Homosexuality is natural.

[DMagoh]

DMagoh has been pasting this reply to posts of mine all across the CF board. I don't know about you, but I smell prejudice.

Everytime you post "God can't exist because science can't explain Him", I will post my response. Truth is truth. Should I make up something different? If you post the same beliefs all across the CF, my only option is to reply with Truth. Truth is always the same.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Everytime you post "God can't exist because science can't explain Him", I will post my response. Truth is truth. Should I make up something different? If you post the same beliefs all across the CF, my only option is to reply with Truth. Truth is always the same.

I guess science doesn't exist since science cannot explain science.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Everytime you post "God can't exist because science can't explain Him", I will post my response. Truth is truth. Should I make up something different? If you post the same beliefs all across the CF, my only option is to reply with Truth. Truth is always the same.

Perhaps, but where have I ever posted something like that? If you cannot show me, then I'm going to take this post as a personal attack, and report it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't recall saying that was the main reason the city was destroyed. Genesis clearly portrays that the mob wanted to have sex with these guys. Then it is not portrayed in light, but in a negative connotation. Then in Leviticus it says not to lay with a man as one lays with a woman. My point isn't about the reason Sodom is destroyed, it is about one of the sins there, and how the Bible portrays it as sin, but that God has grace and mercy for all sinners.

Did you consider that it was portraying the attempted rape in a negative light, not the fact that it was homosexual rape?

 

[DMagoh]

Perhaps, but where have I ever posted something like that? If you cannot show me, then I'm going to take this post as a personal attack, and report it.

Here's several places where you have said Science disagrees with God and the Bible:

Ah, and the 'goddidit' argument rears it's head once again. If that is your belief, then fine. Of course, the logical contradictions in the Bible would also have to have been 'spirit-lead'. Why do you put faith in something that lead people to make contradictions to their work? If the Bible is demonstratably wrong on things such as insect legs and global floods, how can you put your faith on second-hand interpretations?

We lack the understanding that 4 = 6 ? By all the definitions of four, six, and the equality relation, the statement '4 = 6' is false. Even the Hebrews knew this. Your god is not above the laws of logic, and he too knows this (assuming he exists, of course).

Well it's pretty easy to disprove this.
1) The Bible states that locusts have four legs.
2) Reality states that locusts have six legs.
3) Therefore, the Bible is at least partially incorrect.
Ergo, it is not the absolute truth. QED.

The land animals simply couldn't fit. The biomass of all 'kind's, even being generously defined, would not fit on a boat made from the technology of the time.

Almost all aquatic and plant life would be rendered extinct.

The narrative says that only eight related people survived, effectively restricted the human Y-chromosome to just one genotype. After 4000 years, we would have very little variation in modern Y-chromosomes, which contradicts reality.

I think that will do, for now. Too much Y-chromosomal variation, extant aquatic and plant life, and simple practicle impossibilities.

Of course there can. Theists are reknowned for rejected scientific knowledge in favour of their own beliefs. Not all, but enough.

Then the majority of theists, especially those in Abrahamic religions, are not seekers of the truth, but upholders of dogma.

This fact only furthers my point: the consequences 4000 years after a global flood, as described in the Bible, does not correlate with reality.

The mitochondrion joined our cellular structure millions of years ago, perhaps even a couple of billion. The Y-chromosome has been around for as long as mammalian sexual dimorphism has existed, and that is longer than 10,000 years. Indeed, humanity itself has existed for almost 100,000 years. Where did you get your dates?

You have grossly misunderstood the concept of Mitochondrial Eve, and Y-chromosomal Adam.

Nevertheless, the facts contradict what the Bible implicitly predicts.

My argument is not against a global flood in general, but a global flood as described by the Bible. Specifically, the notion of a single varient of the human Y-chromosome ~4000 years ago creating the entire variation we see today.

The Bible states that, after the Flood, only four closely related human males remained. This implies that only one varient of the human Y-chromosome existed after the Flood. Thus, all current variation in the human Y-chromosome must have been derived from that bottlenecking ~4000 years ago.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Here's several places where you have said Science disagrees with God and the Bible:

I must admit, I'm impressed. However, these quotes fall into one of two catagories:
1) Demonstrating external contradictions in the Bible. These use logic, not science.
2) A non sequitur, of sorts. The fourth from the last, for example, is not a relevant quote, as so far as I can tell.
I used logic. Science is the application of logic to facts to form the most probable explanation for said facts. I, however, merely compared reality to the Bible, and showed they were different. This is not science, this is rather basic logic.

 

[RebeccaJO]

Our flesh is going to sin from time to time. But as a Christian, we must stirve to be more like Christ every single day. A person can not say, "Oh I was born gay, so that makes it okay". Because no one is born gay, it is a choice of the mind and heart. And if that heart being a homosexual really believe they are going to heaven, their heart decieved them.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Our flesh is going to sin from time to time.

Our flesh sins? Surely the person controlling the flesh is the one who sins?

But as a Christian, we must stirve to be more like Christ every single day.

I thought that was blasphemous? All across the Crevo subforum, for example, I hear Creationists and anti-Evolutionists deriding scientists for trying to be omniscient, and so be like God, which is, apparently, the height of sin.
Could you clarify?

A person can not say, "Oh I was born gay, so that makes it okay".

Indeed. However, this is a valid counter-argument to the claims that homosexuality is a choice (despite evidence to the contrary), or is somehow unnatural. Strictly speaking, it doesn't make it OK, but it certainly negates the 'It's a choice' argument.

Because no one is born gay, it is a choice of the mind and heart.

Nonsense. I never chose to be gay, though I love that I am. I've been attracted to guys before I even knew what attraction was.

And if that heart being a homosexual really believe they are going to heaven, their heart decieved them.

Why? A homosexual is someone who is attracted to their own sex. RebeccaJO, can you honestly say that you made a concious decision to be attracted to men and/or women?

 

[david_x]

Our flesh sins? Surely the person controlling the flesh is the one who sins?

Our flesh is our human/animal side. It is part of us and yes it is the part that is sin.

I thought that was blasphemous? All across the Crevo subforum, for example, I hear Creationists and anti-Evolutionists deriding scientists for trying to be omniscient, and so be like God, which is, apparently, the height of sin.
Could you clarify?

She refered to the second person of the trinety. She therefore refered to the aim of christians to be like christ in purity.

Indeed. However, this is a valid counter-argument to the claims that homosexuality is a choice (despite evidence to the contrary), or is somehow unnatural. Strictly speaking, it doesn't make it OK, but it certainly negates the 'It's a choice' argument.

It is not valid, it is false. It is a lie perpetuated by selfish desire.

Nonsense. I never chose to be gay, though I love that I am. I've been attracted to guys before I even knew what attraction was.

How does that make it right? When you are growing up your parents teach you that you need to share. You are naturally selfish, but it is still wrong.

Why? A homosexual is someone who is attracted to their own sex. RebeccaJO, can you honestly say that you made a concious decision to be attracted to men and/or women?

I did have to make a conscious decision to be attracted to the opposite sex, I am naturally attracted to the same sex.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Our flesh is our human/animal side. It is part of us and yes it is the part that is sin.

Then I am confused. What, exactly, are you defining as sin? Most Christians I have heard of define it as either: that which God has condemned, or, that which is unloving to thy neighbour.

She refered to the second person of the trinety. She therefore refered to the aim of christians to be like christ in purity.

I think you are deriving more from what she said than what she actually said.

It is not valid, it is false.

Justification?

It is a lie perpetuated by selfish desire.

Justification? Do you mean an intentional lie, or a false truth?

How does that make it right?

Clearly you forgot the previous part of my post. It doesn't make it right, it just negates the argument it's countering.

When you are growing up your parents teach you that you need to share. You are naturally selfish, but it is still wrong.

That's because selfishness is demonstrateably wrong. Homosexuality, isn't. Whether we're naturally inclined to do something or not has no bearing on it's morality. Some people are inclined to murder, some aren't. Either way, murder has the same moral label.

I did have to make a conscious decision to be attracted to the opposite sex, I am naturally attracted to the same sex.

If you are naturally attracted to your own sex, then you never made a concious decision. Your natural affections are preferred to your unnatural ones (Romans 1:26-27).

 

[david_x]

Then I am confused. What, exactly, are you defining as sin? Most Christians I have heard of define it as either: that which God has condemned, or, that which is unloving to thy neighbour.

Both, but I would also add neural things to that list.

I think you are deriving more from what she said than what she actually said.

She said like Christ, you said God. (The difference is difficult to understand but important)

Clearly you forgot the previous part of my post. It doesn't make it right, it just negates the argument it's countering.

If your going to connter somthing your "theory" has to hold water on it's own.

That's because selfishness is demonstrateably wrong. Homosexuality, isn't. Whether we're naturally inclined to do something or not has no bearing on it's morality. Some people are inclined to murder, some aren't. Either way, murder has the same moral label.

Murder is selfish as are all sins, since selfishness is definably wrong then homosexuality is wrong because it is selfish.

If you are naturally attracted to your own sex, then you never made a concious decision. Your natural affections are preferred to your unnatural ones (Romans 1:26-27).

Missuse of scripture. There are two obvious uses for natural.
1. what animals do
2. what ones body is designed to do
The verse is clearly referencing the second as the men are enflamed with lust for what is "against the way their bodies are made" (the way their bodies are made is male)
I meant natural in the sence that it is what animals do, i have selfish desires.