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.
hey, dude, it's my business what i want or don't want to learn.
but on the other hand thanks. your input is much appreciated.
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.
The neurobiology of the masculinization of the brain is fairly well understood. Estradiol, and testosterone, which is catalyzed by the enzyme 5α-reductase into dihydrotestosterone, act upon androgen receptors in the brain to masculinize it. If there are few androgen receptors (people with Androgen insensitivity syndrome) or too much androgen (females with Congenital adrenal hyperplasia) there can be physical and psychological effects.[5] It has been suggested that both male and female homosexuality are results of variation in this process.[6] In these studies lesbianism is typically linked with a higher amount of masculinization than is found in heterosexual females, though when dealing with male homosexuality there are results supporting both higher and lower degrees of masculinization than heterosexual males.
Homosexual behavior does occur in the animal kingdom, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys and the great apes. Homosexual behavior has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented.[13] Georgetown University professor Janet Mann has specifically theorized that homosexual behavior, at least in dolphins, is an evolutionary advantage that minimizes intraspecies aggression, especially among males.
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
The neurobiology of the masculinization of the brain is fairly well understood. Estradiol, and testosterone, which is catalyzed by the enzyme 5α-reductase into dihydrotestosterone, act upon androgen receptors in the brain to masculinize it. If there are few androgen receptors (people with Androgen insensitivity syndrome) or too much androgen (females with Congenital adrenal hyperplasia) there can be physical and psychological effects.[5] It has been suggested that both male and female homosexuality are results of variation in this process.[6] In these studies lesbianism is typically linked with a higher amount of masculinization than is found in heterosexual females, though when dealing with male homosexuality there are results supporting both higher and lower degrees of masculinization than heterosexual males.
Homosexual behavior does occur in the animal kingdom, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys and the great apes. Homosexual behavior has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented.[13] Georgetown University professor Janet Mann has specifically theorized that homosexual behavior, at least in dolphins, is an evolutionary advantage that minimizes intraspecies aggression, especially among males.
thanks ahnimus... although I have already read this. still, thanks.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
Is homosexuality mentioned anywhere in the NT? Because, I'm getting confused, just a page ago you said you didn't have to follow the laws of the OT.
Techincally, the word homosexual is never found in the old or new testament.
Romans 1:26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Romans is in the New Testament
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
uhg. I hate it when people use perversions. Use the real verse, will ya?
I don't think we read Hebrew
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
Here, I'll do it:
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was meet."
That's easier to understand than that other version. Why do people read that crap? Must completely ignore the part in the Bible where it says not to change God's word.
When life gives you lemons, throw them at somebody.
I know you like to think the KJV isn't translated correctly, but it is. You obviously haven't done much studying of it all.
Now, I know that old English is very different from modern English, word meanings change...which is why one should get a Strong's concordance and look up words, because then you can get their true meaning (mostly because the guy used the actual Hebrew words for reference, instead of the English words, then translated them into English). All of the other crap is that...crap.
People say it's easier to understand, it isn't, at all. Read Gail Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions". Very enlightening.
When life gives you lemons, throw them at somebody.
I know you like to think the KJV isn't translated correctly, but it is. You obviously haven't done much studying of it all.
Now, I know that old English is very different from modern English, word meanings change...which is why one should get a Strong's concordance and look up words, because then you can get their true meaning (mostly because the guy used the actual Hebrew words for reference, instead of the English words, then translated them into English). All of the other crap is that...crap.
People say it's easier to understand, it isn't, at all. Read Gail Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions". Very enlightening.
Have you ever studied the bible objectively?
History and Positions of the Debate
This controversy has existed from the very beginning, and the writings of the "Church Fathers" themselves reveal that they were constantly forced by the pagan intelligentsia to defend what the non-Christians and other Christians ("heretics")4 alike saw as a preposterous and fabricated yarn with absolutely no evidence of it ever having taken place in history. As Rev. Robert Taylor says, "And from the apostolic age downwards, in a never interrupted succession, but never so strongly and emphatically as in the most primitive times, was the existence of Christ as a man most strenuously denied."5 Emperor Julian, who, coming after the reign of the fanatical and murderous "good Christian" Constantine, returned rights to pagan worshippers, stated, "If anyone should wish to know the truth with respect to you Christians, he will find your impiety to be made up partly of the Jewish audacity, and partly of the indifference and confusion of the Gentiles, and that you have put together not the best, but the worst characteristics of them both."6 According to these learned dissenters, the New Testament could rightly be called, "Gospel Fictions."7
A century ago, mythicist Albert Churchward said, "The canonical gospels can be shown to be a collection of sayings from the Egyptian Mythos and Eschatology."8 In Forgery in Christianity, Joseph Wheless states, "The gospels are all priestly forgeries over a century after their pretended dates."9 Those who concocted some of the hundreds of "alternative" gospels and epistles that were being kicked about during the first several centuries C.E. have even admitted that they had forged the documents.10 Forgery during the first centuries of the Church's existence was admittedly rampant, so common in fact that a new phrase was coined to describe it: "pious fraud."11 Such prevarication is confessed to repeatedly in the Catholic Encyclopedia.12 Some of the "great" church fathers, such as Eusebius13, were determined by their own peers to be unbelievable liars who regularly wrote their own fictions of what "the Lord" said and did during "his" alleged sojourn upon the earth.14
The Proof
The assertion that Jesus Christ is a myth can be proved not only through the works of dissenters and "pagans" who knew the truth - and who were viciously refuted or murdered for their battle against the Christian priests and "Church Fathers" fooling the masses with their fictions - but also through the very statements of the Christians themselves, who continuously disclose that they knew Jesus Christ was a myth founded upon more ancient deities located throughout the known ancient world. In fact, Pope Leo X, privy to the truth because of his high rank, made this curious declaration, "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!"15 (Emphasis added.) As Wheless says, "The proofs of my indictment are marvellously easy." http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm
I couldn't give a shit which of 450 initial English translations were correct.
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
Sorry, maybe I'm confused (and correct me if I am), but I thought the Christian Bible was originally written in Greek and not Hebrew.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't Greek were they?
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
It's interesting that you dismiss everything that doesn't conform to your world view and anything that supports it is automatically correct. Perhaps you and evangelicals aren't too far apart in your thinking.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
It's interesting that you dismiss everything that doesn't conform to your world view and anything that supports it is automatically correct. Perhaps you and evangelicals aren't too far apart in your thinking.
Dude.
I have, the similarities between Horus and Krishna are astounding.
Mithraism hit Rome in the first century BCE as the Mithraic cult fled Persia. Here it flourished as the Sun God Natalis Solis Invicti (NSI). The leader of this religion ruled from what is now Vatican hill, which is a place previously sacred to Mithra. This male leader was called Papa (Pope). The Roman sun festival at the solstice celebrated NSI. Books in honor of NSI were called “Helio Biblia,” which translates to us as either “Sun Book” or “Holy Bible.” (I’ll bet they also contained a warning about looking directly at God, the Sun!) http://culturalvision.net/html/pagan_religions.html
It becomes blatantly obvious what the Bible is when you look at it this way, instead of being brain-washed by the texts contained within it. The Bible was designed in such a way to convince people for centuries and only highly critical people would see through it, or dare challenge it.
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 have, the similarities between Horus and Krishna are astounding.
Mithraism hit Rome in the first century BCE as the Mithraic cult fled Persia. Here it flourished as the Sun God Natalis Solis Invicti (NSI). The leader of this religion ruled from what is now Vatican hill, which is a place previously sacred to Mithra. This male leader was called Papa (Pope). The Roman sun festival at the solstice celebrated NSI. Books in honor of NSI were called “Helio Biblia,” which translates to us as either “Sun Book” or “Holy Bible.” (I’ll bet they also contained a warning about looking directly at God, the Sun!) http://culturalvision.net/html/pagan_religions.html
It becomes blatantly obvious what the Bible is when you look at it this way, instead of being brain-washed by the texts contained within it. The Bible was designed in such a way to convince people for centuries and only highly critical people would see through it, or dare challenge it.
all of these ideas are extremely fascinating conspiracy theories.
kinda like the 20 dollar bill that you fold and it looks like the burning twin towers. and you turn it around and you see the pentagon also in flames.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
I have, the similarities between Horus and Krishna are astounding.
Mithraism hit Rome in the first century BCE as the Mithraic cult fled Persia. Here it flourished as the Sun God Natalis Solis Invicti (NSI). The leader of this religion ruled from what is now Vatican hill, which is a place previously sacred to Mithra. This male leader was called Papa (Pope). The Roman sun festival at the solstice celebrated NSI. Books in honor of NSI were called “Helio Biblia,” which translates to us as either “Sun Book” or “Holy Bible.” (I’ll bet they also contained a warning about looking directly at God, the Sun!) http://culturalvision.net/html/pagan_religions.html
It becomes blatantly obvious what the Bible is when you look at it this way, instead of being brain-washed by the texts contained within it. The Bible was designed in such a way to convince people for centuries and only highly critical people would see through it, or dare challenge it.
alls I'm saying is that it's convenient that since you believe there is no God and it's foolish; that you believe everything people say that supports your belief. You're bit of "objective" study is no more "objective" than mine. You want to believe there is no God so you find mountains of evidence that supports your view and you quote it religiously (pun intended). Just as I find information that supports my view. You see, I see you being brainwashed by all the texts and people who believe the bible to be bunk. You prescribe to their train of thought and eat it up, as long as it serves your purpose. The better question is, is it possible to be objective about something that requires faith and mandates a certain presupposition.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
alls I'm saying is that it's convenient that since you believe there is no God and it's foolish; that you believe everything people say that supports your belief. You're bit of "objective" study is no more "objective" than mine. You want to believe there is no God so you find mountains of evidence that supports your view and you quote it religiously (pun intended). Just as I find information that supports my view. You see, I see you being brainwashed by all the texts and people who believe the bible to be bunk. You prescribe to their train of thought and eat it up, as long as it serves your purpose. The better question is, is it possible to be objective about something that requires faith and mandates a certain presupposition.
What evidence have you provided? The Bible, i.e. Helio Biblia, what a joke man.
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
Right, I don't know the direction this thread has taken, but my thoughts on the original post are this:
When God refers to 'Us' he's referring to god the father, god the son, and god the holy spirit - The blessed Trinity which is all one being. No doubt someone else has mentioned it.
But as far as Christianity goes it's proclamation of there being one god is false anyway. The blessed trinity in itself contradicts the idea in a way. And the presence of all the angels etc contradicts it too. Just like the pagan religions which came beforehand, there are many different gods (eg: God of war, god of sea etc) These are the angels. Catholics in particular would pray to different angels and saints concerning different parts of their lives. Then god the Father is at the centre of it all. He equates to Zeus (if we are to take the greek gods as an example).
Religion has stayed fundamentally the same throughout history. The Christians just worded it differently in their preaching.
What evidence have you provided? The Bible, i.e. Helio Biblia, what a joke man.
there are many books out there that discuss the reliability of the Bible and of God. go to barnes and noble...amazon.com you can find many. I posted something about the answer to the quesiton of pain and offered a suggestion that attempts to answer that question, yet you didn't repsond at all. So if you're interested in learning about something other than your view I suggest you check out Josh McDowell, CS Lewis, Charles Ryrie (Basic Theology- very dry but informative).
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Comments
but on the other hand thanks. your input is much appreciated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Biology
The neurobiology of the masculinization of the brain is fairly well understood. Estradiol, and testosterone, which is catalyzed by the enzyme 5α-reductase into dihydrotestosterone, act upon androgen receptors in the brain to masculinize it. If there are few androgen receptors (people with Androgen insensitivity syndrome) or too much androgen (females with Congenital adrenal hyperplasia) there can be physical and psychological effects.[5] It has been suggested that both male and female homosexuality are results of variation in this process.[6] In these studies lesbianism is typically linked with a higher amount of masculinization than is found in heterosexual females, though when dealing with male homosexuality there are results supporting both higher and lower degrees of masculinization than heterosexual males.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Homosexual behavior does occur in the animal kingdom, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys and the great apes. Homosexual behavior has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented.[13] Georgetown University professor Janet Mann has specifically theorized that homosexual behavior, at least in dolphins, is an evolutionary advantage that minimizes intraspecies aggression, especially among males.
naděje umírá poslední
Romans 1:26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Romans is in the New Testament
I don't think we read Hebrew
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was meet."
That's easier to understand than that other version. Why do people read that crap? Must completely ignore the part in the Bible where it says not to change God's word.
Now, I know that old English is very different from modern English, word meanings change...which is why one should get a Strong's concordance and look up words, because then you can get their true meaning (mostly because the guy used the actual Hebrew words for reference, instead of the English words, then translated them into English). All of the other crap is that...crap.
People say it's easier to understand, it isn't, at all. Read Gail Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions". Very enlightening.
Have you ever studied the bible objectively?
History and Positions of the Debate
This controversy has existed from the very beginning, and the writings of the "Church Fathers" themselves reveal that they were constantly forced by the pagan intelligentsia to defend what the non-Christians and other Christians ("heretics")4 alike saw as a preposterous and fabricated yarn with absolutely no evidence of it ever having taken place in history. As Rev. Robert Taylor says, "And from the apostolic age downwards, in a never interrupted succession, but never so strongly and emphatically as in the most primitive times, was the existence of Christ as a man most strenuously denied."5 Emperor Julian, who, coming after the reign of the fanatical and murderous "good Christian" Constantine, returned rights to pagan worshippers, stated, "If anyone should wish to know the truth with respect to you Christians, he will find your impiety to be made up partly of the Jewish audacity, and partly of the indifference and confusion of the Gentiles, and that you have put together not the best, but the worst characteristics of them both."6 According to these learned dissenters, the New Testament could rightly be called, "Gospel Fictions."7
A century ago, mythicist Albert Churchward said, "The canonical gospels can be shown to be a collection of sayings from the Egyptian Mythos and Eschatology."8 In Forgery in Christianity, Joseph Wheless states, "The gospels are all priestly forgeries over a century after their pretended dates."9 Those who concocted some of the hundreds of "alternative" gospels and epistles that were being kicked about during the first several centuries C.E. have even admitted that they had forged the documents.10 Forgery during the first centuries of the Church's existence was admittedly rampant, so common in fact that a new phrase was coined to describe it: "pious fraud."11 Such prevarication is confessed to repeatedly in the Catholic Encyclopedia.12 Some of the "great" church fathers, such as Eusebius13, were determined by their own peers to be unbelievable liars who regularly wrote their own fictions of what "the Lord" said and did during "his" alleged sojourn upon the earth.14
The Proof
The assertion that Jesus Christ is a myth can be proved not only through the works of dissenters and "pagans" who knew the truth - and who were viciously refuted or murdered for their battle against the Christian priests and "Church Fathers" fooling the masses with their fictions - but also through the very statements of the Christians themselves, who continuously disclose that they knew Jesus Christ was a myth founded upon more ancient deities located throughout the known ancient world. In fact, Pope Leo X, privy to the truth because of his high rank, made this curious declaration, "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!"15 (Emphasis added.) As Wheless says, "The proofs of my indictment are marvellously easy."
http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm
I couldn't give a shit which of 450 initial English translations were correct.
Sorry, maybe I'm confused (and correct me if I am), but I thought the Christian Bible was originally written in Greek and not Hebrew.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't Greek were they?
1 corinthians 6:9
1 timothy 1:10
have you?
It's interesting that you dismiss everything that doesn't conform to your world view and anything that supports it is automatically correct. Perhaps you and evangelicals aren't too far apart in your thinking.
and if there are 6 billion on earth then there are only about 6,000 of you who believe this.
Dude.
I have, the similarities between Horus and Krishna are astounding.
Mithraism hit Rome in the first century BCE as the Mithraic cult fled Persia. Here it flourished as the Sun God Natalis Solis Invicti (NSI). The leader of this religion ruled from what is now Vatican hill, which is a place previously sacred to Mithra. This male leader was called Papa (Pope). The Roman sun festival at the solstice celebrated NSI. Books in honor of NSI were called “Helio Biblia,” which translates to us as either “Sun Book” or “Holy Bible.” (I’ll bet they also contained a warning about looking directly at God, the Sun!)
http://culturalvision.net/html/pagan_religions.html
It becomes blatantly obvious what the Bible is when you look at it this way, instead of being brain-washed by the texts contained within it. The Bible was designed in such a way to convince people for centuries and only highly critical people would see through it, or dare challenge it.
kinda like the 20 dollar bill that you fold and it looks like the burning twin towers. and you turn it around and you see the pentagon also in flames.
alls I'm saying is that it's convenient that since you believe there is no God and it's foolish; that you believe everything people say that supports your belief. You're bit of "objective" study is no more "objective" than mine. You want to believe there is no God so you find mountains of evidence that supports your view and you quote it religiously (pun intended). Just as I find information that supports my view. You see, I see you being brainwashed by all the texts and people who believe the bible to be bunk. You prescribe to their train of thought and eat it up, as long as it serves your purpose. The better question is, is it possible to be objective about something that requires faith and mandates a certain presupposition.
What evidence have you provided? The Bible, i.e. Helio Biblia, what a joke man.
When God refers to 'Us' he's referring to god the father, god the son, and god the holy spirit - The blessed Trinity which is all one being. No doubt someone else has mentioned it.
But as far as Christianity goes it's proclamation of there being one god is false anyway. The blessed trinity in itself contradicts the idea in a way. And the presence of all the angels etc contradicts it too. Just like the pagan religions which came beforehand, there are many different gods (eg: God of war, god of sea etc) These are the angels. Catholics in particular would pray to different angels and saints concerning different parts of their lives. Then god the Father is at the centre of it all. He equates to Zeus (if we are to take the greek gods as an example).
Religion has stayed fundamentally the same throughout history. The Christians just worded it differently in their preaching.
there are many books out there that discuss the reliability of the Bible and of God. go to barnes and noble...amazon.com you can find many. I posted something about the answer to the quesiton of pain and offered a suggestion that attempts to answer that question, yet you didn't repsond at all. So if you're interested in learning about something other than your view I suggest you check out Josh McDowell, CS Lewis, Charles Ryrie (Basic Theology- very dry but informative).