- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by joe beyserNo problem.
Hey I just want to thank you for the work on this! I am going to check these sites out.
Finally I think this is a balanced overview and is informative despite being a little old:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199706/homosexuality-biology
Originally posted by Lord Sharkthank you.very interesting.I was not aware of much of these findings.
Ok, the first reference is:
Hamer, Dean, Stella Hu, Victoria A. Magnuson, Nan Hu, and Angela M.L. Pattatucci. "A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation." Science 261.n5119 (July 16, 1993): 321(7).
Here is a link to an article about the Ciani study:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519-survival-of-genetic-homosexual-traits-explained.html
I said I would, I admit I cut it fine 🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHello Robbie. Did you get a chance to watch the movies yet? What do you think about the article that Lord Shark found? If it is true, does it change anything?
i don't think that it is absurd, its just that the science as far as i know is a little inconclusive. There is in fact no such thing as a gay gene, and its one of these instances in which, something like a preponderance of one type of hormone has been taken as a license for every type of sexual preference, under the guise of 'they just cant help it.'
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I will stop you there. All I can infer from Jesus' words is that the reason God made man and woman is so they can marry -- I cannot infer that every man must marry a woman.
Sorry, I meant it as the generic 'you' as in 'one'. I didn't mean for it to be taken as YOU personally.
Read what it says:
"Have you not read that He who created them ...[text shortened]... Jesus as having been mute on these two topics. You can't have it both ways.[/b]
Sorry, I meant it as the generic 'you' as in 'one'. I didn't mean for it to be taken as YOU personally.
Yes, I quite understood what you meant.
It is given as a command. And if taken as a command and regarded as true in all cases and regardless of context, then one would take it as meaning that all men and women must marry. Clearly this was not the intent.
Is it a command? Does it say explicitly 'Leave your father and mother and become one flesh'? That is a rather poor interpretation.
On one hand you say, "I have restricted myself entirely to the Jesus as depicted in the NT" and on the other you seem to have no reservations about inferring positions outside of this depiction regarding slavery and homosexuals. If you truly restricted yourself as you claim, you'd regard Jesus as having been mute on these two topics. You can't have it both ways.
No, contradiction. I have restricted myself to the Jesus depicted in the NT. The Jesus of the NT does not speak out against slavery explicity. Again, he is absolutely outrageous.
4 edits
Originally posted by Conrau K[/b]Is it a command? Does it say explicitly 'Leave your father and mother and become one flesh'? That is a rather poor interpretation.
[b]
Sorry, I meant it as the generic 'you' as in 'one'. I didn't mean for it to be taken as YOU personally.
Yes, I quite understood what you meant.
It is given as a command. And if taken as a command and regarded as true in all cases and regardless of context, then one would take it as meaning that all men and women must marry. Clearly this NT does not speak out against slavery explicity. Again, he is absolutely outrageous.
C'mon. It's in the same form as other commandments. Also from Mathew 19:
17 And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." 18 Then he said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS; 19 HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
How about going back and addressing the points that you dismissed out of hand?
No, contradiction. I have restricted myself to the Jesus depicted in the NT. The Jesus of the NT does not speak out against slavery explicity. Again, he is absolutely outrageous.
Actually you've drawn your conclusion based on what was NOT depicted which is foolish. The fact that you can't see the folly in drawing conclusions based on what is not depicted makes it all the more foolish. So far as I know, you haven't posted anything against rape in these forums. Let's say you haven't. Would people be correct in inferriing that you are not against rape?
I believe that yours is an example of "argument from ignorance".
1 edit
Originally posted by Lord SharkActually, I dare say with certainty that Jesus was against car jacking. He said if you live according
Yes I agree, but it might be legitimate to infer what Jesus would have condoned/condemned?
For example, Jesus never condemned car jacking nor condoned using antibiotics to alleviate suffering and disease. But we might come to a reasonable view of what Jesus would have said couldn't we?
to the commandments you will be saved. (Matthew 19:16-22) Well, among them is: thou shalt not
plunder or steal or something. Car jacking is stealing. So is downloading pirated movies. We have
a whole generation going to hell. HA! That's funny (in a sense).
He never said anything about how you may or may not use medicine to cure disease, and since no
commandment says: "Thou shalt not heal thy neighbour by any means", I think it's fair to say he
didn't mind medicinal practice.
Come to think of it, here's the proof that Jesus didn't mind a little homo action. He says that all
you have to do to live in God's Kingdom is follow the commandments. He doesn't even name all
ten of them.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by JigtieIt seems to me then, that you accept the principle of using what Jesus explicitly endorsed or condemned in order to infer what he might endorse or condemn amongst the things he didn't mention.
Actually, I dare say with certainty that Jesus was against car jacking. He said if you live according
to the commandments you will be saved. (Matthew 19:16-22) Well, among them is: thou shalt not
plunder or steal or something. Car jacking is stealing. So is downloading pirated movies. We have
a whole generation going to hell. HA! That's funny (in a sens ...[text shortened]... ve in God's Kingdom is follow the commandments. He doesn't even name all
ten of them.
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Is it a command? Does it say explicitly 'Leave your father and mother and become one flesh'? That is a rather poor interpretation.
C'mon. It's in the same form as other commandments. Also from Mathew 19:
17 And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, ke ainst rape?
I believe that yours is an example of "argument from ignorance".
C'mon. It's in the same form as other commandments. Also from Mathew 19:
No. It is not. If you refer back to the original Greek, you will see nothing of the form of a command. The word 'will leave behind' (katalepsei) is not in the imperative mood, nor in the subjunctive which sometimes functions hortatively. It is a simple future tense, indicating either future time, probability or, in this case, a kind of result. Of course, the future tense can function as a command, albeit indirectly, but that does not seem the meaning here. Jesus is explaining the nature of man, that he was created by God to marry. The command actually comes much later when Jesus, arguing from this fact, says "Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate." Another Bible translation supports this interpretation:
"Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female'
5
and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
6
So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."
http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=47
Again, I do not see how this could possibly be said to be true for heterosexuals and false for homosexuals. The purpose of God's creaton of man and woman is a fact independent of whether a person is homosexual.
Actually you've drawn your conclusion based on what was NOT depicted which is foolish. The fact that you can't see the folly in drawing conclusions based on what is not depicted makes it all the more foolish.
You are extremely confused. I am only talking about the literary Jesus. I am not talking about the historical Jesus who may not have existed and whose opinions are ultimately a matter of speculation. I just explained that. So when I say 'He is outrageous', that is a statement against the literary Jesus. It is not an inference about the historical Jesus.
So far as I know, you haven't posted anything against rape in these forums.
The difference is that no one has claimed that rape is morally acceptable on this site. In Jesus' time, however, slavery was prevalent and the execution of homosexuals was religiously licenced. In that case, Jesus' omission (must I say the literary Jesus' omission?) is outrageous. He opines on many other moral issues but leaves out the big ones. He just seems permissive.
(I actually have posted against rape anyway.)
Originally posted by Conrau Klol. Well, this doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
[b]
C'mon. It's in the same form as other commandments. Also from Mathew 19:
No. It is not. If you refer back to the original Greek, you will see nothing of the form of a command. The word 'will leave behind' (katalepsei) is not in the imperative mood, nor in the subjunctive which sometimes functions hortatively. It is a simple future tense, indicat ...[text shortened]... He just seems permissive.
(I actually have posted against rape anyway.)[/b]
All I know is you made the following assertion:
"Personally, I doubt Jesus would have been a champion for homosexual rights. Consider Matthew 19:1-12. Jesus discusses the legitimate grounds for divorce, he spells out that marriage is between man and woman. There is no consideration of the possibility that a man may wish to marry a man, or some other alternative pairing."
It's evident that it is an example of "argument from ignorance". I seems that that's your standard of proof and you're sticking to it. What's more it seems you believe Jesus categorically states that marriage can only be between a man and a woman when He makes no such claim. Furthermore you seem to have the inexplicable expectation that He bring up homosexual marriage when asked about divorce in heterosexual marriages.
You seem to not be able to grasp the concept that when something is only generally true, it may not be applicable in all cases.
You also seem not to be able to grasp the folly in "argument from ignorance".
To quote from "A Christmas Story", "Uncle uncle uncle UNCLE! UUUUUUNCLE!!!"
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneFuuuuuuuuge!
lol. Well, this doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
All I know is you made the following assertion:
"Personally, I doubt Jesus would have been a champion for homosexual rights. Consider Matthew 19:1-12. Jesus discusses the legitimate grounds for divorce, he spells out that marriage is between man and woman. There is no consideration of the possibility ...[text shortened]... .
To quote from "A Christmas Story", "Uncle uncle uncle UNCLE! UUUUUUNCLE!!!"
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneDo you believe they should be put to death as the OT commands?
lol. Well, this doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
All I know is you made the following assertion:
"Personally, I doubt Jesus would have been a champion for homosexual rights. Consider Matthew 19:1-12. Jesus discusses the legitimate grounds for divorce, he spells out that marriage is between man and woman. There is no consideration of the possibility ...[text shortened]... .
To quote from "A Christmas Story", "Uncle uncle uncle UNCLE! UUUUUUNCLE!!!"