Gay scientists isolate 'Christian Gene'
-
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.
-
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! | sighistI'd be more interested in a cure for Islam.
-
I'd be more interested in a cure for Islam.
Rob Graham wrote:
I'd be more interested in a cure for Islam.
Yes, but that would make Muslims more angry so we can't do that. Making Christians angry isn't a problem. Secular Humanists are not exactly into that whole "courage" thing.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
-
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:
I HAVE argued things, over and over again, and it is you that hasn't
If you confront him on any level, or even seem to, his response will mostly consist of an elaborate claim that you haven't argued anything, and will most likely also claim in passing that your post contradicted itself and/or proved his point (of which he never makes). Yet he will rarely actually make any coherent points, and most of the time will run from arguments after doing this on the grounds that he thinks he's proven you too stupid to talk to. The best way to handle is posts is to chuckle to yourself and move on to the next post. Case & Point[^]
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
modified on Friday, December 21, 2007 2:04:33 PM
-
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.
What world are you living in? We Christians are on the fast track to becoming a minority.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
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.
It's obviously a bad joke. Some joker thought it would be neat to put the shoe on the other foot and see how pissed off Christians got. -- Modified --- I take that back. There's a related video of NBC Live discussing it. As ridiculous as it is, I thought for sure that it HAD to be a joke.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
modified on Friday, December 21, 2007 2:21:46 PM
-
Err, I think you'll find he's taking the piss: in any case they are both lifestyle choices.
I have always had a hard time believing that people just decide to be gay. I can decide I like onions, but they still make me gag. But who's to say until science uncovers something, but as this parody points out, gay people aren't very pleased with the pursuit of determining it's origins. I suppose they fear that once it's known, people will take steps to keep it from happening. But at the same time, I'd think that gay people would love for science to find that it's genetic, since most Christians swear that it's can't be.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
modified on Friday, December 21, 2007 2:04:03 PM
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I HAVE argued things, over and over again, and it is you that hasn't
If you confront him on any level, or even seem to, his response will mostly consist of an elaborate claim that you haven't argued anything, and will most likely also claim in passing that your post contradicted itself and/or proved his point (of which he never makes). Yet he will rarely actually make any coherent points, and most of the time will run from arguments after doing this on the grounds that he thinks he's proven you too stupid to talk to. The best way to handle is posts is to chuckle to yourself and move on to the next post. Case & Point[^]
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
modified on Friday, December 21, 2007 2:04:33 PM
True enough. Ilion is just two letters shy of Idiot.
-
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:
One is a lifestyle choice
Are you serious? Did you choose to be heterosexual?
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
-
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
For a second, I thought my name was in this subject header. Time ran a story some time ago on the finding that religious leanings were to some degree a genetic trait.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
-
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.
Are you quiet certain that sexual orientation is a choice? I'm heterosexual, but I don't recall ever making that choice. At some point, I started to become very aware of women. They became tantalizing to me. I cannot fathom that you or I make choices about what we find attractive. Now, being gay isn't a lifestyle at all. Being heterosexual isn't a lifestyle. Marriage is a lifestyle. celibacy is a lifestyle. Keeping lovers is a lifestyle. Being gay is not tantamount to having a gay lifestyle. How you choose to live your life, according to or in spite of your tendencies is your lifestyle. I think the manner in which the Church has viewed and treated homosexuals is a disgrace. Why must it be a choice? I think I know the answer. We're afraid of the implication if it's not. If it's a choice, then it's their own fault. If it's not a choice, it must be God's fault! Let's examine this implication from the perspective of Christian doctrine. God created you. You are a sinner. And, according to sound Christian doctrine, this was not a choice of yours. You were born into it! Born into a state of sinfulness due to the original sin and subsequent fall of mankind. So here I find myself, as Paul did, doing what I don't want to do, and not doing the things I want to do! There is a conflict in my person. I want to keep things for myself, but I know I should give to others. I behave selfishly when I know I should be kind. I tell a lie when I know I should tell the truth. I desire men, when I know I shouldn't... Hold the phone! WE DRAW THE LINE AT SEXUAL ORIENTATION! Yes, you didn't choose to struggle with pride, honesty, selfishness, or lusting after those of the same gender, but homosexuality? By golly, that's your own choice you pervert! So we have a real problem with the idea that God created someone, and that someone is predisposed to being attracted to the same sex. But can the pot say to the potter, why did you make me this way? You are not good because you are not gay. Someone else is not bad because they are gay. According to the bible, no one is good - not one. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. It is only by God's grace and mercy that I am able to obey and love him at all. That is Christianity; God, by his grace, sending Jesus to die in our place for all our sins, and we the saved, seeking to lovingly obey and seek him with no strings attached. As Paul said, What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be
-
Are you quiet certain that sexual orientation is a choice? I'm heterosexual, but I don't recall ever making that choice. At some point, I started to become very aware of women. They became tantalizing to me. I cannot fathom that you or I make choices about what we find attractive. Now, being gay isn't a lifestyle at all. Being heterosexual isn't a lifestyle. Marriage is a lifestyle. celibacy is a lifestyle. Keeping lovers is a lifestyle. Being gay is not tantamount to having a gay lifestyle. How you choose to live your life, according to or in spite of your tendencies is your lifestyle. I think the manner in which the Church has viewed and treated homosexuals is a disgrace. Why must it be a choice? I think I know the answer. We're afraid of the implication if it's not. If it's a choice, then it's their own fault. If it's not a choice, it must be God's fault! Let's examine this implication from the perspective of Christian doctrine. God created you. You are a sinner. And, according to sound Christian doctrine, this was not a choice of yours. You were born into it! Born into a state of sinfulness due to the original sin and subsequent fall of mankind. So here I find myself, as Paul did, doing what I don't want to do, and not doing the things I want to do! There is a conflict in my person. I want to keep things for myself, but I know I should give to others. I behave selfishly when I know I should be kind. I tell a lie when I know I should tell the truth. I desire men, when I know I shouldn't... Hold the phone! WE DRAW THE LINE AT SEXUAL ORIENTATION! Yes, you didn't choose to struggle with pride, honesty, selfishness, or lusting after those of the same gender, but homosexuality? By golly, that's your own choice you pervert! So we have a real problem with the idea that God created someone, and that someone is predisposed to being attracted to the same sex. But can the pot say to the potter, why did you make me this way? You are not good because you are not gay. Someone else is not bad because they are gay. According to the bible, no one is good - not one. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. It is only by God's grace and mercy that I am able to obey and love him at all. That is Christianity; God, by his grace, sending Jesus to die in our place for all our sins, and we the saved, seeking to lovingly obey and seek him with no strings attached. As Paul said, What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be
I agree, I think you are correct. The difference though, is that we almost all agree that lying and coveting are bad, and that we should actively try to not do them. But gay people don't want to believe that their desire for the same sex is a bad thing, and certainly don't want to try to suppress it. Another difference is that we all lie and covet, but we don't all lust after the same sex. I have heard some religious figures that accept that it's a quality that people are born with, and hence suggest that they try to not be gay, which is usually viewed just as negatively as claiming that it's a lifestyle. Homos don't want to be viewed as having a disease or affliction. But I think we all have our demons to bear, and that it's not our place to tell other people what they are doing wrong unless it's affecting other people.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Are you quiet certain that sexual orientation is a choice? I'm heterosexual, but I don't recall ever making that choice. At some point, I started to become very aware of women. They became tantalizing to me. I cannot fathom that you or I make choices about what we find attractive. Now, being gay isn't a lifestyle at all. Being heterosexual isn't a lifestyle. Marriage is a lifestyle. celibacy is a lifestyle. Keeping lovers is a lifestyle. Being gay is not tantamount to having a gay lifestyle. How you choose to live your life, according to or in spite of your tendencies is your lifestyle. I think the manner in which the Church has viewed and treated homosexuals is a disgrace. Why must it be a choice? I think I know the answer. We're afraid of the implication if it's not. If it's a choice, then it's their own fault. If it's not a choice, it must be God's fault! Let's examine this implication from the perspective of Christian doctrine. God created you. You are a sinner. And, according to sound Christian doctrine, this was not a choice of yours. You were born into it! Born into a state of sinfulness due to the original sin and subsequent fall of mankind. So here I find myself, as Paul did, doing what I don't want to do, and not doing the things I want to do! There is a conflict in my person. I want to keep things for myself, but I know I should give to others. I behave selfishly when I know I should be kind. I tell a lie when I know I should tell the truth. I desire men, when I know I shouldn't... Hold the phone! WE DRAW THE LINE AT SEXUAL ORIENTATION! Yes, you didn't choose to struggle with pride, honesty, selfishness, or lusting after those of the same gender, but homosexuality? By golly, that's your own choice you pervert! So we have a real problem with the idea that God created someone, and that someone is predisposed to being attracted to the same sex. But can the pot say to the potter, why did you make me this way? You are not good because you are not gay. Someone else is not bad because they are gay. According to the bible, no one is good - not one. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. It is only by God's grace and mercy that I am able to obey and love him at all. That is Christianity; God, by his grace, sending Jesus to die in our place for all our sins, and we the saved, seeking to lovingly obey and seek him with no strings attached. As Paul said, What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be
Excellent post, thanks for that.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Relative Moralism and Pseudo-tolerance Rhetoric The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango