Well, find your voice so you can tell me what is so offensive. I know of no 16th century gay bars or social clubs. I'm NOT trying to say that this is the way things are today. A lifestyle that now has limited acceptance had virtually no acceptance in times past. I am talking about the evolution of opposition to gay sexuality by society. Is that so offensive?
You guys are idiots if you think you can change "the other guy's" mind. You can't. Jews will remain Jews, Christians will continue to see the light of the NT, and Muslims will continue to follow the words of Mohammad. There will be bloodshed, primarily because neither the Judaic nor the Islamic faiths have anything like a New Testament. The Old Testament is suspiciously similar to the Islamic texts... This is going to come down to West (Christian) v. East (Islamic). The Hindus will be Christian allies in this war. Even the (godless) Chinese are allying with us. The Buddhists they have been suppressing for so long are also allying with us. This is WW3 unless ALL muslims EVERYWHERE renounce terrorism. If they do not do so then they will eventually be attacked. Peaceniks ignored. This is not a war of "Hearts and Minds" as DoD would have a Frenchie believe. We are going to do our raids and leave some food, simple as that. We will attempt a coalition govt in Afghanistan, and if it fails - their fault. I truly hope they succeed. But the War comes first. Taliban, wave bye-bye...
Rich: I don't believe that spiritual reality precludes all other possibilities. The universe is WAY too vast for me to make that kind of assumption. Less than 100 years ago, humans didn't believe there was anything smaller than human cells. Less than 50 years ago, we believed the atom was the smallest particle of matter. Today, scientists are proving that there are particles much, much smaller (thousands and hundreds of thousands of times) than atoms that we are unable to see. We are unfortunately limited by sensory perception apparatus that is very weak. If all we could believe were our eyes and ears, for example, we would still think the world was flat and the center of the universe. We know neither is true. Spiritually, I just believe that we all have our own way of perceiving what God is, not to the exclusion of others, but simply to the inclusion of ourselves. There is a theory in physics that all realities that could exists <i>do</i> exist just simply in other dimensions of time and space. That call it quantom reality. So, every decision that you ever make has an opposite and that opposite happens as well and is sent off down another time line. I don't know whether I believe that or not but I do think that it is at least plausible that our spiritual realities are what we decide. If we want them to be a warm place surrounded by family and friends forever, maybe that's what we get. I guess my beliefs are rooted in the concept of all possibilities being available. As Shakespeare said far more eloquently than I, "There are far more things in heaven and on earth, Horatio, than are dreampt of in your philosophy." By the way, Rich, I appreciate you spelling out your feelings on things. I feel like I understand you a bit better and that always makes me like people more. Sometimes, this board has a tendency to create sharply pointed attitudes. I tend to prefer the tip of a cotton swab to that of a knife blade so learning about others makes that easier. Thanks.
From the beginning? How on earth do you infer Australopithecine homosexual behavior from the rock record... Homo habilis's sexuality... Homo erectus... Homo ergaster... Homo heidelbergensis... or with the rest of the archaics, including the Neaderthals? How do you even infer homosexual/heterosexual behavior in the prehistory of the moderns? Once man begins writing his own history in detail in Greece, he's already having sword fights with other men. I'd assume we've been doing it for a while. In extant primates, we need look no farther than the Bonobo, one of our closest cousins, to see homosexuality as a way of life to create social bonds. BTW, I do enjoy the voodoo history that designates the "1600s" as 'the beginning'. Ever hear of the Manhattan Project? They gave me one of my best friends.... Potassium-Argon dating. K-40 is an unstable isotope that decays to a couple of different Ar isotopes (Ar-40, Ar-39, sorry I'm not doing the cute -sup- tag but it pushes lines out of whack). In volcanic eruptions, potassium (a crystal) is laid down molten, and all Argon (a gas) is released. The crystal solidifies and keeps the gas inside its lattice, and geologists can count each atom to each atom. One calculates the amount of radioactive material to the amount of stable material in the rock... i.e. 1/32 and then back counts the half lifes. 1/32 == 1/2 ^ 5. The number of half lives of some of the oldest rocks on the planet ( or the rocks associated with the extinct hominids the Australopithecines, depending on what beginning you're pointing towards )* the constant of decay of Potassium to Argon yields dates that suggest the beginnings were just a tad bit longer ago than the '1600s'.
Homosexual acts are a sin. Adultery is a sin. Lying is a sin. and so forth. All of us have violated God's law. That is where Jesus comes in. Homosexuality in and of itself is real, I believe. I do think that individuals are born with that orientation. But...I think that people are susceptible to different sins in varying degrees. Someone may be more likely to commit crime, someone more likely to commit adultery, etc... We all sin. That is why we must believe in Christ. Think of the cost of adultery compared to the cost of other sins...how many children are hurt by divorces as compared to homosexual acts? Yet what receives more attention? How often is adultery condemned in our society to the degree that homosexual acts are? The message of Christ is of love, forgiveness, belief, and peace. We all have fallen short. You are to try to avoid sin, but you will be unable to. That does not make the sin right, nor the message of Christ any less. It is not wrong to point out that something is a sin. But it must be done as an act of love, as a friend or family member, not out of spite. The key is to bring Christ into your life. Christ is there for everyone, no matter who you are or what you have done. The teachings are not easy...do you think I love the Taliban? Yet we are taught to love our enemies. There are others who can probably explain this better than I can...seek them out if you are curious.
You are not born to be anything. You are raised into it. The way you are raised affect how you become. You choose your destiny. You choose whether to give in to your downfall/accomplishments or resist them. 70 years ago, it was accepted to look down on women and colored people 100 years ago, it was ok to duel in public ... killing the other person w/out reprocussions 150 years ago it was ok to have slaves 200 years ago we could rope up someone in the same day if they murdered an innocent person. 300 years ago we could burn witches at the stake. 1500 years ago it was ok to put slaves in a pit while the whole city watched as a sport spectacle ... celebrating, while soldiers and animals slaughtered them. Im not saying homosexuality is unacceptable, but mearly pointing out what is acceptable is based on the current society. No telling what will or won't be accepted in 100 years.
Apparently there are papers that refute this concerning homosexuality. Some biologists showed that there are timing issues in the fetus that can dictate homosexuality. I don't know the specifics (I'll hunt down the papers tomorrow), but you get the plumbing early and the mentality later... around 7 mos. or so. If there are problems or chemical issues that arise between those two times, then you create a homosexual.
Well, I think as much as societal norms may apply pressure to people to be heterosexual, that apparently does not always work. Anyways, the key choice is whether or not to accept Christ into your life.
to all of you -- guys...i want to say sorry if any of you have ever felt like i'm persecuting you. i may denounce acts, but if i've ever sounded like i was condemning you as a person, i am very, very sorry. if i have, that makes me very sad. i'm not sorry for stating what I believe is God's will and His law. I grew up in the Episcopal church...I am now an elder in the presbyterian church...the Presbyterian Church recently adopted a new statement on Christ that I thought was great. It's what I have tried to communicate before, but clearly didn't do a very good job of it: "Jesus Christ is the only Savior and Lord, and all people everywhere are called to place their faith, hope and love in Him. No one is saved by virtue of inherent goodness or admirable living...No one is saved apart from God's gracious redemption if Jesus Christ. YET WE DO NOT PRESUME TO LIMIT THE SOVEREIGN FREEDOM OF GOD OUR SAVIOR, WHO DESIRES EVERYONE TO BE SAVED AND COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH ( I Tim. 2:4). Thus, we neither restrict the grace of God to those who profess explicit faith in Christ nor assume that all people are saved regardless of faith." As for the Genesis story...I'll have to explore that. But keep in mind, Protestant Christianity has never claimed the inerrancy of translations (like the NIV or King James)...it claims inerrancy in the autographia..the original texts. It's somewhat problematic, since I don't speak or read those languages. But Muslims apparently have the same challenge. My pastor once said that if you read the English translations you get about 90% of the true meaning. My understanding is that English translations of the Koran don't get you that far (but i'm sure a Muslim friend here could clear that up for us if i'm wrong). Anyway...what's most important to me is being able to talk to your guys about my faith without you immediately getting defensive. And I recognize that if you've been on the defensive it's probably because I've made you feel you need to assume that position. I won't stop saying what I believe is true...but the condemnation of other people by me is unacceptable to my God.
General overview. Testosterone in the fetus produces (inversly) female features. When a mother undergoes an imense amount of stress at the beginning of the third trimester, testosterone is realeased, throwing the natural developmental process out of whack. This, as you pointed out, affects cognative structures as opposed to physical structures, producing homosexual offspring. I don't think they have a legitimate model in place to determine the development of lesbians, so there is still some legitimate debate, though I find it hard to believe that males are genetic and females aren't.
I Never though I'd Ever agree with Mr Spur ........................ IT'S A MIRACLE!!! Spiderman saves
What I find offensive is you calling me "a threat to your children" by implying that all gay men are pedophiles. and you're a history expert now? many native american tribes freely accepted homosexuals. who knows how many other cultures also did before they were assimilated into Chrisitanity? here's a book maybe you should read:
Just to add to the interest here, homosexuality has been demonstrated as normal in dozens of animal species. Some reproduce asexually but choose mates who are the same gender. Some, particularly birds, reproduce with opposite gender members of their species but take lifelong mates of the same gender, even having sexual encounters with the same gender partners.
Isn't religion wonderful. I wonder how many times these arguements have gone on in the world. What amazes me is that religion is something that is suppose to be so great for us and "save" us, but it has caused so much pain, death, and division in our society to the point that groups hate one another...and in the midst of all this BS arguing and fighting the actual concept of religion is totally lost. DAMN! F%$# the details! Peace,love, and understanding thats all. Just because someone doesn't eat a cracker or something traditional like that at their prayers doesn't mean they are doing "it" wrong...and for Christ's sake...slow traffic keep right!!!!!!!!!!
Quranic translations aren't that great either. either you get the translators opinions inherently in the text or some of the words just can't be properly translated. however if there is any major problem almost all of the translations have the arabic so if theres something peculiar you ask an aye-rab or someone who can understand arabic
<b>achebe</b>: Give me a break! Duh, I know that the beginning wasn't 1600... that would have to be 0 right?????! "From the beginning homosexual behavior had to...." --- kind of a tentative conclusion. Why don't you just try to understand what I am saying rather than exploit ANY possible misunderstanding? I was just giving an example; I settled on the year 1600 as a time previous to gay bars and social clubs. So, you tell me how the first homosexual score happened. It had to happen someway. No gay bars. No social clulbs. Set the scene please. Was it a lovely Neandertal seduction? <b>outlaw</b>: I don't consider you a threat to my children. I know gay people and have gay friends. You misread my words. I was just postulating for the sake of discussion how a gay man or woman in the year 1600 (when I felt for certain that I could assert the absence of gay bars or gay social clubs) would score-- a year plucked out of the air... not the beginning of time as achebe wants to twist my meaning. All I could imagine was that it had to start out as predatory which would logically explain why homosexuality has had such a difficult time finding acceptance. If you have a different theory or certain knowledge, I would like to learn about it.
