Gay scientists isolate 'Christian Gene'
-
Ilíon wrote:
But you anti-Christians? Pshaw! You haven't a prayer.
And we wouldn't need one anyway. A friend of mine recently went into hospital for heart surgery. During the surgery there was a minor complication, but left unchecked could have had fatal consequences. Another of her friends is a Christian. He told her that she pulled through because he was praying for her the whole time. She had to explain to him that she pulled through becuase she had an extremely skilled cardiologist, and if left to the power of prayer alone she would have died.
Upcoming FREE developer events: * Developer Day Scotland My website | blog
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
[nothing, really]
You're not paying attention, Mr Mackay: either to what I said, or to the wider currents in historical reality to which I referred. Allow me to put it to you simply: "The future belongs to those who show up -- and anti-Christians, in general, are not showing up." You people are becoming so shrill of late because present reality is showing to be false the 200-year-old secularist prophesies that "religion" is going to die out. That, and the fact that the general populace are realizing that you "rationalists" are every bit as religious -- indeed, you people are akin to fideists -- as the most "fundie" of fundamentalists.
-
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
When are they going to find the genes that make us human? We should all be blades of grass, there was obviously some kind of mistake in evolution.
Word, write letters and sh*t yo. It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird. Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings. The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Everyone needs believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You're simply stating that science isn't about truth.
I won't speak for him, but really, it isn't. Freedom from concerns about truth is precisely why science is such a powerful tool. Science is merely a very formal way of asking question and measuring observable phenomenon. In 500 years of trying science has provided far more question than it has truths. And thats a good thing. If science ever discovers truth, we will no longer need it.
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.
I think you're wrong. What I'm saying is that science doesn't claim to be truth, and doesn't claim to have truths, but is rather the pursuit of truths through observation and experimentation. It can be ABOUT truths, but not BE truth, in the same way that I have a book ABOUT cats, but it isn't a cat. Of course, when I say 'a truth' I mean 'a fact'. Also, of course, science is about the application of facts. It doesn't matter that science has provided more questions than answers - that doesn't make it any less about truths. It just means that these truths run very deep.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
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.
I live in the real world. And in the real world, Christians (whether "real" [as M.F. might put it] or merely cultural) are most assuredly not on the fast track to becoming a minority. The European nations may be the fast track to becoming minorities within their own countries, but Christianity in the world-as-a-whole is growing. "Europeans" and "Christians" are two different groups. edit: Are you even aware that Christians in "Third World" nations are not only evangelizing their own nations but actually sending missionaries back to evangelize "post-Christian" Europe and North America? Do you even comprehend that *part* of the reason there is such a brouha in the "World-wide Anglican Communion" over the "gay issue" is because "Third World" Anglicans -- who take their Christianity seriously -- outnumber Episcopalians?
modified on Saturday, December 22, 2007 2:46:31 AM
-
I'd be more interested in a cure for Islam.
Rob Graham wrote:
I'd be more interested in a cure for Islam.
It's called "Christianity" ... that's the only thing that's going to do it. [This, in itself, isn't proof that Christianity is true; but that's a different issue.] If the nations of Europe want to save themselves from Islam, they (as national societies) are going to have to sincerely re-convert to Christianity. I expect them to try Fascism, instead. Islam -- for all its barbarity and backwardness -- is at least something; whereas "secular humanisn" is a big nothing. And, it's impossible to beat something with nothing.
-
Exactly. I honestly have no idea why he keeps blathering about science not being about truth, when he's the only one that's tried to point out a correlation between the two.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
Exactly. I honestly have no idea why he keeps blathering about science not being about truth, when he's the only one that's tried to point out a correlation between the two.
I keep "blathering" because you people don't really believe (nor probably even really understand) what you youselves are saying. Look at yourselves! Look at your reactions to the straigh-forward (and true) statement that "Science isn't about truth."
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Exactly. I honestly have no idea why he keeps blathering about science not being about truth, when he's the only one that's tried to point out a correlation between the two.
I keep "blathering" because you people don't really believe (nor probably even really understand) what you youselves are saying. Look at yourselves! Look at your reactions to the straigh-forward (and true) statement that "Science isn't about truth."
I'm having difficulty believing that you're this stupid. I mean, I've met idiots before, but you're on a whole different level. Your inanity is almost an artform.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
On the other hand, what if being homo-phobic also is not a life style choice. My first innate reaction upon being made aware of the existence of homosexuality was instant revulsion. Does that mean I am genetically predisposed to be that way? If so, is the way I was born as acceptable in a secular world as homosexuality is in a chritian one? Or, do I need treatment?
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.
-
I live in the real world. And in the real world, Christians (whether "real" [as M.F. might put it] or merely cultural) are most assuredly not on the fast track to becoming a minority. The European nations may be the fast track to becoming minorities within their own countries, but Christianity in the world-as-a-whole is growing. "Europeans" and "Christians" are two different groups. edit: Are you even aware that Christians in "Third World" nations are not only evangelizing their own nations but actually sending missionaries back to evangelize "post-Christian" Europe and North America? Do you even comprehend that *part* of the reason there is such a brouha in the "World-wide Anglican Communion" over the "gay issue" is because "Third World" Anglicans -- who take their Christianity seriously -- outnumber Episcopalians?
modified on Saturday, December 22, 2007 2:46:31 AM
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Will you be my science project? Troy D. Hailey - genius, or cretin? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
Rob Graham wrote:
I'd be more interested in a cure for Islam.
It's called "Christianity" ... that's the only thing that's going to do it. [This, in itself, isn't proof that Christianity is true; but that's a different issue.] If the nations of Europe want to save themselves from Islam, they (as national societies) are going to have to sincerely re-convert to Christianity. I expect them to try Fascism, instead. Islam -- for all its barbarity and backwardness -- is at least something; whereas "secular humanisn" is a big nothing. And, it's impossible to beat something with nothing.
:zzz:
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
Tut, tut! You're not supposed to use reason around these folk! (It sets off a nasty alergic reaction)
:zzz: You're boring everyone. :zzz:
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
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
Over-all, an excellent post.
Edmundisme wrote:
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.
But here (at the very beginning) we get into a bit of confusion ... some of it intentionally fostered by the "gay lobby." The particular confusion I have in mind at the moment is the common confusion around the terms "sexual orientation" and/or "sexual preference" (and the long-term attempt to decree "sexual preference" an invalid concept). Also, I have in mind the false dichotomy set up (often intentionally and disingenuously) by asking things like "Do you believe that homosexuality is *a* choice or is it biological?" (As, for instance, here[^]) The correct understanding is choices. It is a multiplicity of choices ... both of the individual person in reacting to his/her life-events and of other persons in presenting those life-events ... which is decisive in this person being "gay" and that person being "straight."
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
[nothing, really]
You're not paying attention, Mr Mackay: either to what I said, or to the wider currents in historical reality to which I referred. Allow me to put it to you simply: "The future belongs to those who show up -- and anti-Christians, in general, are not showing up." You people are becoming so shrill of late because present reality is showing to be false the 200-year-old secularist prophesies that "religion" is going to die out. That, and the fact that the general populace are realizing that you "rationalists" are every bit as religious -- indeed, you people are akin to fideists -- as the most "fundie" of fundamentalists.
No, say something interesting!
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
:zzz: You're boring everyone. :zzz:
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
Well, yeah, but than she's not taking on Christians and pretending shes waging some kind of campaign against evil like the rest of you guys do - she's taking on Islam, the real McCoy. Thats completely different. If you guys were doing that, I'd be right behind you all the way (although at a good distance).
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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, yeah, but than she's not taking on Christians and pretending shes waging some kind of campaign against evil like the rest of you guys do - she's taking on Islam, the real McCoy. Thats completely different. If you guys were doing that, I'd be right behind you all the way (although at a good distance).
An amusing reply. However, it rather misses the point that she represents a counter-example to your claim that: "Secular Humanists are not exactly into that whole "courage" thing." More generally, I would be confident that in countries like Pakistan and Iran, it is the secularists who provide most of what opposition exists to Islamic extremism. All around the world, people tend to focus on what is in their own backyard, both because that is what they care about most and because that is generally where they can have the most impact.
John Carson
-
Stealing my insults is BORING! :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
Over-all, an excellent post.
Edmundisme wrote:
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.
But here (at the very beginning) we get into a bit of confusion ... some of it intentionally fostered by the "gay lobby." The particular confusion I have in mind at the moment is the common confusion around the terms "sexual orientation" and/or "sexual preference" (and the long-term attempt to decree "sexual preference" an invalid concept). Also, I have in mind the false dichotomy set up (often intentionally and disingenuously) by asking things like "Do you believe that homosexuality is *a* choice or is it biological?" (As, for instance, here[^]) The correct understanding is choices. It is a multiplicity of choices ... both of the individual person in reacting to his/her life-events and of other persons in presenting those life-events ... which is decisive in this person being "gay" and that person being "straight."
Boring. Tell a joke.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
Over-all, an excellent post.
Edmundisme wrote:
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.
But here (at the very beginning) we get into a bit of confusion ... some of it intentionally fostered by the "gay lobby." The particular confusion I have in mind at the moment is the common confusion around the terms "sexual orientation" and/or "sexual preference" (and the long-term attempt to decree "sexual preference" an invalid concept). Also, I have in mind the false dichotomy set up (often intentionally and disingenuously) by asking things like "Do you believe that homosexuality is *a* choice or is it biological?" (As, for instance, here[^]) The correct understanding is choices. It is a multiplicity of choices ... both of the individual person in reacting to his/her life-events and of other persons in presenting those life-events ... which is decisive in this person being "gay" and that person being "straight."
:zzz: :zzz:
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
Over-all, an excellent post.
Edmundisme wrote:
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.
But here (at the very beginning) we get into a bit of confusion ... some of it intentionally fostered by the "gay lobby." The particular confusion I have in mind at the moment is the common confusion around the terms "sexual orientation" and/or "sexual preference" (and the long-term attempt to decree "sexual preference" an invalid concept). Also, I have in mind the false dichotomy set up (often intentionally and disingenuously) by asking things like "Do you believe that homosexuality is *a* choice or is it biological?" (As, for instance, here[^]) The correct understanding is choices. It is a multiplicity of choices ... both of the individual person in reacting to his/her life-events and of other persons in presenting those life-events ... which is decisive in this person being "gay" and that person being "straight."
:zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
Over-all, an excellent post.
Edmundisme wrote:
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.
But here (at the very beginning) we get into a bit of confusion ... some of it intentionally fostered by the "gay lobby." The particular confusion I have in mind at the moment is the common confusion around the terms "sexual orientation" and/or "sexual preference" (and the long-term attempt to decree "sexual preference" an invalid concept). Also, I have in mind the false dichotomy set up (often intentionally and disingenuously) by asking things like "Do you believe that homosexuality is *a* choice or is it biological?" (As, for instance, here[^]) The correct understanding is choices. It is a multiplicity of choices ... both of the individual person in reacting to his/her life-events and of other persons in presenting those life-events ... which is decisive in this person being "gay" and that person being "straight."
:zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan