 (2001): 85-91.

M.D., Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House Company, 1996).

Siegelman, Marvin “Parental Background of Male Homosexuals and Heterosexuals,” Archives of
Sexual Behavior 3 (1974): 10.

Stanton, Glenn T., and Dr. Bill Maier, Marriage on Trial: The Case for Same-Sex Marriage and
Parenting (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004).

Swaab, D. F. and M. A. Hoffman, “An Enlarged Suprachiasmatic Nucleus in Homosexual Men,”
Br Res 537 (1990): 141.

Tourney, Garfield “Hormones and Homosexuality,” in Homosexual Behavior: A Modern
Reappraised, 55 (New York: Basic Books).

U.S. Department of Justice, “Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence,”
Office of Justice Programs (2000), 30.

[2] Glenn T. Stanton and Dr. Bill Maier, Marriage on Trial: The Case for Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004): 138

[3] The comments and exchange are available online for your own judgment. It is calm, collected, and well researched. I find it interesting that individuals are quick to brand Christians as ‘bigots’. Here we have a clear example where empirical research and studies were provided (by someone who so happens to be a Christian), and is met in return with vile charges of hatred, and an overlooking of the evidence. http://www.facebook.com/notes/leonard-goenaga/argument-against-the-so-called-gay-gene/160002933062

[4] Simon LeVay, “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men,” Science 235 (August 1991): 1034-1037.

[5] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993).

[6] D. F. Swaab and M. A. Hoffman, “An Enlarged Suprachiasmatic Nucleus in Homosexual Men,” Br Res 537 (1990): 141.

[7] Other studies regarding homosexuality within twins includes Michael King and Elizabeth McDonald’s “Homosexuals Who Are Twins: A Study of 46 Probands.” Their conclusion: “Disconcordance for sexual orientation in the monozygotic pairs confirmed that genetic factors are insufficient explanation for the development of sexual orientation.”

[8] King and McDonald also discovered “a relatively high likelihood of sexual relations occurring with same-sex co-twins at some time, particularly in monozygotic pairs.” As Satinover comments on the observation, “this finding hints at a principle that turns out to be quite important in understanding the development of any embedded pattern of behavior, namely the role of early experience and subsequent repetition. The fact that identical twins in particular tended to have sexual relations with each other suggests that the experience of twinhood… itself can cause an increase in homosexuality as a factor in its own right, apart from the shared genes.” (p. 88). 1/5 of same-sex twins engaged in sex.

[9] J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry 48 (December 1991): 1089, 1094.

[10] Dean H. Hamer, “A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation,” Science 261 (1993): 321-327.

[11] Ibid 325

[12] Tom and Nancy Biracee, Almanac of the American People (New York: Facts on File, 1988).

[13] “In addition to John Money’s high number, an often quoted number of 10% is given, rooted in the work of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey. “The oft-used 10 percent figure needs downward revision in light of the more reliable and valid data from the scientifically randomized samples reported here.” “Milton Diamond, “Homosexuality in Different Populations,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 22 (1993): 303

[14] “[A]ll the recent population-based surveys of sexual behavior, including this one, have found rates that are much lower than 10 percent.” Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael and Stuart Michaels, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994).

[15] Robert E. Fay, Albert D. Klassen, John H. Gagnon and Charles F. Turner, “Prevalence and Patterns of Same-Gender Sexual Contact Among Men,” Science, 1989: 338-348.

[16] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993).

[17] Dr. Charles Socarides as quoted in Dr. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe, What’s Wrong with Same-Sex Marriage? (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004) 104.

[18] Ibid 104-5

[19] Simon LeVay, “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men,” Science 235 (August 1991): 1035.

[20] D. F. Swaab and M. A. Hoffman, “An Enlarged Suprachiasmatic Nucleus in Homosexual Men,” Br Res 537 (1990): 143

[21] Ibid 141

[22] Simon LeVay, “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men,” Science 235 (August 1991): 1035.

[23] John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life (Phillipsburg: Crossway Bibles, 2001).

[24] Mariage Barinaga, “Is Homosexuality Biological?,” Science 253 (1991): 956-957

[25] Ibid 956

[26] M.D. Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 1996) 83. “The best book on homosexuality written in our lifetime…” – Congressional Record, May 1996

[27] Ibid 84, “In the small number of recent identical twin studies that have been touted as proving ‘homosexuality is genetic,’ concordance rates turn out to be considerably less than 100 percent – less than 50 percent, in fact – even though all the sizable studies to date have examined only twins that have not been adopted away after birth. (In fact, the only study of adopted-away twins, which had a very small sample size, showed a concordance rate of zero.) This means that some proportion of the rate of concordance – which is anyway smaller than anticipated – is itself caused not by genes but by something else.”

[28] Although small in it’s sample size, a study observing the concordance rate among identical twins raised apart found a rate of 0%. Study reported in Eckert’s “Monozygotic Twins Reared Apart,” pp. 421-25

[29] On the issue of their sampling size, Bailey and Pillard state the following: “The sampling method employed in this study falls short of the ideal genetic epidemiological study,” J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry 48 (December 1991): 1094

[30] Ibid 1089. On homosexuality among non-twin biological siblings: “significantly lower than would be predicted by a simple genetic hypothesis and other published reports.”

[31] Scott L. Hershberger, “A Twin Registry of Male and Female Sexual Orientation,” The Journal of Sex Research 34, no. 2 (1997): 212.

[32] J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry 48 (December 1991): 1090.

[33] Miron Baron, “Genetic Linkage and Male Homosexual Orientation,” BMJ 307, no. 337 (August 1993).

[34] For additional rebuttals, refer to Byne and Parson’s solid work, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biological Theories Reappraised.”

[35] Family Research Council, Getting it Straight: What the Research Shows About Homosexuality, ed. Peter Sprigg and Timothy Dailey (Washington DC: Family Research Council, 2004): 11.

[36] George Rice, Carol Anderson, Neil Risch and George Ebers, “Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatillite Markers at Xq28,” Science 284, no. 666 (April 1999).

[37] LeVay, cited in David Nimmons, “Sex and the Brain,” Discover 15, no. 3 (1994): 64-71.

[38] Michael J. Bailey, “Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orienation and Its Correlates in an Australian Twin Sample,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78 (2000): 534.

[39] Hamer, cited in Nancy Micthell, “Genetics, Sexuality Linked, Study Says,” The Standard Examiner, April 30, 1995: 7-B.

[40] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993): 188.

[41] Garfield Tourney, “Hormones and Homosexuality,” in Homosexual Behavior: A Modern Reappraised, 55 (New York: Basic Books).

[42] Ibid 42.

[43] “About 67 percent of male homosexuals come from a home where the mother is a domineering man-hater and the father is weak, detached and often uninvolved in the family. “John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993).
[44] Irving Bieber’s “Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals”, as summarized in Glenn T. Stanton and Dr. Bill Maier, Marriage on Trial: The Case for Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004).

[45] Marvin Siegelman, “Parental Background of Male Homosexuals and Heterosexuals,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 3 (1974): 10.

[46] Richard C. Friedman and Jennifer I. Downey, Sexual Orientation and Psychoanalysis: Sexual Science and Clinical Practice (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002).

[47] John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life (Phillipsburg: Crossway Bibles, 2001): 264.

[48] A detailed summary of the Revisionist Sexual Morality controversy within mainline churches can be found within Dr. Daniel Heimbach, True Sexual Morality: Recovering Biblical Standards for a Culture in Crises (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004): 89-112.

[49] Walter Barnett, Homosexuality and the Bible (Wallingford: Pendle Hill Pamphlets, 1979).

[50] John J. McNeill, “Homosexuality: Challenging the Church to Grow,” Chr Cent, March 1987: 246.

[51] Chris Glaser, Coming out as Sacrament (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1998): 2

[52] Ibid 91

[53] “¹The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth ²and said, “My lords, please turn aside to your servant’s house and spend the night and wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said,” No; we will spend the night in the town square.”  ³But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.

⁴But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house.  ⁵And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them [yada].”  ⁶Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, ⁷and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.  ⁸Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man [yada]. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”  ⁹But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down.  ¹⁰But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door.  ¹¹And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door.” (Genesis 19:1-11, ESV) [Underscore and brackets added]

[54] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993): 190

[55] “The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were simply interested in getting to know the angelic visitors.” John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993): 190

[56] Proponents claim Intra-biblical exegesis: Isa 1:10, Jer. 23:14, Ezek 16:48, 49 Matt 1-:14, 15, and Luke 10:10-12 do not mention sexual sin.
[57] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993): 191

[58] Ibid 192-3

[59] Ibid 192

[60] “²²You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22, ESV)

[61] “¹³If 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, ESV)

[62] “Support for this position is found in the word “abomination” (to’ebah), which, on this view, does not signify something that is inherently evil such as rape or theft, but something that is ritually unclean like the eating of pork or engaging in sexual intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in this context.”  John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993): 194.

[63] Proponents of this argument suggest that Lev. 18:3 set the tone of set apart, while the homosexuality text follows 18:21, which is a direct condemnation of idolatrous sexuality.

[64] Ibid 194-5

[65] 6For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 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 1:126-27, ESV)
[66] “Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” (Romans 1:22)

[67] “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator,” (Romans 1:25, ESV).

[68] “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’  7 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and they shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.  9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Mark 10:6-9, ESV)

[69] “Homosexuals are more likely to suffer from mental illness, alcohol and substance abuse, and a variety of life-threatening diseases such as AIDS, certain types of cancer, and hepatitis…on average, male homosexuals die a premature death by up to twenty years… gays and lesbians are more likely than heterosexuals to commit suicide, and be victims of domestic violence at the hands of a sex partner.”  Glenn T. Stanton and Dr. Bill Maier, Marriage on Trial: The Case for Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004). Studies regarding the health statistics listed above are found in the following: W.E. Owen Jr., “Medical Problems of the Homosexual Adolescent,” Journal of Adolescent Health Care 6, no. 4 (1985): 278-85.  Theo G. M. Sandfort, “Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders,”,” Archives of General Psychiatry 58 (2001): 85-91.  D. M. Fergusson, L. J. Horwood and A. L. Beautrais, “Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?,” Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 876-80.  R. S. Hogg, “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,”,” International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657-61.  G. L. Greenwood, “Battering Victimization Among a Probability-based Sample of Men Who Have Sex with Men,” American Journal of Public Health 92 (2002): 1964-69.  “Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence,” Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice (2000), 30.

[70] A. Cantom-Dutari, “Combined Intervention for Controlling Unwanted Homosexual Behavior,” 269-74.

[71] Schwartz and Masters, “The Masters and Johnson Treatment Program for Dissatisfied Homosexual Men,” American Journal of Psychiatry 141: 173-81.

[72] “Comiskey reports that 50 percent of those who start the program complete it with substantial progress out of homosexuality and into heterosexuality.”  M.D., Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 1996): 203

[73] Redeemed Life Ministries, Setting Love in Order (Mario Bergner, former homosexual), Pastoral Care Ministries (Leanne Payne), and Focus on the Family’s Love Won Out are but a few.

[74] LeVay, cited in David Nimmons, “Sex and the Brain,” Discover 15, no. 3 (1994): 64-71.

[75] As the author states “And such were some of you”. Some of them were once homosexuals. However, as the author then reminds them: “you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:9-11, ESV)

Uploaded by www.cellspin.net

12-7-09
Bible Study

2 Chr. 5, Ezek. 18-19, Luke 4

2 Chr. 5

Reuben’s Descendants and genealogy.

Ezek. 18-19

I remember when I had visited a Hari Krishna temple for a site observation. As I entered I noticed a sign that proclaimed that both scripture and the early church taught Reincarnation. It was intriguing, but as I pass through the wisdom of Ezekiel I have found a prooftext to debunk the claim.

As for the early church comment, i have studied Origin and found that this comment refers to his explanation of how souls became trapped into material bodies upon creation. Simply put, it was mere imagitive thinking on Origins part, and not biblical teaching. An attempt to fill the gaps, not exegesis scripture.

The reincarnation prooftext comes from Ezek. 18. Here the Prophet discusses the affect of one’s families sin upon their lives and judgement:

“The person who sins is the one who will die. A son won’t suffer punishment for the father’s iniquity, and a father won’t suffer punishment for the son’s iniquity.” (Ezek. 18:20).

Here we see ownership of one’s sins. It does not generationally carry over as some eastern traditions argue. No generation is judged for the sins of previous ones. the prooftext goes further:

“Now if the wicked person turns from all the sins he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is just and right, he will certainly live; he will not die. None of the transgressions he has committed will be held against him. He will live because of the righteousness he has practiced.” (vv. 21-22).

Again we see personal ownership of sins. Even more, we find forgiveness in repentance. Stored personal sin may find cleansing in the simplicity of turning in repentance. Judgement is weighed against unrepented sin, yet if one turns away, judgement is stayed.

So the text refutes any illusion of reincarnation and generational sin. Man is responsible solely to the sins he commits in his lifetime, and may find forgiveness in turning from such sin.

“Throw off all the transgressions you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit.” (vv 31).

Ezek. 19

Within Ezek. 19 we find a lament, or a funeral chant which was usually reserved for the death of a leader. We find within the hebrew scriptures several examples of laments used in sarcasm.

Here Ezekiel uses such a lament to discuss the seventh cause of Judah’s fall: it’s spiritual death. Chapter 19 contains two laments (Lion and the Vine), written in the meter qinah (3 beats, 2 beats). Lamentations was also written in this meter.

Vv. 1-9 is a lament for the king, while vv. 10-14 was for the end of the kingdom.

Luke 4

Within Luke 4 we find the passage where Jesus, after receiving baptism in the Jordan, enters the wilderness for 40 days. Here he finds himself tempted by the devil for 40 days, and he fasts intensely (vv. 40). The lack of any parallels in Greco-Roman literature leads us to conclude that the early-church would not simply invent the occurence, but instead have recorded an actual event.

As for not eating anything for 40 days, it is clearly possible for Jesus, however Luke’s language may mean he simply ate little and severely fast. It is the same type of language used to describe John the Baptist’ lifestyle in Mt. 11:18 (which did not mean an abstinence from food).

Two more points on the passage:

1) “Worship the Lord your God and serve Him only.” (vv. 8). Jesus quotes this from Dt. 6:13, and we may use it in conjection with other passages as a prooftext for Jesus divinity. Jesus is telling Satan that only God could be worshiped, however in Mt. 8:2, Jesus allows a leper to worship him. In Jn. 20:28, Jesus allows a disciple to offer worship to him (“Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”). Finally, Jesus allows an angel to worship him (“Let all God’s angels worship him.” Heb 1:6).

These examples of the worship of Jesus alongside Lk 8 make a strong cause for Jesus divinity. Besides the ‘I AM’ claims, and the incidence before the sanhedrin (Lk 22:66-71, “You say that I am,”), this claim of divinity is clear. A simple prophet, as some claim Jesus to be, would not make the mistake of receiving worship.

2) I personally enjoy these passages because Jesus experiences the fullness of temptation. The Son opts to set aside the usage of His divine attributes to further experience humanity. How greatly our God experienced our daily sufferings! We have a God who clearly understands our hurt and pain, not merely because he made us, but because he walked within our humanity. Another wonder of the incarnation and brillance of God, that understanding the finite of our human mental capacities, he walks before us in human form, and shares such human sufferings. Surely we have an approachable and loving God. One need only read this chapter where he experiences the fullness of man’s suffering, and in his free will and love, puts aside his divine attributes to share in our sufferings.

Describe changes to the church that were the result of the new relationship with the empire under Constantine.

During the 4th century, the church had begun to experience some major changes. With the rise of Constantine, and his takeover as sole emperor, the church found itself in a reversed role. Constantine claimed that the Christian God, whom he believed to be more powerful than those of the pagans, helped him capture victory. With this, he began to enact a series of measures to promote Christianity as a public-supported religion. This all started with the Edict of Milan (313 AD), which ended the persecution of Christians.

The Church now found itself in a new position. By raising it’s position within society to one parallel to paganism, as well as removing the threat of persecution, Roman citizens flooded the Church This produced two circles of Christianity: those of the nominal nature, and those whom were truly believers. With the flooding of individuals came the competition amongst churches to swell member sizes, leading to a loss of the previous concerns of the church.

Whereas the Church had previously worked absent of the civil authorities, the church now worked alongside it. Constantine sought to flood priests with styles of worship that fitted the majesty of the empire, instead of its former humble beginnings. Priests now wore pomp attire, choirs were added, and processionals were introduced. Soon Imperial theology began to seep into the church. Three major additions were made: 1) Whereas the Church had historically seen poverty and meekness as a blessing, the flooding of Roman aristocrats produced a theology that saw riches as a blessing, 2) A new clerical aristocracy developed, 3) As seen in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, the idea of which the early church held dear of Jesus’ return and establishment of the kingdom were swept aside, and instead focused on the idea of the church and roman empire ushering forth such a kingdom.

The combination of imperial theology, as well as the additions of nominal Christians, produced various responses by the Christian community. Four in specific: 1) Certain Christians, such as Eusebius, believed this was the climax of history, where the church and empire rose to great heights, 2) Certain Christians had seen the intrusion of the church as a perversion, and ran to the deserts to pursue lives as monks, 3) Certain Christians saw it as a heresy, and progressed to schism in the form of Donatism, and finally 4) Certain individuals recognized the threats of nominal Christianity, and decided to stay and combat them intellectually (the great Doctors of the Church). These four responses, due to Constantine’s newly created relationship, where to have profound influences on the future discussions and directions of the Church.

Describe the meanings and theological uses of ousia, physis, and hypostasis in Nicene theology.

During the first great ecumenical council, Constantine sought to call the various bishops and Christians together to 1) Develop a form of official practice and doctrine, and 2) Contain a sense of unity amongst the Christians that would further produce stability within his empire. Of great concern at this debate, was the description of the trinity. Eusebius of Nicomedia had taken Arius’ argument of Arianism, the idea that Jesus was merely a creature whom has not existed for all eternity, but was rather a creation of God, and proposed it with a sense of authority.

After stunned into the realization that this heresy contained, Alexander of Alexandria spearheaded an attack on Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia’s Arianism. Central to this attack was the drafting of the theological terms ousia, physis, and hypostasis. We may explore their definitions as follows:

1) Ousia: Is defined as the same essence or substance. In practical terms, we may finitely and imperfectly see it in the example of species. A horse compared to a kangaroo bring about two separate ousia, or essenses. In the form of the trinity, ousia helps us understanding that the same essence of the trinity expresses their divinity. This essence is that the trinity and it’s persons are eternal and infinite. Being of this essence, they exist within one another, and share the same will (Perekarisus).

2) Physis: Is defined as distinguishing characteristics. In practical terms, we may finitely and imperfectly see it as the distinguishing characteristics between a horse and a donkey. Although they may have similar characteristics (four legs, etc), they contain distinguishing ones as well (their size, speed, makeup, usages, etc). The distinguishing characteristics of God (his omnipotence, love, grace, etc), allow us to see it in comparison to us, as well as to the distinguishing characteristics amongst the God-head. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each contain distinguishing characteristics, however are still of the same essence.

3) Hypostasis: Is defined as the expressive persons. Although two horses may both be of the same species, ad contain the same physis, Buttercup and Silver are two persons. They are not one mere horse, but share in the ousia of them being horses. This helps us understanding that although the trinity shares the same essence, it contains within it three unique persons: Father, Son, and Spirit.

Describe the new relationship between the church and empire under Constantine. This includes (but is not limited to) the role the church was intended to play.

Although it is an assumption, it is not wild to believe that Constantine saw the Christian God as a powerful means of solidifying his empire. After all, he had pursued worship of the pagan God’s while claiming his status as a Christian. For this reason, some had argued that Constantine sought the fusion of Church and Empire as a means of furthering stability and control. To Constantine, the church played an important role of bringing about stability within the empire. Where previously empires had sought the favor of the God’s to bring about the glory of the empire, Constantine saw the key as the Christian God. If he could appease this God by favoring his believers, the Christians, then he could strengthen his empire.

The relationship was thus fused. The Church took up imperial characteristics. As a result, the church was to play the role of shared stability. Instead of dealing with the divisions brought from past conflicts, Constantine sought to use the potential of the church to empower his reign. In the eyes of such thinkers as Eusebius of Caesarea, the role of the church was to ride the vehicle of the empire to the heights of Christianity. The empire empowered the Church to reach levels and numbers unseen previously. Capital and numbers were established to pursue bigger churches, and wider measures. However, this brought with it several confrontations.

((BELOW IS A COPY OF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 1, AS IT RELATES TO AND ANSWERS THE ABOVE QUESTION AND MATERIAL))

During the 4th century, the church had begun to experience some major changes. With the rise of Constantine, and his takeover as sole emperor, the church found itself in a reversed role. Constantine claimed that the Christian God, whom he believed to be more powerful than those of the pagans, helped him capture victory. With this, he began to enact a series of measures to promote Christianity as a public-supported religion. This all started with the Edict of Milan (313 AD), which ended the persecution of Christians.

The Church now found itself in a new position. By raising it’s position within society to one parallel to paganism, as well as removing the threat of persecution, Roman citizens flooded the Church This produced two circles of Christianity: those of the nominal nature, and those whom were truly believers. With the flooding of individuals came the competition amongst churches to swell member sizes, leading to a loss of the previous concerns of the church.

Whereas the Church had previously worked absent of the civil authorities, the church now worked alongside it. Constantine sought to flood priests with styles of worship that fitted the majesty of the empire, instead of its former humble beginnings. Priests now wore pomp attire, choirs were added, and processionals were introduced. Soon Imperial theology began to seep into the church. Three major additions were made: 1) Whereas the Church had historically seen poverty and meekness as a blessing, the flooding of Roman aristocrats produced a theology that saw riches as a blessing, 2) A new clerical aristocracy developed, 3) As seen in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, the idea of which the early church held dear of Jesus’ return and establishment of the kingdom were swept aside, and instead focused on the idea of the church and roman empire ushering forth such a kingdom.

The combination of imperial theology, as well as the additions of nominal Christians, produced various responses by the Christian community. Four in specific: 1) Certain Christians, such as Eusebius, believed this was the climax of history, where the church and empire rose to great heights, 2) Certain Christians had seen the intrusion of the church as a perversion, and ran to the deserts to pursue lives as monks, 3) Certain Christians saw it as a heresy, and progressed to schism in the form of Donatism, and finally 4) Certain individuals recognized the threats of nominal Christianity, and decided to stay and combat them intellectually (the great Doctors of the Church). These four responses, due to Constantine’s newly created relationship, where to have profound influences on the future discussions and directions of the Church.

((AN ADDITION TO THE INFORMATION COPIED ABOVE))

As a result, the actions of Constantine were to greatly affect the role the church would play in the future. With the moving of the capitol to Constantinople (former Byzantium), Constantine set in order the future of the western church. The West and Rome had been sucked of its power. Only time would be needed until it was fully sacked and taken over in 410 AD. A power vacuum remained, which the Latin Western Church quickly filled. With the coming of the barbarians, and the examples of such great leaders as John Chrysostom and Ambrose, the church naturally filled the role allowed by the barbarians to facilitate order. This then grew to the latin-centered Western tradition, which found its later fruition into the modern Catholic church and the resulting Protestant reformation.

It had all started between the relationship of the Imperial Church and the Empire. If it was not for Constantine’s desire to fuse the two and strengthen his hold, history would perhaps tell a very different story.

Explain the theological and ecclesiological events leading up to the Council of Nicaea

Within the city of Alexandria during the 4th century, a theological conflict grew. The famous and well-followed presbyter, Arius, began to adhere to a doctrine that taught that the Word was not of the same essence of the Father. Instead, Arius taught that the Son was merely a creature, begotten of God, and created by him before the creation of our physical world. Alexander of Alexandria saw the heresy behind this: to deny the divinity of the Son was to deny the validity of the incarnation, which in turn meant God did not suffer for our punishment on the cross, but merely some creature. God’s wrath could not fully be revealed upon the Christ, and instead poses major problems for Christianity: If a simple creature could live sinless, why not man? Why the need of a cross to begin with, if God’s creature could merely achieve righteousness. The issue of grace is thus muddled.

This battle resumed until brought to the presence of the Roman clergy. Upon seeing this heresy, Constantine called forth the first great ecumenical counsel in 325 AD. The issue, besides solving some unified practices, was to bring about a solution to this problem: to bring about the proper and official Christianity. Eusebius of Nicomedia, a bishop who represented Arius and the Arians, defended the position in hopes that the argument, once explained, would be universally accept. The opposite occurred, and the heresy was combated. The groups unified to establish it as heresy, developing a creed (Nicene Creed), that expressed this. In addition, Constantine banished the Arian priests and bishops from their cities, further strengthening the unity of his empire and the Christian church.

Identify Arius

Arius was a famous and well-followed presbyter of Alexandria. With such a popular following established, Arius’ ideas began to grow. One which is central to Early Church conflicts, was that of his view on the nature of God. In wishing to adhere to the monotheism of Judaic tradition, Arius taught that the Word of God, the Son Jesus, was merely a creation. He taught that the Son was a created being, made before the physical creation established in Genesis. In short, the Son was not one with the father: not of the same essence. He was a separate person, a figure much like a Demi-God (Hercules). Arius had taught these teaching, and quickly found opposition from such Orthodox Christians as Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria. With the help of his secretary Athanasius, Alexandria combated this heresy, bringing it to the Roman clergy, and finally to the Christian world before the Council of Nicea. Arius, since he was not a bishop, could not argue before the Council, and instead had to rely on Eusebius of Nicomedia to further his arguments. Upon being exposed to the Christian Church, Arius and his idea of Arianism was quickly rejected. He was labeled as a heretic, condemned by the Council, and banished from his city.

Identify Athanasius

Athanasius is popularly known as the ‘black dwarf’, due to his small height and his darkened skin. However this term is quite deceptive, as Athanasius was a theological giant. A 4th century Doctor of the church, his past is rather obscure, and boasts of humble beginnings. It is believed that he was raised somewhere along the Nile in Northern Africa. Having spoken Coptic, and with his darkened skin, it is believed he came from the lower class of the Copts. Athanasius had experienced further humbling after pursuing the life of a reclusive monk. Jerome even writes about his possible contacts with Anthony. He had firmly established a relationship and popularity with the monks, which worked to his advantage as conflict found him later in life.

After experiencing the monastic lifestyle, Athanasius was accepted as the secretary under Alexander of Alexandria. It was at this time where he was heavily exposed to the heresy of Arianism, which would thus effect his theological contributions. Besides experiencing a series of four exiles and returns, boasting of such events as requesting an audience with the empire by grasping unto his horse’s reigns, Athanasius was tremendously popular with the people. We could say that two distinguishing characteristics were his disciplines monastic lifestyle, and his fiery support amongst the populace. For these reasons, it is understandable that such individuals as Eusebius of Nicomedia and the pro-arian emperor Constantius would find him as one of their most formidable enemies. These individuals would pursue his elimination, only to find him whisked away to the secrecy of the desert monks protections.

During these fiery exchanges and battles with Arianism, Athanasius wrote two important texts: Against the Gentiles, and On the Incarnation of the Word. Within these works, we find the meat of Athanasius’ contribution to the Church and theology: the incarnation.

To Athanasius, the central fact of Christianity and human history is that of the incarnation: the coming of God to walk with man. Athanasius argued that it was this very act that allowed us to have true communion with God. To deny Jesus as the incarnate God, as the Arians had done, was to lead to the conclusion that true communion was no longer possible. For this reason, a denial of the central fact of human history and Christianity, Athanasius’ fiery opposition is understandable. Using his disciplined lifestyle, and his popularity with the people, Athanasius is best known for advancing and protecting Nicene Orthodoxy via his powerful example and compelling incarnation-focused arguments.
Identify homoousios

During the great debate of Arianism vs. Trinitarians, such individuals as Athanasius found one term central: homoousios. It is defined as having the ‘same essence’. The result of this term is central to understanding the nature of the trinity. Working upon the Trinitarian hints found within scripture (baptism, etc.), homoousios expresses that the trinity shares in the same essence/substance: eternal and infinite. It is do to their same essence that allows the trinity to not merely be three separate Gods (polytheism), but a single monotheistic God that shares the same essence, yet is found in three persons. To be eternal and infinite is to reside within the same ‘space’, and as such the will of the trinity is one. This single will shows the difference between the trinity and a polytheistic concept, as polytheism contains numerous God’s containing separate wills.

Athanasius battled for this term, which we see advanced within the creed. Later, perhaps a result of his old age and a desire to see unity amongst the Church, Athanasius accepts a slight change. Certain individuals, perhaps of fear for the heresy of patrepassinism (idea that God the father came down as Jesus, not the Son), wished to use the term homoiousios (of similar essence/substance). The latter term, which Athanasius would have previously deemed heretical, seemed a fitting sacrifice for the During the great debate of Arianism vs. Trinitarians, such individuals as Athanasius found one term central: homoousios. It is defined as having the ‘same essence’. The result of this term is central to understanding the nature of the trinity. Working upon the Trinitarian hints found within scripture (baptism, etc.), homoousios expresses that the trinity shares in the same essence/substance: eternal and infinite. It is do to their same essence that allows the trinity to not merely be three separate Gods (polytheism), but a single monotheistic God that shares the same essence, yet is found in three persons. To be eternal and infinite is to reside within the same ‘space’, and as such the will of the trinity is one. This single will shows the difference between the trinity and a polytheistic concept, as polytheism contains numerous God’s containing separate wills.

Athanasius battled for this term, which we see advanced within the creed. Later, perhaps a result of his old age and a desire to see unity amongst the Church, Athanasius accepts a slight change. Certain individuals, perhaps of fear for the heresy of patrepassinism (idea that God the father came down as Jesus, not the Son), wished to use the term homoiousios (of similar essence/substance). The latter term, which Athanasius would have previously deemed heretical, seemed a fitting sacrifice for the unity of the Christian Church.

Identify Jerome

There are perhaps no other figure as comical, interesting, and profoundly influential as Jerome. It is said that Jerome was born old, hinting at the later crabbiness and grumpiness that defined his character. Not to say he was a terrible human being, but his approach was simply different.
A Church Doctor of the 4th century, Jerome was a student of Classical Latin literature. It was this literature that planted the thorn of sex addiction within his mind. Having always admired the beauty, the pornographic images contained within the latin classics was burned into his mind. As a result, Jerome sought to purge himself from it. His solution? Severe asceticism. Going as far as rejecting to bath, Jerome came to the conclusion that he needed to reject any amount of pagan literature and study from his life. To fill this void, he began an intensive study of the scriptures. This helped, and as such he believed that a study of the Hebrew, with the idea it was holy, would help even more. Finding it barbaric, Jerome continued to pursue this field. This even led to a pilgrimage that took him to Jerusalem. It was here he wished to study the ancient Hebrew in the ancient city, and it was here his dear friends Paula and her daughter followed. Paula, a rich widow, had invested heavily in monastic, and the two led twin monastic orders sharing their gender. With continuous discussions regarding scripture with Paula, he advanced his studies, until he was encouraged by a bishop and his passions to produce a version in Latin.

Having been helped by his study, and removed of his perversions, Jerome is best known for translating the bible directly from the original languages into Latin. It is a hallmark of church history: a result of Constantine’s shifting of power from the West to the East produced a cultural vacuum in the West which Latin law and philosophy filled. Latin became the lingua franca, and Jerome sought to provide a version Westerners could read. The results were profound. The Catholic Church, once developed into its Holy Roman version, even deemed Jerome’s version to be the source of authority. Translations such as the Kings James Version and others were translations from Jerome’s vulgate. The existence of the apocrypha works (Tobit, etc.), as found in the Catholic’s 77-book canon, are the result of his placement between the Old and New Testament (even though he stated they were not authoritative). Simply put, Jerome’s translation effective all of the resulting theology. The ideas of penance and purgatory possibly stemmed from Apocropha and his versions of translating, leading to specific practices in the modern Catholic church.

In addition, he served as an example to translating the bible into the vulgar language of the day. With this in mind, it is clear to see how immensely influential Jerome’s work had become.
In addition, Jerome’s work points to another specific area of interest: the rise of Latin culture, and the result it had on theological thinking. It verified the importance of the Latin, and how this tradition began deviating from the Greek. Once Rome fell in 410 AD, it is no surprise this Latin Christianity fills the power vacuum.

Identify John Chrysostom

John Chrysostom, known as the ‘Golden tongued’ or ‘Golden mouthed’, was another profoundly influential character of the 4th century church. An absolutely gifted speaker, John produced immensely dedicated followers through the merely gift of his preaching. So powerful had he become, that his mere works could spark revolutions.

With a background as a lawyer, and above all a monk, John Chrysostom was a devote and disciplined believer. The popularity of his preaching in North Africa lead to him being snuck out (of course, to prevent a riot), and sent to fill a vacancy within the bishop see of Constantinople. It was here he was to provide the contribution of his reforms. Perhaps having saturated the negativity of the imperial theological additions, the churches of Constantinople were in a decline. Clergy and bishops were often caught in the midst of affairs with ‘spiritual sisters’, as well as serious mismanagement and usage of church funds for their own luxury. John combated this with a series of reforms: 1) He demanded that bishops and clergy no longer live with ‘spiritual sisters’, 2) He called upon strict austerity amongst the clergy, 3) He oversaw a strained and closely-watched management of church funds, 4) He heavily preached that the laity remove themselves from their nominal Christian practices, and move from knowing sport’s icons to knowing their bible (he exhorted them to live righteous and holy lives).

Also a defender of Nicene Orthodoxy, he was quick to draw conflicts. The current chamberlain Eutropis had the illusion that bringing John to the city would produce some goodies. He was sorely mistaken. As a result, several clashes occurred. One, which was specifically revealing, was Eutropis’ pursuit of individuals seeking asylum from his wrath. These individuals ran to Saint Sophia, where John accepted and protected them. When Eutropis came knocking, John was quick to remind him that no bloodshed would be spilt there. The result was, that by the merely popularity and weight of his words, John’s actions led to the downfall of the wicked chamberlain. John had drew the emperor’s side, which funny enough led to Eutropis loosing power and running from those he formly persecuted to St. Sophia. As he had done earlier, John offered protection, and prevented the public from murdering him. After Eutropis believed St. Sophia couldn’t protect him, he foolishly ran away to be killed.

These conflicts continued with later with other royal officials. They ended the same: with John coming up successful against the throne. It is this contribution that we find invaluable to the early and latin church. Along with Ambrose, John Chrysostom successfully repelled efforts of the empire. His popularity, and ability to provide provision, hinted at the future of the Latin West after the barbarian invasions and the need for order (which the latin church then fills). After several struggles, John was banished to Cucusus. Here he turned to the pen, and drafted numerous worked that further angered the Arians and Throne. He was then pushed even further to a hamlet by the black sea. On his way there, he had been pushed to the limits, and neared death. He asked the soldiers to take him to a small church near the road. Here he took communion and gave perhaps his greatest and most beautiful sermon: In all things, Glory to God. He then died.

Identify Pachomius

During the 3rd century, several potential beginnings to the monastic movement are seen. In response to the persecutions of that time, individuals sought the desert for solace. The Hermit Paul and the monk Anthony are such examples. They had sought solitute in abandoned cemeteries and warehouses, seeking to further their relationship with god through simple solitude and meditation. These individuals had attracted serious respect amongst the laity and clergy, and their efforts were known well enough to provoke individuals to seek discipleship. One such example, Martin of Tours, shows the potency of such value. The topic of an extremely popular book at the time, Martin of Tours was a monk known famous for tearing his cloak in half, which he gave to a beggar and later received a vision of Jesus clothed in the cloak (‘do this to the least of these, and you do it for me’). The ragged Martin would later be appointed the bishop of tours, much to the objection of the surrounding aristocratic clergy.

It was during the 4th century that we see a new addition to monasticism: communal monasticism. Stemming in the reaction to Constantine’s merging of Christianity and empire, individuals fled for the pureness of the deserts. One such individual, Pachomius, sought to accomplish such a lifestyle. Pursuing the monastic principles, Pachomius decided to create a communal order that would focus on shared living and contemplation. His first such effort failed, which he responded by kicking individuals out and creeping stricter rules. This produced success, and the self-sufficient monastic communities grew. Soon Pachomius found himself overseeing 9 different communities with 100+ monks per group.

An additional contribution Pachomius gave to the monastic lifestyle was that of hierarchy. He had positioned a strict hierarchy within the monastic commune, consisting of himself as the overseeing Abbot. However even in this, Pachomius was a servant to the others, and so described the hierarchy. Individuals would petition to join the order outside their establishments, where they would be tested to endure, and then accepted and implanted.

Pachomius, as well as the monastic movements in general, had a tremendous effect on the Early Church. The monastic ideal was actively sought after. We see this in the monastic experiences of Athanasius, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Augustine and others. The disciplined lifestyle was a sobering reminder and model within the nominal Christian masses that now swelled the imperial churches. The above names, whom all influenced the church tremendously, are clearly products of such an influence, and it is here that we see the value and effect of Pachomius and others.

As the 5th century approached, these monastic communities adapted in the West to serve more a function of charity amongst the poor and needy.

Greetings!

God has destined us for community. Since Genesis, we have been designed to participate in collective bodies. Ultimately, God Himself lives in community with Himself (trinity), and by His grace, extends an invitation to participate this majestic community. We find purpose in this community. Our intended design, our meaning, is to come into community with God!

His son Jesus went as far as the humiliation of the cross to bring us into the life-giving purpose of community.

However we do not merely participate from an individual standpoint, as secular American society tricks us into believing. As God made humanity as a family, emphasizing the goodness of being together, we find our secondary ultimate purpose: living in community with one another.

“For the entire law is fulfilled on one statement: Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Gal. 5:14). God gave the Jews the Law to teach them proper communal living with both God and each other. When we disobey this mandate to live as a community, sin enters the picture: “If you bite and devour one another, watch out, or you will be consumed by one another.” (Gal. 5:15).

In other words, we’re not to merely acknowledge each other’s presence, and restrain from doing each other harm (the message of world religions). The radical re-orientation of Christianity occurs in this: as Christ poured his life ultimately to attain and cleanse us for community, so are we to pour our lives into each other! This is the radical Christian community! The concept of discipleship! The pouring of lives for one another to reflect God’s pouring of His son into ours! Our ultimate model is in Christ, and as followers we are to emulate the sharing of this thing called life. The acting of this verb called love.

More than any other illustration, God describes us as a family. A bride and bridegroom. Brothers and sisters. We must not confuse the terms. We are not the simple worldly community that calls us to respect communal laws and presence. We are not merely a family bounded by blood relations. We are bonded by the fulfillment of laws in Jesus, and the bounding of sin by His blood!

We are a spiritual family, adopted into God, and called to live, serve, minister, and love as a community. A body. A single entity under Jesus’ lordship and example.

The challenge is as follows: With the golden opportunity of living in an actual seminary community, how are you living? Are your relationships merely associations? Simple friends? Shared identities in a seminary-academic institution? A vocation? Do you see it as merely a ‘responsibility’?

Or, is it something greater? Does it reflect the worldly examples of friendships, community, and family, or does it reflect the radical Holy Spirit empowered, Jesus-modeled, communal family under God?

If the former, how then will you move towards the two ‘Great Commandments’ (Matt. 22:37-40)? How then, shall you live with your Brothers and Sisters?

“Carry one another’s burdens; in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone considers himself to be something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself.” (Gal. 6:2-3).

“I give you a new commandment: love one another. Just as I have loved you, you must also love one another. By this all people will know that you are My disciples. If you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35).

In response to an inquiry regarding homosexuality being genetic, and the Chandler Burr argument.

There is no scientific evidence that a “gay gene” exists. I ask for your patience in reading this lengthy response, as I woke up at 5am to offer a satisfactory answer.

You must first ask yourself what is science? To make a scientific statement, such as homosexuality is genetic, you are not making a relative statement, but one that is scientific, and must be testable and empirical. A few observations must then be made about the source you provided as ‘proof’.

1.    Scientific research/argument from a political pro-gay rights group, whose goal it is to propagate a pro-homosexual agenda on society, is hardly a bias-free source for science. If anything, a red flag flares up since it is soaked with pre-suppositions on how they will evaluate the scientific research.

2.    This is not genetic. There is scientific research with empirical/quantitative analysis, and then there is clinical research & observation. In order for something to be scientific, it must be testable. If not, it falls into the domain of the ‘lesser’ sciences (you cannot empirically test whether a ruler will be a dictator, but you can gather a ‘trait profile’ of certain similar observations in dictators. However, because we have not located a “dictator gene” we cannot replicate and test this study, and therefore it is not hard science).  One provides testable results, the others compiles observations. This is a serious difference.

To make a claim gender orientation is genetic, as done earlier, one would need to point to scientists, not a political activist, and work from the scientists work, not the polluted assumptions and insights of a biased political activists’ assumptions. The activist seeks to find information that supports his cause (reading into the work). This happens with ‘gay gene’ studies and this article.

As mentioned earlier, if one argued that sexual orientation is generic, he must provide the testable proof of this gene, and be able to replicate this proof in further peer reviewed studies. This was not done. Rather, a political argument was given. The proof of the “gay gene” was not given, but assumed. However this is not surprising, as evidence for a gay gene does not empirically exist. Rather, it is a distortion made by media and pro-left/gay-rights activists upon related research.

We could sum up this paper as follows: we observe an invisible trait that may or may not be hidden but we cannot give you any ‘gay gene’ genetic proof. We assume it is there by observation.

This is not science. You MUST provide the ‘gay gene’ to say it is genetic. In addition, the research much of his assumptions rest on is lackluster (gay gene studies have not been reproduced, etc). Burr also gives inflated numbers (understandable given his political agenda), such as higher 9% homosexuality rates, instead of reasonable 3-4%.

I will repeat, there is no evidence that shows homosexuality is simply genetic. This article does not show it is genetic, but in terms says, in summary, observations are made so it probably has genetic roots. That is not scientific evidence, but politically poisoned speculation.

Even then, behavior-gene studies are poor: Science 1994

“Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated… ‘it is hard to come up with many’ findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated.”

In rebuttal to the twin argument, head of one of the largest genetic research groups says:

“While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality [these authors being two American activists], we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment”
In the words of the researcher Dean Hamer, who studies this topic of the ‘Gay Gene’, regarding whether homosexuality was solely biological:

“Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors…not negate the psychosocial factors.”

For something to be gene specific that produces a behavior or trait, it must be what geneticists call ‘inherited’. An example is eye color, which is genetically inherited, and we can point to a gene in which it is passed down.

Inherited means directly determined by genes (exp. eye color). There is no way then, of changing this via altering one’s environment. It is set in the genetic structure of the person (you cannot change their environment to change their eye color). Sexual orientation is not this at all (as my friend shows example of, and thousands who become heterosexual mothers, fathers, etc. show). Individuals choose, recant, return, etc. of their orientation. They can move from one orientation from another, and many have sexually done so (a simple Google search will suffice).

At this point then, we can see a difference in something inherited genetically (specific genetic structure that causes a trait such as blue eyes), and something that is heritable.

For explanation, let us show how All Basketball Players are born to be basketball players. We will use three fields:

1.    Twin studies.
2.    Brain dissections.
3.    Gene ‘linkage’ studies.

Sounds quite scientific, no? First, the twin studies: We will find that if one twin is a basketball player, you will find that the other is more statistically likely to be one. The percentage of pairs in which both twins are bb players, or not, is a concordance rate. You find that this rate is high, like that rate for sexual orientation.

We’re on to something! There must be an underlying bb gene as hinted in twin studies! We must continue exploring…

Second, we cut the heads open of several dead basketball players. We locate a portion of the brain where basketball functions occur. We compare it to that section within non-basketball players, and find that it is larger in the bb players. We then conclude this to be evidence that it is a biological factor of the brain section that predisposes someone to become bb players.

Third, we study gene “linkage” studies. We study bb players, and notice certain clusters of genes that are similar among bb players. With the supportive information in the first two points, we have proved that basketball players are genetic! No? We can expect the headlines ‘Scientists have found the Basketball player gene!’.

Actually, we cannot. In response to the third point: Some genes such as height, athleticism, quick reflexes, etc., are associated with playing basketball. They, however, DO NOT CAUSE basketball players. One may be likely to play because they have these genetic traits, but no one trait is the actual cause of basketball players, just the response there-of.  Saying otherwise is unscientific. These may be common amongst bb players, but they are not the “basketball” genes.

We can say male homosexuality carries similar traits (tendency for shyness, anxiety, intelligence, sensitivity, aesthetic abilities, etc), however this is not an area heavily explored by scientists. These genetic linkages are not the cause of orientation, but a response to traits. A willful response.

In response to the second point, the brain changes with use. Playing basketball exercises that area of the brain, vs. those who do not. Growth and changes occurs. We are judging post fact, and making the assumption that portion causes basketball/orientation when in reality it is simply being worked upon willfully by those individuals, leading to the change.

In response to the first point, we merely have observed what the gene linkage studies have done. A mere response to environment and certain traits. Understandable, given the closeness of genes, the shared environment, and the gene linkages (shared size, traits, etc).

This “basketball gene” is as scientific as this “gay gene”. We have used the same arguments that political activists like Burr distort. If the basketball argument seems hardly scientific, then you can conclude the same about the “gay gene”.

In conclusion, how does science, not a political activist with a clear agenda, define sexual orientation? Mainly by psychological, social, biological factors.
“At this point, the most wifely held opinion (on causation of homosexuality) is that multiple factors play a role” (‘Gay Brain’ researcher Simon LeVay)
“Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality” (Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist)
“I know of no one in the field who argue that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors.” (Sociologist Steven Goldberg).

IN SUMMARY: 1. We have observed that Burr is clearly a biased individual reading into the researcher for the propagation of pro-homosexual agenda. He reads into the research. 2. We have defined what we mean by ‘scientific’, and have shown that there is no testable body of scientific proof we can replicate on the topic that ‘sexual orientation is in the genes’. 3. Burr’s argument is from a series of observations, not hard scientific evidence. 4. Associating genes with human behaviors is incredibly poor, as pointed out by Science magazine’s 1994 article. 5. Twin studies argue in favor of environmental response, rather than a specific gene. 6. It is not genetically inherited, but heritable. 7. Saying sexual orientation is genetic is as accurate as saying basketball players are genetic; that your genes would determine you will become a basketball player vs. your genes will determine what your sexual orientation will be. In reality, certain gene traits will be noticeable in basketball players, but NOT THE CAUSE THEREOF, just as certain gene clusters may also be noticeable in homosexuals, NOT THE CAUSE THEREOF. 8. This fits the practical experience of people shifting back and force from sexual orientations. 9. Twin studies, brain dissections, and gene linkages do no mean it is genetically inherited and thus unchangeable (opposed to something directly genetically & unchangeable like blue eyes, etc).

And finally, 10. There is no evidence or proof, as Burr would want you to assume, that sexual orientation is purely ‘in the genes’. That is not science. No research on the subject is making that absolute statement. Rather, it is a combination of media presentation, and political agenda distortion, that cause you to think otherwise. I would further comment that I implore you to seek the research free of any bias baggage or political agenda you carry, or that of commentators. Go straight to the source, and ask yourself this very important question: am I looking only for information that affirms by assumptions, or am I alleviated to observe this issue in a free manner.

Science instead argued for a complex response to the three earlier factors, which I would place extreme emphasis on one’s willful response to it.
Simply said, sexual orientation is NOT genetically determined.

WITH THAT ASIDE: One final say, given we’ve run through the scientific realm. Something of the spirit must be mentioned, as it’s authority rises above that of science. Man is terribly flawed. As Burr shows, we pollute ourselves with bias. We can both look at the same scientific study, and come away with two wildly different conclusions. This is why so much philosophy conflicts. Man and his thinking, simply said are flawed (1 Cor. 1:20). We are depraved. We are, in short, sinful. We blind ourselves with ourselves. Burr seeks to find that orientation is natural, because he has an agenda. This hints at a greater need. It hints at the fallibility of man, and a need to alleviate us from ourselves. It hints at a need of revealed knowledge.

This is one reason why it is so necessary to have something that alleviates you from human frailty. I’m not talking about a strong ideology, but true perfect wisdom, and true perfect wisdom can come only from the perfectly wise. In other words, God. He is the only being who is freed of imperfections, or faulty reasoning, or poisoning bias. He is the source of truth, which is absolute, not relative. He allows us to submit our faulty will to Him, and instead attain true pure knowledge by the means of his revelation. From this revelation, this truth, we can respond. One of these truths is that real change exists. Revelation makes it clear in His revealed scriptures that homosexuality is a sin. God would not make something natural a sin (such as being black, or having blue eyes). Rather, sin is the willful choice, and the supportive action, to do something against God’s will. Homosexuality is placed alongside other behavioral sins. It is important to notice that someone like Burr places the need to prove homosexuality, a behavior, natural, because it would then justify such immorality. The individual places this desire as an idol. However perfect revelation shows otherwise (Romans 1:26-28, 1 Tim. 1:10).

Science is not an absolute source of truth. It merely provides us observations (not meaning, or purpose, or truth). Science does not have all the answers, as you cannot even prove that statement with science. We see an example above.
Our revealed source of truth, for good reasons, shows us that homosexuality is a behavioral response. A willful decision supported by actions. It is one that can be changed, as we see in Romans 6:11 where Paul is speaking to the Corinthian church, who among their members had individuals who were sexually immoral, homosexuals, and drunkards. “Some of you were like this; but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God.” (Rom 6:11).

God, in His wisdom, has offered true change. Real change. In his Son, forgiveness, and God-empowered change can occur.

One more real life point:

A militant lesbian, who was entrenched in the lesbian lifestyle, now sits within a seminary classroom. She speaks openly of what she has done, and how she considered it to be central to her very being. It was her very identity. After such a lifestyle, she came to God, and was cleaned, washed, forgiven, empowered. She was removed of such desire for behavior. Where her desires were once sexual relations with her gender, they are now a godly husband and children. She had no ‘gay gene’. She did have real change. A gene does not produce depression, but the response to environment and situations. The same of homosexual orientation. And with both, and even behavior and action, forgiveness and real change are found in Jesus (1 John 1:9).

The above argument fits within this revealed truth. This female’s experience, which my wife knows, is not suppressing her ‘natural inclination to be gay’, but has rather been given freedom, and the power to change. I married a woman who was told she would be OCD, PTSD, and severely depressed all her life by psychologists. Her father suffered a brain aneurism when she was young, and for years she self-mutilated, attempted suicide, and suffered severe depression. Psychologist told her these were rooted in brain fluids. Serotonin levels. She would need to deal with such things for the rest of her life, day by day. Then, she came to Christ. She was healed of 8+ years of what psychology attempted. All those years of ingrained behaviors. Gone. Done. Vanished. Now, empowered, forgiven, and washed anew, she is completely different.  “Christ has liberated us into freedom” (Gl. 5:1).

There is true change to sinful behavior. The absolute source of truth, God, reveals to us that he did not make us for unnatural relations, but rather explains that such is a behavior which goes against his created order, and is such sin. However even then, he offers us the solution to change such behavior, one that is not within science, but in His son (2 Cor. 3:17).

Sources: Argument &  outline from Is There a “Gay Gene”? narth.com/docs/istheregene.html.

Leonard Goenaga: Interesting note: If a property owner invites someone into their private property, and then kills them, they are charged with murder. However, in an abortion, a woman invites a child into their body (sex), claims the human life to be their property, and executes innocence via abortion. The legality of private property with two very different moral outcomes.

Friend 1: MOST abortions are the cause of an unwanted child in a woman’s body, thus, wouldn’t that NOT be an open invitation? And what about rape? That’s forceful entry.

Activity: Hiking & Fishing, 10/12/09
Location: Tailrace Fishing Area, Falls Lake Dam, Wake, NC
Conditions: 57 degrees C, Overcast/Slight Showers, Wind E at 3 mpg, 91% Humidity
Bait/Lures: 7″ Dark Purple Worm, Topwater Plug, Jigs, Mini lure.
Caught: Nothing

Greetings!

With the close of my Seminary’s Fall vacation, I just HAD to wet some lines. Still new to the area (its been about two months), I’ve been looking for a good place to go fishing and exploring. After some research, I’ve discovered Falls Lake, and decided to visit it’s eastern most portion this morning.

After waking up early and buying my fishing license, I drove a good 15 minutes to Tailrace Fishing Area, within the Army Corp. of Engineers section, and right behind Falls Lake Dam. I took about a 2 mile hike along Tailrace trial, which took me to the dam. I then walked across the dam to the edge, where I walked down to observe a small cliff-face. After this, I walked back, and forged my own trail along the sandy shore-line along the lake. After this, found my way back to Tailrace, and decided to wet some line.

I fished for only two hours, with no success. I tried a topwater chartruese plug for about 45 minutes, with no bites. I then tries a dark purple 7″ worm with no luck. I then tried a small sinking lure with no luck. This pattern continued until I had to leave. I’ll get the hang of it yet, and might even catch something!

Nice creek & picnic area within Talerace.

View of Talerace from atop the dam.

Sight alongside shoreline hike.

Hiking Elevation (ft)

Hiking Speed (mph)

My Performance

Uploaded by www.cellspin.net