Pages: 1 2  Next -- Posted by greatescape at 7:32 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 If you believe that homosexuality is genetic/biological instead of choice; is it logically possible to consider it a sin? 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   ) -- Posted by PrincesSita at 7:33 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 There is no homosexual gene. And the Bible CLEARLY states it is a sin, whatever way you look at it. -- Posted by dreamweaver at 7:34 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 One of the many issues between science and religion. This also depends on who you talk to on whether or not they actually believe that homosexuality is a sin. (I don't like to pass judgments as if I'm God condemning people hell or not...) -- Posted by greatescape at 7:35 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 Quote: from princessita at 9:33 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 There is no homosexual gene. And the Bible CLEARLY states it is a sin, whatever way you look at it. First off, researchers have found that there are genes that affect your sexual orientation.  Second of all, that's nice that that is your opinion.  However, you have no logic to back it up. -- Posted by bluenight at 7:35 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 Quote: from princessita at 9:33 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 There is no homosexual gene. And the Bible CLEARLY states it is a sin, whatever way you look at it. about 3 times, and Jesus never said it was. same-thing can be said about women being salves in the bible -- Posted by carracer at 7:36 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 "So thus, wouldn't the biology vs. choice question essentially determine whether or not homosexuality should be considered sinful?" On the very basic level it really wouldn't make a difference, since it says that a man shall not lay with another man in the same way as he would with a woman. While I do not believe that homosexuality is wrong, it is very difficult to determine what the bible believes. Strictly based on translation it may be talking about certain kinds of sex, sex at all, or attraction between men. It is extremely unclear. To answer your question, according to passages in the bible, the intent or lack of intent in the action is insignificant. -- Posted by greatescape at 7:36 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 Quote: from dreamweaver at 9:34 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 One of the many issues between science and religion. This also depends on who you talk to on whether or not they actually believe that homosexuality is a sin. (I don't like to pass judgments as if I'm God condemning people hell or not...) I don't either....I'm not even religious myself. I'm speaking from a purely logical standpoint here. -- Posted by Dexter Ward at 7:36 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 The same debate can be said about the mentally ill, if your insane and kill yourself or someone else are you responsible in god's eyes. -- Posted by dreamweaver at 7:39 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 Quote: from princessita at 10:33 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 There is no homosexual gene. And the Bible CLEARLY states it is a sin, whatever way you look at it. Oh. You're a scientist now? What school did you get your degree at? -- Posted by greatescape at 7:39 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 Quote: from carracer at 9:36 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 On the very basic level it really wouldn't make a difference, since it says that a man shall not lay with another man in the same way as he would with a woman. While I do not believe that homosexuality is wrong, it is very difficult to determine what the bible believes. Strictly based on translation it may be talking about certain kinds of sex, sex at all, or attraction between men. It is extremely unclear. I know but this is a totally different argument.  I'm basically operating under the assumption here that the Bible does say that homosexuality is a sin.  I know that there is a debate about the actual translation.  But that's not what my question is. To answer your question, according to passages in the bible, the intent or lack of intent in the action is insignificant. So then God creates some people to be inherently sinful? -- Posted by PrincesSita at 7:40 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 7:35 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 Quote: from princessita at 9:33 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 There is no homosexual gene. And the Bible CLEARLY states it is a sin, whatever way you look at it. First off, researchers have found that there are genes that affect your sexual orientation.  Second of all, that's nice that that is your opinion.  However, you have no logic to back it up. Um didnt you ask if the Bible stated it? Im just answering your question..i dont care if you dont beleive or are not religious but you asked if from the Bible's stand point it was a sin and yes it does say it is. -- Posted by dreamweaver at 7:42 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 10:36 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 Quote: from dreamweaver at 9:34 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 One of the many issues between science and religion.    This also depends on who you talk to on whether or not they actually believe that homosexuality is a sin. (I don't like to pass judgments as if I'm God condemning people hell or not...) I don't either....I'm not even religious myself. I'm speaking from a purely logical standpoint here. I thought of the same thing and question it myself. I've always wondered what people would say even after it was official, that homosexuality is in fact a gene and not a choice. But even though it's already been said, it's rather obvious some would prefer to continue preaching from the pedestal, and blantantly ignore the other teaching all Christians were taught... get off your high horse and actually do good deeds instead of acting like you're the great Judge of the afterlife. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 7:42 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.  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. -- Posted by carracer at 7:42 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 "So then God creates some people to be inherently sinful? " There are people whose genetic makeup makes them increasingly violent or increasingly sex inclined. Those people are more inclined to sin also. That is a timeless theological question that has not and cannot be answered. That follows the idea of predestination, an idea on which I am not sure how I stand. -- Posted by greatescape at 7:43 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 Quote: from princessita at 9:40 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 Um didnt you ask if the Bible stated it? Im just answering your question..i dont care if you dont beleive or are not religious but you asked if from the Bible's stand point it was a sin and yes it does say it is. You clearly have the reading comprehension of a 5th grader. -- Posted by greatescape at 7:51 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? 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 seperating science and religion as two seperate things...and thus seperating 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 seperate the two. -- Posted by Solitude at 8:01 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," 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. -- Posted by greatescape at 8:06 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 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. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 8:19 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." -- Posted by greatescape at 8:28 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 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. -- Posted by lsd at 9:53 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 Quote: from Prince o palities at 7:42 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. 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? -- Posted by Prince o palities at 5:48 am on Oct. 8, 2008 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. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 6:01 am on Oct. 8, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 11:28 pm on Oct. 7, 2008 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. If you read the topic he linked to, he states that he believes homosexuality only refers to committing homosexual acts. -- Posted by Midnight Frost at 7:31 am 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. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 7:39 am on Oct. 8, 2008 Quote: from Midnight Frost at 10:31 am 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. Could you decide to be attracted to a different gender? Have you ever tried? -- Posted by Bagheera at 7:44 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. -- Posted by MotoMojo at 7:48 am on Oct. 8, 2008 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'. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 11:57 am on Oct. 8, 2008 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. -- Posted by greatescape at 4:02 pm on Oct. 8, 2008 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. -- Posted by greatescape at 4:05 pm on Oct. 8, 2008 Quote: from MotoMojo at 9:48 am on Oct. 8, 2008 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. Pages: 1 2  Next