NationStates Jolt Archive

Neo Rogolia didn't directly accuse you... instead she quoted Dave Miller and Brad Harrub quoting D. Gene West. We could all just start cutting and pasting blocks of text from hither and thon across the internet with no direct input ourselves, but where would that get us?

Oh that's right. I'm sorry.. she doesn't do any speaking for herself.

Are you calling me illiterate? Are you seriously accusing me of not having read Romans 1? I have eyes you know, I can read. :rolleyes:


Well luckily for you you are not yet squelched. Your assignment for today is to read Romans 1 and accept the fact it's a historical account secondly you will read the preceding verses and the various acts which are later condemned before you go about heartily and approvingly patting your colleagues on the back.

Oh, get off it, I'm not even allowed to talk to you nor are you allowed to talk to me, according to the mods.

Sorry. I just don't like being put on the same level as a murderer.

Oh that's right. I'm sorry.. she doesn't do any speaking for herself.

It's okay, though - the Bible is strangely silent on the matter of plagiarism or quoting without proper reference.

Unlike the website it came from which has this to say ....

Copyright © 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

This document may be copied, on the condition that it will not be republished in print, on-line (including reposting on other Web sites), or on computer media, and will not be used for any commercial purpose. Further, it may not be copied without source statements (title, author, journal title), this paragraph granting limited rights for copying, and the address of the publisher and owner of rights, as listed below...

Does that mean my sons gonna be gay? Oh wait...wait a minute...

They did to an extent ... they figure the bible as unabridged truth :rolleyes: and as such sense Paul plays a prominent part they figure we are meant to follow him otherwise god would have not let it be so

AT least that’s what I take from it
Laying aside that the bible as we know it was voted on by a bunch of men...

why then are there not more christians living lives of poverty the way Jesus asked? Why are most of the things that are real sticking points things that Jesus never said?

Don’t you know her interpretation is the only correct one :rolleyes:



Oh, hogwash. There are not alternative interpretations on homosexuality, it's a cut-and-dry issue. Of course, I'm sure if I said the sky was blue you would also say "Don't you know her perception is the only right one :rolleyes: ".

Laying aside that the bible as we know it was voted on by a bunch of men...

why then are there not more christians living lives of poverty the way Jesus asked? Why are most of the things that are real sticking points things that Jesus never said?



Who's to say we aren't? You don't know how much I give to charity.

I asked this earlier in the thread, but nobody answered, so I'll ask it again.

Why does Paul get to decide what Christians believe? Why are things he wrote in letters, giving his opinion on things (which was often colored, it seems, by fundamentalist Judaism) matter when it comes to the end all and be all of what christians believe? Why don't the words of Jesus, for example the ones about giving everything away and following Jesus, get precedence over Paul telling us that homos are cursed? Is it just because it is easier to condemn gay people (when you aren't gay, and therefore don't have to concern yourself) than it is to live a life of poverty in service of Jesus?

More than one interpretation of the gospels is possible, as Paul himself was fully aware (2. Corinthians 11:3-)

3But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted…

But with Paul's work in defining the role of Jesus, modern Christianity now understands Jesus as the actual son of God in the sense that God acted on earth through Jesus. Moreover, it is thanks to Paul that Christianity understands the crucifixion of Jesus as an act of redemption, where human beings could be cleansed from their sins, provided that they acknowledged Jesus as Lord. The sins were transferred to Jesus, who, as God's son were cleaned from these sins directly by God.

Paul recognized that Christianity was a new religious orientation open for all humans, not only Jews. He clearly expressed that all humans were open for the divine message (Gal. 2:11-15).

11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
15"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

Paul also defined the new age, the ‘Good News’ the end to the separation between man and God, and that man's relation to God was now through Christ (Gal. 2:19-20).

19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

This far-reaching definition was of such a disposition that it inevitably led to the eventual separation of Judaism and Jesus-Judaism so that the Christ followers would develop into the Christianity we know today.

For his time, Paul's message gave all oppressed people (poor, slave, women and foreigners etc.,) a stronger position in the Jesus-Jewish (soon Christian) groups than they could have otherwise expected in other religious groups or in the Roman or Greek world of the time. Those oppressed peoples were allowed to mix for the first time in many cases, with men and traditional leaders as equal to them. WE have no reason to be ashamed of Paul’s letters and his influence on our perception of what it means to be a follower of Christ the Messiah.

It's okay, though - the Bible is strangely silent on the matter of plagiarism or quoting without proper reference.

Unlike the website it came from which has this to say ....

Copyright © 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

This document may be copied, on the condition that it will not be republished in print, on-line (including reposting on other Web sites), or on computer media, and will not be used for any commercial purpose. Further, it may not be copied without source statements (title, author, journal title), this paragraph granting limited rights for copying, and the address of the publisher and owner of rights, as listed below...

Including reposting on other websites? Isn't that what she is doing? I think the moderators should be informed.

Laying aside that the bible as we know it was voted on by a bunch of men...

why then are there not more christians living lives of poverty the way Jesus asked? Why are most of the things that are real sticking points things that Jesus never said?
Ehhh they always find a way to eak around that one

I don’t know honestly ... they have no problem dancing around the fairly clear imperative but hard line imperatives on homosexuality

… though that’s the way of humans … they want to help everyone else follow the path as long as it does not hurt them too much
(not saying all just some)

You manifest your lack of biblical knowledge in this post: Christ struck down the old law, now we are to be adherents to the law of Christ and the apostles. Which, by the way, also condemns homosexuality ;)

So Christ struck down the old law. And here I thought you said it was us 'liberal Christians'.

Many liberal Christians would love to discount the Levitical laws

So now we were right about Christ striking down the Old Law. Strange that you only learned this in the last page given you are suched a learned biblical scholar by your assessment.

I wonder which of is actually being deceptive and misleading in suggesting we have to hold to Levitical law. Hmmmm....

Including reposting on other websites? Isn't that what she is doing? I think the moderators should be informed.

Fair use generally allows for reprinting sections of a copyright work for discussion purposes, and so that is hardly against the spirit of the notice, provided that they are properly referenced.

It's okay, though - the Bible is strangely silent on the matter of plagiarism or quoting without proper reference.

Unlike the website it came from which has this to say ....

Copyright © 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

This document may be copied, on the condition that it will not be republished in print, on-line (including reposting on other Web sites), or on computer media, and will not be used for any commercial purpose. Further, it may not be copied without source statements (title, author, journal title), this paragraph granting limited rights for copying, and the address of the publisher and owner of rights, as listed below...
Would you please inform the moderators if you have not done so already ... I would do it myself but I have her on block and you got a jump on it ... I am sure you are seeing the situation more clearly then I

If the old law has been struck down them making references to Leviticus is a pointless excercise.


We can't take them as laws, but we can learn God's intentions for us from them when the same issues are discussed in the New Testament. Unlike shellfish and mixed garments, homosexuality is also condemned under Christ's Law.

Well for starters who cares about gays

My attuide is i stay away from them and there we go .What they do is there our dicision not ours why shuld we make dicision for people when it doesnt even affect us?.
Theres better things in this world to worry about we have children dieing of diesase like the flu and not enuff food.And 1st world countries bitch about gays, very nice........

Who's to say we aren't? You don't know how much I give to charity.

How much do you give to charity? Or are you being deceptive again? Remember one thing we all agree on is the Bible is clear on lying. I'll ask again, how much do you give to charity?

More than one interpretation of the gospels is possible, as Paul himself was fully aware (2. Corinthians 11:3-)

3But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted…

But with Paul's work in defining the role of Jesus, modern Christianity now understands Jesus as the actual son of God in the sense that God acted on earth through Jesus. Moreover, it is thanks to Paul that Christianity understands the crucifixion of Jesus as an act of redemption, where human beings could be cleansed from their sins, provided that they acknowledged Jesus as Lord. The sins were transferred to Jesus, who, as God's son were cleaned from these sins directly by God.

Paul recognized that Christianity was a new religious orientation open for all humans, not only Jews. He clearly expressed that all humans were open for the divine message (Gal. 2:11-15).

11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
15"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

Paul also defined the new age, the ‘Good News’ the end to the separation between man and God, and that man's relation to God was now through Christ (Gal. 2:19-20).

19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

This far-reaching definition was of such a disposition that it inevitably led to the eventual separation of Judaism and Jesus-Judaism so that the Christ followers would develop into the Christianity we know today.

For his time, Paul's message gave all oppressed people (poor, slave, women and foreigners etc.,) a stronger position in the Jesus-Jewish (soon Christian) groups than they could have otherwise expected in other religious groups or in the Roman or Greek world of the time. Those oppressed peoples were allowed to mix for the first time in many cases, with men and traditional leaders as equal to them. WE have no reason to be ashamed of Paul’s letters and his influence on our perception of what it means to be a follower of Christ the Messiah.


are you cutting and pasting? This isn't really answering my questions. I can understand him as an important thinker in christianity, or theologian, or whatever. My point is, his words seem to have as much, if not more, authority than the words of Jesus. In fact, some of the words of Jesus are ignored.

Would you please inform the moderators if you have not done so already ... I would do it myself but I have her on block and you got a jump on it ... I am sure you are seeing the situation more clearly then I

Meh. I believe in giving people enough rope.

How much do you give to charity? Or are you being deceptive again? Remember one thing we all agree on is the Bible is clear on lying. I'll ask again, how much do you give to charity?
I can honestly say mine is at about the 15 percent mark (its not much but I am still geting my doctorate I am broke) and I squeeze out about 200 hours of service for groups like feed my starving children

Its all I have to give

Oh, hogwash. There are not alternative interpretations on homosexuality, it's a cut-and-dry issue. Of course, I'm sure if I said the sky was blue you would also say "Don't you know her perception is the only right one :rolleyes: ".

The sky isn't blue. The light that comes through the sky is seperated out so that we see blue. Things that are blue reflect blue light. The sky does not do that. So yes, we would tell you were wrong. Not unlike your interpretation of these passages.

The sky isn't blue. The light that comes through the sky is seperated out so that we see blue. Things that are blue reflect blue light. The sky does not do that. So yes, we would tell you were wrong. Not unlike your interpretation of these passages.

Yeah I put her on block too now, so all I can see are the replies.

Yeah, there are many interpretations in the bible and many more interpretations on the references related to homosexuality in the bible.

Meh. I believe in giving people enough rope.
If they are in clear violation of copyright law then I would inform them they will want to know

If it is grey I would still make mention

The mods dont look kindly on it ... hell I remember at least one person geting deated for spam for copying without comment or citation from democracy now ... they obviously frown on it

Yeah I put her on block too now, so all I can see are the replies.

Yeah, there are many interpretations in the bible and many more interpretations on the references related to homosexuality in the bible.


PLease Help! I try to open the page to the ignore option but always get a blank page.

So tired of the theospamy.

Or are you being deceptive again? Remember one thing we all agree on is the Bible is clear on lying.


Unlike shellfish and mixed garments, homosexuality is also condemned under Christ's Law.

Isn't lying one of those things like shellfish and mixed garments which goes without direct condemnation in the New Testament?*



* I have a feeling that I am missing somewhere obvious where it is condemned in the NT, but all I can think of right here and now is some comment from Acts about Satan entering people and making them lie.

man it would be great if someone would answer this. Just great. Fan freaking tastic.


Christ's ministeries were incomplete, which is why He gave His authority to the apostles. They extended upon what He was able to teach while alive. Many heretics try to discredit the apostles, yet the fact remains they spoke with the same authority of Jesus. Therefore, they are to be followed as fully as Him.

The sky isn't blue. The light that comes through the sky is seperated out so that we see blue. Things that are blue reflect blue light. The sky does not do that. So yes, we would tell you were wrong. Not unlike your interpretation of these passages.
Correct you could say that the sky is every color EXCEPT blue therefore allowing the blue light to pass through more freely

I love that lol

We can't take them as laws, but we can learn God's intentions for us from them when the same issues are discussed in the New Testament. Unlike shellfish and mixed garments, homosexuality is also condemned under Christ's Law.

It was condemned by Paul in a letter. That is not 'Christ's Law'. Christ made it clear that he was the only judge.

If Leviticus teaches us God's intentions for us, then I better get to slaughtering some animals. I better get me some slaves. Either levitical law is useful or it's not. You are picking and choosing. I do neither. I don't hold levitical law for myself. I also am not a homosexual so I have no need to figure out what Christ thinks of it. Again, unlike you I recognize that each person's relationship with Christ is personal. You are not the Christ mediator.

PLease Help! I try to open the page to the ignore option but always get a blank page.

So tired of the theospamy.
try direct linky

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/profile.php?do=editlist

Isn't lying one of those things like shellfish and mixed garments which goes without direct condemnation in the New Testament?*



* I have a feeling that I am missing somewhere obvious where it is condemned in the NT, but all I can think of right here and now is some comment from Acts about Satan entering people and making them lie.


I'm not lying, Jocabia is lying here. For instance: He states that homosexuality is not condemned when it clearly is (strike one), he states that all judgement is sinful, when the apostles clearly state otherwise (strike two), and he states that, if we are to accept the teachings of the apostles, we are to accept the Levitical laws as well (strike three, you're outta here!)

Christ's ministeries were incomplete, which is why He gave His authority to the apostles. They extended upon what He was able to teach while alive. Many heretics try to discredit the apostles, yet the fact remains they spoke with the same authority of Jesus. Therefore, they are to be followed as fully as Him.
What is the basis for this? Why are some guys who claim to speak for Jesus get this authority and others don't?

And for god's sake, why haven't you given away everything and followed Jesus?

Well I've been thinking about the whole genetic gay thing and came to a conclusion-


No one knows what makes someone gay. There are theories, biology, allkinds of things but the truth is no one really knows. It could be anything from environment to genetics to eating too much red meat. Nobody knows.

Live and let live, that's what I say. If men want to go and bum stuff one another then let them; it's not like they are stopping any straight guys from bumstuffing women.

PLease Help! I try to open the page to the ignore option but always get a blank page.

So tired of the theospamy.

I used to talk to Neo.. but now what is happening has slipped into spamming (huge copy and paste jobs) with no opinion.. and no references to the sources (which is against rules).

Live and let live, that's what I say. If men want to go and bum stuff one another then let them; it's not like they are stopping any straight guys from bumstuffing women.

If you think that is all homosexuality is about, well... that's pretty narrow-minded.

I used to talk to Neo.. but now what is happening has slipped into spamming (huge copy and paste jobs) with no opinion.. and no references to the sources (which is against rules).

Yeah I am quite tired of it. Can't have a sane and rational or even brief discussion on this subject or variants without it becoming some "Jesus said this..." spam fest. It's no goddmaned wonder this forum server is so constipated.

Yeah I am quite tired of it. Can't have a sane and rational or even brief discussion on this subject or variants without it becoming some "Jesus said this..." spam fest. It's no goddmaned wonder this forum server is so constipated.

ya, this forum server is very bad for me.. it is very slow often and sometimes give me a database error...

Christ's ministeries were incomplete, which is why He gave His authority to the apostles. They extended upon what He was able to teach while alive. Many heretics try to discredit the apostles, yet the fact remains they spoke with the same authority of Jesus. Therefore, they are to be followed as fully as Him.

So now Christ was unable to teach people while he was alive? I think i recognize heresy when I see it. He taught all there was to teach. Their job was to bring those teachings to others. Not to change the laws or teachings of Jesus. Extending upon it is heresy. They often quoted Jesus. If Jesus said it, they can quote him. And if Jesus didn't say it, I'm not interested. Jesus was clear as to the laws and as to what he believed. He was clear that his was the Law and to be followed. He did not give them the authority to change it.

It was condemned by Paul in a letter. That is not 'Christ's Law'. Christ made it clear that he was the only judge.

If Leviticus teaches us God's intentions for us, then I better get to slaughtering some animals. I better get me some slaves. Either levitical law is useful or it's not. You are picking and choosing. I do neither. I don't hold levitical law for myself. I also am not a homosexual so I have no need to figure out what Christ thinks of it. Again, unlike you I recognize that each person's relationship with Christ is personal. You are not the Christ mediator.



Yeah right! Seriously, if lying to people were a bannable offense, you would have been out a long time ago :rolleyes:


Here's what Christ had to say about it to the 72 disciples/apostles he sent out: Luke 10:16 16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."


You either accept the apostles as voices of Christ and God, as they were possessed by the Holy Spirit, or you are a heretic. Pick one.

wats rong with homosexuality?

I'm not lying, Jocabia is lying here.

I never accused you of lying, nor did Jocabia. In fact the only person throwing around direct accusations of lying is your good self.

Now, if you wouldn't mind answering my question - does the NT comment directly on lying, and if not shouldn't it be in the same category as shellfish and mixed fabrics according to your model of Christianity?

So now Christ was unable to teach people while he was alive? I think i recognize heresy when I see it. He taught all there was to teach. Their job was to bring those teachings to others. Not to change the laws or teachings of Jesus. Extending upon it is heresy. They often quoted Jesus. If Jesus said it, they can quote him. And if Jesus didn't say it, I'm not interested. Jesus was clear as to the laws and as to what he believed. He was clear that his was the Law and to be followed. He did not give them the authority to change it.



Are you calling the apostles heretics? Are you truly going against the teachings of the twelve? The very apostles who recorded the gospels of Christ? The source of our teachings? I give up, you are incorrigible. :eek:

So now Christ was unable to teach people while he was alive? I think i recognize heresy when I see it. He taught all there was to teach. Their job was to bring those teachings to others. Not to change the laws or teachings of Jesus. Extending upon it is heresy. They often quoted Jesus. If Jesus said it, they can quote him. And if Jesus didn't say it, I'm not interested. Jesus was clear as to the laws and as to what he believed. He was clear that his was the Law and to be followed. He did not give them the authority to change it.
exactly. If Jesus had anything like that in mind, wouldn't he have said "there's more to say, but this guy Paul will say it later. In a bunch of letters to various people."

Homosexuality isnt Genetic, its a product of enviroment. A defect during the gestation period!

Kill them all!

Here's what Christ had to say about it to the 72 disciples/apostles he sent out: Luke 10:16 16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."


Paul wasn't one of those people.

Homosexuality isnt Genetic, its a product of enviroment. A defect during the gestation period!

Kill them all!

another person that has to be banned.

exactly. If Jesus had anything like that in mind, wouldn't he have said "there's more to say, but this guy Paul will say it later. In a bunch of letters to various people."



Actually, he did. My goodness, I can't stand it when people speak of that which they do not know :mad:



Acts 9:15-16 15But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."


And if the words of Christ Himself aren't enough to convince you, how about the fact that Paul received the Holy Spirit? Or that the other apostles recognized him as one of them?

Are you calling the apostles heretics? Are you truly going against the teachings of the twelve?

Which twelve? Eleven plus Judas or eleven plus Matthias?

I'm not lying, Jocabia is lying here. For instance: He states that homosexuality is not condemned when it clearly is (strike one), he states that all judgement is sinful, when the apostles clearly state otherwise (strike two), and he states that, if we are to accept the teachings of the apostles, we are to accept the Levitical laws as well (strike three, you're outta here!)

Again, so the apostles can override Jesus. Interesting take. Let me know how that works for you. I posted a link to the words of Jesus and you posted out of context quotes of apostles. Are you really suggesting that the apostles can override the words of Jesus.

Where did I say we should follow the levitical laws. You said that liberal Christians were misleading people to discount levitical laws and I disputed it and said Christ lifted Levitical law. Then you admitted I was right. Then you claimed that levitical laws should be used to show the intentions of God for us, which I also disputed. I NEVER suggested that we should follow levitical law or that levitical law is tied to the teachings of the apostles.

I challenge you to show that I EVER said the teachings of the apostles should be followed only if we follow levitical law. I suggested if you say that leviticus should be read to get the intentions of God you should read the whole thing, like the part that okays slavery. So who's being deceptive.

Admit it, you've been caught out. Everyone saw you contradict yourself on leviticus. Everyone has seen you misrepresent leviticus. Everyone has seen you claim that the words of the apostles can edit the words of Jesus Christ.

If I'm out means I'm not associated with you. I've never been more happy.

Off Topic Warning:

Neo, I can't help but wonder what you look like. Why don't you have a pic posted in the NS Player Pics thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=412572)?
You must be the only female here who hasn't posted one.

I haven't posted one.

Acts 9:15-16 15But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."

Rather interesting how the only part of the Bible which states this authority was given to the Apostles was written by a disciple of the Apostles.

I never accused you of lying, nor did Jocabia. In fact the only person throwing around direct accusations of lying is your good self.

Now, if you wouldn't mind answering my question - does the NT comment directly on lying, and if not shouldn't it be in the same category as shellfish and mixed fabrics according to your model of Christianity?


Yes.

Revelation 21:8 8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

Actually, he did. My goodness, I can't stand it when people speak of that which they do not know :mad:



Acts 9:15-16 15But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."


And if the words of Christ Himself aren't enough to convince you, how about the fact that Paul received the Holy Spirit? Or that the other apostles recognized him as one of them?
Isn't that a book that Paul wrote? I'm talking about the words of Jesus here. At least something that could be attributed to him on earth. I could certainly write a book saying that god told me I was the man, but I don't know why anyone should believe it.

The moderators should close this thread on the fact that it has been totally hijacked.

Are you calling the apostles heretics? Are you truly going against the teachings of the twelve? The very apostles who recorded the gospels of Christ? The source of our teachings? I give up, you are incorrigible. :eek:

No, I'm calling you a heretic. Jesus gave them the authority to spread HIS teachings, not theirs. What they believed was never meant to be taught as law. Only Jesus was the creator of the new Law. They didn't claim that their teachings should be made into Law. You did and people like you for the past two thousand years. It is absolutely heresy to say that any human being can edit the law as put forth by Jesus Christ. The apostles didn't create the bible. They didn't choose what was and wasn't included. I'm VERY certain that if any apostle was asked if their Law should or could override or edit the Law of Jesus Christ there would be a resounding no. The source of our teaching is Jesus Christ. Do you worship Jesus or the apostles?

Isn't that a book that Paul wrote? I'm talking about the words of Jesus here. At least something that could be attributed to him on earth. I could certainly write a book saying that god told me I was the man, but I don't know why anyone should believe it.



Jesus never wrote a book, so you might as well stop the charades.

Rather interesting how the only part of the Bible which states this authority was given to the Apostles was written by a disciple of the Apostles.
How intresting :p

Rather interesting how the only part of the Bible which states this authority was given to the Apostles was written by a disciple of the Apostles.

Actually his is misrepresenting the quote. That passage gave him the authority to teach the teachings of JESUS CHRIST not the teaching of the apostles. They were not given authority to make their own laws or to edit the Law of Jesus Christ. Neo doesn't like this though because then she has to behave like a Christian instead of a Paulian.

The moderators should close this thread on the fact that it has been totally hijacked.
True that

Jesus never wrote a book, so you might as well stop the charades.

No, Jesus offered teachings. Those teachings were captured and put in the bible and they have all authority. A letter by Paul does not and certainly does not amend the Law of Jesus. Again I ask, who do you worship?

I haven't posted one.
Granted, but you have almost 60 posts... Not 3000+.

I'm interested to see what Neo looks like, and any other regular poster (especially the young females though ;) ). I have an idea of her in my head, but that's almost always wrong, from my experience.

Jesus never wrote a book, so you might as well stop the charades.
But we have some books that supposedly record his words do we not?

You are a terrible debater. All of your arguments are "its this way because I say". Everytime I see you go off like this I become a little more atheistic. Jocabia owns you left and right in these things and you look more and more foolish and mindlessly dogmatic every time you two tangle.

Actually his is misrepresenting the quote. That passage gave him the authority to teach the teachings of JESUS CHRIST not the teaching of the apostles. They were not given authority to make their own laws or to edit the Law of Jesus Christ. Neo doesn't like this though because then she has to behave like a Christian instead of a Paulian.
Ahhh I see … they too creative interpretation to the next level (shedding light on it in a non accusatory way lol rather then OMG THEY WANTED P0WER!!!)

Yes.

Revelation 21:8 8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

Ah, Revelation, the most problemmatic of all the books of the New Testament, and the one whose authorship is most widely disputed. Certainly not one of the Apostles though, and so it appears that the authority which you claim was passed by Jesus to the Apostles was then passed by them to their followers, if you want to hold it at the same level as other books of the NT, and this of the same level of authority as Jesus.

It seems to me that this authority is getting spread out pretty far and wide here...

Meanwhile, evidence shows that sexuality is pretty much set-in-stone by about age 3. There is no evidence that any type of upbringing differences are related to this. That is not to say that upbringing cannot have an effect - but homosexuals come from very diverse backgrounds, and very diverse upbringing. No type of upbringing has ever been statistically linked to incidence of homosexuality.
What evidence?

Could you be more specific because I can think of evidence off the top of my head that indicates the evidence you refer to is incomplete or worse.

Actually, he did. My goodness, I can't stand it when people speak of that which they do not know :mad:



Acts 9:15-16 15But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."


And if the words of Christ Himself aren't enough to convince you, how about the fact that Paul received the Holy Spirit? Or that the other apostles recognized him as one of them?

Again a misrepresentation. They were given the right to carry forth the teachings of Jesus Christ and the new Law. They were not given the right to create new laws of amend the Law that Jesus Christ brought.

are you cutting and pasting? This isn't really answering my questions. I can understand him as an important thinker in christianity, or theologian, or whatever. My point is, his words seem to have as much, if not more, authority than the words of Jesus. In fact, some of the words of Jesus are ignored.


Am I cutting and pasting what? That post directly answered your question, only you didn't like the answer. I spent a good amount of effort typing that up for you, then you go off and say it doesn't answer the question?

Which of the Apostles would you have us follow? I've already quoted Peter in this very thread, when he was explaining that Paul's writings would be misinterpreted. The book of Acts also tells us what the relationship was among the early founders of Christianity. They agreed with each other, Paul’s message is NOT different than the others, it explains it deeper and earlier (in writing dates anyway), but they work together, not against each other, and they work with the four gospels.

Even Jacobia there keeps saying that Jesus did away with the old law, for example, and that he says I should take Jesus’ word over Paul’s word etc., etc., etc., which all sounds nice and pretty, but how would Jacobia know that Jesus finished the old law in the first place if God hadn’t used Paul to write that down and explain it to us soon to be Christians?

Those that believe in God know that God was, and is, more than capable of bringing to us the messages of the New Testament scriptures via a multitude of apostles and teachers he had available to him then, Paul is no less and no more important than the other apostles. For modern day Christians to pretend that the writers of the NT don’t agree with Jesus or each other is no more than a modern day fantasy, a re-writing of history for the purpose of trying make excuses for not doing what they know is right.

Am I cutting and pasting what? That post directly answered your question, only you didn't like the answer. I spent a good amount of effort typing that up for you, then you go off and say it doesn't answer the question?

Which of the Apostles would you have us follow? I've already quoted Peter in this very thread, when he was explaining that Paul's writings would be misinterpreted. The book of Acts also tells us what the relationship was among the early founders of Christianity. They agreed with each other, Paul’s message is NOT different than the others, it explains it deeper and earlier (in writing dates anyway), but they work together, not against each other, and they work with the four gospels.

Even Jacobia there keeps saying that Jesus did away with the old law, for example, and that he says I should take Jesus’ word over Paul’s word etc., etc., etc., which all sounds nice and pretty, but how would Jacobia know that Jesus finished the old law in the first place if God hadn’t used Paul to write that down and explain it to us soon to be Christians?

Those that believe in God know that God was, and is, more than capable of bringing to us the messages of the New Testament scriptures via a multitude of apostles and teachers he had available to him then, Paul is no less and no more important than the other apostles. For modern day Christians to pretend that the writers of the NT don’t agree with Jesus or each other is no more than a modern day fantasy, a re-writing of history for the purpose of trying make excuses for not doing what they know is right.


What I'm getting at is this; the words of the apostles can only be, at best, suggestions. They were men, Jesus is supposedly god. So only his words are actually the word of god.

No, I'm calling you a heretic. Jesus gave them the authority to spread HIS teachings, not theirs. What they believed was never meant to be taught as law. Only Jesus was the creator of the new Law. They didn't claim that their teachings should be made into Law. You did and people like you for the past two thousand years. It is absolutely heresy to say that any human being can edit the law as put forth by Jesus Christ. The apostles didn't create the bible. They didn't choose what was and wasn't included. I'm VERY certain that if any apostle was asked if their Law should or could override or edit the Law of Jesus Christ there would be a resounding no. The source of our teaching is Jesus Christ. Do you worship Jesus or the apostles?


Galatians 1:8 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!


2 Timothy 3:10-17 10 But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, 11 persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra—what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.



2 Peter 3:14-18 14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.



Well well well, seems you are in error, thou who rejects the scripture of apostles. I believe this falls under the category of blatant heresy, no? False teaching too? ;)

The moderators should close this thread on the fact that it has been totally hijacked.

Good point. I'm done here. See y'all later, lovers.

What I'm getting at is this; the words of the apostles can only be, at best, suggestions. They were men, Jesus is supposedly god. So only his words are actually the word of god.



The apostles had the Holy Spirit in them, who is infallible. Thus, as the Holy Spirit spoke through them instead of them speaking fo themselves, the apostles themselves were infallible in their teachings too. Ergo, they had the same authority in teaching as Christ.

Am I cutting and pasting what? That post directly answered your question, only you didn't like the answer. I spent a good amount of effort typing that up for you, then you go off and say it doesn't answer the question?

Which of the Apostles would you have us follow? I've already quoted Peter in this very thread, when he was explaining that Paul's writings would be misinterpreted. The book of Acts also tells us what the relationship was among the early founders of Christianity. They agreed with each other, Paul’s message is NOT different than the others, it explains it deeper and earlier (in writing dates anyway), but they work together, not against each other, and they work with the four gospels.

Even Jacobia there keeps saying that Jesus did away with the old law, for example, and that he says I should take Jesus’ word over Paul’s word etc., etc., etc., which all sounds nice and pretty, but how would Jacobia know that Jesus finished the old law in the first place if God hadn’t used Paul to write that down and explain it to us soon to be Christians?

Those that believe in God know that God was, and is, more than capable of bringing to us the messages of the New Testament scriptures via a multitude of apostles and teachers he had available to him then, Paul is no less and no more important than the other apostles. For modern day Christians to pretend that the writers of the NT don’t agree with Jesus or each other is no more than a modern day fantasy, a re-writing of history for the purpose of trying make excuses for not doing what they know is right.

I don't think Paul was a heretic. I don't believe that Paul intended for his word to amend or negate the word of our Savior. However, it has been used to do just that. I will always hold the words of Jesus to be above reproach. I will do this for NO OTHER. Some of the text of the Bible was Paul expressing his opinion. His opinion is not infallible. Only the opinion of Jesus Christ was infallible. People who take the suggestions of Paul above the suggestions of Jesus Christ are making a grave error, I fear.

Also, Paul did not write Mark, Luke or Matthew where most of the words of Jesus can be found. This is where I learned most of what I know of what Jesus taught.

Good point. I'm done here. See y'all later, lovers.
Thanks for your quality input

The apostles had the Holy Spirit in them, who is infallible. Thus, as the Holy Spirit spoke through them instead of them speaking fo themselves, the apostles themselves were infallible in their teachings too. Ergo, they had the same authority in teaching as Christ.

So again you make the claim that the apostles are equal to Jesus and I'm the blasphemer? I don't think those same apostles would agree with you. The Holy Spirit meant faith. Faith does not put you as an equal to Jesus. The Apostles were not equal to Jesus Christ regardless of what you claim. They did not have the authority to change the teachings of Jesus. To say they did is clear blasphemy.

Again a misrepresentation. They were given the right to carry forth the teachings of Jesus Christ and the new Law. They were not given the right to create new laws of amend the Law that Jesus Christ brought.


False, the apostles were infallible in their teachings since the Holy Spirit spoke through them, therefore any extensions they made upon what Christ previously said was an extension Christ Himself willed.

Jesus never wrote a book, so you might as well stop the charades.

Wouldn't that mean the entire bible is discredited? If all was written by men who claimed they had the authority by god to do so......

Galatians 1:8 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!


2 Timothy 3:10-17 10 But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, 11 persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra—what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.



2 Peter 3:14-18 14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

Well well well, seems you are in error, thou who rejects the scripture of apostles. I believe this falls under the category of blatant heresy, no? False teaching too? ;)

Show me where Jesus said that these men had the authority to replace or edit his Law? If they had it, he certainly would have said it. Please quote him.

Who's to say we aren't? You don't know how much I give to charity.

Do you have more than one outfit? Do you use any brand name products? Do you treat yourself to any kind of an indulgence? Do you own electronics? If so, you aren't living in poverty. And giving to charity doesn't mean you live in poverty. It just means you are a little better than the rich bastards who don't give to charity.

Wouldn't that mean the entire bible is discredited? If all was written by men who claimed they had the authority by god to do so......
But somehow unlike all the other god written religious text they are not the ones being deceived :rolleyes:

Yes, fighting bigotry with more bigotry is really the answer. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

ie. Hey, this doesn't sound very good when it's turned around now does it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

ie. Hey, this doesn't sound very good when it's turned around now does it?
I tried to point that out

Though just a hint a rolly eyes helps
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

What I'm getting at is this; the words of the apostles can only be, at best, suggestions. They were men, Jesus is supposedly god. So only his words are actually the word of god.

What are you talking about? The words of Jesus are brought to us via the apostles? Why would their words disagree with each other. If the apostles were 'trying to usurp' power as you suggest, why would we have the recorded words of Jesus at all? They recorded them for us...

A little deductive reasoning here please. The gospels were written and recorded and kept for our posterity by the very same people you are accusing of trying to change them?

False, the apostles were infallible in their teachings since the Holy Spirit spoke through them, therefore any extensions they made upon what Christ previously said was an extension Christ Himself willed.

How do you know they were filled with the Holy Spirit? Because they said they were and therefore had the authority.

What are you talking about? The words of Jesus are brought to us via the apostles? Why would their words disagree with each other. If the apostles were 'trying to usurp' power as you suggest, why would we have the recorded words of Jesus at all? They recorded them for us...

A little deductive reasoning here please. The gospels were written and recorded and kept for our posterity by the very same people you are accusing of trying to change them?
Amazing how in doing so it solidified their power … maybe they were just smart and realized this was the path of least resistance to fame and notoriety

I tried to point that out

Though just a hint a rolly eyes helps
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
I'm sorry to everyone for any hijacking, but the points that Neo is trying to make is ridiculous. Now she doesn't even try to claim that Jesus was against homosexuality, but that the Apostles have the authority to override him. I can't just let that ride. It's this kind of inane stunts that make us all look bad. For the record, True Christians worship Christ and God and only Christ and God. They do not ascribe divinity or infallibility to anyone other than Christ and God. They do not worship texts or Apostles or the followers of Apostles. To do any of these things is certainly more damnable than the offenses of a homosexual or adulterer.

I'm sorry to everyone for any hijacking, but the points that Neo is trying to make is ridiculous. Now she doesn't even try to claim that Jesus was against homosexuality, but that the Apostles have the authority to override him. I can't just let that ride. It's this kind of inane stunts that make us all look bad. For the record, True Christians worship Christ and God and only Christ and God. They do not ascribe divinity or infallibility to anyone other than Christ and God. They do not worship texts or Apostles or the followers of Apostles. To do any of these things is certainly more damnable than the offenses of a homosexual or adulterer.
We understand hott stuff :fluffle: :fluffle:

So again you make the claim that the apostles are equal to Jesus and I'm the blasphemer? I don't think those same apostles would agree with you. The Holy Spirit meant faith. Faith does not put you as an equal to Jesus. The Apostles were not equal to Jesus Christ regardless of what you claim. They did not have the authority to change the teachings of Jesus. To say they did is clear blasphemy.



Incorrect, the Holy Spirit was part of the infallible Trinity, and was not merely "faith" but the actually the presence of the Deity. Therefore, they lost their human fallibility in doctrines and teachings during the Pentecost, when Spirit rested upon them.


Here is a verse concerning what Christ said of the Holy Spirit:


John 14:25-27 25 “These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you.

Also, Paul did not write Mark, Luke or Matthew where most of the words of Jesus can be found. This is where I learned most of what I know of what Jesus taught.


Those are all fine gospels, of course. You do recognize though that you have a privilege that Paul did not have, that Paul's letters were written before the gospels were recorded on paper. That Luke (for example) is even thought to have been one of Paul's converts. To suggest that they (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John) had not read anything or personally met Paul himself, would be more surprising to me actually.

Paul didn’t claim to be the Lord, he always pointed at Jesus.

I'm sorry to everyone for any hijacking, but the points that Neo is trying to make is ridiculous. Now she doesn't even try to claim that Jesus was against homosexuality, but that the Apostles have the authority to override him. I can't just let that ride. It's this kind of inane stunts that make us all look bad. For the record, True Christians worship Christ and God and only Christ and God. They do not ascribe divinity or infallibility to anyone other than Christ and God. They do not worship texts or Apostles or the followers of Apostles. To do any of these things is certainly more damnable than the offenses of a homosexual or adulterer.



Oh, stop lying. I said that Christ gave the apostles His very own authority and that their teachings were therefore His. I never said they "overrode" the teachings Christ made while he was alive, rather they were an extension of them. You are denying the very teachings of Christ by refusing to submit to His ordained apostles, and you are blaspheming the Holy Ghost by calling Him fallible, which, if I remember correctly, is the one unforgivable sin.

How do you know they were filled with the Holy Spirit? Because they said they were and therefore had the authority.


They performed miracles as a sign of their authority. Just like Christ. Are you going to reject the very miracles they performed, like the Pharisees rejected the miracles of Christ?

ARGH!!! It's so hard to not reply anymore. Anyone have a tranquilizer I can take, because it's all I can take to not say anything about such things.

Neo, Ph33r if you would like to be corrected start a thread. This is not the place.

EDIT: Actually, don't. I'm out for ten days starting tomorrow morning. Banned. Just kidding. I'm on my way to Utah for a presentation and decided to take the opportunity to help some people out at the same time. I doubt I will be online during that time. UT, Dem, et al, thanks for some good banter. Seen you guys in a week plus.

Those are all fine gospels, of course. You do recognize though that you have a privilege that Paul did not have, that Paul's letters were written before the gospels were recorded on paper.


This implies that the recording of the apostles were flexible and subject to change before publication
Not to mention god allowing inaccuracies because of a “prerelease” addition to his holy book.

And that Paul just did not have time to completely “corroborate” his story with the other apostles … if he were truly telling his views of god why would having to look at the other recorded versions matter?

Show me where Jesus said that these men had the authority to replace or edit his Law? If they had it, he certainly would have said it. Please quote him.


Luke 10:16 16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."



Ohhh, looks like you're rejecting them. Tsk tsk. Seems the false prophets have really led you astray.

They performed miracles as a sign of their authority. Just like Christ. Are you going to reject the very miracles they performed, like the Pharisees rejected the miracles of Christ?

How do you know they did? Because they claim they did. How do you know Christ did? Because they claim he did.

It may very well be true that said things occured and none of it is lies. However when it is all coming from people who are quite fallible, I am going to be apprehensive.

Luke 10:16 16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."



Ohhh, looks like you're rejecting them. Tsk tsk. Seems the false prophets have really led you astray.

That has to do with teaching JESUS's word. Not their own. Rejecting Jesus's word is rejecting Jesus, not Paul's.

How do you know they did? Because they claim they did. How do you know Christ did? Because they claim he did.

It may very well be true that said things occured and none of it is lies. However when it is all coming from people who are quite fallible, I am going to be apprehensive.



There were witnesses at the time. Want me to do some research for you? Also, as I stated before, anyone under possession of the Holy Spirit is infallible.

There were witnesses at the time. Want me to do some research for you? Also, as I stated before, anyone under possession of the Holy Spirit is infallible.

Yes. Please. Bring on the witnesses.

There were witnesses at the time. Want me to do some research for you? Also, as I stated before, anyone under possession of the Holy Spirit is infallible.


What has Jesus got to do with genetics or the fact I like sucking penis?

I just joined this topic, and I'm going to jump aside all of the flaming, slander, accusations of homosexuality and just jump to the issues actually presented.

As to Homosexuality being genetic, it very well might be. While there is no dead-on answer from anyone, there are many schools of thought, some with evidence. There was an interesting article in Time(I think) a while back about hormones triggering the brain's sexual response. The gay man was triggered by the other man's hormones, same way a woman triggers a straight man. If this is so, either A) The brain was that way from birth or B) Some form of treatment/mental conditioning led the brain to be activated by that. I'm fairly sure that it isn't conditioning. Often being gay is not a choice. Many gay men deny themselves for years, marrying women, having children, trying to be straight, but in the end the truth surfaces. Were it simply a matter of conditioning this would not be so. I believe it is genetic, and the reason why it isn't commonplace is the simple fact of genetic material and passing it on. A man cannot impregnate another man. Simple fact. Gay genes could therefore be from mutation, or gay men trying to be straight and passing it on that way, sperm clinics today, etc.

Onto the second argument, Yes, the bible does have quite a few passages about homosexuality being a sin. But what doesn't it declare as a sin? Non-marital sex between a man and a woman is a sin. You could quote plenty of things that we all do from the bible that are sins. The whole thing with Jesus is acceptance and repentance. You repent for sins be you gay, straight, or bisexual.

The right wing Christians seem to like to ignore the parts of the bible that speak of acceptance. They just skip over that when it comes to homosexuality, and just cite the portions of the bible that condemn it. Here are just a few examples that they presumably like to leave out when it comes to this issue....
Colossians 3:8
But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self , which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave of free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

Luke 6:37
Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

Matthew 22:34
Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got togother. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God will all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

That has to do with teaching JESUS's word. Not their own. Rejecting Jesus's word is rejecting Jesus, not Paul's.



Paul's word is the word of Christ, or else Christ would have never given His authority to Paul or would have intervened and removed the Holy Spirit when Paul became a false prophet. The only reasonable deduction is that Christ really did approve of Paul's teachings.

Anyhow... homosexuality - genetic or not?

What has Jesus got to do with genetics or the fact I like sucking penis?

We aren't on topic anymore. If you would like to bring back the original topic, please go ahead and attempt it. It will end up right back here in under ten pages.

What has Jesus got to do with genetics or the fact I like sucking penis?
Depends ...do you picture jesus while doing the latter?

Anyhow... homosexuality - genetic or not?


Oh yeah...we had a topic before Mesa and I went off onto a tangent....no, not entirely. Partially enviromental.

Paul's word is the word of Christ, or else Christ would have never given His authority to Paul or would have intervened and removed the Holy Spirit when Paul became a false prophet. The only reasonable deduction is that Christ really did approve of Paul's teachings.

But the only way we know this is through Paul's word. Not because Jesus actually wrote some stuff down telling us. Not because God wrote stuff down and told us. Because Paul and all of his friends did. Therefore I have no proof as to accuracy.

We aren't on topic anymore. If you would like to bring back the original topic, please go ahead and attempt it. It will end up right back here in under ten pages.

Oh no no, it's all meaningless anyone. Nobodies opinions will change anything. It doesn't really matter what Mr J. said, unless he's going to cram a needle in me that makes me straight, all your energy is wasted etc etc.

So you just bitching about the bible now?

*snipped doubled up stuff*

And that Paul just did not have time to completely “corroborate” his story with the other apostles … if he were truly telling his views of god why would having to look at the other recorded versions matter?

Having a look doesn't matter, Jacobia's accusation that the recorded red words in his bible are somehow more or less infallible than the other words recorded in it by the very same people as recorded the red words is utter nonsense.

The apostles recorded the works for us, verbally, via message and interpretation and the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, there is no reason to say the 1 Peter (for example) is less or more reliable than the words of Peter in the gospel of Mark. It's a silly accusation, and I was pointing it out that it doesn’t even make a good conspiracy theory because the one that is technically oldest can't be 'changing' the stuff written later.

Romans 6 15-18
What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

Oh yeah...we had a topic before Mesa and I went off onto a tangent....no, not entirely. Partially enviromental.

Any response I make to you saying that is going to get us right back where we were arguing about theology. My tongue is held.

Depends ...do you picture jesus while doing the latter?

I could see it...... I mean there was that whole kinky foot-washing story.....

(eww....feet)

Anyhow... homosexuality - genetic or not?
Im not sure … I think like a lot of things there could be multiple causes

Maybe a few separate ones or combined ones

For example I think Some of my bisexuality may be because of past sexual abuse from my priest … but I am not sure.

I am fairly sure my hypersexual drive is because of it but its hard to tell what I was born with and what I developed later (being that I was molested in the 4th grade I was too young to really know BEFORE that who I was attracted to in order to compare it)

Oh no no, it's all meaningless anyone. Nobodies opinions will change anything. It doesn't really matter what Mr J. said, unless he's going to cram a needle in me that makes me straight, all your energy is wasted etc etc.

So you just bitching about the bible now?

We seem to be debating the credibility mostly.

I could see it...... I mean there was that whole kinky foot-washing story.....

(eww....feet)
Hmmm maybe THAT is the real reason there are foot fetishes!
Not only did jesus create a religion he created a fetish!

Ok.......Anyways, i'm a Buddhist, so i don't really care if someone's gay. This, however isn't really based on my religious beliefs. My parents raised me to be tolerant (respect gay rights, don't say christ's name in vain, etc..). I really get annoyed when people start gay-bashing! I mean, aren't you all God's children?! Why would God want his children to hate each other and hurt each other because of who you are? Doesn't sound like a father figure to me.... Besides, what right of it is ours to dictate their(homosexual's) lives? What they do in their spare time is none of my business. Nor any of yours. Just let 'em live, people! Freedom, man! I thought God gave humans free will? Why can't some people respect that free will?

Anyways, i found this article very interesting. The guy does swear alot, but he gets his message across:

http://www.omgjeremy.com/god.shtml (http://)

I realize that some (or most) of you may not agree with him (or even take the time to read the entire thing!), but it is worth a peek.

(P.S.- if this link doesn't work, paste it in the address bar, or go to the site, articles, "My God Has A Bigger Dick"( :eek: )

Anyhow... homosexuality - genetic or not?

I believe it to be at least mostly due to hormonal development very early on. I had previously argued that it couldn't be entirely genetic because identical twins would have to have the same orientation, which is not always the case. However, someone responded by saying identical twins can conceivably, however unlikely, have different traits, even different genders. Until my research shows this, I still argue my original point about it not being entirely possible.

I believe it to be at least mostly due to hormonal development very early on. I had previously argued that it couldn't be entirely genetic because identical twins would have to have the same orientation, which is not always the case. However, someone responded by saying identical twins can conceivably, however unlikely, have different traits, even different genders. Until my research shows this, I still argue my original point about it not being entirely possible.
Though that does not rule out genetic predisposition

Having a look doesn't matter, Jacobia's accusation that the recorded red words in his bible or somehow less infallible than the other words is nonsense.

The apostles recorded the works for us, verbally, via message and interpretation and the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, there is no reason to say the 1 Peter (for example) is less or more reliable than the words of Peter in the gospel of Mark. It's a silly accusation, and I was pointing it out that it doesn’t even make a good conspiracy theory because the one that is technically oldest can't be 'changing' the stuff written later.

I said the words of Jesus are infallible. This is the part that I was referring to in Mark. If it's not a quote of the words of Jesus, then I don't hold it to be infallible. I take it with a grain of salt. That doesn't make it false. Now if Jesus taught it why not quote Jesus rather than state your own opinions? I direct this to both a Christian and an Apostle.

Though that does not rule out genetic predisposition

I don't understant that concept really. Alcoholism runs in my family but I don't see how it is genetic. Please explain it to me and I am sure I will feel stupid.

I said the words of Jesus are infallible. This is the part that I was referring to in Mark. If it's not a quote of the words of Jesus, then I don't hold it to be infallible. I take it with a grain of salt. That doesn't make it false. Now if Jesus taught it why not quote Jesus rather than state your own opinions? I direct this to both a Christian and an Apostle.


And who recorded the words of Jesus? If you are going to grant them fallibility, then you cannot trust whether they recorded the words of Christ or not either.

Ohhh, looks like you're rejecting them. Tsk tsk. Seems the false prophets have really led you astray.
I can feel the glee and triumphant malice from here...is that what you think Jesus came here to teach you? :confused:

I don't understant that concept really. Alcoholism runs in my family but I don't see how it is genetic. Please explain it to me and I am sure I will feel stupid.
Alcoholism has been tied to a general genetic disposition for addiction (in one form or another) with “grey area” substances there is a higher tendency to get not only dependent but also addicted

It is a predisposition meaning if you never partake theoretically you could avoid it (hard to do because it seems like these people are more disposed to get addicted to non substance things such as sex and eating more)

Something similar could be in the homosexual genetic makeup … a tendency to predispose them to being homosexual but assuming they don’t meet the “right” person of the same sex it could go on for years without them knowing

Or them trying to deny it

Just an Idea …
(probably did a horrible job explaining it lol)

And who recorded the words of Jesus? If you are going to grant them fallibility, then you cannot trust whether they recorded the words of Christ or not either.

So now you are admiting it is possible the apostles didn't right the bible? It could be people we have never heard of who felt like telling a story they made up to tell their children before they sleep?

Holy crap! There has been a breakthrough!

I can feel the glee and triumphant malice from here...is that what you think Jesus came here to teach you? :confused:


You sense incorrectly, sir.

Alcoholism has been tied to a general genetic disposition for addiction (in one form or another) with “grey area” substances there is a higher tendency to get not only dependent but also addicted

It is a predisposition meaning if you never partake theoretically you could avoid it (hard to do because it seems like these people are more disposed to get addicted to non substance things such as sex and eating more)

Something similar could be in the homosexual genetic makeup … a tendency to predispose them to being homosexual but assuming they don’t meet the “right” person of the same sex it could go on for years without them knowing

Or them trying to deny it

Just an Idea …
(probably did a horrible job explaining it lol)

I just don't see why we would have genes for that, maybe?

And who recorded the words of Jesus? If you are going to grant them fallibility, then you cannot trust whether they recorded the words of Christ or not either.

He gave them authority to teach HIS words not to teach their opinions. So yes, I trust them to offer HIS words. Again, he clearly gave them authority to pass on his teachings. If he said it, why not quote him and if he didn't they are NOT his teachings. If you believe they were divine as you said then you are worshipping them. This is clearly blasphemy.

So now you are admiting it is possible the apostles didn't right the bible? It could be people we have never heard of who felt like telling a story they made up to tell their children before they sleep?

Holy crap! There has been a breakthrough!



Actually, I'm saying the apostles did write it. Jocabia is claiming that the apostles were fallible, yet the apostles wrote nearly all (if not all) of the New Testament. Therefore, when he claims the apostles are fallible in their teachings, he is also, out of necessity, claiming they could have made mistakes in their records of Christ. Which would defeat his entire purpose. His statement basically eradicates itself.

You sense incorrectly, sir.

Oh, look more deception. The malice and glee were obvious.

What has Jesus got to do with genetics or the fact I like sucking penis?

I know seriously...

I'm rejecting jesus, christianity and neo. :)

I just don't see why we would have genes for that, maybe?
Here is some more info on it much better stated then I could

http://www.familystudies.org/alcoholism&genetics.htm

I said the words of Jesus are infallible. This is the part that I was referring to in Mark. If it's not a quote of the words of Jesus, then I don't hold it to be infallible. I take it with a grain of salt. That doesn't make it false. Now if Jesus taught it why not quote Jesus rather than state your own opinions? I direct this to both a Christian and an Apostle.

What questions to me? If Jesus taught what? I wouldn't even have been in this thread at all if you hadn't been telling people that the book of Romans should be interpreted that; if they felt 'natural' about wanting to have same-sex relations, they would be in fact doing a sin to sleep with someone of the opposite sex... You do that sort of stuff too much. Telling them that they can do whatever they want, it's probably not even a sin etc., that you think the scriptures have been misinterpreted for thousands of years, they can do whatever they feel 'natural' about because they were ‘made’ that way, which is utter hogwash. I think you do more harm than good by trying to tell people that they shouldn't need to feel bad about sinning (and thus, they won't even feel the need to repent, which really should be your goal, not trying to make them 'feel good' about their obsessions -sexual or otherwise).

Actually, I'm saying the apostles did write it. Jocabia is claiming that the apostles were fallible, yet the apostles wrote nearly all (if not all) of the New Testament. Therefore, when he claims the apostles are fallible in their teachings, he is also, out of necessity, claiming they could have made mistakes in their records of Christ. Which would defeat his entire purpose. His statement basically eradicates itself.

Well I don't trust that the bible was written by those who it is supposedly by, nor do I believe that anything in it is actually what happened. I don't usually mind people who believe in God and/or Jesus, but if you are going to believe in something so far-fetched, why not have your own beliefs?

Here is some more info on it much better stated then I could

http://www.familystudies.org/alcoholism&genetics.htm

I will save it and read it later. I have a horrible headache currently.

He gave them authority to teach HIS words not to teach their opinions. So yes, I trust them to offer HIS words. Again, he clearly gave them authority to pass on his teachings. If he said it, why not quote him and if he didn't they are NOT his teachings. If you believe they were divine as you said then you are worshipping them. This is clearly blasphemy.


1. But if they recorded His teachings and were somehow still fallible even while possessed by the Holy Spirit, then how can you be sure that the teachings they recorded really were said by him? ;)


2. I never claimed they themselves were divinity, I claimed they were possessed by divinity which spoke through them. Kind of like a broadcaster speaks through a microphone. Are the words spoken the words of the microphone or of the broadcaster? Clearly, they are from the broadcaster. Same thing here, it is not the apostles speaking of their own accord but Spirit Himself speaking through them.

Actually, I'm saying the apostles did write it. Jocabia is claiming that the apostles were fallible, yet the apostles wrote nearly all (if not all) of the New Testament. Therefore, when he claims the apostles are fallible in their teachings, he is also, out of necessity, claiming they could have made mistakes in their records of Christ. Which would defeat his entire purpose. His statement basically eradicates itself.

They were fallible. The teaching of Christ were not. Jesus granted them the ability to teach his words, HIS WORDS, and thus those words are infallible. And there is much of the New Testament not written by an actual Apostle. Most of it was written by followers of Apostles. Your strawman eradicates itself. Their ability to recollect and pass on the teachings of Christ was infallible. This does not make their opinion infallible. You seem to be unable to tell the difference.

They were fallible. The teaching of Christ were not. Jesus granted them the ability to teach his words, HIS WORDS, and thus those words are infallible. And there is much of the New Testament not written by an actual Apostle. Most of it was written by followers of Apostles. Your strawman eradicates itself. Their ability to recollect and pass on the teachings of Christ was infallible. This does not make their opinion infallible. You seem to be unable to tell the difference.

OMG enough of jesus. You guys seriously should open up a new thread if you want to talk about it being fallible, infallible, or what not.. this isn't the place for it.

Oh, look more deception. The malice and glee were obvious.



No, try cynicism. I knew you were going to deny the obvious anyway, so it wasn't a feeling of triumph but of utter frustration. You've fulfilled what I predicted too...

They were fallible. The teaching of Christ were not. Jesus granted them the ability to teach his words, HIS WORDS, and thus those words are infallible. And there is much of the New Testament not written by an actual Apostle. Most of it was written by followers of Apostles. Your strawman eradicates itself. Their ability to recollect and pass on the teachings of Christ was infallible. This does not make their opinion infallible. You seem to be unable to tell the difference.



Their "opinion" was the "opinion" of the Holy Ghost and was, therefore, infallible. Will you stop rejecting the infallibility of God already, or will you persist in shameless heresy?

What questions to me? If Jesus taught what? I wouldn't even have been in this thread at all if you hadn't been telling people that the book of Romans should be interpreted that; if they felt 'natural' about wanting to have same-sex relations, they would be in fact doing a sin to sleep with someone of the opposite sex... You do that sort of stuff too much. Telling them that they can do whatever they want, it's probably not even a sin etc., that you think the scriptures have been misinterpreted for thousands of years, they can do whatever they feel 'natural' about because they were ‘made’ that way, which is utter hogwash. I think you do more harm than good by trying to tell people that they shouldn't need to feel bad about sinning (and thus, they won't even feel the need to repent, which really should be your goal, not trying to make them 'feel good' about their obsessions -sexual or otherwise).

I said that the book of Romans refers to it being natural for a man to want to be with a woman. Since we know this not to always be true then it is either wrong or only applies to men for whom it is natural to want to be with a woman. There is a difference. It says it would be wrong for me to have sex with a man, which is fine with me as I have no interest in doing so.

Who said they can do whatever they want? I told them to look to the teachings of Christ. I told them to look to their hearts and to listen to what Christ tells them. I tell them to treat people with respect and without judgement. I tell them to work on their own plank with the help of Jesus. I know how my message pisses off those who would rather judge and condemn. Feel free to continue to do so. I will be here teaching the WORDS of Jesus Christ.

I swear.. Jocabia I just about had it.. you are close to getting on my block list. Now lets get back to the topic.. :headbang: :headbang:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Homosexuality may be genetic, but think of this:
In ancient times it was a cultural norm in Sparta for a male soldier to take not only a wife, but a young man on the side. From a structural-functionalist point of view this did 3 things; first it fostered stronger ties between soldiers; second it kept the Spartans of the foreign woman; third the young man would receive tips and advise from his older lover ranging from battle tactics to possible future mates.

Considering all this it seems that homosexuality (or at least bisexuality) can be passed on culturally.

In another scenario there was a study on how rhesus monkeys develop through life (the idea being that their developmental patterns are close to humans). One of the facts found that when deprived of proper socialization within the group, the monkeys would have a sex drive but not know what to do with it. :confused: (i.e.: a monkey might stick its penis in another's ear). If the monkeys had been raised to "do it" with others of the same gender I'm sure that they would have.

In our society it is obvious that couples be of opposite genders, but if a human was isolated and not taught to look at the opposite sex as attractive, they would never know what to think about it.


To conclude, homosexuality may be genetic but most humans are not hard wired from birth to be hetro, homo, or bi.

Their "opinion" was the "opinion" of the Holy Ghost and was, therefore, infallible. Will you stop rejecting the infallibility of God already, or will you persist in shameless heresy?

False. They proved themselves fallible even when Jesus was still alive? Remember when Peter thrice rejected Jesus? THEY WERE FALLIBLE. Accept it. Jesus saved people before the Bible was written. The Apostles were there. He told those saved people all they needed to know. The Apostles recorded it. I follow that recording. You claim that's not enough, but it was enough for Jesus while he was alive and it's enough for me. To claim otherwise is blasphemy. So you continue worshipping Apostles and I'll continue worshipping Jesus. Apparently, worshipping Apostles is working for you. All can see which of the two of us lives by the Golden Rule. All can see which of the two of us is deceptive. All can see which of us truly follows the teachings of the Savior.

Remember that God is a jealous God. You are to worship NO ONE save Him and Jesus. You better be careful when you claim that anyone other that Jesus was imbued with God himself. Or just continue onward. We'll both stand before Jesus in the end. And we'll find out then if he prefers that people follow his words or the words of others.

I said that the book of Romans refers to it being natural for a man to want to be with a woman. Since we know this not to always be true then it is either wrong or only applies to men for whom it is natural to want to be with a woman. There is a difference. It says it would be wrong for me to have sex with a man, which is fine with me as I have no interest in doing so.

Who said they can do whatever they want? I told them to look to the teachings of Christ. I told them to look to their hearts and to listen to what Christ tells them. I tell them to treat people with respect and without judgement. I tell them to work on their own plank with the help of Jesus. I know how my message pisses off those who would rather judge and condemn. Feel free to continue to do so. I will be here teaching the WORDS of Jesus Christ.



No, Paul wasn't false in that statement. It would appear so, but it depends on what version of natural he is using. Homosexuality was not God's intended plan (that which is His plan is natural), but the Fall brought sin into the world, and genetic predispostions towards sin. Thus, while it may be natural in a scientific sense, it is not natural in the sense of purity.

Good night, all.

False. They proved themselves fallible even when Jesus was still alive? Remember when Peter thrice rejected Jesus? THEY WERE FALLIBLE. Accept it. Jesus saved people before the Bible was written. The Apostles were there. He told those saved people all they needed to know. The Apostles recorded it. I follow that recording. You claim that's not enough, but it was enough for Jesus while he was alive and it's enough for me. To claim otherwise is blasphemy. So you continue worshipping Apostles and I'll continue worshipping Jesus. Apparently, worshipping Apostles is working for you. All can see which of the two of us lives by the Golden Rule. All can see which of the two of us is deceptive. All can see which of us truly follows the teachings of the Savior.

Remember that God is a jealous God. You are to worship NO ONE save Him and Jesus. You better be careful when you claim that anyone other that Jesus was imbued with God himself. Or just continue onward. We'll both stand before Jesus in the end. And we'll find out then if he prefers that people follow his words or the words of others.


Peter said that before the Holy Spirit descended upon the Twelve. Was that a misconception on your part, or deception to further your own point?

Good night, all.



Meh, I was hoping you would see that last comment I made before leaving :(

I kindly ask that you guys open up a thread debating certain aspects of your religion.

Chambobo, that's a pretty good point but that is because bisexuality was pretty much promoted in the Spartan atmosphere.

Considering all this it seems that homosexuality (or at least bisexuality) can be passed on culturally.
To conclude, homosexuality may be genetic but most humans are not hard wired from birth to be hetro, homo, or bi.
I concur.

Peter said that before the Holy Spirit descended upon the Twelve. Was that a misconception on your part, or deception to further your own point?

You posted a quote from when Jesus was alive and suggested it made them infallible. Was Jesus lying or are you? I know the answer, do you? The Holy Spirit is just faith. The twelve were not divine. They were given the ability to accurately remember and record the words of Christ. Your own citation says they could accurately record his words. I go by his words. What are you complaining about? Oh, I know. You are complaining that I realize that Jesus saved people while he was still alive and thus his teachings must have been complete or they would have needed the opinions of the Apostles then as well. They didn't. Jesus didn't need for Apostles to 'extend' his teachings then and he doesn't need it now. I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. I worship Jesus Christ. As a Paulian I can see how this offends you, like my being a Christian offends Jews, but deal with it. I will not ever believe that anyone other than Jesus was ever a man and also had divinity within. I will not ever worship any MAN other than Jesus. I will not ever hold any word above the quoted word of Jesus. PERIOD.

Peter said that before the Holy Spirit descended upon the Twelve. Was that a misconception on your part, or deception to further your own point?

I think (s)he is just missing the point you are trying to argue, and therefore not addressing it rather than attempting to decieve anyone.

Edit: Nevermind then....

I kindly ask that you guys open up a thread debating certain aspects of your religion.

Chambobo, that's a pretty good point but that is because bisexuality was pretty much promoted in the Spartan atmosphere.
That's exactly the point Mesatecala. If sexuality were hardwired at birth then we could expect socialisation to be irrelevent, however based on the information I am aware of, this isnt the case. For this reason in my opinion sexuality is subject to both genetic and 'environmental' factors (although to be entirely nit-picky I personally construe genetics as being part of an individual's environment...)

You posted a quote from when Jesus was alive and suggested it made them infallible. Was Jesus lying or are you? I know the answer, do you? The Holy Spirit is just face. The twelve were not divine. They were given the ability to accurately remember and record the words of Christ. Your own citation says they could accurately record his words. I go by his words. What are you complaining about? Oh, I know. You are complaining that I realize that Jesus save people while he was still alive and thus his teachings must have been complete or they would have needed the opinions of the Apostles then as well. They didn't Jesus didn't need for Apostles to 'extend' his teachings then and he doesn't need it now. I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. I worship Jesus Christ. As a Paulian I can see how this offends you, like my being a Christian offends Jews, but deal with it. I will not ever believe that anyone other than Jesus was ever a man and also had divinity within. I will not ever worship any MAN other than Jesus. I will not ever hold any word above the quoted word of Jesus. PERIOD.


I thought you went to bed?


Anyways, if your theory of apostolic fallibility is correct, then who's to say that they didn't get the part I quoted wrong as well? Seriously, you need to change your position to something defensible...

I kindly ask that you guys open up a thread debating certain aspects of your religion.

Chambobo, that's a pretty good point but that is because bisexuality was pretty much promoted in the Spartan atmosphere.

I asked them to do so. They aren't interested and I'm not letting their accusations lie. They posted about ten more posts even after I agreed to stop posting. I'm sorry for the interference.

I thought you went to bed?


Anyways, if your theory of apostolic fallibility is correct, then who's to say that they didn't get the part I quoted wrong as well? Seriously, you need to change your position to something defensible...

It is defensible. I rely on the words of Jesus. He said they were able to teach HIS WORD with all authority. I trust Jesus to be accurate words. I do not trust the opinion letters of Paul or the many other opinions offered by other followers of apostles (not Apostles themselves).

And I am going to bed. You kindly asked me to reply to your last point so I did. I'm a reasonable man.

That's exactly the point Mesatecala. If sexuality were hardwired at birth then we could expect socialisation to be irrelevent, however based on the information I am aware of, this isnt the case. For this reason in my opinion sexuality is subject to both genetic and 'environmental' factors (although to be entirely nit-picky I personally construe genetics as being part of an individual's environment...)

You are mixing acts with attraction. Sexuality refers to who you are attracted to. If a man is attracted to women and only women he is heterosexual regardless of what acts he does or does not do. Same with a homosexual. A in the closet homosexual is still a homosexual.

I can sleep with a man and not be homosexual. I could marry a man and not be homosexual. I am not attracted to men. I am not homosexual.

Chambobo, that's a pretty good point but that is because bisexuality was pretty much promoted in the Spartan atmosphere.
And you don't think Hetrosexuality is promoted in a modern atmosphere? For lack of a better phrase, people aren't born hetrosexual, they're made that way.

You are mixing acts with attraction. Sexuality refers to who you are attracted to. If a man is attracted to women and only women he is heterosexual regardless of what acts he does or does not do. Same with a homosexual. A in the closet homosexual is still a homosexual.

I can sleep with a man and not be homosexual. I could marry a man and not be homosexual. I am not attracted to men. I am not homosexual.

I have to agree. Gay sex acts were done in Greece, but many of those who did it were not even bisexual. It was just expected. To use that example to support the opinion that environment had something to do with it is pretty weak.

I believe that sexuality is mainly genetic.

I also believe people are not made gay or straight. People are born that way.

the Golden Rule.

Be excellent to each other?

Hey now, I'm borderline moderate republican... it isn't fair to say that all republicans would say that.

I would moreso say... christian fundamentalists...

What faction of the Republican party? there are many factions, from the religious right, to the liberatarians, and everything inbetween.

Me? I sit on the right in NZ politics, but towards the libertarian side.

Mesatecala, I am still curious about a question I asked you last night. Why would I lie about my bisexuality?

You are mixing acts with attraction. Sexuality refers to who you are attracted to. If a man is attracted to women and only women he is heterosexual regardless of what acts he does or does not do. Same with a homosexual. A in the closet homosexual is still a homosexual.

I can sleep with a man and not be homosexual. I could marry a man and not be homosexual. I am not attracted to men. I am not homosexual.
You bring up a good point, but I feel that who a person is attracted to has more to do with how they were raised. And furtherore that a person can be raised to be a homosexual and genuinly be attracked to others of the same sex.

Be excellent to each other?
Hehe. That comparison still makes me laugh. Some people would call it sacreligious but I don't worship the Bible so I don't mind a little irreverent humor, now and again.

You bring up a good point, but I feel that who a person is attracted to has more to do with how they were raised. And furtherore that a person can be raised to be a homosexual and genuinly be attracked to others of the same sex.

Well, I challenge you to find how your feelings are supported by science. There is a wealth of evidence supporting a different brain topography for homosexuals from their heterosexual counterparts. This cannot be explained by nurture.

I have NEVER met anyone raised to be homosexual. "Son, let me tell you about the bees and the bees."

You bring up a good point, but I feel that who a person is attracted to has more to do with how they were raised. And furtherore that a person can be raised to be a homosexual and genuinly be attracked to others of the same sex.

I don't agree. I don't think anybody can be raised gay. In fact, I'll reitierate committing the acts does not make one gay.

Lovely Boys, well i'm saying if I had to categorize myself to the two parties, I would say the moderate wing of the party.

If homosexuality is genetic, I have a hard time seeing how it is passed from generation to generation because gay people can't... procreate.

Who said that bisexuals can't procreate - if it is a mutation of the same gene, and the mother carries it as well, it is therefore possible to have gay offspring; you're also making the typical mistake of assuming that gay people can't procreate - sure, we can, we make sperm, and I'm sure if we screwed a women whilst thinking about a cute guy, anything is possible.

Also, how about all those gay men who come out after having kids? those who donate sperm to their lesbian friends, who use the old turkey baster?

You are mixing acts with attraction.
No I'm not.
Sexuality refers to who you are attracted to. If a man is attracted to women and only women he is heterosexual regardless of what acts he does or does not do. Same with a homosexual. A in the closet homosexual is still a homosexual.
I can sleep with a man and not be homosexual. I could marry a man and not be homosexual. I am not attracted to men. I am not homosexual.
Actually 'sexuality' like 'orientation' is simply a socially constructed category based on the post-social 'facts' as they have been understood in Western social sciences.

The information I am referring to involves males who desire male-to-male sexual contact in preference to heterosexual liasons, but who later in life prefer heterosexual liasons to male-to-male liasons, so I am not mixing acts with attraction.

No I'm not.

Actually 'sexuality' like 'orientation' is simply a socially constructed category based on the post-social 'facts' as they have been understood in Western social sciences.

The information I am referring to involves males who desire male-to-male sexual contact in preference to heterosexual liasons, but who later in life prefer heterosexual liasons to male-to-male liasons, so I am not mixing acts with attraction.

So your point is heterosexuality and homosexuality are on equal footing? Makes sense. No one knows how either comes about and a gentic mechanism determining either is as of yet unknown.

A troll?

I'm honored!

Really, you aren't one to tell me when to speak and when not to speak. That authority rests with....no one.

Besides that, I know a few gay people who have absolutely no history of homosexuality in their family, so I highly doubt it's genetic. My opinion is that everyonee has homosexual tendencies, it's a matter of how much tendency, and your willingness to act on those tendencies.

How about the fact that if a women wanted to have sex with me, I wouldn't touch her with a 40 foot pole let alone allowing her to touch my John Thomas whilst standing at attention.

The idea of having sex with a female is listed up there with wanting to fuck a pig or watch The Late Show with David Letterman.

So your point is heterosexuality and homosexuality are on equal footing? Makes sense. No one knows how either comes about and a gentic mechanism determining either is as of yet unknown.
Not necessarily, although they very well might be. I suggest that the fact that such a large percentile of a population can manifest the sexual pattern described does make a case against 'genetic set in stone at birth sexuality', it does not preclude that genetics influence individuals to be more pre-disposed to attraction to one or the other gender/sex, nor that one or another attraction pattern (same or different or both or neither) is more common than others.

I rather suspect that there are several genes involved, and that for most individuals their particular genotype allows a large degree of flexibility and environmental feedback, although some people's genotype may allow less flexibility.

well its moot anyways lol. Ok genetic homosexuals about 75% of true blue queers as it were, you know the type eww gross girls/boys are actually minor hermaphrodites. They have more of one type of hormone then the other. Now the homosexuals that will occasionally sleep with or find women attractive [or men for the sapphic types] are whats known as "environmentally" gay ie something happened to make them that way. I have gay and bi friends lol so dont think i am anti gay just bringing up a minor fact to make way for this. Neo cons and fundamentalists getting rid of gays through GE? nah they wouldnt do that, they would have to get rid of half of their own too...lol lol. Remember the most ardent homophobes tend to have a rainbow streak the size of the grand canyon so yeah lol. Hope my language didnt offend, as i said i have gay and bi friends and it doesnt offend them, i just hope you guys and gals know i dont mean anything bad and its really more for levity then anything lol. Personally i think it would be good for alot of fundamentalists and neo cons to come out of the closet. I had a friend who had serious rage problems for about 3 years. Always mad at his girl friends and everyone. Then we didnt see him for a while. One day we saw him holding hands with some buff dude and getting all kissy. He had changed. No more rage no more anger, he accepted who he was. Maybe it would make the world a better place if dick cheney came out and told all about how he wears his grandmas stockings under his suit, and parades around in a garter and mink coat lol.

You know me and husband just had a baby and he's gay. So that proves it gay couples have gay babies.

First of all there is serious doubt that personalities and lifestyles are genetic, mainly they are developed by people's surroundings and what they have to deal with that shapes them. Next of all: STOP INSULTING CHRISTIANITY! If you had actually read the bible then you would realize that Jesus died to save sinners, We do have to worry about sinning and we do have to repent, if you even so much as think you are christian then maybe you need to find a church without a parker bros. endorsed priest or reverand. Homosexuality in any shape or form is frowned upon in black and white, maybe if you repent for a long ass time and stop being gay then maybe, just maybe you might still have a chance to get into heaven. Thank You.

Hey sunshine, but you do realise that god, not your bible, has the last say as to whether or not you get into 'heaven'.

Ever notice that there are an awful lot of Christians who regularly break the seven deadly sins?

wait you just had a baby...how do you know he is gay! my mom dressed me in pink cause she wanted a girl! and i was looking at playboy from age 6 on [that and playing mr and mr's rabbit with an 10 year old girl at age 8 but lets not speak of that shall we lol lol]

Hey sunshine, but you do realise that god, not your bible, has the last say as to whether or not you get into 'heaven'.

Ever notice that there are an awful lot of Christians who regularly break the seven deadly sins?



And the Bible is God's word, which says who will and who will not get into heaven.

wait you just had a baby...how do you know he is gay! my mom dressed me in pink cause she wanted a girl! and i was looking at playboy from age 6 on [that and playing mr and mr's rabbit with an 10 year old girl at age 8 but lets not speak of that shall we lol lol]

How do I know he's gay, because he just got married and had a baby, his son is gay to.

How do I know he's gay, because he just got married and had a baby, his son is gay to.

*gives kiss to glinde*

I don't agree. I don't think anybody can be raised gay.
What are your supporting facts, or is that just a baseless opinion?

In fact, I'll reitierate committing the acts does not make one gay. I agree, but a gay person is more likely to "commit" gay acts, no?

ohhh previous son lol, well could be environmental and well i mean did he get encouraged to explore his sexuality, or was just given encouragement to be one way or another? just curious no insults or anything really, i didnt understand at first lol what you meant and a little more info would be cool lol. Could be they have that minor hermaphrodite gene in the family, thusly making them genetically gay, which is totally cool, i think thats what was wrong with my buddy lol that made him so angry all the time.

How do I know he's gay, because he just got married and had a baby, his son is gay to.



Ermm O.o

How about the fact that if a women wanted to have sex with me, I wouldn't touch her with a 40 foot pole let alone allowing her to touch my John Thomas whilst standing at attention.

The idea of having sex with a female is listed up there with wanting to fuck a pig or watch The Late Show with David Letterman.

Hey! Do not make such horrible comparisons. Women are hardly as bad as David Letterman.

lol actually i feel the same way about sleeping with another man. Personally, i find the male form to be nothing more then utilitarian, a truck can look nice but its still a truck. Me i would much rather personally take a ride on a nice sleek sports car made for pleasure and comfort. Women are the sports car, men are the truck. lol i dont like trucks
ps oh and its the not touch a woman witha 40 foot pole comment, though i got no trouble touching another man, i do have trouble doing it in a sexual way, just not for me lol

Well, to begin with, The Book of Leviticus (the part of the bible that shuns homosexuality) is also a huge proponent of slavery, sacraficing animals to appease God, and killing all those who don't believe in God. I think it's safe to have as much butt sex as you want. :)

lol actually i feel the same way about sleeping with another man. Personally, i find the male form to be nothing more then utilitarian, a truck can look nice but its still a truck. Me i would much rather personally take a ride on a nice sleek sports car made for pleasure and comfort. Women are the sports car, men are the truck. lol i dont like trucks


Ok, Elaine Benez ;)

ohhh previous son lol, well could be environmental and well i mean did he get encouraged to explore his sexuality, or was just given encouragement to be one way or another? just curious no insults or anything really, i didnt understand at first lol what you meant and a little more info would be cool lol. Could be they have that minor hermaphrodite gene in the family, thusly making them genetically gay, which is totally cool, i think thats what was wrong with my buddy lol that made him so angry all the time.

Um, you do realise I was bs-ing. I'm 17 and two men can't physically have a baby.

I was implying something about genetics.

*gives kiss to glinde*

Aww now I feel loved.

I agree, but a gay person is more likely to "commit" gay acts, no?

No kidding. Tell me something I didn't know.

Just because in ancient greece gay sex was practiced widely, does not prove your argument.

Well, to begin with, The Book of Leviticus (the part of the bible that shuns homosexuality) is also a huge proponent of slavery, sacraficing animals to appease God, and killing all those who don't believe in God. I think it's safe to have as much butt sex as you want. :)



:headbang:


Romans and 1 Corinthians.

lol actually i feel the same way about sleeping with another man. Personally, i find the male form to be nothing more then utilitarian, a truck can look nice but its still a truck. Me i would much rather personally take a ride on a nice sleek sports car made for pleasure and comfort. Women are the sports car, men are the truck. lol i dont like trucks
ps oh and its the not touch a woman witha 40 foot pole comment, though i got no trouble touching another man, i do have trouble doing it in a sexual way, just not for me lol

Ew no. Bad analogy. Men are definitely the sports car.. all that muscle and hotness.. damn... well my boyfriend is skinny but still.. damn... I can't imagine touching a female.

:headbang:


Romans and 1 Corinthians.

Eh I say the Bible is bogus anyway. Technically we're not suppose to go to the bathroom according to it.

Eh I say the Bible is bogus anyway. Technically we're not suppose to go to the bathroom according to it.



Citations please.

Ew no. Bad analogy. Men are definitely the sports car.. all that muscle and hotness.. damn... well my boyfriend is skinny but still.. damn... I can't imagine touching a female.



Why not? We don't have cooties :p

Citations please.
He was quoting the simpsons.

Eh I say the Bible is bogus anyway. Technically we're not suppose to go to the bathroom according to it.

Yeah the bible is bogus.. no relevance to the facts.

He was quoting the simpsons.


Ohhhh :D

No kidding. Tell me something I didn't know.

Just because in ancient greece gay sex was practiced widely, does not prove your argument.
Chambobo's argument has more going for it than ancient Grecian sex. As I have already posted, the argument that both genes and the 'wider environment' can be factors in the formation of an individual's sexuality is the only theory that appears (so far as I can ascertain) to not contradict the available evidences.

I took neo off my block list. I'm not attracted to females. Guys are too fucking hot..

Yeah the bible is bogus.. no relevance to the facts.



*bites tongue* Quit. I'm not supposed to say anything of a conflicting nature to you, so you can do the same for me.

*bites tongue* Quit. I'm not supposed to say anything of a conflicting nature to you, so you can do the same for me.

Just leave this thread. We are better discussing this without you.

Just leave this thread. We are better discussing this without you.


How about you leave, since you tend to reject all evidence showing it's partially enviromental anyway :rolleyes:

How about you leave, since you tend to reject all evidence showing it's partially enviroment anyway :rolleyes:

You are now attacking me. The evidence is on my side. It is mainly genetic. I didn't say it was 100% genetic. But it is mainly genetic... you need to stop lying about me. You leave this thread.

Homosexuality is seen throughout history and throughout the world. This means that it originated at a time when humans hadn't settled the world. That gives us 100's, if not 1000's, of generations of homosexuals reproducing heterosexually. Honestly now, is that probable? Also, seeing how a noticeable % of our civilization is homosexual, that means it must somehow be beneficial to reproduction to be gay. Does that make any sense to you...? If this isn't enough to make you think over the topic, then I will be glad to post an in depth logical examination of this position from a scientific stance.

Just curious, what exactly does the bible have to say about genetics? Anything? :rolleyes:

I'm also a bit lost about on the whole "I find men/women's bodies icky" deal... one would assume that the thought of sex with a partner of opposite sex is unappealing to homosexuals, much as the thought of sex with a partner of the same sex is unappealing to heterosexuals. I really don't see what point this makes?

I took neo off my block list. I'm not attracted to females. Guys are too fucking hot..

*crosses fingers* please mean me!

*crosses fingers* please mean me!

damn dude.. I saw your photos.. omg... you're a total hottie...

i'm 20.. and my photos should be in the photos thread.

Just curious, what exactly does the bible have to say about genetics? Anything? :rolleyes:

I also about lost about - I find men/women's bodies icky...one would assume that the thought of sex with a partner of opposite sex is unappealing to homosexual, much as the thought of sex with a partner of the same sex is unappealing to heterosexuals. I really don't see what point this makes?



Nothing really, but Mesa accuses anyone who disagrees with him of homophobia or fundamentalism, so naturally it's going to off-topic anyway :rolleyes:

Please, NR, you are the LAST person who should be commenting about going OT :rolleyes:

Nothing really, but Mesa accuses anyone who disagrees with him of homophobia or fundamentalism, so naturally it's going to off-topic anyway :rolleyes:

Look I accuse people who disagree with me because of religious reasons, fundamentalists. That's all. Those who think the environment has a bigger role then I think, have a right to their opinion. But for those who think homosexuality is wrong and a choice because of the bible.. well they won't get my sympathy. So please stop bashing me.

Homosexuality is seen throughout history and throughout the world. This means that it originated at a time when humans hadn't settled the world. That gives us 100's, if not 1000's, of generations of homosexuals reproducing heterosexually. Honestly now, is that probable? Also, seeing how a noticeable % of our civilization is homosexual, that means it must somehow be beneficial to reproduction to be gay. Does that make any sense to you...? If this isn't enough to make you think over the topic, then I will be glad to post an in depth logical examination of this position from a scientific stance.



Not necessarily beneficial, many negative traits are carried throughout generations.

Homosexuality is seen throughout history and throughout the world. This means that it originated at a time when humans hadn't settled the world. That gives us 100's, if not 1000's, of generations of homosexuals reproducing heterosexually. Honestly now, is that probable?
No the conclusion (100's if not 1000's of generations of homosexuals reproducing heterosexually) does not follow from the premises.

Also, seeing how a noticeable % of our civilization is homosexual, that means it must somehow be beneficial to reproduction to be gay.
No it doesnt.

Does that make any sense to you...? If this isn't enough to make you think over the topic, then I will be glad to post an in depth logical examination of this position from a scientific stance.
Ok, I look forward to reading it.

Look I accuse people who disagree with me because of religious reasons, fundamentalists. That's all. Those who think the environment has a bigger role then I think, have a right to their opinion. But for those who think homosexuality is wrong and a choice because of the bible.. well they won't get my sympathy. So please stop bashing me.



So...that could make any religious person potentially a fundamentalist, just for disagreeing with you? Lol.

Not necessarily beneficial, many negative traits are carried throughout generations.

Homosexuality is a positive thing.. let me use some of Glinde's tact.. I can love another guy, and suck dick...

Homosexuality is a positive thing.. let me use some of Glinde's tact.. I can love another guy, and suck dick...



The only conceivable thing it could be useful for is population control.

So...that could make any religious person potentially a fundamentalist, just for disagreeing with you? Lol.

If a religious person thinks homosexuals will rot in hell, yes I do. You won't get one drop of sympathy from me. I honestly felt bad for people who think that some time ago.. but really.. I don't care anymore.

The only conceivable thing it could be useful for is population control.

Oh please.

It is a great. I like having another guy in my arms. It feels wonderful. I wouldn't want it any other way.

You are now attacking me. The evidence is on my side. It is mainly genetic. I didn't say it was 100% genetic. But it is mainly genetic... you need to stop lying about me. You leave this thread.



No, our knowledge of it is still to primitive to make any conclusions like that.

Homosexuality is seen throughout history and throughout the world. This means that it originated at a time when humans hadn't settled the world. That gives us 100's, if not 1000's, of generations of homosexuals reproducing heterosexually. Honestly now, is that probable? Also, seeing how a noticeable % of our civilization is homosexual, that means it must somehow be beneficial to reproduction to be gay.

No, it doesn't. It means that, if it is entirely a inheritable trait, homosexuality must not always prevent individuals from reproducing, which is not at all the same thing. Think about it this way - is it "beneficial" for a person to have brown hair rather than blond? Not particularly. Does this mean that brown-haired people should have died out by now? Of course not. Traits don't have to be beneficial to be maintained; they merely can't be too detrimental to passing on genes.

Furthermore, mankind has always been a social and communal species. A trait which might make one less likely to reproduce would leave one available to spend more time protecting and caring for other children of the same tribe/family, thus indirectly passing on genes very similar to one's own.

Keep in mind, too, that odds are very much in favor of homosexuality being a polygenic trait (with some early-environmental factors) - which can mean, among other things, that quite a few 100% straight generations could go by before producing a homosexual offspring.

Well, personally I wouldn't describe homosexuality as either a positive or negative genetic trait, any more than being left handed or having green eyes...

No, our knowledge of it is still to primitive to make any conclusions like that.

INCORRECT.

There is a huge ton of evidence backing the genetic point of view. Including numerous studies you cannot accept because of some things inhibiting your mind.

Well, personally I wouldn't describe homosexuality as either a positive or negative genetic trait, any more than being left handed or having green eyes...

i think it is positive for me.. because I'm in love with another guy, and if I wasn't gay i wouldn't of ever got to know him this way. That's more a personal note. But I won't let anything get in the way of me and him.. not religion, not politics, nothing.

Oh please.

It is a great. I like having another guy in my arms. It feels wonderful. I wouldn't want it any other way.



The same thing applies to a heterosexual couple, except they actually serve the purpose of reproduction. Personal gratification serves no evolutionary purpose. Come up with something better please.

INCORRECT.

There is a huge ton of evidence backing the genetic point of view. Including numerous studies you cannot accept because of some things inhibiting your mind.



As opposed to the many things inhibiting yours?

The same thing applies to a heterosexual couple, except they actually serve the purpose of reproduction. Personal gratification serves no evolutionary purpose. Come up with something better please.

Oh now you are insulting my sexuality.. that's brilliant. No, you get something better. I think i'll get a moderator in here again. Besides holding a guy is better then holding a girl.. it looks fucking sexy.

i think it is positive for me.. because I'm in love with another guy, and if I wasn't gay i wouldn't of ever got to know him this way. That's more a personal note. But I won't let anything get in the way of me and him.. not religion, not politics, nothing.
Well thats all fine and well, and I'm glad you're happy with your sexuality. But if it is a genetic trait, then if, hypothetically, your genome had been set to "hetero-" rather than "homo-", it would all be moot - you would be attracted to women. :p

The same thing applies to a heterosexual couple, except they actually serve the purpose of reproduction. Personal gratification serves no evolutionary purpose. Come up with something better please.

Read my post, Neo. I just mentioned an evolutionary positive.

Well thats all fine and well, and I'm glad you're happy with your sexuality. But if it is a genetic trait, then if, hypothetically, your genome had been set to "hetero-" rather than "homo-", it would all be moot - you would be attracted to women. :p

well I'm happy that I'm fruity... and I can be attracted to a guy this way.. thank goodness i'm not attracted to women. I'm very happy.

"The idea of having sex with a female is listed up there with wanting to fuck a pig"

Well, actually. I really dont see the difference between the two. If having sex with someone of your own sex is natural. What is wrong with doing it with other species ? Nature didnt intend either. So dont knock other folks fetishes in defending yours :)

:headbang:

Mesa is. He even stated it pushed him from agnosticism to atheism lol.

LOL; I was baptised a Catholic, but I skipped Christianity and went straight for Buddhism - but nicer to be in a religion which isn't all hell, fire and brimstone.

Read my post, Neo. I just mentioned an evolutionary positive.


Not necessarily, it would be far more productive to create one's own offspring than it would be to devote time to caring for the offspring of others. It's a slight negative.

The same thing applies to a heterosexual couple, except they actually serve the purpose of reproduction. Personal gratification serves no evolutionary purpose. Come up with something better please.
What has evolutionary purpose got to do with it?

LOL; I was baptised a Catholic, but I skipped Christianity and went straight for Buddhism - but nicer to be in a religion which isn't all hell, fire and brimstone.

I flushed religion down the toilet and lived my life truthfully. But buddhism does sound nice.. but don't you have to stop eating meat?

(Sorry i'm not politically correct so my wording is a bit hrash)

Not necessarily, it would be far more productive to create one's own offspring than it would be to devote time to caring for the offspring of others. It's a slight negative.

You are totally off based. And don't you ever call me negative, or unproductive again.

Not necessarily, it would be far more productive to create one's own offspring than it would be to devote time to caring for the offspring of others. It's a slight negative.

Hardly. Keep in mind that up until very recently, a large proportion of one's offspring died before reaching reproductive potential. Having some members of a family or community that could devote their energies to protecting the existing children rather than producing more doomed little babies makes quite a lot of sense.

What has evolutionary purpose got to do with it?



He was referring to homosexuality as positive, instead of neutral. The only possible positive aspect that I can think of is population control in overpopulated species. A positive trait serves to further the propagation of the species, whereas this trait does not.

"The idea of having sex with a female is listed up there with wanting to fuck a pig"

Well, actually. I really dont see the difference between the two. If having sex with someone of your own sex is natural. What is wrong with doing it with other species ? Nature didnt intend either. So dont knock other folks fetishes in defending yours :)

Nature didnt intend heterosexual sex either...

Not necessarily, it would be far more productive to create one's own offspring than it would be to devote time to caring for the offspring of others. It's a slight negative.
Right, it is not necessarily a benefit, nor is it necessarily not a benefit, and nor is it necessarily more productive, or even as productive, to create one's own off-spring. Rather than being 'necessary' it is contextual.

Hardly. Keep in mind that up until very recently, a large proportion of one's offspring died before reaching reproductive potential. Having some members of a family or community that could devote their energies to protecting the existing children rather than producing more doomed little babies makes quite a lot of sense.



The mother generally fulfilled this purpose quite adequately, an extra creature would not contribute enough to warrant its survival in the pack. Also, producing more offspring increases the probability that some will survive, which again puts a dent in that theory.

A positive trait serves to further the propagation of the species, whereas this trait does not.

So, on this basis celibacy is a negative trait, yes?

He was referring to homosexuality as positive, instead of neutral. The only possible positive aspect that I can think of is population control in overpopulated species. A positive trait serves to further the propagation of the species, whereas this trait does not.

Two guys making out = fucking hot

Therefore this equals beautiful

It is a positive trait. Also it keeps christian fundamentalists in line to prevent them from launching coup d'etats in the US. Let me explain: More openly gay people open minds and that equals more support for gay rights.

So, on this basis celibacy is a negative trait, yes?
Damn right it's negative, especially when it's not through your own choice! :headbang: :p

So, on this basis celibacy is a negative trait, yes?



1. We're above the animal kingdom, we do not exist soley to reproduce.

2. Celibacy is not a trait, it's abstaining from a certain action.

3. Quit trying to pull me back into a religious debate just so you can accuse me of hijacking :rolleyes:

So tell me. What happened in your early childhood that you can remember? Anything odd?

Yeah, I used to play dress ups with my female friends, and all my friends were female - I was a girly boy as well.

Good, have I thrown enough stereotypes into the mix so that you can come up with a grand unified theory of gayety?

Homosexuality is a positive thing.. let me use some of Glinde's tact.. I can love another guy, and suck dick...

What if, just to prevent a pointless debate that can't easily be won, we say homosexuality is neutral? Neither beneficial nor harmful?

(I don't see this working...)

Two guys making out = fucking hot

Therefore this equals beautiful

It is a positive trait. Also it keeps christian fundamentalists in line to prevent them from launching coup d'etats in the US. Let me explain: More openly gay people open minds and that equals more support for gay rights.



...you seriously stink at scientific debates as well as religious ones, lol. "It furthers the species because it's pretty!!!!" :rolleyes:

Damn right it's negative, especially when it's not through your own choice! :headbang: :p
Ahh ha ha so satisfying.

...you seriously stink at scientific debates as well as religious ones, lol. "It furthers the species because it's pretty!!!!" :rolleyes:

You are the one who seriously stinks at taking some humor I'm trying to say.

I'm very good at scientific debates. A religious person cannot say anything about science.

1. We're above the animal kingdom, we do not exist soley to reproduce.

On that basis your claims that homosexuality are a negative trait can similarly be brushed aside.

2. Celibacy is not a trait, it's abstaining from a certain action.

Similarly we could argue that homosexuality is not a trait, it's performing a certain action.

3. Quit trying to pull me back into a religious debate just so you can accuse me of hijacking :rolleyes:

Have I ever accused you of hijacking? You seem to be displaying a lot of suspicion of the motivations of others here.

You are the one who seriously stinks at taking some humor I'm trying to say.

I'm very good at scientific debates. A religious person cannot say anything about science.


You just made fun of yourself with those last two sentences.

No, I don't think I will. You say nothing happened, nothing did. I take your word for it. I'm not being ignorant, I just believe that people are not born gay. I accept your sexual orientation. You think you're born gay, I disagree. We can agree to disagree.

So, when did you choose the heterosexual lifestyle? what trawmatic even occured in your childhood to adopt that heterosexual lifestyle? have you seeked counselling and therapy for this distructive lifestyle?

You just made fun of yourself with those last two sentences.

You are the one making fun of yourself for not trying to lighten up. I'm watching comedy central right now.. I suggest you do the same. At least you won't be so serious all the time..

Just take some humor as it is.... don't make such a stink about it...

He was referring to homosexuality as positive, instead of neutral. The only possible positive aspect that I can think of is population control in overpopulated species. A positive trait serves to further the propagation of the species, whereas this trait does not.
I rather think he was referring to it as positive, not as evolutionarily positive. Frankly I do not agree that for a trait to be positive it must further the propagation of the species. Can you provide any proof that the only standard of 'goodness' is the degree to which something propagates the species in which that thing occurs?

The mother generally fulfilled this purpose quite adequately, an extra creature would not contribute enough to warrant its survival in the pack. Also, producing more offspring increases the probability that some will survive, which again puts a dent in that theory.

The mother always did a great job when she died in childbirth or shortly thereafter, which also used to occur very frequently indeed...

Producing more offspring certainly increases the chance that some will survive - as does devoting time and energy to the protection and care of the offspring you've already got.

I'm not sure why you're arguing this, seeing as homosexuality does exist and has existed throughout recorded history, so it clearly can't be too horribly detrimental to a species.

On that basis your claims that homosexuality are a negative trait can similarly be brushed aside.



Similarly we could argue that homosexuality is not a trait, it's performing a certain action.



Have I ever accused you of hijacking? You seem to be displaying a lot of suspicion of the motivations of others here.



1. That is a spiritual issue, not a scientific one, so it's not relevant to the issue of genetics anyway, at least not right now.

2. That would be the homosexual act, not the attraction itself.

3. Plenty have, I haven't kept a list of names :D

Religion shouldn't be part of this thread to begin with.. :headbang: We are debating facts remember.. so that disqualifies christianity..

So, when did you choose the heterosexual lifestyle? what trawmatic even occured in your childhood to adopt that heterosexual lifestyle? have you seeked counselling and therapy for this distructive lifestyle?
Ahh, you are making the same fallacious assumptions that Mesa did earlier...

Because people are suggesting that early experiences may have shaped people's sexuality, it is NOT true that they are neccessarily saying it was a choice, nor that said experiences were necessarily traumatic or negative.

Ahh, you are making the same fallacious assumptions that Mesa did earlier...

Because people are suggesting that early experiences may have shaped people's sexuality, it is NOT true that they are neccessarily saying it was a choice, nor that said experiences were necessarily traumatic or negative.

I didn't make any fallacious assumptions.

I don't think early experiences have anything to do with it. That experiences argument has less weight then a pile of poop baking in the sun. It isn't substantiated nor does it have any decent study done for it.