Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

XenonII wrote:Whatever man you can be homosexual all your life and be a virgin.

I disagree, for I'm an anti-labelist when it comes to the many things that describe "who" we are. I don't believe we are straight, homosexual, good, or bad. We are not our actions, even though they may influence who we are to others. So for me, even someone who practices homosexuality is not literally homosexual. Rather, they are simply a person who practices homosexuality. I think boxed categories do nothing but make people feel helpless, or comfortable thereby taking away their responsibility.

Kurieuo.

Yeah we are not our actions which is why someone can be homosexual and never been with a member of the same sex. A homosexual is someone who is exclusively attracted to the same sex and doesnt have to have acted on it to be a homosexual. Likewise someone who has been with the same sex is not necesarrily a homosexual. Its all to do with feelings and not behaviour.

And its absolutely nothing to do with taking away responsiblity, its the behaviour thats the sin after all not the orientation. We are all born with a sinful nature, but we are not helpless to our emotions we can exercise self control.

LittleShepherd wrote: One only begins having homosexual attractions after they have already succumbed to lust.

False. Its the other way round. The homosexual attraction drives the lust which they then succumb to by engaging in the behaviour.

XenonII wrote:Yeah we are not our actions which is why someone can be homosexual and never been with a member of the same sex. A homosexual is someone who is exclusively attracted to the same sex and doesnt have to have acted on it to be a homosexual. Likewise someone who has been with the same sex is not necesarrily a homosexual. Its all to do with feelings and not behaviour.

And its absolutely nothing to do with taking away responsiblity, its the behaviour thats the sin after all not the orientation. We are all born with a sinful nature, but we are not helpless to our emotions we can exercise self control.

We seem to be agreeing more and more I think...

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote: We seem to be agreeing more and more I think...

Kurieuo.

Praise the Lord!

Kurieuo wrote: I disagree, for I'm an anti-labelist when it comes to the many things that describe "who" we are. I don't believe we are straight, homosexual, good, or bad. We are not our actions, even though they may influence who we are to others. So for me, even someone who practices homosexuality is not literally homosexual. Rather, they are simply a person who practices homosexuality. I think boxed categories do nothing but make people feel helpless, or comfortable thereby taking away their responsibility.
Kurieuo.

Labeling's okay with me.

ochotseat wrote:Labeling's okay with me.

I hope you are just being cheeky. How would you like to be labeled as 'extremist' or 'stupid'? Probably not very much. I've seen so many people labeled and then live down to that label. It's like at school when one kid gets picked on. They start to believe that they really are stupid when all the other kids or even teachers start calling them stupid. Then there are overweight people - if they think of themselves as fat, they sometimes feel that is all they will ever be. The 'fat' label becomes their self-image. Labels can be highly destructive and are not particularly constructive in my experience. Too often, it is a way of tearing people down so that you can make yourself superior.

chocloateonly wrote: I hope you are just being cheeky. How would you like to be labeled as 'extremist' or 'stupid'? Probably not very much. I've seen so many people labeled and then live down to that label. It's like at school when one kid gets picked on. They start to believe that they really are stupid when all the other kids or even teachers start calling them stupid. Then there are overweight people - if they think of themselves as fat, they sometimes feel that is all they will ever be. The 'fat' label becomes their self-image. Labels can be highly destructive and are not particularly constructive in my experience. Too often, it is a way of tearing people down so that you can make yourself superior.

You don't understand that labeling is sometimes necessary.

Since I disagree, you've labeled me as someone who doesn't understand. I suppose that's one way to end a discussion.

chocloateonly wrote:Since I disagree, you've labeled me as someone who doesn't understand. I suppose that's one way to end a discussion.

Or another to tell you that labeling helps define people.

You should treat the person as you would anyone else.

It's no one's job to convince anyone that anything's wrong... That's God's job.

Maybe you should quit pointing at other people and picking out "Apparent" faults in their Holiness and concentrate on your own.

I don't expect straight people to ever understand gay people (or the other way around). No one knows yet if it's genetic or not, it's definately not "Just a Behaviour" though. Gay people wouldn't choose to "Behave Gay" if they were straight (if that makes sense).

If anything, it's as genetic as heterosexuality is... surely no one can argue with that.

Push the issue and if necessary, destroy their faith to avoid tarnishing Christianity's image.
Point out that they're sinners while wondering about the sharp plank-like pain in your eye.
Try to help them out yourself, preferably without referring them to a site which makes them feel threatened (Like NARTH, K)
Get into Kmart mode and start sneering.
Give a "You're going to hell" speech and walk awa

You forgot the pray for them choice.
that is the only choice I would make
It is not upto me to tell ANYONE they are going to hell.
It's not upto me to tell someone they are wrong when my own life is a mess.
The only logical choice left is prayer.

quic wrote: If anything, it's as genetic as heterosexuality is... surely no one can argue with that.

Yes, genetic mistakes do occur.

quic wrote:You should treat the person as you would anyone else.

Right, for the most part.

quic wrote:It's no one's job to convince anyone that anything's wrong... That's God's job.

Wrong. Christians are supposed to help each other in their walks with God. Try reading James sometime.

quic wrote:Maybe you should quit pointing at other people and picking out "Apparent" faults in their Holiness and concentrate on your own.

You are commiting one of several logical fallacies frequently used by pro-SSB (same-sex behavior) advocates. The false dilemma. You are assuming that people are either judgemental and always focus on the sin of others, or don't notice the sins of others at all. There is a third option: a godly concern for your neighbor's spiritual walk and mutual accountability for sin. Or even just considering a neighbor's behavior to be sinful and saying so, without considering the neighbor to be an inferior person. This last option applies with nonChristians as well.

quic wrote:No one knows yet if it's genetic or not,

Not true. Twin studies show that 20%-60% (depending on the study) of SSA (same-sex attracted) people with an identical (same genes) twin have a SSA twin. 40%-80% of the time, in every study, a SSA person has a twin with the exact same genes who is straight.

One caveat: I'm not sure whether any of the studies accounted for the possibility of bisexuality. Nonetheless, I don't think this invalidates any of the research. They may have accounted for the possibility, anyway.

Thus, we give SSA (same-sex attraction) a 20%-60% genetic correlation. However, even a basic introductory statistics course will tell you that correlation is a weaker result than causation. It is possible for two variables to correlate, while neither causes the other. Common cause is a frequent reason for this, though not really in this case. In the case of SSA, there may be environmental factors which are influenced by how genetic attributes interact with society. Thus, we can reasonably conclude that any genetic causation of SSA is likely well under 60%. However, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there is more to it than genetics.

Also compare the statistical correlation to that of being overweight: overweightness is given a 60%-80% genetic correlation rating. This is higher than for SSA. If you're going to argue that SSA is genetic, you may as well argue that being overweight is genetic. (Also note that another common pro-SSB argument, though a weak one even if it did hold water, is that SSA is unchangeable because it is genetic. If you use this logic, losing weight must be utterly impossible. Everyone who has ever claimed to have lost weight must be a lying bigot.)

This is not to say that it is chosen, however. The most frequently cited environmental factors (see here for a basic list) seem not to be the result of choice.

I hope you realize, unlike many people, that my opposition to the idea that SSA is genetic is not the result of a notion that it is chosen. It is simply the result of actually examining some of the evidence.

quic wrote:it's definately not "Just a Behaviour" though. Gay people wouldn't choose to "Behave Gay" if they were straight (if that makes sense).

I think what you mean is that they experience SSA (same-sex attraction). You would probably make more sense if you used clear terminology like SSA and SSB rather than ambiguous terminology like "gay" and "homosexual". You would, however, lose the ability to commit another common logical fallacy among the pro-SSB crowd: equivocation (the changing of definitions within an argument).

I will also make it clear that I don't think there's any case, in the Bible or anywhere else, for condemning SSA. It's SSB that's the problem. SSA is like a disease (perhaps it even is one) in that it is unchosen and not condemnation-worthy, but nonetheless "bad" in a sense.

quic wrote:If anything, it's as genetic as heterosexuality is... surely no one can argue with that.

Several comments:

1.) Not necessarily. It is possible that everyone is born with heterosexual (attraction) genes, and that environmental factors then cause SSA in some. We would thus have homosexuals (attraction) with heterosexual (attraction) genes.
2.) It is also possible that neither is genetic. In other words, we may have genes for the hormones and such, but it could at least potentially be social factors that determine the orientation of the attractions.

However, the evidence seems to indicate that both genetics and environmental factors have some degree of influence, probably weighing more heavily on the environmental side.

Also, it doesn't really matter from a moral perspective whether SSA is genetic. SSB can still be wrong, in either case.

Deborah wrote:You forgot the pray for them choice.

Prayer is a most excellent choice.

Deborah wrote:It is not upto me to tell ANYONE they are going to hell.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (11 specifically, but you need the context) refutes the notion that all gays are going to hell. Ironically, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is one of the most frequently cited passages in support of this false assertion. This is a classic example of taking a passage out of context.

Deborah wrote:It's not upto me to tell someone they are wrong when my own life is a mess.

To say that we should only worry about our own sins is a dangerous proposition. God gave us fellowship for a reason. We simply need to avoid judging others as inferior to ourselves, just because they struggle with a particular sin. Don't commit the same false dilemma fallacy as the pro-SSB (same-sex behavior) crowd.

Deborah wrote:The only logical choice left is prayer.

I wouldn't say "only logical", but it is still a most excellent idea.

jerickson314


Yes but the bible is like a personal message from god to each of us.
It is Gods decision. The bible is the instructions he asks that we chose to live by. he demanded we not judge each other, that is his job.
I never said be worried about your own salvation not anyone elses.
But we are to live our lives by mere example. What good example are we when we say hey you are living in sin, when our own lives are not much better. To break one law of god is to break them all.
best we can do for ourselves and others to pray for define guidance.
Our job on earth is to Lead out lives by example, not to condem others, to love being part of praying, and above all learn to do all that was just mentioned.