---

Yes, but while all this is correct, it does not mean that there is NO definite answer. It simply means that humans make mistakes, and that science is a process to achieving truth, whereas religion is a perceived definite truth. Just because history has shown that science is not always correct does NOT mean that the truth cannot be achieved through science.

---

I'm not saying that there is no definite answer those questions.  There is a definite answer to the question of the smallest, indivisible unit of matter.  I even agree that it is within the realm of possibility that man can discover, with finality, what that is.

But that is a fact and does not effect truth.  So many Christians have tied up their faith in points of science, the age of the earth comes to mind as does the exact nature of the unborn child, that they lose sight of the fact that what science tells us is constantly being updated and refined.  If you base your faith on facts and not truth, those facts will change and your faith loses all meaning.

---

Essentially, the exact same argument you are using to discredit science are similar to the argument that are often used againt religion, that being:
"No definite evidence exists to prove that science is correct", paralleled with "No definite evidence exists to prove the existence of a God."

---

The wires got crossed somewhere.  I'm not trying to discredit science.  I'm just trying to put it in its proper sphere.  The discipline is, by definition, the study of the observable, quantifiable world.  It is the authority on that, not religion.  If a religion is founded on the claim that the earth is flat and makes its stand on a scientific claim then that religions fails (I think we can all agree).  But you'll find that, as a rule, enduring religions makes their stand on the intangible, the things which are beyond the realm of science because by their nature they cannot be defined.

---

This may be true, but our interpretation of the Bible and God's will has changed throughout the years. With perhaps the exception of religious extremists, emphasis has been placed on certain teachings of the Bible, and less on others. Certain traditions and practices witnessed in the Bible have gone far out of date over the course of history.

---

Certain traditions and nuanced points of high theology and practice should not be confused with those eternal truths that I mentioned.  That there is one God who has a divine will for man that has been at various times revealed to us in ways which we can understand have been consistent since at least the thirteenth century B.C. during the time of Exodus and Conquest.

---

What I am essentially asking here is that if reasonable proof were to exist that indicated that homosexuality was a product of biology; would those select passages declaring homosexuality as a sin still hold more weight than the idea that we can all go to heaven by accepting Jesus (so on and so forth, you know the rest..)

---

Finally we're back to the root question and the answer is not a comparative one.  Read my signature.  The "do the homosexuality passages hold more weight than the accept Jesus, go to heaven passages" is the wrong question to ask.  The right question was your original question: would it still be a sin if science proved it was genetic?

It suddenly occurs to me where we got our wires crossed.  It was never my intention to say that because science is constantly changing its answers to things, we cannot trust what it says about homosexuality.  If science tells me that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition, I would accept that as fact.  But the answer remains, it would not change what is true about the divine will for man.

I return to my alcoholism analogy, because it is one that hits close to home for me.  Science tells me that alcoholism is a genetic predisposition.  The Bible tells me that drunkenness is a sin.  Those two are not in direct contradiction.  We all admit that I am still culpable for my actions.  While the genetic predisposition toward alcoholism would explain my drunkenness, it would excuse it.  I could no more go to court and expect to be excused from my DUI on the basis of genetics than I could go to God and expect to be excused from my sin for that reason.

My point about science is that no matter what it tells us about the physical world, that does not, can not, will not negate what I know to be true about the spiritual world.  Theology and science, while not mutually exclusive disiciplines, are at the very least completely distinct in their primary focuses.

---

I at no point attempted to disprove God. I do not want to disprove God. I have no intentions of ever disproving God. I would be silly to think that it is even possible to disprove God.

I want to make that clear. I have a very "to each his own" view of religion. Who am I to tell anyone that they're wrong?

My intention/intitial argument was coming from a purely logical standpoint. I feel that one thing (evidence that homosexuality is a product of nature) cannot exist with another thing that directly contradicts it (sin being a byproduct of free will, not natural design). In a sense, the question was almost hypothetical, being as science is, as you said, impossible to definitively prove.

---

I know you didn't try to disprove God, and I probably should have disclaimed that this was just me ranting.  It all played into my point that people who try to set science and theology up against each other as if one must be right and the other wrong misunderstand the purview of each discipline.

[rant]As the touters of the banner of science are so quick to point out, science is empirical, observable, demonstrable, quantifiable.  It can be seen and reproduced and proven over and over.  But how will you demonstrate the God of whom you are the imperfect image?  How will you observe the Creator of your empirical faculties?  Can you touch the God who fashioned your hands from the dirt?  Can you smell the God who breathed His own life into your lungs, see the God who first created light so that you might see?  How can God be contained in your tools for measuring His creation when those tools cannot yet even contain the height and width and depth and breadth of His creation?  We don't understand ourselves well enough to eliminate death from our mortal life, how can we presume to know God well enough to grasp for ourselves what is eternal life?[/rant]