- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyActually that profile is quite recent. It was previously blank.
Took your measure early by reading your profile. Feeling the need to assert that [b]"I am an Agnostic Atheist...." suggested fixed labels were probably quite important to you. Wondered the extent to which a free wheeling chat would be possible with a doctrinaire gent. Note: Sending over an unrated 1/3 chess game with you as white to provide us a ven ...[text shortened]... ys or above.This player is already playing their self imposed maximum concurrent games (1)."[/b]
Many people regard atheist/atheism as a dirty word, or miss define it to mean knowledge of the non-existence of god.
Similarly people miss define agnosticism, and think the two are mutually exclusive.
So I put up a definition of the two in context.
And then pointed out that although of those labels I would be an agnostic atheist.
This label told you almost nothing about me.
You took nothing of the sort reading my profile.
I would suggest you stop trying to 'take the measure' of me by indirect and extremely limited means,
you're not doing very well.
I would be happy to play you at chess, But I only play one game at a time, so I can give it the attention
it deserves.
If I play several at once I lose track of my strategy on each board and play less well and thus don't give my
opponent a good game.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsThere is nothing sinful, wrong, or evil about anyone's sexual orientation.
You don't like hearing to truth, like any evil doer.
There is about persecuting people for it.
This is one of many ugly sides to Christianity (among other religions).
And yet more proof that your religion has nothing of the moral high ground....
Or any morals really at all.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyGF, did you decide to decline?
Took your measure early by reading your profile. Feeling the need to assert that [b]"I am an Agnostic Atheist...." suggested fixed labels were probably quite important to you. Wondered the extent to which a free wheeling chat would be possible with a doctrinaire gent. Note: Sending over an unrated 1/3 chess game with you as white to provide us a ven ...[text shortened]... ys or above.This player is already playing their self imposed maximum concurrent games (1)."[/b]
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWell as I said I would be more than willing to play you in a friendly game, when I have finished the one I am playing.
Yes. Thought I'd try to encourage your follow through on a friendly game one more time.
As I said I try to only play one game at a time.
If you wanted a private chat though you are more than welcome to pm me and hold a conversation that way, which would undoubtedly be faster than chatting while playing chess.
Although we can do that too.
But I am currently in a game, and want to make sure I give that the attention it deserves,
before starting another one.
Originally posted by googlefudgeOkay.
Well as I said I would be more than willing to play you in a friendly game, when I have finished the one I am playing.
As I said I try to only play one game at a time.
If you wanted a private chat though you are more than welcome to pm me and hold a conversation that way, which would undoubtedly be faster than chatting while playing chess.
Altho ...[text shortened]... game, and want to make sure I give that the attention it deserves,
before starting another one.
Originally posted by googlefudgeMy yougest son is homosexually orientated and I consider him the least
There is nothing sinful, wrong, or evil about anyone's sexual orientation.
There is about persecuting people for it.
This is one of many ugly sides to Christianity (among other religions).
And yet more proof that your religion has nothing of the moral high ground....
Or any morals really at all.
sinful of all my four sons. I love him probably most of my sons and
not sexually if you think that is what I mean by love. But I believe the
Holy Bible teaches that a certain act of homosexuality is an abomination
to God. I therefore believe that certain act must be a sin to God. I could
be wrong. Maybe God just has an extreme dislike for that particular act
and does not consider it a sin. But that seems highly unlikely to me. I
have an idea what that act is, but I do not know for sure and don't want
to know, if God hates it enough to consider it an abomination.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThe fact that he is your youngest son (with 3 elder brothers) is indicative.
My yougest son is homosexually orientated and I consider him the least
sinful of all my four sons. I love him probably most of my sons and
not sexually if you think that is what I mean by love. But I believe the
Holy Bible teaches that a certain act of homosexuality is an abomination
to God. I therefore believe that certain act must be a sin to God. ...[text shortened]... ot know for sure and don't want
to know, if God hates it enough to consider it an abomination.
While there is a statistical chance of any offspring being homosexual, for males the chance
goes up significantly and detectably with the number of older brothers a boy has.
Your youngest son was the most likely of your sons to be homosexual, with the likely cause
being hormone levels present during pregnancy, certain of which are lower after every male birth.
This along with a whole bunch of other evidence strongly indicate that sexuality is determined
largely by genetic makeup and conditions during pregnancy.
It is not a conscious choice what gender we find sexually attractive.
If we were truly made by a 'loving god', and he designed us in such a way that a significant percentage (10~20% appx)
is born homosexual, then instructing his followers that homosexuality is an evil to be punished (with death)
is both evil and malicious.
If he were a loving god he could not possibly instruct his followers to kill those simply following their
own hearts (metaphorically speaking)
Especially as their acts harm nobody.
And if he is not a loving god, and made people gay with the intention of having other people kill them,
then he is not worth following.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeI have thought it was some gene defect or something of that nature
The fact that he is your youngest son (with 3 elder brothers) is indicative.
While there is a statistical chance of any offspring being homosexual, for males the chance
goes up significantly and detectably with the number of older brothers a boy has.
Your youngest son was the most likely of your sons to be homosexual, with the likely cause
bein ople gay with the intention of having other people kill them,
then he is not worth following.
because he was raised in the Methodist Church; he had always been a
very obedient son, my favorite as I mentioned. I began to suspect
something around his senior year in high school. Yet, he took a girl
to the prom dance, so I thought it was my imagination. He never
really dated while going to the University, but I thought it was due to
the fact that since he had always been the valdictorian at his other
schools he wanted to continue being the number one student, which he
did. After graduating from the university here, he went to California to
get a master degree and returned home after that with a friend and
then I was sure he was homosexual and he did not deny it. He now
lives in California with his friend or partner.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsI wouldn't call it a defect.
I have thought it was some gene defect or something of that nature
because he was raised in the Methodist Church; he had always been a
very obedient son, my favorite as I mentioned. I began to suspect
something around his senior year in high school. Yet, he took a girl
to the prom dance, so I thought it was my imagination. He never
really dated while ...[text shortened]... was homosexual and he did not deny it. He now
lives in California with his friend or partner.
There are sound evolutionary reasons for homosexuality to exist.
And in the modern world, there is no reason for homosexuality to
be any kind of hindrance or downside.
I would say it's a difference, not a defect.
And I am glad you don't let this triviality get in the way of your relationship with him.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI believe nobody is perfect.
I wouldn't call it a defect.
There are sound evolutionary reasons for homosexuality to exist.
And in the modern world, there is no reason for homosexuality to
be any kind of hindrance or downside.
I would say it's a difference, not a defect.
And I am glad you don't let this triviality get in the way of your relationship with him.
Just some are more perfect than others.
Ha, Ha!
1 edit
The books aren't closed on being born into homosexuality, i.e. genetically. A study was recently discussed on the radio, part of which looked at identical twins. Only 1 in 7 identical twin pairs are both homosexual. Of identical twin pairs, at least one of which is homosexual, in 6 out of 7 pairs, the other one is heterosexual; even though genetically, parentally, and environmentally (upbringing), they are virtually identical.
No, I'm not saying it is impossible that genetics are responsible for homosexuality. In fact I'm pretty convinced that genetics play a certain role. But I'm not sold on sexual orientation being decided solely (or even mainly) by genetic makeup. Nor should anyone be sold on it. There is a far greater amount of stuff we don't know, compared to what we do know.
Originally posted by sumydidWould you favor some sort of defect or purely lifestyle choice for the
The books aren't closed on being born into homosexuality, i.e. genetically. A study was recently discussed on the radio, part of which looked at identical twins. Only 1 in 7 identical twin pairs are both homosexual. Of identical twin pairs, at least one of which is homosexual, in 6 out of 7 pairs, the other one is heterosexual; even though genetically, pa ...[text shortened]... is a far greater amount of stuff we don't know, compared to what we do know.
tendency or supposed tendency toward homosexuality?