Homosexuality: Right or Wrong? (read pg1)

[EnemyPartyII]

You reject the consistent message that homosexuality, and all sexual immorality, is sin. It is only through God's grace that we don't reap the consequences.

WHAT consistent message??? you show me where it says it in a consistent fashion and I'll turn in my fluffy pink lesbian handcuffs today!

 

[Zecryphon]

science refines, gets closer to the correct answer. Isn't something that identifies errors and corrects them superior to something that is unchangeable yet error bound?

Well you tell me how old the universe is

"science refines, gets closer to the correct answer. Isn't something that identifies errors and corrects them superior to something that is unchangeable yet error bound?"

There is nothing more error bound than science. Science doesn't even use definitive language. It's mainly a lot of "perhaps" and "maybe" and "we speculate that it could have been or may have been". There's nothing definitive there. Certainly not to the extent that science is worshipped almost like a god that never errs, but clearly has and will again.

"Well you tell me how old the universe is"

I don't care how old it is. The age of the universe has no effect on me.

 

[mont974x4]

WHAT consistent message??? you show me where it says it in a consistent fashion and I'll turn in my fluffy pink lesbian handcuffs today!

You have already rejected it, Leviticus, Romans, and 1 Cor. So, we'll move on.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Scientists can be wrong...see the flat earth idea for an example. Carbon dating has been shown to be inaccurate.


I don't doubt the existence of dino's.

I don't think scientists ever thought the Earth WAS flat did they? although the Early Christian church certainly did...

just like scientists were saying heliocentrism when the church was still saying geocentrism.

Yes, carbon dating is inaccurate, in that it only gives you a date to within a few decades or even centuries accuracy... but ts still incredibly accurate within its margin of error. Its nevers said "thing X is 100,000 years old when it is, in fact only a hundred years old"

Of course, dinosaurs aren't dated with carbon dating, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. Other forms of radiometric dating, dendochronology, geologic dating, sedimentation dates, and comparative genetics all point to dinosaurs having lived millions of years ago, but I guess the 100s of 1000s of trained professionals at different, independent institutes, who all come up with mutually supporting theories and figures independent of each other, all got it wrong and just happened to come up with the same figures?

 

[mont974x4]

You brought up dino and dating. And yes, carbon dating has been proven to be way off track. I once watched them do a carbon dating test and the chance for error and contamination is huge.

Why give science a pass, or at leass more latitude, than we give God and His Word?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

"science refines, gets closer to the correct answer. Isn't something that identifies errors and corrects them superior to something that is unchangeable yet error bound?"

There is nothing more error bound than science. Science doesn't even use definitive language. It's mainly a lot of "perhaps" and "maybe" and "we speculate that it could have been or may have been". There's nothing definitive there. Certainly not to the extent that science is worshipped almost like a god that never errs, but clearly has and will again.

"Well you tell me how old the universe is"

I don't care how old it is. The age of the universe has no effect on me.

Um... no decent scientist ever claimed to be infalible. The whole point of science, the greatest strength of science, is that it changes in response to new information. You start out working with the best information available to come up with your conclusions, and when newer, better, more precise information comes along, you refine your theories and conclusions, making them closer to correct... its not as you seem to be suggesting, that scientific consensus massively swings and shifts from polar opposite theories and positions to other completely contradictory ones... science is an iterative process.

Like building a hous... you start with a foundation, then a single row of bricks. It doesn't look much like a house yet, but its necesary to have this bit to build, and, over time, as more pieces are added, the overall picture looks more houselike.

 

[mont974x4]

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS00D2

Scientists have not even come close to proving a genetic or biological cause for homosexuality, yet homosexual activists continue to say that sexual activity between members of the same sex is "just the same" as race or gender. Using "biology" as a stamp of legitimacy, activists have pushed for special rights, from sex-partner subsidies to "gay marriage" to adoption. Without scientific evidence to support such claims, it is wrong and dangerously misleading to say that people are born homosexual and cannot change.
Yvette C. Schneider, a former lesbian who is now married, is a policy analyst in the cultural studies department at Family Research Council.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You brought up dino and dating. And yes, carbon dating has been proven to be way off track. I once watched them do a carbon dating test and the chance for error and contamination is huge.

Why give science a pass, or at leass more latitude, than we give God and His Word?

carbon dating error is only huge at great distances of time, and is still within the expected margin of error for the time involved... i.e. the date you get for some material may be as much as a thousand years off, but it will still be within tolerance for an object of extreme age. Carbon dating something a few hundred years old and its only a margin of error of a few tens of years. I'll say it again, they have never carbon dated something and gotten the date wrong outside the margin of error... never carbon dated a hundred year old cloth and found it thousands of years old.

I'll say THIS again too... carbon datiung has nothing to do with dinosaurs, and lastly, I'll ask again..."Of course, dinosaurs aren't dated with carbon dating, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. Other forms of radiometric dating, dendochronology, geologic dating, sedimentation dates, and comparative genetics all point to dinosaurs having lived millions of years ago, but I guess the 100s of 1000s of trained professionals at different, independent institutes, who all come up with mutually supporting theories and figures independent of each other, all got it wrong and just happened to come up with the same figures?"

As for getting a free pass. I think science should be held to the very highest evidentiary and objective standards. But, heres the kicker... when we hold science and scientists to the most exactingly high standards, they STILL come up with results that are evidence against Creationism

 

[Floatingaxe]

morality is built on the common good. Thats it. That it has been codified in religious terminology is neither here nor there... even if God literally handed morals to humans on stone tablets, it doesn't change the root cause of his commands, to assist us in our day to day lives.

The knowledge of what is the common good or what is evil comes from God alone. It was given in the Garden, and reiterated on stone tablets.

 

[mont974x4]

Off topic... I 'd like to suggets you read The Case for a Creator.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS00D2

Scientists have not even come close to proving a genetic or biological cause for homosexuality, yet homosexual activists continue to say that sexual activity between members of the same sex is "just the same" as race or gender. Using "biology" as a stamp of legitimacy, activists have pushed for special rights, from sex-partner subsidies to "gay marriage" to adoption. Without scientific evidence to support such claims, it is wrong and dangerously misleading to say that people are born homosexual and cannot change.
Yvette C. Schneider, a former lesbian who is now married, is a policy analyst in the cultural studies department at Family Research Council.

ah the family research council... well, since we are talking about holding scientists to high standards, you ARE aware that the FRC is about the most biased, agenda driven group there is, aren't you? lets have a look at what some respectable objective researchers say?

Survival of genetic homosexual traits explained

• 00:01 13 October 2004
• NewScientist.com news service
• Andy Coghlan

Italian geneticists may have explained how genes apparently linked to male homosexuality survive, despite gay men seldom having children. Their findings also undermine the theory of a single “gay gene”.
The researchers discovered that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same - as yet unidentified - genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the “gay” genetic factors in circulation.
The findings represent the best explanation yet for the Darwinian paradox presented by homosexuality: it is a genetic dead-end, yet the trait persists generation after generation.
“We have finally solved this paradox,” says Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua. “The same factor that influences sexual orientation in males promotes higher fecundity in females.” http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519.html

FYI if you want REAL science, go for articles published in respectible, peer reviewed journals, rather than websites who'se bibliography is "I heard a guy say in the pub" and "a friend of someone who was like, totally a lesbian but changed" New Scientist, Nature, The Lancet will trump FRC everytime.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Indeed? yet God created the stars only 3 days before he created humans (interestingly AFTER he created their light) some of those stars are 15 billion light years away... so, if humans only been around 5000 years, starlight has had max 5000 years and 3 days to get here, right?

God did create the stars after man, yes.

He is a big, big, God! You don't think that He can fling stars into position anywhere? He is not bound by time and neither was the light. You are inferring that He was in one "location" as He was doing all His creating.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

God did create the stars after man, yes.

He is a big, big, God! You don't think that He can fling stars into position anywhere? He is not bound by time and neither was the light. You are inferring that He was in one "location" as He was doing all His creating.

No, God is everywhere and certainly could have created things simultaneously at great distances, no problem there.

The problem, however, is that if God created stars that are a billion light years away, only 5000 years ago, then the light shouldn't have reached us yet. Wont for millions of years, yet there we see it every night.

How do you explain this?

 

[mont974x4]

ah the family research council... well, since we are talking about holding scientists to high standards, you ARE aware that the FRC is about the most biased, agenda driven group there is, aren't you? lets have a look at what some respectable objective researchers say?



FYI if you want REAL science, go for articles published in respectible, peer reviewed journals, rather than websites who'se bibliography is "I heard a guy say in the pub" and "a friend of someone who was like, totally a lesbian but changed" New Scientist, Nature, The Lancet will trump FRC everytime.

I was pretty sure you'd disregard that article. It did reference two studies that I read about, one from 1993 and the other from 1999 IIRC. There is no gay gene, but people want so bad to prove that there is one.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The knowledge of what is the common good or what is evil comes from God alone. It was given in the Garden, and reiterated on stone tablets.

then how do non Judeo Christian cultures come up with morals so similar to our own?

As for being laid down in the garden, I thought the only rule in the garden was "don't eat the fruit"?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Off topic... I 'd like to suggets you read The Case for a Creator.

is the gist "a watch needs a watchmaker"?

 

[mont974x4]

then how do non Judeo Christian cultures come up with morals so similar to our own?

As for being laid down in the garden, I thought the only rule in the garden was "don't eat the fruit"?

The first question takes us back to the Law being on our hearts. No one has to teach kids to lie or steal and you can see it on their faces that they know they're wrong.

 

[mont974x4]

is the gist "a watch needs a watchmaker"?

Nope, it is written by a former atheist who set out to disprove God. His name is Lee Strobel and he's a journalist. He examines evidence, lays out the differing views, tests it out and shows how he reaches his conclusions. He has a series of books along the same lines.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I was pretty sure you'd disregard that article. It did reference two studies that I read about, one from 1993 and the other from 1999 IIRC. There is no gay gene, but people want so bad to prove that there is one.

Dude... seriously... I just lkinked you to an article in New Scientist, one of the most respectible peer rviewed journals out there that says there IS a genetic causal link with homosexuality... and, unlike FRC NS is objective and as proof against bias as human publications can get.

What part of this don't you understand?

Biggoted science says no gay gene, objective science says gay gene... coincidence?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The first question takes us back to the Law being on our hearts. No one has to teach kids to lie or steal and you can see it on their faces that they know they're wrong.

um... actually, you do... there are cultures, Australian Aboriginals spring to mind, where the concept of communal property is the norm, and Abroiginals get in lots of trouble stealing in white society because they aren't brought up to think of taking what you want and no one is using as stealing... it just doesn't occur to them.

Sorry, but no, there is no universal, unwritten morality that everyone is born knowing. We learn it or deduce it for ourselves, but it doesn't exist in some sort of strange duality without human societies for it to act in