Factually, I know what you say about transcription to be true. The problem is that Christains love to cherry pick the bible. Some of it (whatever appeals to them) is gospel law, others, like my quotes above, are written off as the "law of the times".
Something else to think about - the god who supposedly wrote or inspired this bible - shouldnt have the limitations of time. He is all knowing, all loving, and all powerful. How does this god write about slavery 4000 years ago as if it is acceptable knowing what he knows is to come?
There is plenty in the new testament too - but also - do you know Jesus NEVER said a thing about homosexuality?
Read the following Bible versus that Jesus spoke about, Im going to source this argument to this link..... It is very good reading. After you read them, tell me ONE SINGLE PERSON YOU KNOW that follows this. And if they are so widely ignored, why is it OK to cherry pick what you choose to believe - even in the New Testament? The below quotes say "sell everything you have and live your life for the poor and god". Literally.
Matthew 6:19
Luke 14:33
Matthew 6:24
Matthew 19:21-24
Matthew 19:28-29
Luke 9:23-25
Matt 13: 22
Hebrews 13:5
Phil 2:3
Acts 2:44-45
Factually, I know what you say about transcription to be true. The problem is that Christains love to cherry pick the bible. Some of it (whatever appeals to them) is gospel law, others, like my quotes above, are written off as the "law of the times".
Something else to think about - the god who supposedly wrote or inspired this bible - shouldnt have the limitations of time. He is all knowing, all loving, and all powerful. How does this god write about slavery 4000 years ago as if it is acceptable knowing what he knows is to come?
There is plenty in the new testament too - but also - do you know Jesus NEVER said a thing about homosexuality?
Read the following Bible versus that Jesus spoke about, Im going to source this argument to this link..... It is very good reading. After you read them, tell me ONE SINGLE PERSON YOU KNOW that follows this. And if they are so widely ignored, why is it OK to cherry pick what you choose to believe - even in the New Testament? The below quotes say "sell everything you have and live your life for the poor and god". Literally.
Matthew 6:19
Luke 14:33
Matthew 6:24
Matthew 19:21-24
Matthew 19:28-29
Luke 9:23-25
Matt 13: 22
Hebrews 13:5
Phil 2:3
Acts 2:44-45
BINGO!!
I always say that Jesus teachings have been hijacked by the people who use them for power. At their core, Jesus teachings are amazing. The problem is that todays average Christian is SO far away from what he taught it is incredible.
I find it incredibly ironic that if Jesus were alive today he would revile the republican party that the church so supports today. He would hate democrats almost as much. Jesus was a socialist. I just find it so hipocritical that today christians are so judgemental and support an agenda that goes directly against jesus teachings.
Anyway,
BINGO!!
I always say that Jesus teachings have been hijacked by the people who use them for power. At their core, Jesus teachings are amazing. The problem is that todays average Christian is SO far away from what he taught it is incredible.
I find it incredibly ironic that if Jesus were alive today he would revile the republican party that the church so supports today. He would hate democrats almost as much. Jesus was a socialist. I just find it so hipocritical that today christians are so judgemental and support an agenda that goes directly against jesus teachings.
Anyway,
i never said that, although i did, and continue to, say that weight is affected by genetics. the intersection of genetics, biology, sociology and psychology, to name a few, is extremely complex and does not lend itself to elementary conclusions and weak logic.
while i never said what you attribute to me, what i do is question the conclusions of people that appear to me to be based on a complete failure of logic, nonsense and/or what apparently was learned in bible study, as opposed to science class. speaking of which, above you say that the idea that sexual preference is predetermined by genetics is not true and not proven. first, it certainly may be true, even if unproven. vanzack can explain what is meant by that. second no one is saying it is true the way you word it and understand the differences between absolutely determined, strongly affected, partially affected and unaffected to understand what i mean by that.
i never said that, although i did, and continue to, say that weight is affected by genetics. the intersection of genetics, biology, sociology and psychology, to name a few, is extremely complex and does not lend itself to elementary conclusions and weak logic.
while i never said what you attribute to me, what i do is question the conclusions of people that appear to me to be based on a complete failure of logic, nonsense and/or what apparently was learned in bible study, as opposed to science class. speaking of which, above you say that the idea that sexual preference is predetermined by genetics is not true and not proven. first, it certainly may be true, even if unproven. vanzack can explain what is meant by that. second no one is saying it is true the way you word it and understand the differences between absolutely determined, strongly affected, partially affected and unaffected to understand what i mean by that.
i never said that, although i did, and continue to, say that weight is affected by genetics. the intersection of genetics, biology, sociology and psychology, to name a few, is extremely complex and does not lend itself to elementary conclusions and weak logic.
while i never said what you attribute to me, what i do is question the conclusions of people that appear to me to be based on a complete failure of logic, nonsense and/or what apparently was learned in bible study, as opposed to science class. speaking of which, above you say that the idea that sexual preference is predetermined by genetics is not true and not proven. first, it certainly may be true, even if unproven. vanzack can explain what is meant by that. second no one is saying it is true the way you word it and understand the differences between absolutely determined, strongly affected, partially affected and unaffected to understand what i mean by that.
There is a TON of evidence pointing to genetics and sexual orientation. Not surprisingly, people choose not to read it.
Here are some links. This is mainstream stuff folks. For all those posting in this thread about the absense of evidence and that sexuality is not genetic, if you sincerely are interested in knowing what you are talking about, do some reading:
i never said that, although i did, and continue to, say that weight is affected by genetics. the intersection of genetics, biology, sociology and psychology, to name a few, is extremely complex and does not lend itself to elementary conclusions and weak logic.
while i never said what you attribute to me, what i do is question the conclusions of people that appear to me to be based on a complete failure of logic, nonsense and/or what apparently was learned in bible study, as opposed to science class. speaking of which, above you say that the idea that sexual preference is predetermined by genetics is not true and not proven. first, it certainly may be true, even if unproven. vanzack can explain what is meant by that. second no one is saying it is true the way you word it and understand the differences between absolutely determined, strongly affected, partially affected and unaffected to understand what i mean by that.
There is a TON of evidence pointing to genetics and sexual orientation. Not surprisingly, people choose not to read it.
Here are some links. This is mainstream stuff folks. For all those posting in this thread about the absense of evidence and that sexuality is not genetic, if you sincerely are interested in knowing what you are talking about, do some reading:
ABN - I respectfully ask - no make that beg - you to click on my links above, or do some REAL SCIENTIFIC reading in to the subject.
You will be very surprised that the scientific community strongly disagrees with your "factual" statements.
ABN - I respectfully ask - no make that beg - you to click on my links above, or do some REAL SCIENTIFIC reading in to the subject.
You will be very surprised that the scientific community strongly disagrees with your "factual" statements.
People knew the world was round before they had proof.
People knew there were germs before there was proof.
People knew there was DNA before the genome was mapped.
Scientists know that sexuality is predisposed genetically, the proof is coming.
Your argument that it is not yet "proven" does not mean it has not yet been "scientifically determined", as you use both terms in the same sentence above.
People knew the world was round before they had proof.
People knew there were germs before there was proof.
People knew there was DNA before the genome was mapped.
Scientists know that sexuality is predisposed genetically, the proof is coming.
Your argument that it is not yet "proven" does not mean it has not yet been "scientifically determined", as you use both terms in the same sentence above.
It said many of the genetic studies were too small to draw definite conclusions from.
Alan Wardle from the gay rights charity Stonewall said: "This is an interesting debate and there may well be a genetic element, but it's not conclusive.
Link 2
No matter how people feel about the issue, it is increasingly hard to argue that genes play no role in homosexuality. The evidence began to pile up in 1991, when studies showed that identical twins were more likely to have the same sexual orientation than other pairs of siblings. That same year, a California scientist reported slight brain differences between gay and straight men, although the conclusion is disputed. And in 1993, an NIH researcher found a stretch of DNA on the X chromosome that seemed to harbor one or more genes affecting sexual orientation. But no one has proved that a particular gene promotes gayness or has offered any convincing theory of how genes could influence a person's choice of sleeping partners.
Too many links on link 3. Not proven. There are suggestions that point to it, but nothing definitive. That's my point exactly. Until it is proven as such then we can not assume that people are born gay.
It said many of the genetic studies were too small to draw definite conclusions from.
Alan Wardle from the gay rights charity Stonewall said: "This is an interesting debate and there may well be a genetic element, but it's not conclusive.
Link 2
No matter how people feel about the issue, it is increasingly hard to argue that genes play no role in homosexuality. The evidence began to pile up in 1991, when studies showed that identical twins were more likely to have the same sexual orientation than other pairs of siblings. That same year, a California scientist reported slight brain differences between gay and straight men, although the conclusion is disputed. And in 1993, an NIH researcher found a stretch of DNA on the X chromosome that seemed to harbor one or more genes affecting sexual orientation. But no one has proved that a particular gene promotes gayness or has offered any convincing theory of how genes could influence a person's choice of sleeping partners.
Too many links on link 3. Not proven. There are suggestions that point to it, but nothing definitive. That's my point exactly. Until it is proven as such then we can not assume that people are born gay.
The bible is believed to be the inspired word of god. I guess it depends on who you ask, but saying that god wrote the bible is usually not offensive to those who believe it. But once again, it is OK for you to cherry pick the bible for the verses that fit your agenda.
I have no tolerance for ignorance. I have no tolerance for a society that is held back because of that ignorance. I have no tolerance for people that support human suffering in favor of their superstitions. I have no tolerance for blind faith instead of evidenciary rational thinking. I have no tolerance for people who would like to see things deteriorate on earth to speed up their process of getting to heaven.
If the shoe fits.....
The bible is believed to be the inspired word of god. I guess it depends on who you ask, but saying that god wrote the bible is usually not offensive to those who believe it. But once again, it is OK for you to cherry pick the bible for the verses that fit your agenda.
I have no tolerance for ignorance. I have no tolerance for a society that is held back because of that ignorance. I have no tolerance for people that support human suffering in favor of their superstitions. I have no tolerance for blind faith instead of evidenciary rational thinking. I have no tolerance for people who would like to see things deteriorate on earth to speed up their process of getting to heaven.
If the shoe fits.....
There is a TON of evidence pointing to genetics and sexual orientation. Not surprisingly, people choose not to read it.
Here are some links. This is mainstream stuff folks. For all those posting in this thread about the absense of evidence and that sexuality is not genetic, if you sincerely are interested in knowing what you are talking about, do some reading:
vanzack, i agree with you and your conclusion. i'm just not as familiar with the articles and the science as you and hesitate to give an opinion as to the genetic aspects of sexual orientation. although if other people appreciated this part of your post: These are not, however, three distinct points along some continuum., i think the conversation would go a lot more smoothly. you can't think in black and white when discussing genetics, characteristics, traits, sociaology, etc.
ABN, as to your opinion and my opinion of what we think is now true and will later be proven regarding the factors that determine or affect sexual orientation, i respect yours and appreciate that mine is just that, an opinion.
There is a TON of evidence pointing to genetics and sexual orientation. Not surprisingly, people choose not to read it.
Here are some links. This is mainstream stuff folks. For all those posting in this thread about the absense of evidence and that sexuality is not genetic, if you sincerely are interested in knowing what you are talking about, do some reading:
vanzack, i agree with you and your conclusion. i'm just not as familiar with the articles and the science as you and hesitate to give an opinion as to the genetic aspects of sexual orientation. although if other people appreciated this part of your post: These are not, however, three distinct points along some continuum., i think the conversation would go a lot more smoothly. you can't think in black and white when discussing genetics, characteristics, traits, sociaology, etc.
ABN, as to your opinion and my opinion of what we think is now true and will later be proven regarding the factors that determine or affect sexual orientation, i respect yours and appreciate that mine is just that, an opinion.
so snuke, when so many of the hardcore religious base their prejudices against gays on the bible, what is wrong with vanzack quoting other parts of the bible these same people choose to ignore to point out their hyposcrisy and the idea that these people aren't necessarily basing their beliefs on the bible but in fact are justifying their prejudices (and insecurities, fears and ignorance) with particular passages from the bible that fit? is that what jesus intended?
why shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry?
so snuke, when so many of the hardcore religious base their prejudices against gays on the bible, what is wrong with vanzack quoting other parts of the bible these same people choose to ignore to point out their hyposcrisy and the idea that these people aren't necessarily basing their beliefs on the bible but in fact are justifying their prejudices (and insecurities, fears and ignorance) with particular passages from the bible that fit? is that what jesus intended?
why shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry?
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.