|
In Reply to: thanks guys posted by Acheick on June 03, 2004 at 22:43:51:
I have a question or two, here.
With respect, I'd like to ask if the rules are that, if everyone posts a Christian point of view, they should be enjoined to go over to the Journeys board--is that ONLY Christians, or ANY religious point of view?
I've noted that some of the moral points of view posted here are not purely scientific. The non-Christian but still religious points of view cause no reaction whatsoever.
Hey, we ALL "condemn or condone" for a whole lot of reasons throughtout our lives (just like in Romans 1). Why assume that what might be a God-given "aversion to perversion" point of view is less morally valid than the currently reigning "politically correct" point of view?
What about bestiality, necrophilia, exhibitionism, mopery, and other (can I say it?)
perversions?
My wife and my caring for a man dying of AIDS cured all of my overt anger against homosexual passes. I was groped at 19, and really wanted to kill the guy, and over-reacted for years, and eventually started caring for "people that Jesus died for", whose main sin HAPPENED to be the sin of homosexuality, as PEOPLE FIRST.
But, along scientific and philosophical lines:
1. Ascribing homosexuality to a category of self-addiction to a perversion, along with terrible psychological brokenness, only changed in the public point of view to "just another lifestyle" fairly recently. Why? Is the "evidence" scientific, or only cultural opinion, and why?
2. If rationalist/materialist/atheism's subset, the so-called "natural order" of evolution, were in fact true (as Carol and others seem to have argurd for) , wouldn't it be impossible for each genetically predetermined individual to go against their supposedly physiologically based PRIME GENETIC DIRECTIVE, that of preservation/perpetuation of each individual's genetic packet, render homosexuality impossible?
Think about it--wouldn't the undiscernible "forces" of evolution be geared EXCLUSIVELY toward the preservation of each individual's genetic code?
I find contrary arguments quite weak, and rife with failures of logic such as "false premise', "incomplete middle", "begging the question", and "circular argumentation".
If a "fact" cannot make it throught that grid, it definitionally cannot be regarded as "science".
And I say that in love. Let us not pretend philosophical certainty where none is available.
Acheick:
3. Did you know that true hermaphroditism is only found in the genus Annelida (mostly worms)?
There simply are no examples of true human hermaphroditism--that is, no examples exist of individuals with dual and fully funtional sex organ systems.
Mutancy neither proves evolution, or the existence of so-called "sexual minorities".
I am a heterosexual--not a "Lesbian trapped in a man's body"--let's not become absurd in a desire to agree with what is merely currently culturally popular--that's philosophical fraud.
And, I agree with you--IMO, surgical (as well as life-long surgical/chemical) mutilation is wrong, and is evidence of a physician not only "playing God", but of conducting "bad science".
I studied advanced human physiology (and have a degree), and there are at least 17 distinct physiological differences (for instance the existence of Barr bodies--cellular level stuff--found in FEMALES ONLY) between human males amd females.
4. What about the idea that free will exists--that it existed for angels before their fall, and for Adam and Eve, before their fall?
The corrollary belief I'd then ask about here, would be, what if one aspect about the existence of evil is an argument FOR the idea that God created us as free moral agents, even at great existential costs for both man and God?
When I was at my worst, I believe that God told me that His capacity for grieving for me personally was infinite, and that choosing sin over grace really broke His heart.
'nough said, for now!
Thanks for letting me express my concerns!
