|
Until you sign up you can't do much. Yes, it's free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | / / / Viewing Topic
|  |
|
|
|
|
solitude
Soothsayer
 Patron
|
     
I always remember what Rowling said, "It is our choices far from our abilities that show who we truly are," It's really people's choices to choose any sexual orientation. Maybe there is a gene that makes them act homosexually, but if they choose to be heterosexual, then that's who they truly are. Whether it's a sin or not, we're really no one to decide, only they can.
-------
Thank you greatescape11:)
You're welcome HatesYou
click for support
|
|
|
( greatescape11 )
invisible
 Sustainer
Support Leader
|
Quote: from solitude at 10:01 pm on Oct. 7, 2008
 I always remember what Rowling said, "It is our choices far from our abilities that show who we truly are," 
The problem here....
Choice=choice.
ability (and our decision to use these abilities)=/=biology
It's really people's choices to choose any sexual orientation. Maybe there is a gene that makes them act homosexually, but if they choose to be heterosexual, then that's who they truly are. Whether it's a sin or not, we're really no one to decide, only they can.
We do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual (or that's what the scientific claim is...which I happen to believe...but that's not the argument here). We chose to act on our feelings. Thus, simply having heterosexual relations does not make you heterosexual. It has to do with attraction, which again goes back to science.
-------
I prove a theorem and the house expands:
the windows jerk free to hover near the ceiling,
the ceiling floats away with a sigh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prince o palities
Get back in my pocket.
Patron
Support Leader
|
Quote: from greatescape11 at 9:51 pm on Oct. 7, 2008
Quote: from Prince o palities at 9:42 pm on Oct. 7, 2008
If you believe that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin (and I believe it does ::click here::), then what science discovers has nothing to do with it. It is possible for people to overcome genetic predispositions. Alcoholism has been linked to genetics, but being a drunkard is no less sinful because of it. Alcoholism runs in my family and I manage not to be a drunkard.
So then, hypothetically of course, if heterosexuality were a sin...you could fairly say that you could force yourself to like men?
To like men, no. To abstain from sex with women, certainly.
If it is a sin, it is a sin apart from what science may say about it. Science is a vehicle for facts about the natural world. Religion is a source of truth. The distinction must be made.
Alright, so under that you are separating science and religion as two separate things...and thus separating the natural world from "truth"? How is that the natural world is not a part of this truth when it itself is a creation of God? I don't understand how you can separate the two.
It starts with a belief that there are things which are which science cannot quantify, things like a soul or intangible aspect which separates man from animal. If something can be real apart from testing in the physical world, then it is true even though science cannot give it to us. Science is a wonderful thing. It the ingenuity of man put into practice that allows me to even talk to you right now. However, science deals only with what we think we can prove right now. Is the universe expanding or contracting? Is the smallest indivisible unit of matter an atom, an electron, or the newest smallest thing? How many stars are there? How vast is the universe? Is Pluto a planet? All things that now have a finite, factual answer from science that at one time had another finite, factual answer from science. There was a time when prevailing scientific theory asserted that the earth was the center of the universe, and no matter how many angry atheists tell you the church forced everyone to believe this, it was in fact backed up by astronomical observations and equations which, for a time, adequately explained the movement of the stars based on a geocentric model. Science is a fluid human discipline. It changes as man changes, both in his advancement of knowledge and redefining of culture. Religion focuses not on what can be demonstrated for today but what can be declared for all time. There is one God; He has a divine will for man; He has, at various times, condescended to reveal more fully this will to us. Things like that will never change no matter what facts science unearths. No matter what anyone says, science cannot disprove God. You cannot use a discipline the objective of which is to study what can be observed and quantified and use it to prove or disprove the existence of something which admits that it can neither be observed for quantified.
-------
"It is the wrong question to ask, and therefore, as one might expect, has
no right answer." - Hans von Campenhausen
This is the philosophy of my life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MotoMojo
Dairy Product Addict
|
Even if homosexuality is a sin, didn't Jesus allegedly die for the sins of all people? If God is all forgiving, he won't pick and choose which sins he'll forgive. By my understanding, he should accept all mistakes if any, since everything is his own creation to which he grants total forgiveness of 'sin'.
-------
This is my signature.
|
|
|
Prince o palities
Get back in my pocket.
Patron
Support Leader
|
Quote: from Blank black at 9:44 am on Oct. 8, 2008
Quote: from Midnight Frost at 3:31 pm on Oct. 8, 2008
Quote: from princessita at 10:33 am on Oct. 8, 2008
There is no homosexual gene. And the Bible CLEARLY states it is a sin, whatever way you look at it.
Correct. I believe it's a conscious choice, and in that respect, it is always a sin.
Let me get this straight. You believe that in the past, when homosexuality was punishable by death, people chose it?? Good Lord.
Well that's a retarded argument. I mean, I don't necessarily agree with the premise that you are arguing against, but people have always chosen to do things that are punishable by death. That's got to be the saddest counter-argument for homosexuality being a choice ever.
-------
"It is the wrong question to ask, and therefore, as one might expect, has
no right answer." - Hans von Campenhausen
This is the philosophy of my life.
|
|
|
( greatescape11 )
invisible
Sustainer
Support Leader
|
Quote: from Prince o palities at 7:48 am on Oct. 8, 2008
It starts with a belief that there are things which are which science cannot quantify, things like a soul or intangible aspect which separates man from animal. If something can be real apart from testing in the physical world, then it is true even though science cannot give it to us. Science is a wonderful thing. It the ingenuity of man put into practice that allows me to even talk to you right now. However, science deals only with what we think we can prove right now. Is the universe expanding or contracting? Is the smallest indivisible unit of matter an atom, an electron, or the newest smallest thing? How many stars are there? How vast is the universe? Is Pluto a planet? All things that now have a finite, factual answer from science that at one time had another finite, factual answer from science. There was a time when prevailing scientific theory asserted that the earth was the center of the universe, and no matter how many angry atheists tell you the church forced everyone to believe this, it was in fact backed up by astronomical observations and equations which, for a time, adequately explained the movement of the stars based on a geocentric model.
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. 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 key difference however, is the source. Science is the result of thousands of years of testing, experimentation, theory and observation. It has been refined and made to be more precise and accurate. Religion has been and will always center around faith.
Science is a fluid human discipline. It changes as man changes, both in his advancement of knowledge and redefining of culture. Religion focuses not on what can be demonstrated for today but what can be declared for all time. There is one God; He has a divine will for man; He has, at various times, condescended to reveal more fully this will to us. Things like that will never change no matter what facts science unearths.
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. 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..)
No matter what anyone says, science cannot disprove God. You cannot use a discipline the objective of which is to study what can be observed and quantified and use it to prove or disprove the existence of something which admits that it can neither be observed for quantified.
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 prove a theorem and the house expands:
the windows jerk free to hover near the ceiling,
the ceiling floats away with a sigh
|
|
|
|
| Looking for something else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| / / / Viewing Topic | |
|
744 users online 
184750 members 
You have 1 new message.
