I think it's kind of funny that you have all of these arguments, but you obviously don't even know what's in the Bible. Jesus was in hell for three days. I think the smart thing to do is stop listening to what other people say, and just read it yourself. I hate how "Christians" have given God such a bad rep. Just because they go about saying they are God's servants, doesn't make it true. It doesn't mean what they say is even remotely close to what's in the Bible, because, let's face it, too many people read things the wrong way, and then, they don't even read it all.
Oh, and your question. Jesus has always existed with God, as has God's word. He is one with God. He came to earth in the flesh. If you believe there is a God, then you believe that humans have a soul...and then they have their flesh. Two separate things. You can kill your flesh, but you can't kill your soul. Jesus had a life harder than any other person to walk in this world. Don't downplay that.
Exactly, I've no reason to believe what they say, what you say, or what the Bible says. Even the Bible was copied from scriptures, copied from tablets, copied from oral myths passed down through centuries.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Bouncing back links for debunking theories and defending theories... this could go on... back and forth, for all eternity!!
Ahnimus, you don't believe in God, so be it. I have a some very good friends who are atheists and feel similar than you do. It seems you are interested in finding something out there to quench your thirst, or else you wouldn't be spending time reading about the history behind religion. I wish you luck on your quest for better understanding.
Like I've said before, I was raised Catholic, still am, and it is my Faith and try to live by it. Sure, I don't doubt there has been people that take advantage of that for personal gain. You don't have to go to the first century, it happens to this day sadly with Catholic priests. But that doesn't mean to me that my faith is less because of the actions of men. I felt firsthand the grace of God many times in my life and I'm not going to change. And I don't expect to write something here to make you change.
To me, it is harder to prove there is no God than otherwise. Think of how fragile life is with respect to the universe. A small tweak in the planetary balance, the sun, the moon, you name it, could very well wipe us out. And all this was created out of randomness? From a Big Bang and gazillions of years of evolution? Now that is as big a stretch as Virgin Birth, Resurrection and walking on water....
You'll not find me disagreeing there. I'll defend Christ to the death, but the church has been riddled with stupidity since it began.
As the author mentions though, Mithraic scholars think the copycat theory's rubbish, and the first signs of it come in the fourth century. This is why I suggest looking at some other sites.
Why defend it? If the bible is crap, the interpetations of it are crap and so on. What really is there to defend?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
If we're going to argue reasons, then I can offer my reason and evidence for believing, and how that effects my life.
If not, then I'll get working on a witty retort to 'Christians R Stupid LOL!'
I see, however, in the 'light' of science, we do see that such things as God's and Free-will, are not just highly improbably but bordering on impossible.
Consider the fact that we have no will that is entirely free from physical determinants, that 'we' are, as much as 'we' detest it, a product of our brains.
How then can this God be true, if the vehicle by which we are expected to live under this God is not true?
Many will say that Science is a religion, or science is flawed. But to what extent are these flaws of science inferior to religious doctrine? Most specifically, the doctrine of Christianity. No one contests that Mithraism or any of the other ancient dogmas are superior to Science, on what basis is Christianity granted superiority?
This purported connection or relationship with God, is no different than the same purported for other religions, and non-religions alike. The 'religion' of science can physicaly invoke such feelings with scientific knowledge whether the subject of the invocation believes in Science or not. To what degree is the Christian experience superior to the Mithraic or Scientific experiences?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
said the Presbyterian to the Southern Baptist said to the Lutheran said to the Anglican said to the Catholic said to the Methodist said to the Seventh Day Adventist said to the Pentacostal said to the Quaker said to the Mormon said to the Dude that Thumps the Bible at Home said to the....who the fuck cares?!?!
well, you don't... i guess.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
Hebrews 10:11For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.
Galatians 3:10For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." 11Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith."[d] 12But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"-- 14so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
Romans 3:20"For by works of the law no human being[c] will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. 21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law....the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe."
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
Could anyone tell me where I can find this concept in the bible, please. I'd really like to know where it says that the father, the son and the holy spirit are one, explicitly. Preferably in the OT, since that's where Ahnimus got those verses.
it doesn't say it... you will never find it.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
It's also a good way of getting people to hate Homosexuality and Abortion. To view reality in black and white, good and evil, pay money to the church, and as mindless robots blindly follow the word of other men.
if you spoke to my dad you'd have a very different opinion about this.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
If only our schools could teach the real history of Christianity. I remember learning Greek, Roman, Native and so on Mythologies, but the Abrahamic myths were left out. It would seem that schools can't teach it as a myth and certainly can't teach it as fact, so it's left out. We then learn about it through Church which is totally bias and teaches it as the absolute history of the universe.
you also have your own bias views.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Let's refer to Christ as an "energy". Ok?
Christ, the energy, that resurrected Jesus from the dead was the same energy that made all life-forms. Indeed, this energy is God himself.
Easy to understand, right?
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
What do you know that is not contained within the walls of the canon?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
What do you know that is not contained within the walls of the canon?
what the hell are you talking about?
i'll reply to you later ahnimus... i must say, you're an interesting individual. by all means, i enjoy hearing you bash my beliefs. keep up the good work! it helps me learn more.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
i'll reply to you later ahnimus... i must say, you're an interesting individual. by all means, i enjoy hearing you bash my beliefs. keep up the good work! it helps me learn more.
Please consider it a challenge to your beliefs.
What I asked, was what knowledge do you have not from within the Bible?
Have you studied Christianity objectively from a 3rd perspective? Or do you learn primarily from the Bible and religious scholars?
I've personally sat through dozens of youtube and google videos by Hovind and other evangelicals, and currently I'm reading St. Augustine, as you may have already known. So, as for my concern, I may be bias, but in contrast to one who sees no opposition, I am not.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Let's refer to Christ as an "energy". Ok?
Christ, the energy, that resurrected Jesus from the dead was the same energy that made all life-forms. Indeed, this energy is God himself.
Well, if it helps you understand the word Christ in a more relevant manner, then yes. No, wait. Let me rephrase that. Jesus was merely a man - a man used by God to finalize his masterpiece. So, no, Jesus is not the "battery". It is Christ. Jesus later became the "Christ" once he finalized the mission he was purposed for, which was to carry out an undefiled and sinless life. Then later others, like you and I, that would believe could also inherit this "battery" status. Like it says in Colossians, "To whom God would make known what is the mystery of this glory amongst the Gentiles, which is Christ in you - the hope of glory."
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
What I asked, was what knowledge do you have not from within the Bible?
Have you studied Christianity objectively from a 3rd perspective? Or do you learn primarily from the Bible and religious scholars?
I've personally sat through dozens of youtube and google videos by Hovind and other evangelicals, and currently I'm reading St. Augustine, as you may have already known. So, as for my concern, I may be bias, but in contrast to one who sees no opposition, I am not.
Well, it's really hard to learn from a 3rd perspective without actually hearing a dogmatic attitude from the other end. For instance, if I want to do a research on homosexuality I will either find a website dedicated to bash it or to bash those that bash it. I will never find a website that focuses on homosexuality for what it is. Someone who will not tell me if it is "good" or it is "bad". (On a side note: if you do happen to know a website that gives an unbiased analysis on homosexuality then please refer me to it.)
It sometimes works the same ways in religion. Every single person on earth, I believe, has a fixed belief. Sometimes as human beings we have to respect the differences of beliefs. I, for one, have understood that my beliefs can mislead others into thinking that I propogate hatred, just because of certain issues like homosexuality and abortion. So I sometimes have to refrain myself from saying certain things in order to avoid confrontations or offending others. I truly believe that this is the most hopeful way of reaching a better understanding between us all.
So, to answer your question, I would honestly like to look at Christianity from a 3rd perspective but many times I find very hostile attitudes that seem there sole purpose is to discredit the beliefs of others. For whatever reasons they might be are beyond me.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
Right from the Bible check it out. There is more than one God and they do not want us to live forever.
1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
3:19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Interesting anyway, heard this on a Caltech conference, the speaker was John Hartung
mr. ahnimus, you amuse me with your lack of knowledge concerning the Word of God. i get a kick out of your posts, because quite frankly, you(and/or mr. john hartung)have NO IDEA what you're talking about concerning this matter.
I died. I died and you just stood there. I died and you watched. I died and you walked by and said no. I'm dead.
Someone who will not tell me if it is "good" or it is "bad". (On a side note: if you do happen to know a website that gives an unbiased analysis on homosexuality then please refer me to it.)
im trying to envision what kind of research you're talking about? what is neutral analysis of homosexuality supposed to look like? how do you define good and bad? cos i think simple logic tells you that there is nothing "bad" about two guys doing consensually whatever they want behind closed doors. i dont think it's good either. it just is.
Well, it's really hard to learn from a 3rd perspective without actually hearing a dogmatic attitude from the other end. For instance, if I want to do a research on homosexuality I will either find a website dedicated to bash it or to bash those that bash it. I will never find a website that focuses on homosexuality for what it is. Someone who will not tell me if it is "good" or it is "bad". (On a side note: if you do happen to know a website that gives an unbiased analysis on homosexuality then please refer me to it.)
It sometimes works the same ways in religion. Every single person on earth, I believe, has a fixed belief. Sometimes as human beings we have to respect the differences of beliefs. I, for one, have understood that my beliefs can mislead others into thinking that I propogate hatred, just because of certain issues like homosexuality and abortion. So I sometimes have to refrain myself from saying certain things in order to avoid confrontations or offending others. I truly believe that this is the most hopeful way of reaching a better understanding between us all.
So, to answer your question, I would honestly like to look at Christianity from a 3rd perspective but many times I find very hostile attitudes that seem there sole purpose is to discredit the beliefs of others. For whatever reasons they might be are beyond me.
I think most scientific sources are going to be non-bias in the good and bad sense, because science it's self doesn't draw moral conclusions. But what it does is provide solid insight into a thing. In this case homosexualitly, I would recommend wikipedia or J. Michael Bailey's papers on it. Or perhaps Richard Pillard. You will see through these studies the true nature of sexuality. It's difficult to call it good or bad. Some will view it slightly bad because it strays from what they consider to be natural order. Others will view natural order as adaptive as evolution it's self and hence it is not necissarily bad, but morally neutral. I think you will find taking a non-bias approach to all phenomena will reveal a morally neutral mechanism. I believe that morality is something that humans have constructed, for if it were a universal property, we would not have moral dillemas.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I think most scientific sources are going to be non-bias in the good and bad sense, because science it's self doesn't draw moral conclusions. But what it does is provide solid insight into a thing. In this case homosexualitly, I would recommend wikipedia or J. Michael Bailey's papers on it. Or perhaps Richard Pillard. You will see through these studies the true nature of sexuality. It's difficult to call it good or bad. Some will view it slightly bad because it strays from what they consider to be natural order. Others will view natural order as adaptive as evolution it's self and hence it is not necissarily bad, but morally neutral. I think you will find taking a non-bias approach to all phenomena will reveal a morally neutral mechanism. I believe that morality is something that humans have constructed, for if it were a universal property, we would not have moral dillemas.
Since I can't understand every scientific principle 100%, I don't believe in it. I mean, come on - that would take faith
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
what is neutral analysis of homosexuality supposed to look like?
The kind of research that simply explains it in a scientific approach. Instead of making some kind of analysis into trying to make the religious one's look like "nutheads" for teaching that it's wrong or making studies on homosexuality simply to discredit religious people. And vise-versa, instead of some christian/mulsim/jew trying to explain why a homosexual has a mental illness, just give a scientific approach and let the learner judge for himself. As you said, taking homosexuality for simply what it is.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
The kind of research that simply explains it in a scientific approach. Instead of making some kind of analysis into trying to make the religious one's look like "nutheads" for teaching that it's wrong or making studies on homosexuality simply to discredit religious people. And vise-versa, instead of some christian/mulsim/jew trying to explain why a homosexual has a mental illness, just give a scientific approach and let the learner judge for himself. As you said, taking homosexuality for simply what it is.
this has been done endlessly. it's mainly genetic with a handful of social factors. it's quite prevalent and common in the animal kingdom and has been widely known and accepted in human society for centuries. it's been studied by biologists, psychologists, sociologists, and everyone else. what more do you want? it causes no harm to anyone. not even adopted children, and certainly not society as a whole.
you think the APA removing it from the dsm-iv was some sort of swipe at religion? come on...
this has been done endlessly. it's mainly genetic with a handful of social factors. it's quite prevalent and common in the animal kingdom and has been widely known and accepted in human society for centuries. it's been studied by biologists, psychologists, sociologists, and everyone else. what more do you want? it causes no harm to anyone. not even adopted children, and certainly not society as a whole.
I know it's been done endlessly. You're a little confused about what I'm asking. I'm simply asking for a website that gives a brief insight on homosexuality in a scientific approach. I'm not asking for a website that explains why homosexuality is ok or a website that explains why it is wrong.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
I know it's been done endlessly. You're a little confused about what I'm asking. I'm simply asking for a website that gives a brief insight on homosexuality in a scientific approach. I'm not asking for a website that explains why homosexuality is ok or a website that explains why it is wrong.
what is there scientifically to know? what causes it? what its effects are? i dont get it.
what is there scientifically to know? what causes it? what its effects are? i dont get it.
For instance, I remember someone arguing that homosexuals are not born gay. I clearly remember you responding to them that they are and that they are discovering something of, I don't know, a chemical or something that proves that they are born gay. Do you remember? I don't know. Only if I could find those posts would probably be easier. Nonetheless, I will google it. Although I've done so many times before.
But I'm assuming that you are implying that there isn't anything to know about it scientifically, or otherwise, psychologically. Right? I know that there is nothing that causes it, because I know that homosexuality is not an illness. I know that there are no effects, because again, It's not an illness. But what I don't know is how scientists, or psychologists, have discovered that homosexuals are born this way. I would like to find a website that analyzes this.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
For instance, I remember someone arguing that homosexuals are not born gay. I clearly remember you responding to them that they are and that they are discovering something of, I don't know, a chemical or something that proves that they are born gay. Do you remember? I don't know. Only if I could find those posts would probably be easier. Nonetheless, I will google it. Although I've done so many times before.
But I'm assuming that you are implying that there isn't anything to know about it scientifically, or otherwise, psychologically. Right? I know that there is nothing that causes it, because I know that homosexuality is not an illness. I know that there are no effects, because again, It's not an illness. But what I don't know is how scientists, or psychologists, have discovered that homosexuals are born this way. I would like to find a website that analyzes this.
there have been preliminary reports that they are closing in on the "gay gene." im not a scientist, so i couldnt understand much of it. but i have many gay friends and all of them confirm that this is far more accurate than the view on the other side... that they just choose to be gay for reasons that side has never been able to describe (why would anyone WANT to be gay?). so i give credence to the science i've read about it. unfortunately, i really don't care enough to save these links so i can't offer them to you, and im far too lazy to find them. but it is out there. there is a very strong genetic component to homosexuality. there are also other factors as well.
im not saying there isnt anything to know about it, im just curious what you want to know about it and why? if scientists found conclusively it was genetic, would you change your mind about it being immoral? would you still tell gay people they were going to hell for the way they were born? i just dont see what impact objective scientific research would have on you.
Comments
Exactly, I've no reason to believe what they say, what you say, or what the Bible says. Even the Bible was copied from scriptures, copied from tablets, copied from oral myths passed down through centuries.
Ahnimus, you don't believe in God, so be it. I have a some very good friends who are atheists and feel similar than you do. It seems you are interested in finding something out there to quench your thirst, or else you wouldn't be spending time reading about the history behind religion. I wish you luck on your quest for better understanding.
Like I've said before, I was raised Catholic, still am, and it is my Faith and try to live by it. Sure, I don't doubt there has been people that take advantage of that for personal gain. You don't have to go to the first century, it happens to this day sadly with Catholic priests. But that doesn't mean to me that my faith is less because of the actions of men. I felt firsthand the grace of God many times in my life and I'm not going to change. And I don't expect to write something here to make you change.
To me, it is harder to prove there is no God than otherwise. Think of how fragile life is with respect to the universe. A small tweak in the planetary balance, the sun, the moon, you name it, could very well wipe us out. And all this was created out of randomness? From a Big Bang and gazillions of years of evolution? Now that is as big a stretch as Virgin Birth, Resurrection and walking on water....
Why defend it? If the bible is crap, the interpetations of it are crap and so on. What really is there to defend?
I see, however, in the 'light' of science, we do see that such things as God's and Free-will, are not just highly improbably but bordering on impossible.
Consider the fact that we have no will that is entirely free from physical determinants, that 'we' are, as much as 'we' detest it, a product of our brains.
How then can this God be true, if the vehicle by which we are expected to live under this God is not true?
Many will say that Science is a religion, or science is flawed. But to what extent are these flaws of science inferior to religious doctrine? Most specifically, the doctrine of Christianity. No one contests that Mithraism or any of the other ancient dogmas are superior to Science, on what basis is Christianity granted superiority?
This purported connection or relationship with God, is no different than the same purported for other religions, and non-religions alike. The 'religion' of science can physicaly invoke such feelings with scientific knowledge whether the subject of the invocation believes in Science or not. To what degree is the Christian experience superior to the Mithraic or Scientific experiences?
Galatians 3:10For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." 11Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith."[d] 12But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"-- 14so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
Romans 3:20"For by works of the law no human being[c] will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. 21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law....the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe."
I call bullshit!
Let's refer to Christ as an "energy". Ok?
Christ, the energy, that resurrected Jesus from the dead was the same energy that made all life-forms. Indeed, this energy is God himself.
Easy to understand, right?
What do you know that is not contained within the walls of the canon?
i'll reply to you later ahnimus... i must say, you're an interesting individual. by all means, i enjoy hearing you bash my beliefs. keep up the good work! it helps me learn more.
Please consider it a challenge to your beliefs.
What I asked, was what knowledge do you have not from within the Bible?
Have you studied Christianity objectively from a 3rd perspective? Or do you learn primarily from the Bible and religious scholars?
I've personally sat through dozens of youtube and google videos by Hovind and other evangelicals, and currently I'm reading St. Augustine, as you may have already known. So, as for my concern, I may be bias, but in contrast to one who sees no opposition, I am not.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://media.libsyn.com/media/infidelguy/Tape63_Acharya_3.mp3
So, Jesus is like a battery?
Cool.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
It sometimes works the same ways in religion. Every single person on earth, I believe, has a fixed belief. Sometimes as human beings we have to respect the differences of beliefs. I, for one, have understood that my beliefs can mislead others into thinking that I propogate hatred, just because of certain issues like homosexuality and abortion. So I sometimes have to refrain myself from saying certain things in order to avoid confrontations or offending others. I truly believe that this is the most hopeful way of reaching a better understanding between us all.
So, to answer your question, I would honestly like to look at Christianity from a 3rd perspective but many times I find very hostile attitudes that seem there sole purpose is to discredit the beliefs of others. For whatever reasons they might be are beyond me.
mr. ahnimus, you amuse me with your lack of knowledge concerning the Word of God. i get a kick out of your posts, because quite frankly, you(and/or mr. john hartung)have NO IDEA what you're talking about concerning this matter.
im trying to envision what kind of research you're talking about? what is neutral analysis of homosexuality supposed to look like? how do you define good and bad? cos i think simple logic tells you that there is nothing "bad" about two guys doing consensually whatever they want behind closed doors. i dont think it's good either. it just is.
I think most scientific sources are going to be non-bias in the good and bad sense, because science it's self doesn't draw moral conclusions. But what it does is provide solid insight into a thing. In this case homosexualitly, I would recommend wikipedia or J. Michael Bailey's papers on it. Or perhaps Richard Pillard. You will see through these studies the true nature of sexuality. It's difficult to call it good or bad. Some will view it slightly bad because it strays from what they consider to be natural order. Others will view natural order as adaptive as evolution it's self and hence it is not necissarily bad, but morally neutral. I think you will find taking a non-bias approach to all phenomena will reveal a morally neutral mechanism. I believe that morality is something that humans have constructed, for if it were a universal property, we would not have moral dillemas.
Since I can't understand every scientific principle 100%, I don't believe in it. I mean, come on - that would take faith
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
this has been done endlessly. it's mainly genetic with a handful of social factors. it's quite prevalent and common in the animal kingdom and has been widely known and accepted in human society for centuries. it's been studied by biologists, psychologists, sociologists, and everyone else. what more do you want? it causes no harm to anyone. not even adopted children, and certainly not society as a whole.
you think the APA removing it from the dsm-iv was some sort of swipe at religion? come on...
what is there scientifically to know? what causes it? what its effects are? i dont get it.
But I'm assuming that you are implying that there isn't anything to know about it scientifically, or otherwise, psychologically. Right? I know that there is nothing that causes it, because I know that homosexuality is not an illness. I know that there are no effects, because again, It's not an illness. But what I don't know is how scientists, or psychologists, have discovered that homosexuals are born this way. I would like to find a website that analyzes this.
there have been preliminary reports that they are closing in on the "gay gene." im not a scientist, so i couldnt understand much of it. but i have many gay friends and all of them confirm that this is far more accurate than the view on the other side... that they just choose to be gay for reasons that side has never been able to describe (why would anyone WANT to be gay?). so i give credence to the science i've read about it. unfortunately, i really don't care enough to save these links so i can't offer them to you, and im far too lazy to find them. but it is out there. there is a very strong genetic component to homosexuality. there are also other factors as well.
im not saying there isnt anything to know about it, im just curious what you want to know about it and why? if scientists found conclusively it was genetic, would you change your mind about it being immoral? would you still tell gay people they were going to hell for the way they were born? i just dont see what impact objective scientific research would have on you.