Jerry

What do those who say that all children are born with the "natural" attraction for the opposite sex becasue that is what God intended believe about the potential sinfulness of kids who are born with both genitalia and the doctors make the gender choice without knowing which natural attraction the child had at birth?

The doctors have a 50% chance of choosing the wrong gender for the child. If for example the child is naturally attracted to girls but the doctor chooses wrong and makes him a girl, "she" will grow up to be a lesbian. Would that be sinful on her part? Should people try to "reprogram" her to learn to have sex with men? Even though she was a male inside from the very start and he would be sleeping with girls but for the doctors' mistake?

or do Christians with such views about homosexuality accept that some anomolies in nature happen, and that a person could be perhaps even born gay?

Given the Christian acceptance of Revelation and its references to an "anti" Messiah, who Revelation says will actually fulfill some of the Messianic prophecies such as uniting Israel, defeating Israel's enemies and taking steps to unite the world - - isn't it likely that when the Messiah comes and begins fulfilling those tasks, many Christians weill declare him to be the "anti" Messiah and reject him?

Thus, whether they were correct or not about the Messiah already appearing in the form of Jesus, this later-added Revelation concept could put them in opposition to the Messiah when he appears (either for the second time as they believe or the first time as others believe).

For example, I see today that many Christians are in opposition to anything that smacks of world unity because they see it as potentially "anti"Messiah. But the original messianic prophecies in the Bible say that the actual Messiah will indeed unite the world. So they may be resisting a step in the direction of actual messianic fulfillment by being misled with this "anti" messiah concept from Revelation. Jesus never spoke of such things; and neither did any of his disciples. It shows up only in Revelation written perhaps more than a hundred years after Jesus' death.

I've noticed that the NT never alledges that Jesus comes out and just says -- "I am God incarnate", or "I am the Messiah". Instead he is said to have implied it with far less clear language. Even the story of Jesus talking with Moses has God saying - "This is my son, listen to him." -- rather than : "This is Me in human form. Listen to Me while in this form." Further, that story even says that no one was to even tell anyone about this even happening until after Jesus was dead.

So why so cryptic on such key points to the theology? And how does this compute with frequent Christian comments such as God might say at judgment -- "you were told he was the Messiah and had your chance, etc." Can so much hinge on having "been told" when the telling was purposefully made vague and ambiguous?

is there a Christian theological argument as to why it was appropriate to be vague rather than clear?

When Moses asks for G-d's name n Exodus, G-d gives him only "I AM" . Jews and Christians often discuss this "I AM" as the "name" of G-d. Jews don't even say it when reading passages in which it is written, but replace it with "Lord" when they read out loud - coming from a tradition that says the "name" is too holy to be spoken. Christians get all into "Yawah" and "Jehova" etc, which are niothing more than transliterations of "I AM" -- and argue about other faiths having the "wrong name" for G-d.

I have come to believe that all of this misses the point. It seems that G-d was REJECTING Moses' idea that He would have a name. Names are for the other false gods of the time, and names make them like humans -- Zeus, Appollo, Baall etc -- all had names like a person has a name. But G-d has NO name. "I AM" is NOT His "name" but is instead a statement that He is beyond all names. He simply IS. "I AM" ; HE IS" etc are not "names" for G-d. They are declarations that names cannot capture.

So Christians are wrong about any right or wrong names, because that misses the point of the G-d beyond any names. And Jewish tradition is wrong to think of I AM as a "holy name" that shouldn't even be spoken, because that too misses the point He was making to Moses. Ironic that His message of no name was turned into a super special name.

If we all simply read "I AM' wherever it appears in the text, it might make for some awkward sounding sentences but would drive home the point that He has no actual name and is beyond all actual names. Having to say that "I AM told Moses to tell the people ...." would to me be meaningful in that regard.

Comments?

Many suggest that Abe's faith was tested by seeing if he would actually murder his own son on the say so of G-d. But the bible seems to say that Abe knew, or at least should have known, that the sacrifice was never going to occur, because of G-d's previous promise that he would through his offspring create a large nation etc. So -- the real test of Abe's faith was NOT that he would be willing to murder, but that he would trust in G-d's promise that no murder would occur. The text further supports this because Abe tells his son that they WILL be coming down the mountain together. So Abe's faith was strong, he believed in the promise of G-d, and knew that his son would walk down with him and not be sacrificed. Perhaps that is the test - faith in the promise of G-d -- not willingess to murder a child.