Posted by X on July 11, 19102 at 14:18:51:
In Reply to: Re: The ol' posted by Chris H. on July 10, 19102 at 15:15:52:
>>> since we KNOW that some kinds of loving, long-term relationships are clearly wrong.<<<
Oh? What types of relationships would those be? And are there scriptures to support you?
>>> IF you are saying that observing behaviour in nature is the factor that makes it ok with God, *I* am saying that you're opening
the door to killing, stealing, and adultery, because we can observe all those in nature. IF you are saying that long-term loving
relationships is the factor that makes it ok with God, then you're opening the door to incest, buggery, and beastiality -- as long
as they take place within a loving long-term relationship.<<<
Not at all. humans cannot have loving relationships with animals, its just not possible, and we arent even talking about creatures of two different species.
your incest argument could be considered valid only in the loving argument sence... but not in sexual preference.
My point was to show that homosexuality is a biological trait that the animals do not choose. Stealing (stealing food) is not a biological trait, it is a choice that some animals make. It is stretching it to say that these life-long relationships were between two straight animals... that doesnt make any sense. The animals choose to kill their young, and choose to steal food... but obviously they do not choose to be attracted to members of the same sex and its obviously not animal lust since its lifelong, so I do not find your counter to be valid.
>>> I know YOU'RE not saying these things directly, but your arguments are -- and someday those very arguments can and will be
used by people who DO want to marry 12-year-old girls!<<<
That is pederasty and doesn't have anything to do with whether sexual preference for the same sex is wrong.
>>> You need to "explode" this argument of yours as well. If you believe that the bible's authority is subject to the authority of
science, you must also believe that all of Jesus' miracles, especially raising Lazarus from the dead, plus his own resurrection,
must either be fabrications, exaggerations, or mistakes. Science would clearly and loudly say that dead people cannot be raised
after three days, no one can really walk on water, etc. etc. Of course, you must also believe that Christians have been subject
to a mass deception the likes of which the world has never seen before or since, almost all Christians believe in these things
which science would clearly say are impossible, or at the very least, not repeatable (which is the important test in scientific
truth).<<<
Not at all, because your definition of science is in accurate. Science means to obtain information through observation and testing. Miracles have been documented and Jesus' resurrection has enough evidence to be considered a historical fact.
So there is no need to reject the bible since it is supported by science... but to believe the bible by blind faith *without* putting it to rigorous testing is, in my opinion, naive (I'm not saying that you're naive though); afterall, Paul told us to study so that we can prove the scriptures and the truth of God... the only way to prove the truth of God is there science.
My main point was that through testing and observation we have seen that homosexuals do not choose to be sexual attracted to the same sex and cant stop being attracted to the same sex.
In the extremely low percentage of alleged chanegs, there has been documentation that many of these changes were either (1) change in behavior, not attraction; (2 ) confusion which later on resulted in the "patient" *admitting* that he or she never changed (3) or patients you only said they had chanegd to get people to stop tormenting them.
Even if the rest of the accounts were authentic and genuine, it is still a very low percentage which ignores the rest of the "patients" who have been severely* tormented by the "doctors" and their therapies; I mean, can you imagine some doctor trying to make you stop being attracted to women. Wouldnt that be extremely difficult for you?
>>> So, which is it? The bible, or science?<<<
Well i'm affraid your question ignores how study after study has shown that the bible not just a book of "faith" but a book full of observed scientific facts.
To accept the bible on blind faith without putting it to the test is, as I said before, in my opinion, naive. I think that God would want us to put the bible to tests before just accepting it.
I mean science has shown that the earth is round.. if the bible said the earth was flat then clearly it would be wrong. But the bible never says the earth is flat, just as it never says it is wrong to be gay.
so to answer you, by accepting science, I therby also accept the bible since the bible contains no scientific errors.
Thank you for your post,
X