Evidence for God from Science

Lately i was talking with someone who appeared to be an open-minded and curious atheist. He apparently disliked christians he talked with, who from what i heard him say appeared to be the usual "casual" christians who don't know too much about the bible. I managed to change his mind in this regard, but I decided to try to go an extra leap and get him to really be interested in understanding christianity for what it really is. However unfortunately i hit a stumbling block when it came to this idea of homosexuality.
Check out this verse:
"Some are born without the ability to marry, and some are disabled by men, and some refuse to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven."
Matthew 19:12

Ok i think the beginning part is referring to gay people and it would mean that they are born gay. So now I was asked why homosexual acts are sin if in fact gays are born as they are. I came up with two theories but maybe you guys can shed some light on this!

1.) Being gay is a gift from God perhaps in that they can't marry and can devote their lives and love to God.

This one above i don't think Atheists would understand, since there all about science so i came up with another possibility.

2.) Being gay is a result of mutation of genes and just because a man is born with or develops a problem doesn't mean they must give in to their bodily desires. I compared it with say a man who is born blind. That man will act to the best of his ability as those who aren't blind. He will acknowledge he is different but won't conform to his problem but try and overcome it.

Right now im leaning towards the first theory but I would really like to hear anyone's opinion of this

Either one works. Just remember that simply being gay isn't a sin, just acting upon the desire.

You're reading that verse all wrong. Here's a better translation:

"For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:12)

Paul writes similarly in 1 Corinthians 7. If one does not get married, than one has less duties to their partner and family, and could possibly better serve the kingdom of heaven. But then each person is called differently so...

Kurieuo.

yeah i see what your saying, but its still hard to explain to someone who doesn't understand what it means to serve God.

Again i only read the verse from what it says, but whether gay people are born or not we still have the same conclusion regarding them right, that they can't marry. So basically i live in an area where its full of what i could say are hardcore liberals and well this issue along with the whole marriage thing comes up a lot and its hard to explain to people that are blind.

You brought up Scripture, so I just thought it important to reveal it didn't support what you thought it was supporting. Yet, I think there a more important issues to discuss with a non-Christian than their sexual orientation.

However, if you are attacked for your standpoint, you might find the article at http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032427.cfm helpful. And as for a homosexual lifestyle, it can be argued on the grounds that such a life is not healthy (http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/h ... ality.html). Additionally, I believe twin studies disprove the myth that someone is genetically homosexual. Yet, it should be pointed out that there is nothing morally wrong with homosexual feelings of a person who has a same sex preference. However, when people enact upon their homosexual desires, then such is considered sinful before God, just like promiscuity.

Kurieuo.

Alright good stuff thanks

Kurieuo wrote:You brought up Scripture, so I just thought it important to reveal it didn't support what you thought it was supporting. Yet, I think there a more important issues to discuss with a non-Christian than their sexual orientation.

However, if you are attacked for your standpoint, you might find the article at http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032427.cfm helpful. And as for a homosexual lifestyle, it can be argued on the grounds that such a life is not healthy (http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/h ... ality.html). Additionally, I believe twin studies disprove the myth that someone is genetically homosexual. Yet, it should be pointed out that there is nothing morally wrong with homosexual feelings of a person who has a same sex preference. However, when people enact upon their homosexual desires, then such is considered sinful before God, just like promiscuity.

Kurieuo.

Science has proved undoubtly that homosexuality is geneticly predisposed.
Although bisexuality seemed to be rooted in childhood sexual abuse most of the time.

Because homosexuals cant get married in the US, they are forced to homosexual promiscious behaviour. Because they cant get married, they dont believe the cant be saved or redeemed. So they turn away from god.
No thrue Christian should make a homosexual believe that he can't be saved.

I believe the keyword is "predisposed" which I never argued against. Yet, you won't find a "gay gene" just like you won't find a "pedophile gene" or a "cannibalism gene."

There are many good articles to be found on this issue by NARTH at http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html. If homosexuality was purely in our genes (which I'm sure you're not arguing) then where one twin was homosexual so should the other be. But this is not the case, meaning people do have choices regardless of their genetics. It just might be harder for someone more predisposed genetically towards homosexual behaviour, and more conditioned environmentally towards homosexual behaviour.

Kurieuo.

erasmus wrote:Because homosexuals cant get married in the US, they are forced to homosexual promiscious behaviour. Because they cant get married, they dont believe the cant be saved or redeemed. So they turn away from god.

Sorry, but I have to say I think what you said is garbage—specifically that those living a homosexual behaviour are forced to be promiscuous because they can't marry. People can commit without marriage, and if they can't than no certificate is going to change that.

Those living a homosexual lifestyle can also get married. They can get married everywhere to someone of the opposite sex, and there are also places where it is possible for them to marry the same sex if they really so desire! The thing is many want to "force" justification for their lifestyle from all of society everywhere, and some have sadly even revealed a desire to render the concept of marriage meaningless within society (I just can't find the page right now ).

Paul also didn't get married, so would he have believed he wasn't saved? There are additionally gay churches, so it's not like those living a homosexual lifestyle believe they can't be saved. God still loves the sinner, just not the sin. He is best judge of someone's heart.

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote:I believe the keyword is "predisposed" which I never argued against. Yet, you won't find a "gay gene" just like you won't find a "pedophile gene" or a "cannibalism gene."

There are many good articles to be found on this issue by NARTH at http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html. If homosexuality was purely in our genes (which I'm sure you're not arguing) then where one twin was homosexual so should the other be. But this is not the case, meaning people do have choices regardless of their genetics. It just might be harder for someone more predisposed genetically towards homosexual behaviour, and more conditioned environmentally towards homosexual behaviour.

Kurieuo.

Cancer also isnt geneticaly disposed most of the time (although a significant part is) do they have choice to develop it or not?????
There is a vulnarability factor in the development of homosexuality as is with ALL geneticaly predisposed traits or deseases. Its a propability factor, not a "freedom of choice"factor.

Kurieuo wrote:I believe the keyword is "predisposed" which I never argued against. Yet, you won't find a "gay gene" just like you won't find a "pedophile gene" or a "cannibalism gene."

Kurieuo.

You might not find a gay gene, but you also wont find a gene for schizophrenia, depression or any other psychiatric or behavioral state. But they have found significant fysical difference in children who might develop homosexuality.

I just wanted to say something in reference to the quote in the first post by vvart. According to the NIV, that passage was in reference to the poor souls who could no longer use there reproductive organs (eunuchs), and not homosexuals. Kurieuo made a better translation available, but I think the meaning of the passage went unnoticed, since people were still talking about gays.

12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage * because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Matthew 19:12
*Or have made themselves eunuchs

I believe that Jesus is saying that, though your Earthly purpose of passing on your line is not possible, you should accept your fate, and give no thought to the morrow. Because in the end, it is not what's really important.

Shirtless wrote:Kurieuo made a better translation available, but I think the meaning of the passage went unnoticed, since people were still talking about gays.

12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage * because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Matthew 19:12
*Or have made themselves eunuchs

I have a suspicion, but I'm not sure I clearly understand what you're getting at?

Kurieuo.

erasmus wrote:Cancer also isnt geneticaly disposed most of the time (although a significant part is) do they have choice to develop it or not?????

So are you trying to compare homosexuality to cancer? I'm not sure whether those considering themselves to be homosexual would appreciate that.

From what you write it appears to me that you are a determinist?? Seeing as you're a physical reductionist (I'm assuming from past discussions), I suppose this is likely going to be the case. Yet, if acting homosexuals have no choice in their behaviour, because our behaviour is rigged to our genes, then perhaps Mother Teresa shouldn't be admired for her striving with the poor, and perhaps Hitler shouldn't be criticised for his moral abomination against Jewish people. After all, their behaviour is only a trait of their genes. They never "really" had a choice in the matter.

Kurieuo.

I'm saying that the passage has nothing to do with homosexuality. It's about the disabled (reproductively speaking). So we shouldn't have a discussion about a subject based on a misinterpretation.