More Christian Family Values

[MajGenl.Meade]

That's not an accurate assertion if "God" means the God of Christ. God created Adam and Eve. They were the final act of special creation. After that God rested from creation - and he still is. The 7th "day" is ongoing

Creation was distorted by their failure to trust and believe God. All else is genetics. Did God know the consequences of his act of creation? Of course. Does man know the consequences of his own sin? Of course. Is there a choice? Of course.

Will some people make the correct choice? No. Does God know that? Yes.

How about you rubato? Have you made a choice and (if so) did you do so freely, without coercion? Don't get philosophical - just do you make free choices in your opinion, yes or no?

Meade

[Andrew D]

You don't have any responsibilities toward God. Choose what you like. You will get it

Meade

If what the Bible says is true, I never make any real choices. I will get what God created me to get. If I end up in hell, that will be because God created me in order to put me there.

You're onto one of the various explanations of "predestined" ....

Meade

I am onto the biblical version of predestination -- the one which scripture asserts over and over and over.

I did not write the stuff. I just read it on the assumption that the writers actually believed what they wrote.

[MajGenl.Meade]

No, you read it on the assumption that you understand what they actually wrote. I'll ask you the same queston I asked rubato:

Have you made a choice and (if so) did you do so freely, without coercion? Don't get philosophical - just do you make free choices in your opinion, yes or no? (and please, you know I'm not talking about chocolate vs vanilla)

Meade

[dgs49]

Rube:

Define "homosexuals."

People who feel a certain way? People who act a certain way?

If the former, then God certainly did create homosexuals. If the latter, NFW.

There is nothing wrong with having sinful feelings or inclinations - we all have them. But we are responsible for our actions.

When a Church invites "homosexuals" to be welcome therein, do you suppose they are inviting people who routinely commit acts that the Bible teaches are sinful, intend to continue doing so - and who consider that the Bible's teachings on the matter are incorrect?

Or are they welcoming people who have homosexual inclinations, who know that to act on those inclinations would be sinful, and who want help avoiding those particular sins?

Just curious. Which do you suppose it is?

[Andrew D]

Creation was distorted by their failure to trust and believe God. All else is genetics. Did God know the consequences of his act of creation? Of course. Does man know the consequences of his own sin? Of course. Is there a choice?

Of course not.

Unless the Bible is false.

[Andrew D]

No, you read it on the assumption that you understand what they actually wrote.

In the same way in which I "assume" that when someone writes that our planet is roughly spherical, he or she does not mean that it is shaped like a dinner plate.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Andrew - your failure to answer the question is disappointing. Stop sheltering behind the Bible! Come out, I can see your legs a-dangling down!

And no, your comparison is inapt. The proper analogy would be if a person wrote that the world is "round" and you assumed it looked like a dinner plate.

Meade

[Andrew D]

No, you read it on the assumption that you understand what they actually wrote. I'll ask you the same queston I asked rubato:

Have you made a choice and (if so) did you do so freely, without coercion? Don't get philosophical - just do you make free choices in your opinion, yes or no?

You should not demand yes-or-no answers to questions not suited for such answers. (Put another way, it you want yes-or-no answers, you should pose questions suited to such answers.)

None of my operational choices is entirely free. All of them are subject to constraints. (Of course, in a Kantian sense, I am free to choose to flap my arms and thereby fly to the moon. I assume that that is not the sort of choice which you have in mind.)

Most of the time, those constraints leave me with options, although it is not clear whether such a constrained choice is "free". Maybe my so-called choices are dictated by my genetic makeup. Or by my ingrained attitudes. Or by whatever.

Anyway, I have no sound reason to believe that what the Bible says about us is true. It emphatically says that everything about us -- what we are, what we do, where we will end up -- is predetermined by God. I do not believe that. So what I believe about free will sheds no light on what the Bible says about it.

[rubato]

Rube:

Define "homosexuals."

People who feel a certain way? People who act a certain way?

If the former, then God certainly did create homosexuals. If the latter, NFW.
... "

All of the evidence demonstrates that homosexuals are "born that way". Therefore god made them that way. Only a perverse god would make people homosexuals and then approve of their persecution by you.

yrs,
rubato

[RayThom]

Look at all the above rhetoric, all the absolute assertions, all the vehemence of denial and/or confirmation, all of the righteous indignation, all the pious breast-beating, all the sanctimony, and yet not one person's value system nor belief has been, nor will be, even slightly altered. Everybody knows what they know -- and that's the way it is, and will always be. No one gets it. What hath God wrought?

Look no further than this little microcosm of disagreement, bordering on hate for those who dare disagree, and no wonder the world is in such a fine mess. Without common ground, without compromise, civilization -- mankind -- as we know it will be lost. The doomsday clock is ticking and all this bickering will not slow it up by a fucking nano-second. Absolutely pitiful.

All I know is I don't want any part in all this crazy making. Maybe starting over from scratch would not be a bad thing.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Look at all the above (and right here) rhetoric, all the absolute assertions, all the vehemence of denial and/or confirmation, all of the righteous indignation, all the pious breast-beating, all the sanctimony

Fixed for you Ray!

[Andrew D]

Ah, the persistence of atavism ....

[rubato]

No, you read it on the assumption that you understand what they actually wrote. I'll ask you the same queston I asked rubato:

Have you made a choice and (if so) did you do so freely, without coercion? Don't get philosophical - just do you make free choices in your opinion, yes or no? (and please, you know I'm not talking about chocolate vs vanilla)

Meade

I was born a heterosexual. I did not choose to be heterosexual I 'discovered' that I was when I started having involuntary reactions to seeing or thinking about girls and women. The homosexuals I know (many) describe the same phenomenon in the same way but they were attracted to their own sex in discovering their own sexuality.

Being heterosexual was not a 'choice'. It was genetically determined. Being homosexual is not a choice.

There are people intermediate between the two are sexually attracted to both who can choose to follow their attractions to either. The group produces some of the the most vehement gay-bashers because they hate themselves and don't understand that for most of us it is not a 'choice'.

They have found about 1300 species of animals who express homosexual behavior, so far. If you believe in the biblical creation myth you have to accept that God made them, and us, that way.

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

We all have inclinations to sin - not just fags.

Some people are inclined to extraordinary anger, or greed, or lust, or physical hunger. Does that excuse physical violence, theft, rape, or gluttony? Hardly.

But we are not defined by our inclinations, nor are we compelled to give in to them (despite what Andrew implies). Is a married man to be forgiven for copulating with some random woman whom he found "irresistable"? Both parties did it voluntarily. Both parties were simply satisfying their natural, God-given desires. The man didn't decide to have that compulsion; it was totally natural and involuntary.

Does that make God cruel? Is their conduct blameless?

Oh, yeah. If they felt that way, involuntarily, then it is blameless. God's fault.

[Scooter]

And writing left handed is sinful too. It must be, what else could have justified all those good Catholic nuns beating the left hands of students with sticks until they were bruised and swollen? What does it matter that left handed kids were born that way? Sin is sin is sin.

[Andrew D]

Some people are inclined to extraordinary anger, or greed, or lust, or physical hunger. Does that excuse physical violence, theft, rape, or gluttony? Hardly.

And does consensual homosexual sex among adults need excusing? Hardly.

[Sean]

There is nothing wrong with having sinful feelings or inclinations - we all have them.

Tell that to a Catholic!

[RayThom]

I was raised catholic, along with 12 scary years of ruthless and ridged catholic education. With frustrated nuns, confused priests, and pompous (arch)bishops all in my family there was no room to question any of this rigorous, religious brainwashing. Fortunately, at around 7th grade I started to see the light and find my own path, yet found it best just go through school faking it. Think it, do it, no damn difference. It's all mortal sin and straight to the eternal fires of Hell if I didn't confess these sins to Father McNamby prior to my sinful demise.

Born catholic. My PA personalized vanity tag that I registered in 1979 reads "GUILTY" reflecting the psychological stranglehold all this false dogma once held on me. It is much in the past now, having turned my life over to secular humanism many decades ago. Hallelujah! I'm free.

[Gob]

Ah science....

Researchers believe that male homosexuality may be due to a gene carried by mothers.

Evolution suggests that homosexuality as a trait would not last long, as it discourages sex, with women and therefore procreation.

But a study by Andrea Camperio Ciani, from the University of Padova in Italy, spots a correlation between gay men and their mothers and maternal aunts, who tend to have significantly more children than the relatives of straight men.

They theorise that this leads credence to the 'balancing selection hypothesis', which suggest that a gene which leads to homosexuality also leads to high reproduction among their female relatives.

As such, while the 'gay gene' may not get passed down directly, it will survive through the generations via the family.

The gene or genes which causes this behaviour is not yet known, but the report by Ciani suggests that it resides on the X chromosone, of which men inherit one.

Originally, the team considered the hypothesis that the gene would affect men and women in different ways - making the man homosexual, and making females more promiscuous.

According to the Huffington Post, But after studying 161 females related to both homosexual and homosexual men, they now conclude that - instead of increasing the woman's promiscuity, the gene makes the women more attractive to men.

Ciani told Life's Little Mysteries: 'High fecundity, that means having more babies, is not about pleasure in sex, nor is it about promiscuity.

'The androphilic pattern that we found is about females who increase their reproductive value to attract the best males.'

He said the gene led to women who were more fertile, displayed fewer gynecological disorders, and less complications during pregnancy.

They were also inclined to be more more extrovert, happier and more relaxed.

The study will appear in a future issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine.

[dgs49]

Ah....the perpetual search for a "gay gene." Correlation does not prove causation. It is nonsense.