And conversely, if you believe it is a conscious choice; is it possible for it NOT to be a sin?
It seems that if you believe that homosexuality is biological and yet still believe it is a sin, wouldn't that mean that God predisposes some to be inherently sinful and not others....which is (to my understanding) not a Christian belief...?
So thus, wouldn't the biology vs. choice question essentially determine whether or not homosexuality should be considered sinful?
-----------------------------------------
**If you don't believe in God, do not flame. I don't care.
**If you are a theology major/minor/fantatic/whatever and I am way off base, do not flame. I'm asking a question. Not debating. (That being said, answers/ideas are welcome. Be nice )
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. 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.
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.
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.
Understood. Not my particular belief, but understood.
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.
My main problem though is that I really do not see the Bible's interpretation on the morality of homosexuality as one of life's "eternal truths". How many times is homosexuality mentioned in the Bible? Something like nine passages? Compared to the countless verses and stories and teachings about good will towards other, the importance of faith in God, etc.
To me, the treatment of homosexuals in the Bible exists on more of a historical plane, much like slavery did in the Bible. In it's historical context, homosexuality was not an accepted practice. I fail to see why any single passage in the Bible gives it enough weight to be considered part of an "eternal truth".
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?
I know it's off base of my first question. You pretty much answered the original one, as I said before.
I was simply thinking it through and the thought occurred to me so I brought it up.
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.
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."
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..)
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 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]
Anyway, in short, no. There is nothing science can say about the physical world which will change the fundamental truths of the spiritual world.
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'.
That doesn't mean that we are meant to run wild committing all sorts of sins because we are promised redemption.
It's been a while since I've been to church, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that's not how it works.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Could you decide to be attracted to a different gender? Have you ever tried?
Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 10:19 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 How are you defining homosexuality? Are you defining it as an attraction to members of the same gender or as committing homosexual acts? Personally, I define it as the former and point out that nowhere in the Bible does it ever say "Do not find yourself attracted to a man as one is attracted to a woman." Agree, which is where we come back to PoP's assertion that it is possible to control or change these impules.
How are you defining homosexuality? Are you defining it as an attraction to members of the same gender or as committing homosexual acts? Personally, I define it as the former and point out that nowhere in the Bible does it ever say "Do not find yourself attracted to a man as one is attracted to a woman."
Personally, I define it as the former and point out that nowhere in the Bible does it ever say "Do not find yourself attracted to a man as one is attracted to a woman."
Agree, which is where we come back to PoP's assertion that it is possible to control or change these impules.
If you read the topic he linked to, he states that he believes homosexuality only refers to committing homosexual acts.
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?
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.
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.
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. 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.
Could you overcome your heterosexuality?
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.
850 users online 
222934 members 1154 active today Advertise Here
850 users online 222934 members 1154 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
