Gay scientists isolate 'Christian Gene'
-
After years of research, scientists have identified a Christian Gene refuting claims that it is in fact a lifestyle choice. Many Christians now need counsellilng as a result... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCzbNkyXO50[^] (Oh, by the way, in order to avert the obvious quip, I regularly Google 'Gay Christian Scientists' so there. ;P )
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
After years of research, scientists have identified a Christian Gene refuting claims that it is in fact a lifestyle choice. Many Christians now need counsellilng as a result... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCzbNkyXO50[^] (Oh, by the way, in order to avert the obvious quip, I regularly Google 'Gay Christian Scientists' so there. ;P )
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Does that mean we might find a cure for christianity? *snicker*
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Does that mean we might find a cure for christianity? *snicker*
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistIts already out there. Go buy your "common sense" today..
-
Its already out there. Go buy your "common sense" today..
Watch out, I see it coming! :-D
-
Does that mean we might find a cure for christianity? *snicker*
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistpeterchen wrote:
Does that mean we might find a cure for christianity? *snicker*
Actually, it means that ... and least in any historically "Christian" society ... non-Christians, and certainly anti-Christians, are genetically defective. It means that anti-Christians don't have *reasons,* but rather have merely *causes,* for their anti-Christian behavior. *snicker* *snicker* edit: If you kiddies would ever take a moment to think two steps ahead, you wouldn't constantly find yourselves in predicaments like this.
-
peterchen wrote:
Does that mean we might find a cure for christianity? *snicker*
Actually, it means that ... and least in any historically "Christian" society ... non-Christians, and certainly anti-Christians, are genetically defective. It means that anti-Christians don't have *reasons,* but rather have merely *causes,* for their anti-Christian behavior. *snicker* *snicker* edit: If you kiddies would ever take a moment to think two steps ahead, you wouldn't constantly find yourselves in predicaments like this.
Ilíon wrote:
If you kiddies would ever take a moment to think two steps ahead, you wouldn't constantly find yourselves in predicaments like this.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
Ilíon wrote:
If you kiddies would ever take a moment to think two steps ahead, you wouldn't constantly find yourselves in predicaments like this.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
It is amusing, isn't it, that one can so-easily turn snarky comments, such as Mr Chen made (or this thread itself), back upon their authors.
:laugh: :laugh: Actually, it's funny that you honestly believe that that's what you've done. :laugh: :laugh: Answer this please[^]
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
:laugh: :laugh: Actually, it's funny that you honestly believe that that's what you've done. :laugh: :laugh: Answer this please[^]
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
Two things: 1) I don't answer to you (any more than you answer to me) 2) For some odd reason, I'm no longer getting notifications ... which could be a (partial) blessing, if my in-box is no longer flooded with notifications of the run-of-the-mill "Yer a moroon" responses in which you kiddies seem to specialize. "I could argue against everything you said there, but I don't want to distract you from this:" You haven't yet *argued* anything, so this merely comes across as just more of your typical bloviation. Perhaps you confuse 'argumentativeness' for 'argumentation?' "You claim that I worship science." You *behave* as though you worship this "science" thingie. Why do you think you're getting your panties is such a twist over my mocking of scientism? I'm mocking the attitude you (singular and plural) exhibit concerning "science." I'm also trying to correct some fundamental misconceptions about actual science: starting with the misunderstanding that science is even about truth. "What do you worship instead?" Christ, of course.
-
Two things: 1) I don't answer to you (any more than you answer to me) 2) For some odd reason, I'm no longer getting notifications ... which could be a (partial) blessing, if my in-box is no longer flooded with notifications of the run-of-the-mill "Yer a moroon" responses in which you kiddies seem to specialize. "I could argue against everything you said there, but I don't want to distract you from this:" You haven't yet *argued* anything, so this merely comes across as just more of your typical bloviation. Perhaps you confuse 'argumentativeness' for 'argumentation?' "You claim that I worship science." You *behave* as though you worship this "science" thingie. Why do you think you're getting your panties is such a twist over my mocking of scientism? I'm mocking the attitude you (singular and plural) exhibit concerning "science." I'm also trying to correct some fundamental misconceptions about actual science: starting with the misunderstanding that science is even about truth. "What do you worship instead?" Christ, of course.
Ilíon wrote:
For some odd reason, I'm no longer getting notifications ... which could be a (partial) blessing, if my in-box is no longer flooded with notifications of the run-of-the-mill "Yer a moroon" responses in which you kiddies seem to specialize.
OK, good, it wasn't just me, although it seems to have come back now.
Ilíon wrote:
You haven't yet *argued* anything, so this merely comes across as just more of your typical bloviation. Perhaps you confuse 'argumentativeness' for 'argumentation?'
What the hell is 'bloviation'? As a matter of fact, I HAVE argued things, over and over again, and it is you that hasn't. You know, just because I happen to disagree with you and think you're a pretentious bighead, doesn't mean I'm simply irrationally predisposed to argue with you.
Ilíon wrote:
I'm also trying to correct some fundamental misconceptions about actual science: starting with the misunderstanding that science is even about truth.
Um, no you're not. You're simply stating that science isn't about truth. That isn't correcting it at all. Tell us why.
Ilíon wrote:
"What do you worship instead?" Christ, of course.
See, science is about formulating conclusions based on evidence. You seem to be implying that you have no evidence for Christ.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
After years of research, scientists have identified a Christian Gene refuting claims that it is in fact a lifestyle choice. Many Christians now need counsellilng as a result... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCzbNkyXO50[^] (Oh, by the way, in order to avert the obvious quip, I regularly Google 'Gay Christian Scientists' so there. ;P )
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
refuting claims that it is in fact a lifestyle choice
Ah the classic straw man attack. Make a false claim, attribute it to the opposition, set fire to it in public and destory it utterly, then claim victory. Sounds like these scientists accidentally sat in on a few politics lectures, a pity they missed the science ones they were supposed to be attending. There is no Christian gene and no gay gene either. One is a lifestyle choice and the other is an accepted gift of God's grace. It's those who're not sure which is which who need couselling as a result.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
fat_boy wrote:
refuting claims that it is in fact a lifestyle choice
Ah the classic straw man attack. Make a false claim, attribute it to the opposition, set fire to it in public and destory it utterly, then claim victory. Sounds like these scientists accidentally sat in on a few politics lectures, a pity they missed the science ones they were supposed to be attending. There is no Christian gene and no gay gene either. One is a lifestyle choice and the other is an accepted gift of God's grace. It's those who're not sure which is which who need couselling as a result.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
There is no Christian gene and no gay gene either
Wow! I didn't know that scientists have discovered everything there is to know about genetics!
Current Rant: "Liar liar! Pants on fire!" http://craptasticnation.blogspot.com/[^]
-
Ilíon wrote:
For some odd reason, I'm no longer getting notifications ... which could be a (partial) blessing, if my in-box is no longer flooded with notifications of the run-of-the-mill "Yer a moroon" responses in which you kiddies seem to specialize.
OK, good, it wasn't just me, although it seems to have come back now.
Ilíon wrote:
You haven't yet *argued* anything, so this merely comes across as just more of your typical bloviation. Perhaps you confuse 'argumentativeness' for 'argumentation?'
What the hell is 'bloviation'? As a matter of fact, I HAVE argued things, over and over again, and it is you that hasn't. You know, just because I happen to disagree with you and think you're a pretentious bighead, doesn't mean I'm simply irrationally predisposed to argue with you.
Ilíon wrote:
I'm also trying to correct some fundamental misconceptions about actual science: starting with the misunderstanding that science is even about truth.
Um, no you're not. You're simply stating that science isn't about truth. That isn't correcting it at all. Tell us why.
Ilíon wrote:
"What do you worship instead?" Christ, of course.
See, science is about formulating conclusions based on evidence. You seem to be implying that you have no evidence for Christ.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You seem to be implying that you have no evidence for Christ.
Correct as there isn't any.
-
fat_boy wrote:
refuting claims that it is in fact a lifestyle choice
Ah the classic straw man attack. Make a false claim, attribute it to the opposition, set fire to it in public and destory it utterly, then claim victory. Sounds like these scientists accidentally sat in on a few politics lectures, a pity they missed the science ones they were supposed to be attending. There is no Christian gene and no gay gene either. One is a lifestyle choice and the other is an accepted gift of God's grace. It's those who're not sure which is which who need couselling as a result.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Err, I think you'll find he's taking the piss: in any case they are both lifestyle choices.
-
Does that mean we might find a cure for christianity? *snicker*
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistpeterchen wrote:
Does that mean we might find a cure for christianity?
I certainly hope so!
Rob Manderson My bloghttp://robmanderson.blogspot.com[^]
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
There is no Christian gene and no gay gene either
Wow! I didn't know that scientists have discovered everything there is to know about genetics!
Current Rant: "Liar liar! Pants on fire!" http://craptasticnation.blogspot.com/[^]
They haven't but twin studies have shown that the maximum possible effect of genetics on so called sexual orrientation if no other factors have any influence at all is to make it a 50/50 chance in any individual of being gay or straight, i.e. effectively a matter of choice. If any environmental factors at all have even the slightest effect then no gene or genes make anyone gay. Those searching for a gay gene, a simple orientation switch, have effectively disproved its existence, which is after all the way science is supposed to work, theory, experiment, disproof, better-theory...
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
peterchen wrote:
Does that mean we might find a cure for christianity?
I certainly hope so!
Rob Manderson My bloghttp://robmanderson.blogspot.com[^]
Rob Manderson wrote:
I certainly hope so!
You anti-Christians, as a general rule, are going extinct. Haven't you been paying attention? The future belongs to either: 1) Christianity (which is modern and future-oriented); or, 2) Islam (which is benighted and backward and likes it that way). But you anti-Christians? Pshaw! You haven't a prayer.
-
Err, I think you'll find he's taking the piss: in any case they are both lifestyle choices.
Yes and no, characterising Christianity as a lifestyle choice is a very poor and non diagnostic categorisation. It is better characterised as a relationship. The choice is to accept Christ or not, beyond that Chritianity is about a relationship with him and subsequent lifestyle choices are side effects and evidence of that relationship but not in themselves directly diagnostic of Christianity or the core of what it's about.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Two things: 1) I don't answer to you (any more than you answer to me) 2) For some odd reason, I'm no longer getting notifications ... which could be a (partial) blessing, if my in-box is no longer flooded with notifications of the run-of-the-mill "Yer a moroon" responses in which you kiddies seem to specialize. "I could argue against everything you said there, but I don't want to distract you from this:" You haven't yet *argued* anything, so this merely comes across as just more of your typical bloviation. Perhaps you confuse 'argumentativeness' for 'argumentation?' "You claim that I worship science." You *behave* as though you worship this "science" thingie. Why do you think you're getting your panties is such a twist over my mocking of scientism? I'm mocking the attitude you (singular and plural) exhibit concerning "science." I'm also trying to correct some fundamental misconceptions about actual science: starting with the misunderstanding that science is even about truth. "What do you worship instead?" Christ, of course.
Ilíon wrote:
You *behave* as though you worship this "science" thingie. Why do you think you're getting your panties is such a twist over my mocking of scientism?
You aren't capable of understanding the difference between rational thought and blind faith, so when someone chooses to believe what science has proven over what your 2000 old fairy tale says, you think they are "worshiping" science just like you do Jesus.
Happy birthday baby Jesus! Please don't burn us all in hell forever.
-
Yes and no, characterising Christianity as a lifestyle choice is a very poor and non diagnostic categorisation. It is better characterised as a relationship. The choice is to accept Christ or not, beyond that Chritianity is about a relationship with him and subsequent lifestyle choices are side effects and evidence of that relationship but not in themselves directly diagnostic of Christianity or the core of what it's about.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Yes and no
Yes: all religions are a lifestyle choice and, within that choice, you further choose to state that your belief is a 'relationship' with christ. The rest is hair splitting.