If homosexuality isn't a primary sex drive obtained at birth. Then it suggests that it a sexual drive all people have, and only those coerced by the devil give into this forbidden longing. This suggests that everyone has homosexual desires. I do not, am I abnormal?
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
Because I don't have the same reaction to naked men as I do to women. A naked man causes a reaction of repulsion.
I think it would be the other way around.
Ok, so God created homosexuals, then said "What you are doing is wrong?" but still homosexuals are born.
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
Because I don't have the same reaction to naked men as I do to women. A naked man causes a reaction of repulsion.
How do you know you are not repressing those urges so strongly you feel repulsion? There are cases of already old (say 40) heterosexual men who suddenly discover they are in fact homosexuals, some are married men. They just ignored it for that long.
Ok, so God created homosexuals, then said "What you are doing is wrong?" but still homosexuals are born.
It's always the same debate, God gave us a penis but said "nope, can't use it when you want". There's a religious way of explaining this but it usually only suits religious people.
If homosexuality isn't a primary sex drive obtained at birth. Then it suggests that it a sexual drive all people have, and only those coerced by the devil give into this forbidden longing. This suggests that everyone has homosexual desires. I do not, am I abnormal?
According to this, you're a normal hetero male.
Pas de Deux of Sexuality Is Written in the Genes
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: April 10, 2007
The New York Times
When it comes to the matter of desire, evolution leaves little to chance. Human sexual behavior is not a free-form performance, biologists are finding, but is guided at every turn by genetic programs.
Desire between the sexes is not a matter of choice. Straight men, it seems, have neural circuits that prompt them to seek out women; gay men have those prompting them to seek other men. Women’s brains may be organized to select men who seem likely to provide for them and their children. The deal is sealed with other neural programs that induce a burst of romantic love, followed by long-term attachment.
So much fuss, so intricate a dance, all to achieve success on the simple scale that is all evolution cares about, that of raisingthe greatest number of children to adulthood. Desire may seem the core of human sexual behavior, but it is just the central act in a long drama whose script is written quite substantially in the genes.
In the womb, the body of a developing fetus is female by default and becomes male if the male-determining gene known as SRY is present. This dominant gene, the Y chromosome’s proudest and almost only possession, sidetracks the reproductive tissue from its ovarian fate and switches it into becoming testes. Hormones from the testes, chiefly testosterone, mold the body into male form.
In puberty, the reproductive systems are primed for action by the brain. Amazing electrical machine that it may be, the brain can also behave like a humble gland. In the hypothalamus, at the central base of the brain, lie a cluster of about 2,000 neurons that ignite puberty when they start to secrete pulses of gonadotropin-releasing hormone, which sets off a cascade of other hormones.
The trigger that stirs these neurons is still unknown, but probably the brain monitors internal signals as to whether the body is ready to reproduce and external cues as to whether circumstances are propitious for yielding to desire.
Several advances in the last decade have underlined the bizarre fact that the brain is a full-fledged sexual organ, in that the two sexes have profoundly different versions of it. This is the handiwork of testosterone, which masculinizes the brain as thoroughly as it does the rest of the body.
It is a misconception that the differences between men’s and women’s brains are small or erratic or found only in a few extreme cases, Dr. Larry Cahill of the University of California, Irvine, wrote last year in Nature Reviews Neuroscience. Widespread regions of the cortex, the brain’s outer layer that performs much of its higher-level processing, are thicker in women. The hippocampus, where initial memories are formed, occupies a larger fraction of the female brain.
Techniques for imaging the brain have begun to show that men and women use their brains in different ways even when doing the same thing. In the case of the amygdala, a pair of organs that helps prioritize memories according to their emotional strength, women use the left amygdala for this purpose but men tend to use the right.
It is no surprise that the male and female versions of the human brain operate in distinct patterns, despite the heavy influence of culture. The male brain is sexually oriented toward women as an object of desire. The most direct evidence comes from a handful of cases, some of them circumcision accidents, in which boy babies have lost their penises and been reared as female. Despite every social inducement to the opposite, they grow up desiring women as partners, not men.
“If you can’t make a male attracted to other males by cutting off his penis, how strong could any psychosocial effect be?” said J. Michael Bailey, an expert on sexual orientation at Northwestern University.
Presumably the masculinization of the brain shapes some neural circuit that makes women desirable. If so, this circuitry is wired differently in gay men. In experiments in which subjects are shown photographs of desirable men or women, straight men are aroused by women, gay men by men.
Such experiments do not show the same clear divide with women. Whether women describe themselves as straight or lesbian, “Their sexual arousal seems to be relatively indiscriminate — they get aroused by both male and female images,” Dr. Bailey said. “I’m not even sure females have a sexual orientation. But they have sexual preferences. Women are very picky, and most choose to have sex with men.”
Dr. Bailey believes that the systems for sexual orientation and arousal make men go out and find people to have sex with, whereas women are more focused on accepting or rejecting those who seek sex with them.
Similar differences between the sexes are seen by Marc Breedlove, a neuroscientist at Michigan State University. “Most males are quite stubborn in their ideas about which sex they want to pursue, while women seem more flexible,” he said.
Sexual orientation, at least for men, seems to be settled before birth. “I think most of the scientists working on these questions are convinced that the antecedents of sexual orientation in males are happening early in life, probably before birth,” Dr. Breedlove said, “whereas for females, some are probably born to become gay, but clearly some get there quite late in life.”
Sexual behavior includes a lot more than sex. Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers University, argues that three primary brain systems have evolved to direct reproductive behavior. One is the sex drive that motivates people to seek partners. A second is a program for romantic attraction that makes people fixate on specific partners. Third is a mechanism for long-term attachment that induces people to stay together long enough to complete their parental duties.
Romantic love, which in its intense early stage “can last 12-18 months,” is a universal human phenomenon, Dr. Fisher wrote last year in The Proceedings of the Royal Society, and is likely to be a built-in feature of the brain. Brain imaging studies show that a particular area of the brain, one associated with the reward system, is activated when subjects contemplate a photo of their lover.
The best evidence for a long-term attachment process in mammals comes from studies of voles, a small mouselike rodent. A hormone called vasopressin, which is active in the brain, leads some voles to stay pair-bonded for life. People possess the same hormone, suggesting a similar mechanism could be at work in humans, though this has yet to be proved.
Researchers have devoted considerable effort to understanding homosexuality in men and women, both for its intrinsic interest and for the light it could shed on the more usual channels of desire. Studies of twins show that homosexuality, especially among men, is quite heritable, meaning there is a genetic component to it. But since gay men have about one-fifth as many children as straight men, any gene favoring homosexuality should quickly disappear from the population.
Such genes could be retained if gay men were unusually effective protectors of their nephews and nieces, helping genes just like theirs get into future generations. But gay men make no better uncles than straight men, according to a study by Dr. Bailey. So that leaves the possibility that being gay is a byproduct of a gene that persists because it enhances fertility in other family members. Some studies have found that gay men have more relatives than straight men, particularly on their mother’s side.
But Dr. Bailey believes the effect, if real, would be more clear-cut. “Male homosexuality is evolutionarily maladaptive,” he said, noting that the phrase means only that genes favoring homosexuality cannot be favored by evolution if fewer such genes reach the next generation.
A somewhat more straightforward clue to the origin of homosexuality is the fraternal birth order effect. Two Canadian researchers, Ray Blanchard and Anthony F. Bogaert, have shown that having older brothers substantially increases the chances that a man will be gay. Older sisters don’t count, nor does it matter whether the brothers are in the house when the boy is reared.
The finding suggests that male homosexuality in these cases is caused by some event in the womb, such as “a maternal immune response to succeeding male pregnancies,” Dr. Bogaert wrote last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Antimale antibodies could perhaps interfere with the usual masculinization of the brain that occurs before birth, though no such antibodies have yet been detected.
The fraternal birth order effect is quite substantial. Some 15 percent of gay men can attribute their homosexuality to it, based on the assumption that 1 percent to 4 percent of men are gay, and each additional older brother increases the odds of same-sex attraction by 33 percent.
The effect supports the idea that the levels of circulating testosterone before birth are critical in determining sexual orientation. But testosterone in the fetus cannot be measured, and as adults, gay and straight men have the same levels of the hormone, giving no clue to prenatal exposure. So the hypothesis, though plausible, has not been proved.
A significant recent advance in understanding the basis of sexuality and desire has been the discovery that genes may have a direct effect on the sexual differentiation of the brain. Researchers had long assumed that steroid hormones like testosterone and estrogen did all the heavy lifting of shaping the male and female brains. But Arthur Arnold of the University of California, Los Angeles, has found that male and female neurons behave somewhat differently when kept in laboratory glassware. And last year Eric Vilain, also of U.C.L.A., made the surprising finding that the SRY gene is active in certain cells of the brain, at least in mice. Its brain role is quite different from its testosterone-related activities, and women’s neurons presumably perform that role by other means.
It so happens that an unusually large number of brain-related genes are situated on the X chromosome. The sudden emergence of the X and Y chromosomes in brain function has caught the attention of evolutionary biologists. Since men have only one X chromosome, natural selection can speedily promote any advantageous mutation that arises in one of the X’s genes. So if those picky women should be looking for smartness in prospective male partners, that might explain why so many brain-related genes ended up on the X.
“It’s popular among male academics to say that females preferred smarter guys,” Dr. Arnold said. “Such genes will be quickly selected in males because new beneficial mutations will be quickly apparent.”
Several profound consequences follow from the fact that men have only one copy of the many X-related brain genes and women two. One is that many neurological diseases are more common in men because women are unlikely to suffer mutations in both copies of a gene.
Another is that men, as a group, “will have more variable brain phenotypes,” Dr. Arnold writes, because women’s second copy of every gene dampens the effects of mutations that arise in the other.
Greater male variance means that although average IQ is identical in men and women, there are fewer average men and more at both extremes. Women’s care in selecting mates, combined with the fast selection made possible by men’s lack of backup copies of X-related genes, may have driven the divergence between male and female brains. The same factors could explain, some researchers believe, why the human brain has tripled in volume over just the last 2.5 million years.
Who can doubt it? It is indeed desire that makes the world go round.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Isn't the question wrongly asked?
Shouldn't it be "Why is it wrong to mock homosexuality but not active faith" as both are lifestyles. And yes faith may be a choice but true faith sure looks like a powerful drive.
And no there is no proof of homosexuality being gene related. There are theories and supposition, but please stop claiming theses as facts.
And Ahnimus, I have no idea where you learned science but you've got a little more thinking to do. As science isn't just a compilation of facts, it's also a philosophy.
You win for "best answer".
When life gives you lemons, throw them at somebody.
Pas de Deux of Sexuality Is Written in the Genes
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: April 10, 2007
The New York Times
When it comes to the matter of desire, evolution leaves little to chance. Human sexual behavior is not a free-form performance, biologists are finding, but is guided at every turn by genetic programs.
Desire between the sexes is not a matter of choice. Straight men, it seems, have neural circuits that prompt them to seek out women; gay men have those prompting them to seek other men. Women’s brains may be organized to select men who seem likely to provide for them and their children. The deal is sealed with other neural programs that induce a burst of romantic love, followed by long-term attachment.
So much fuss, so intricate a dance, all to achieve success on the simple scale that is all evolution cares about, that of raisingthe greatest number of children to adulthood. Desire may seem the core of human sexual behavior, but it is just the central act in a long drama whose script is written quite substantially in the genes.
In the womb, the body of a developing fetus is female by default and becomes male if the male-determining gene known as SRY is present. This dominant gene, the Y chromosome’s proudest and almost only possession, sidetracks the reproductive tissue from its ovarian fate and switches it into becoming testes. Hormones from the testes, chiefly testosterone, mold the body into male form.
In puberty, the reproductive systems are primed for action by the brain. Amazing electrical machine that it may be, the brain can also behave like a humble gland. In the hypothalamus, at the central base of the brain, lie a cluster of about 2,000 neurons that ignite puberty when they start to secrete pulses of gonadotropin-releasing hormone, which sets off a cascade of other hormones.
The trigger that stirs these neurons is still unknown, but probably the brain monitors internal signals as to whether the body is ready to reproduce and external cues as to whether circumstances are propitious for yielding to desire.
Several advances in the last decade have underlined the bizarre fact that the brain is a full-fledged sexual organ, in that the two sexes have profoundly different versions of it. This is the handiwork of testosterone, which masculinizes the brain as thoroughly as it does the rest of the body.
It is a misconception that the differences between men’s and women’s brains are small or erratic or found only in a few extreme cases, Dr. Larry Cahill of the University of California, Irvine, wrote last year in Nature Reviews Neuroscience. Widespread regions of the cortex, the brain’s outer layer that performs much of its higher-level processing, are thicker in women. The hippocampus, where initial memories are formed, occupies a larger fraction of the female brain.
Techniques for imaging the brain have begun to show that men and women use their brains in different ways even when doing the same thing. In the case of the amygdala, a pair of organs that helps prioritize memories according to their emotional strength, women use the left amygdala for this purpose but men tend to use the right.
It is no surprise that the male and female versions of the human brain operate in distinct patterns, despite the heavy influence of culture. The male brain is sexually oriented toward women as an object of desire. The most direct evidence comes from a handful of cases, some of them circumcision accidents, in which boy babies have lost their penises and been reared as female. Despite every social inducement to the opposite, they grow up desiring women as partners, not men.
“If you can’t make a male attracted to other males by cutting off his penis, how strong could any psychosocial effect be?” said J. Michael Bailey, an expert on sexual orientation at Northwestern University.
Presumably the masculinization of the brain shapes some neural circuit that makes women desirable. If so, this circuitry is wired differently in gay men. In experiments in which subjects are shown photographs of desirable men or women, straight men are aroused by women, gay men by men.
Such experiments do not show the same clear divide with women. Whether women describe themselves as straight or lesbian, “Their sexual arousal seems to be relatively indiscriminate — they get aroused by both male and female images,” Dr. Bailey said. “I’m not even sure females have a sexual orientation. But they have sexual preferences. Women are very picky, and most choose to have sex with men.”
Dr. Bailey believes that the systems for sexual orientation and arousal make men go out and find people to have sex with, whereas women are more focused on accepting or rejecting those who seek sex with them.
Similar differences between the sexes are seen by Marc Breedlove, a neuroscientist at Michigan State University. “Most males are quite stubborn in their ideas about which sex they want to pursue, while women seem more flexible,” he said.
Sexual orientation, at least for men, seems to be settled before birth. “I think most of the scientists working on these questions are convinced that the antecedents of sexual orientation in males are happening early in life, probably before birth,” Dr. Breedlove said, “whereas for females, some are probably born to become gay, but clearly some get there quite late in life.”
Sexual behavior includes a lot more than sex. Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers University, argues that three primary brain systems have evolved to direct reproductive behavior. One is the sex drive that motivates people to seek partners. A second is a program for romantic attraction that makes people fixate on specific partners. Third is a mechanism for long-term attachment that induces people to stay together long enough to complete their parental duties.
Romantic love, which in its intense early stage “can last 12-18 months,” is a universal human phenomenon, Dr. Fisher wrote last year in The Proceedings of the Royal Society, and is likely to be a built-in feature of the brain. Brain imaging studies show that a particular area of the brain, one associated with the reward system, is activated when subjects contemplate a photo of their lover.
The best evidence for a long-term attachment process in mammals comes from studies of voles, a small mouselike rodent. A hormone called vasopressin, which is active in the brain, leads some voles to stay pair-bonded for life. People possess the same hormone, suggesting a similar mechanism could be at work in humans, though this has yet to be proved.
Researchers have devoted considerable effort to understanding homosexuality in men and women, both for its intrinsic interest and for the light it could shed on the more usual channels of desire. Studies of twins show that homosexuality, especially among men, is quite heritable, meaning there is a genetic component to it. But since gay men have about one-fifth as many children as straight men, any gene favoring homosexuality should quickly disappear from the population.
Such genes could be retained if gay men were unusually effective protectors of their nephews and nieces, helping genes just like theirs get into future generations. But gay men make no better uncles than straight men, according to a study by Dr. Bailey. So that leaves the possibility that being gay is a byproduct of a gene that persists because it enhances fertility in other family members. Some studies have found that gay men have more relatives than straight men, particularly on their mother’s side.
But Dr. Bailey believes the effect, if real, would be more clear-cut. “Male homosexuality is evolutionarily maladaptive,” he said, noting that the phrase means only that genes favoring homosexuality cannot be favored by evolution if fewer such genes reach the next generation.
A somewhat more straightforward clue to the origin of homosexuality is the fraternal birth order effect. Two Canadian researchers, Ray Blanchard and Anthony F. Bogaert, have shown that having older brothers substantially increases the chances that a man will be gay. Older sisters don’t count, nor does it matter whether the brothers are in the house when the boy is reared.
The finding suggests that male homosexuality in these cases is caused by some event in the womb, such as “a maternal immune response to succeeding male pregnancies,” Dr. Bogaert wrote last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Antimale antibodies could perhaps interfere with the usual masculinization of the brain that occurs before birth, though no such antibodies have yet been detected.
The fraternal birth order effect is quite substantial. Some 15 percent of gay men can attribute their homosexuality to it, based on the assumption that 1 percent to 4 percent of men are gay, and each additional older brother increases the odds of same-sex attraction by 33 percent.
The effect supports the idea that the levels of circulating testosterone before birth are critical in determining sexual orientation. But testosterone in the fetus cannot be measured, and as adults, gay and straight men have the same levels of the hormone, giving no clue to prenatal exposure. So the hypothesis, though plausible, has not been proved.
A significant recent advance in understanding the basis of sexuality and desire has been the discovery that genes may have a direct effect on the sexual differentiation of the brain. Researchers had long assumed that steroid hormones like testosterone and estrogen did all the heavy lifting of shaping the male and female brains. But Arthur Arnold of the University of California, Los Angeles, has found that male and female neurons behave somewhat differently when kept in laboratory glassware. And last year Eric Vilain, also of U.C.L.A., made the surprising finding that the SRY gene is active in certain cells of the brain, at least in mice. Its brain role is quite different from its testosterone-related activities, and women’s neurons presumably perform that role by other means.
It so happens that an unusually large number of brain-related genes are situated on the X chromosome. The sudden emergence of the X and Y chromosomes in brain function has caught the attention of evolutionary biologists. Since men have only one X chromosome, natural selection can speedily promote any advantageous mutation that arises in one of the X’s genes. So if those picky women should be looking for smartness in prospective male partners, that might explain why so many brain-related genes ended up on the X.
“It’s popular among male academics to say that females preferred smarter guys,” Dr. Arnold said. “Such genes will be quickly selected in males because new beneficial mutations will be quickly apparent.”
Several profound consequences follow from the fact that men have only one copy of the many X-related brain genes and women two. One is that many neurological diseases are more common in men because women are unlikely to suffer mutations in both copies of a gene.
Another is that men, as a group, “will have more variable brain phenotypes,” Dr. Arnold writes, because women’s second copy of every gene dampens the effects of mutations that arise in the other.
Greater male variance means that although average IQ is identical in men and women, there are fewer average men and more at both extremes. Women’s care in selecting mates, combined with the fast selection made possible by men’s lack of backup copies of X-related genes, may have driven the divergence between male and female brains. The same factors could explain, some researchers believe, why the human brain has tripled in volume over just the last 2.5 million years.
Who can doubt it? It is indeed desire that makes the world go round.
Sorry, I couldn't read all of that just now, but I'm well aware of the findings of J. Michael Bailey, I've even had e-mail dialogue with him and David R. Schaffer over Bailey & Richard Pillard's findings. The results showed a 50% concordance, which suggests some genetic feature. I think the contribution of genetics to sexuality is still largely an open debate though. I personally believe their is a strong contribution of genetics to primary sex drive.
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
Why is it okay for people to mock God and religion, but it's not okay to mock homosexuals?
I just wondered because I see religion mocked constantly, yet somebody says something about a gay person, and people flip out.
...
I'm not sure if you can equate the two... religion and homosexuality. I think a closer comparison would be to say... "Why is it okay to mock black (or Asian or Mexican or Irish or German or French or Slavic or Canadian) people, but it's not okay to mock homosexuals?"
...
Religion is usually (I'm not sure "mocked" is a correct term)... cast a jaundiced eye upon... because of it's past track record. And because of it's modern day hypocracies. And religion... means ALL religion. Are Christians upset when Islam or Judaism is 'mocked' (and vice-versa)? No. They get upset only when their own religion is at the center. Perfect example... CHEF. Yeah, it's all fun and games to make funs of Christians, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses and Amish... but, Scientology? Well, that's off limits.
So... if you are going to stand up for "religions"... stand up for ALL religions. Otherwise... just pick your own religion and defend it.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
and the day you were born, do you actually remember the day or are you going by what people claim?
the Bible is God's Word, so yes, i've heard Jesus say it.
but i can prove i exist
i'm not trying to attack you or your faith, i'm really not. i just don't understand how you know for certain yours is the true god/gospel? i don't think god would be that vain to think 'what, he called me buddha and not God!!?!? to hell w/ him!!!'
out of curiousity...why are there different versions? like the king james version? why do ppl just put so much blind faith in god spoke to king james and told him the first edition had some typos or he changed his mind?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
but you said being gay is the work of the devil and you will go to hell....kinda sounds like you're making a judgement to me....now it has been a good while since i looked at this verse, but i remembered it as 'judge not...' not 'mock not...'
i'll say it again in case you didn't understand. homosexuality is against God's word. anything that is against God's word is of the devil. take it as you may.
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.
i'm not trying to attack you or your faith, i'm really not. i just don't understand how you know for certain yours is the true god/gospel? i don't think god would be that vain to think 'what, he called me buddha and not God!!?!? to hell w/ him!!!'
out of curiousity...why are there different versions? like the king james version? why do ppl just put so much blind faith in god spoke to king james and told him the first edition had some typos or he changed his mind?
it doesn't matter if you attack my faith. it doesn't affect me. i know for certain that mine is the true God because Jesus Christ talked the talk and walked the walk. he came to bear the burden of everyone's sins. out of jealousy, he was treated like a criminal when all he wanted to do was heal people, spread love, and bring human beings back to God.
there are original texts of the bible. the king james, catholic bible, etc., are different translations of the original texts. obviously the original texts weren't in english.
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.
i'll say it again in case you didn't understand. homosexuality is against God's word. anything that is against God's word is of the devil. take it as you may.
i hope you don't eat pork or shellfish or shrimp....those were against his word, too, weren't they?
oh, that's right...you'll say that was old testament and jesus replaced that...so where's the part of the new testament where jesus spoke about homosexuals?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
there are original texts of the bible. the king james, catholic bible, etc., are different translations of the original texts. obviously the original texts weren't in english.
yes, but the king james version didn't just translate the original texts, changed actual words...
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
it doesn't matter if you attack my faith. it doesn't affect me. i know for certain that mine is the true God because Jesus Christ talked the talk and walked the walk. he came to bear the burden of everyone's sins. out of jealousy, he was treated like a criminal when all he wanted to do was heal people, spread love, and bring human beings back to God.
there are original texts of the bible. the king james, catholic bible, etc., are different translations of the original texts. obviously the original texts weren't in english.
How do you know anything in the original texts is true?
Also, how do you know that your english version is a true transcription of the original hebrew texts?
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 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'de better stay out of the Bible convo, because I'm just going to get really ticked off.
I say, if it's man's (scientists, people have gone to college to learn about God) knowledge, it's crap.
When life gives you lemons, throw them at somebody.
I'de better stay out of the Bible convo, because I'm just going to get really ticked off.
I say, if it's man's (scientists, people have gone to college to learn about God) knowledge, it's crap.
that sentence doesn't even make sense. so people that go to college to learn about the bible learn factual information to be relied upon, but people that go to college to learn physics learn... fake myths?
I'de better stay out of the Bible convo, because I'm just going to get really ticked off.
I say, if it's man's (scientists, people have gone to college to learn about God) knowledge, it's crap.
According to Daniel Denette, truth is counter-intuitive.
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
so where's the part of the new testament where jesus spoke about homosexuals?
if you know anything about God, Jesus is also included in the Old Testament since He existed before Abraham. you asked the question and here are the books, chapters, and verses. i doubt you'll check them out but i listed them anyway.
Old Testament:
Gen. 19:1-25
Jdg. 19:13-20:48
Lev. 18:22
Lev. 20:13
New Testament:
Romans 1:24-32
1 Timothy 1:9,10
1 Corinthians 6:9
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.
the king james version translated the texts into the english language. just like someone translating something from spanish to english. so what.
go to a site like biblegateway.com and do a multi version search for different parts...words like witch to unclean, rape to lay with....
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
How do you know anything in the original texts is true?
how do you know the owners manual for your car is true? the Bible is the owners manual for our lives. you trust someone who builds your car, but you don't trust the one who created you.
Also, how do you know that your english version is a true transcription of the original hebrew texts?
by having access to the original hebrew texts, and through scholars who devoted their lives to it. it's just like any other field where knowledge is passed down. people are more inclined to believe in their teachers in other earthly subjects, but they shun their true teacher in God and His kingdom.
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.
go to a site like biblegateway.com and do a multi version search for different parts...words like witch to unclean, rape to lay with....
you're only trying to find ways to disprove the Bible. if you don't believe, you don't believe. the king james version was translated with a fine tooth comb. like i said, people are more likely to believe in their school books than the Bible. you'll never find truth if you always try to prove God wrong. why would He want to help someone who thinks that he knows more than Him. that's human pride. God's perfect. He made the mind. you'll NEVER know more than Him so don't be wise in your own eyes. just like it's said about people..."professing to be wise, they became fools." live your life the way you want. it's your soul at stake, not mine.
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.
if you know anything about God, Jesus is also included in the Old Testament since He existed before Abraham. you asked the question and here are the books, chapters, and verses. i doubt you'll check them out but i listed them anyway.
Old Testament:
Gen. 19:1-25
Jdg. 19:13-20:48
Lev. 18:22
Lev. 20:13
New Testament:
Romans 1:24-32
1 Timothy 1:9,10
1 Corinthians 6:9
Did you get these from GodHatesFags.com?
I agree God does hate fags, and partly that's why I hate God. Although hate is a strong word, I think it's fitting. I like the positive aspects of religion and the moral accountability a belief in God causes in humans. However, I feel these goals are attainable through empirics and would not have the same negatives.
The underlying issue is that some people's wiring is a little messy and regardless of what they believe, their beliefs will always compliment their general nature or intuition. A person who is causally homicidal will still kill in the name of God even though the commandments say "Thou shalt not kill". A person who is causally homosexual could do the same, but chances are they will just choose a different belief system. I don't think the issue is what they believe, so much as what they are.
I find it fascinating that people express themselves through fashion and state "This is who I am". Ask a goth, emo, punk, etc.. why they dress as they do and they will likely say "This is who I am". That style is representative somehow of their selves. We accept that, in terms of fashion, their is great diversity, subjectively people find pleasure in different colours. However, sexual preference is not unanimously granted the same diversity and the argument is "Where is the genetic basis?" so I ask "Where is the genetic basis for variation in fashion?" and if you ask a homosexual "Why do you date that way?" they will invariably say "This is who I am".
Biblically speaking in terms of choice. There are two contradictory views, free-will and determinism. God's plan and your ability to choose God's path, retrospectively. Where is the line between what God planned and what was your own volition? It's a grey area. If a terrible disaster occurs, it's God's plan, if it's an extremely positive event, it's miraculous, again God's plan. Is it possible to choose our desires? If we can simply choose not to desire sex, why do priests occasionally do it? We can not turn off our desires. We can wean ourselves off chemical addictions such as alcohol or nicotine, and even biochemical addictions like love and hate, but we can't change our fundamental desires. I sat down and determined that pink is the most visually pleasing colour to me, it doesn't represent me in any way, I'm more of black/red or even blue guy, but I can't deny the fact that pink is the most pleasing colour to me. How do I change that? How do I tell myself that pink sucks, I fucking hate it, it makes me want to puke, and make it a reality?
Here is a challenge. Make yourself gay, then change back, unless you find you want to remain gay. The claim is that gay people can change to straight, but they don't actually want to do that, those who have tried, failed. So perhaps a straight person who believes a person can change their sexual drive will change to being gay to prove it's possible. My suspicion is that they cannot even try. I doubt that anyone who makes these claims could even attempt to become gay. The thought would never cross the mind, and if it had, it would be dismissed promptly. I can't become disgusted with women. If I turned on a porn video, it would take some mental control to stop from getting an erection. Gay porn, I couldn't even watch it, it would probably cause a gag reflex. Anyway, just ranting on because I want to really make the point that sexual preference is not a preference, it's a drive.
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
why would He want to help someone who thinks that he knows more than Him. He's perfect. He made the mind. you'll NEVER know more than Him so don't be wise in your own eyes.
you are hardcore.
but i can hit a curve ball...
The Sentence Below Is True
The Sentence Above Is False
you're only trying to find ways to disprove the Bible. if you don't believe, you don't believe. the king james version was translated with a fine tooth comb. like i said, people are more likely to believe in their school books than the Bible. you'll never find truth if you always try to prove God wrong. why would He want to help someone who thinks that he knows more than Him. that's human pride. God's perfect. He made the mind. you'll NEVER know more than Him so don't be wise in your own eyes. just like it's said about people..."professing to be wise, they became fools." live your life the way you want. it's your soul at stake, not mine.
Deuteronomy 22:28
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
28 “Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered,
28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out,
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
how do you know the owners manual for your car is true? the Bible is the owners manual for our lives. you trust someone who builds your car, but you don't trust the one who created you.
There is no evidence that the biblical God built the universe. No more than the Mesapotamian God Gilgamish or the Sumerian Gods the Annunaki, Greek Gods, Roman Gods, Native American Spirits, etc.. etc..
I can look on the back of my car where it says the brand name of the vehicle, look at the owner's manual with the brand and model on it. There are points of reference that tell me, this manual is for this car and it was built by this company. No example, cause I don't own a car. But the universe does not have a big logo on it saying "Built by Yahweh the God of Abraham". If it were so simple, there never would have been a Gilgamesh or Annunaki. Call the Bible history, but then on that same token, we have to accept all ancient texts as facts and they contradict each other. There is absolutely no basis for the belief but the belief it's self.
by having access to the original hebrew texts, and through scholars who devoted their lives to it. it's just like any other field where knowledge is passed down. people are more inclined to believe in their teachers in other earthly subjects, but they shun their true teacher in God and His kingdom.
There are known transcription errors in the King James Bible. Such as Yam Suph. The entire NAV is a transcription error.
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
Comments
If homosexuality isn't a primary sex drive obtained at birth. Then it suggests that it a sexual drive all people have, and only those coerced by the devil give into this forbidden longing. This suggests that everyone has homosexual desires. I do not, am I abnormal?
How can you be so sure?
I think it would be the other way around.
Because I don't have the same reaction to naked men as I do to women. A naked man causes a reaction of repulsion.
Ok, so God created homosexuals, then said "What you are doing is wrong?" but still homosexuals are born.
It's always the same debate, God gave us a penis but said "nope, can't use it when you want". There's a religious way of explaining this but it usually only suits religious people.
Pas de Deux of Sexuality Is Written in the Genes
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: April 10, 2007
The New York Times
When it comes to the matter of desire, evolution leaves little to chance. Human sexual behavior is not a free-form performance, biologists are finding, but is guided at every turn by genetic programs.
Desire between the sexes is not a matter of choice. Straight men, it seems, have neural circuits that prompt them to seek out women; gay men have those prompting them to seek other men. Women’s brains may be organized to select men who seem likely to provide for them and their children. The deal is sealed with other neural programs that induce a burst of romantic love, followed by long-term attachment.
So much fuss, so intricate a dance, all to achieve success on the simple scale that is all evolution cares about, that of raisingthe greatest number of children to adulthood. Desire may seem the core of human sexual behavior, but it is just the central act in a long drama whose script is written quite substantially in the genes.
In the womb, the body of a developing fetus is female by default and becomes male if the male-determining gene known as SRY is present. This dominant gene, the Y chromosome’s proudest and almost only possession, sidetracks the reproductive tissue from its ovarian fate and switches it into becoming testes. Hormones from the testes, chiefly testosterone, mold the body into male form.
In puberty, the reproductive systems are primed for action by the brain. Amazing electrical machine that it may be, the brain can also behave like a humble gland. In the hypothalamus, at the central base of the brain, lie a cluster of about 2,000 neurons that ignite puberty when they start to secrete pulses of gonadotropin-releasing hormone, which sets off a cascade of other hormones.
The trigger that stirs these neurons is still unknown, but probably the brain monitors internal signals as to whether the body is ready to reproduce and external cues as to whether circumstances are propitious for yielding to desire.
Several advances in the last decade have underlined the bizarre fact that the brain is a full-fledged sexual organ, in that the two sexes have profoundly different versions of it. This is the handiwork of testosterone, which masculinizes the brain as thoroughly as it does the rest of the body.
It is a misconception that the differences between men’s and women’s brains are small or erratic or found only in a few extreme cases, Dr. Larry Cahill of the University of California, Irvine, wrote last year in Nature Reviews Neuroscience. Widespread regions of the cortex, the brain’s outer layer that performs much of its higher-level processing, are thicker in women. The hippocampus, where initial memories are formed, occupies a larger fraction of the female brain.
Techniques for imaging the brain have begun to show that men and women use their brains in different ways even when doing the same thing. In the case of the amygdala, a pair of organs that helps prioritize memories according to their emotional strength, women use the left amygdala for this purpose but men tend to use the right.
It is no surprise that the male and female versions of the human brain operate in distinct patterns, despite the heavy influence of culture. The male brain is sexually oriented toward women as an object of desire. The most direct evidence comes from a handful of cases, some of them circumcision accidents, in which boy babies have lost their penises and been reared as female. Despite every social inducement to the opposite, they grow up desiring women as partners, not men.
“If you can’t make a male attracted to other males by cutting off his penis, how strong could any psychosocial effect be?” said J. Michael Bailey, an expert on sexual orientation at Northwestern University.
Presumably the masculinization of the brain shapes some neural circuit that makes women desirable. If so, this circuitry is wired differently in gay men. In experiments in which subjects are shown photographs of desirable men or women, straight men are aroused by women, gay men by men.
Such experiments do not show the same clear divide with women. Whether women describe themselves as straight or lesbian, “Their sexual arousal seems to be relatively indiscriminate — they get aroused by both male and female images,” Dr. Bailey said. “I’m not even sure females have a sexual orientation. But they have sexual preferences. Women are very picky, and most choose to have sex with men.”
Dr. Bailey believes that the systems for sexual orientation and arousal make men go out and find people to have sex with, whereas women are more focused on accepting or rejecting those who seek sex with them.
Similar differences between the sexes are seen by Marc Breedlove, a neuroscientist at Michigan State University. “Most males are quite stubborn in their ideas about which sex they want to pursue, while women seem more flexible,” he said.
Sexual orientation, at least for men, seems to be settled before birth. “I think most of the scientists working on these questions are convinced that the antecedents of sexual orientation in males are happening early in life, probably before birth,” Dr. Breedlove said, “whereas for females, some are probably born to become gay, but clearly some get there quite late in life.”
Sexual behavior includes a lot more than sex. Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers University, argues that three primary brain systems have evolved to direct reproductive behavior. One is the sex drive that motivates people to seek partners. A second is a program for romantic attraction that makes people fixate on specific partners. Third is a mechanism for long-term attachment that induces people to stay together long enough to complete their parental duties.
Romantic love, which in its intense early stage “can last 12-18 months,” is a universal human phenomenon, Dr. Fisher wrote last year in The Proceedings of the Royal Society, and is likely to be a built-in feature of the brain. Brain imaging studies show that a particular area of the brain, one associated with the reward system, is activated when subjects contemplate a photo of their lover.
The best evidence for a long-term attachment process in mammals comes from studies of voles, a small mouselike rodent. A hormone called vasopressin, which is active in the brain, leads some voles to stay pair-bonded for life. People possess the same hormone, suggesting a similar mechanism could be at work in humans, though this has yet to be proved.
Researchers have devoted considerable effort to understanding homosexuality in men and women, both for its intrinsic interest and for the light it could shed on the more usual channels of desire. Studies of twins show that homosexuality, especially among men, is quite heritable, meaning there is a genetic component to it. But since gay men have about one-fifth as many children as straight men, any gene favoring homosexuality should quickly disappear from the population.
Such genes could be retained if gay men were unusually effective protectors of their nephews and nieces, helping genes just like theirs get into future generations. But gay men make no better uncles than straight men, according to a study by Dr. Bailey. So that leaves the possibility that being gay is a byproduct of a gene that persists because it enhances fertility in other family members. Some studies have found that gay men have more relatives than straight men, particularly on their mother’s side.
But Dr. Bailey believes the effect, if real, would be more clear-cut. “Male homosexuality is evolutionarily maladaptive,” he said, noting that the phrase means only that genes favoring homosexuality cannot be favored by evolution if fewer such genes reach the next generation.
A somewhat more straightforward clue to the origin of homosexuality is the fraternal birth order effect. Two Canadian researchers, Ray Blanchard and Anthony F. Bogaert, have shown that having older brothers substantially increases the chances that a man will be gay. Older sisters don’t count, nor does it matter whether the brothers are in the house when the boy is reared.
The finding suggests that male homosexuality in these cases is caused by some event in the womb, such as “a maternal immune response to succeeding male pregnancies,” Dr. Bogaert wrote last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Antimale antibodies could perhaps interfere with the usual masculinization of the brain that occurs before birth, though no such antibodies have yet been detected.
The fraternal birth order effect is quite substantial. Some 15 percent of gay men can attribute their homosexuality to it, based on the assumption that 1 percent to 4 percent of men are gay, and each additional older brother increases the odds of same-sex attraction by 33 percent.
The effect supports the idea that the levels of circulating testosterone before birth are critical in determining sexual orientation. But testosterone in the fetus cannot be measured, and as adults, gay and straight men have the same levels of the hormone, giving no clue to prenatal exposure. So the hypothesis, though plausible, has not been proved.
A significant recent advance in understanding the basis of sexuality and desire has been the discovery that genes may have a direct effect on the sexual differentiation of the brain. Researchers had long assumed that steroid hormones like testosterone and estrogen did all the heavy lifting of shaping the male and female brains. But Arthur Arnold of the University of California, Los Angeles, has found that male and female neurons behave somewhat differently when kept in laboratory glassware. And last year Eric Vilain, also of U.C.L.A., made the surprising finding that the SRY gene is active in certain cells of the brain, at least in mice. Its brain role is quite different from its testosterone-related activities, and women’s neurons presumably perform that role by other means.
It so happens that an unusually large number of brain-related genes are situated on the X chromosome. The sudden emergence of the X and Y chromosomes in brain function has caught the attention of evolutionary biologists. Since men have only one X chromosome, natural selection can speedily promote any advantageous mutation that arises in one of the X’s genes. So if those picky women should be looking for smartness in prospective male partners, that might explain why so many brain-related genes ended up on the X.
“It’s popular among male academics to say that females preferred smarter guys,” Dr. Arnold said. “Such genes will be quickly selected in males because new beneficial mutations will be quickly apparent.”
Several profound consequences follow from the fact that men have only one copy of the many X-related brain genes and women two. One is that many neurological diseases are more common in men because women are unlikely to suffer mutations in both copies of a gene.
Another is that men, as a group, “will have more variable brain phenotypes,” Dr. Arnold writes, because women’s second copy of every gene dampens the effects of mutations that arise in the other.
Greater male variance means that although average IQ is identical in men and women, there are fewer average men and more at both extremes. Women’s care in selecting mates, combined with the fast selection made possible by men’s lack of backup copies of X-related genes, may have driven the divergence between male and female brains. The same factors could explain, some researchers believe, why the human brain has tripled in volume over just the last 2.5 million years.
Who can doubt it? It is indeed desire that makes the world go round.
Sorry, I couldn't read all of that just now, but I'm well aware of the findings of J. Michael Bailey, I've even had e-mail dialogue with him and David R. Schaffer over Bailey & Richard Pillard's findings. The results showed a 50% concordance, which suggests some genetic feature. I think the contribution of genetics to sexuality is still largely an open debate though. I personally believe their is a strong contribution of genetics to primary sex drive.
I'm not sure if you can equate the two... religion and homosexuality. I think a closer comparison would be to say... "Why is it okay to mock black (or Asian or Mexican or Irish or German or French or Slavic or Canadian) people, but it's not okay to mock homosexuals?"
...
Religion is usually (I'm not sure "mocked" is a correct term)... cast a jaundiced eye upon... because of it's past track record. And because of it's modern day hypocracies. And religion... means ALL religion. Are Christians upset when Islam or Judaism is 'mocked' (and vice-versa)? No. They get upset only when their own religion is at the center. Perfect example... CHEF. Yeah, it's all fun and games to make funs of Christians, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses and Amish... but, Scientology? Well, that's off limits.
So... if you are going to stand up for "religions"... stand up for ALL religions. Otherwise... just pick your own religion and defend it.
Hail, Hail!!!
and the day you were born, do you actually remember the day or are you going by what people claim?
the Bible is God's Word, so yes, i've heard Jesus say it.
but i can prove i exist
i'm not trying to attack you or your faith, i'm really not. i just don't understand how you know for certain yours is the true god/gospel? i don't think god would be that vain to think 'what, he called me buddha and not God!!?!? to hell w/ him!!!'
out of curiousity...why are there different versions? like the king james version? why do ppl just put so much blind faith in god spoke to king james and told him the first edition had some typos or he changed his mind?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i'll say it again in case you didn't understand. homosexuality is against God's word. anything that is against God's word is of the devil. take it as you may.
it doesn't matter if you attack my faith. it doesn't affect me. i know for certain that mine is the true God because Jesus Christ talked the talk and walked the walk. he came to bear the burden of everyone's sins. out of jealousy, he was treated like a criminal when all he wanted to do was heal people, spread love, and bring human beings back to God.
there are original texts of the bible. the king james, catholic bible, etc., are different translations of the original texts. obviously the original texts weren't in english.
i hope you don't eat pork or shellfish or shrimp....those were against his word, too, weren't they?
oh, that's right...you'll say that was old testament and jesus replaced that...so where's the part of the new testament where jesus spoke about homosexuals?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
yes, but the king james version didn't just translate the original texts, changed actual words...
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
How do you know anything in the original texts is true?
Also, how do you know that your english version is a true transcription of the original hebrew texts?
Such as Yam Suph (ים סוף)
I say, if it's man's (scientists, people have gone to college to learn about God) knowledge, it's crap.
that sentence doesn't even make sense. so people that go to college to learn about the bible learn factual information to be relied upon, but people that go to college to learn physics learn... fake myths?
According to Daniel Denette, truth is counter-intuitive.
if you know anything about God, Jesus is also included in the Old Testament since He existed before Abraham. you asked the question and here are the books, chapters, and verses. i doubt you'll check them out but i listed them anyway.
Old Testament:
Gen. 19:1-25
Jdg. 19:13-20:48
Lev. 18:22
Lev. 20:13
New Testament:
Romans 1:24-32
1 Timothy 1:9,10
1 Corinthians 6:9
the king james version translated the texts into the english language. just like someone translating something from spanish to english. so what.
go to a site like biblegateway.com and do a multi version search for different parts...words like witch to unclean, rape to lay with....
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
how do you know the owners manual for your car is true? the Bible is the owners manual for our lives. you trust someone who builds your car, but you don't trust the one who created you.
by having access to the original hebrew texts, and through scholars who devoted their lives to it. it's just like any other field where knowledge is passed down. people are more inclined to believe in their teachers in other earthly subjects, but they shun their true teacher in God and His kingdom.
you're only trying to find ways to disprove the Bible. if you don't believe, you don't believe. the king james version was translated with a fine tooth comb. like i said, people are more likely to believe in their school books than the Bible. you'll never find truth if you always try to prove God wrong. why would He want to help someone who thinks that he knows more than Him. that's human pride. God's perfect. He made the mind. you'll NEVER know more than Him so don't be wise in your own eyes. just like it's said about people..."professing to be wise, they became fools." live your life the way you want. it's your soul at stake, not mine.
Did you get these from GodHatesFags.com?
I agree God does hate fags, and partly that's why I hate God. Although hate is a strong word, I think it's fitting. I like the positive aspects of religion and the moral accountability a belief in God causes in humans. However, I feel these goals are attainable through empirics and would not have the same negatives.
The underlying issue is that some people's wiring is a little messy and regardless of what they believe, their beliefs will always compliment their general nature or intuition. A person who is causally homicidal will still kill in the name of God even though the commandments say "Thou shalt not kill". A person who is causally homosexual could do the same, but chances are they will just choose a different belief system. I don't think the issue is what they believe, so much as what they are.
I find it fascinating that people express themselves through fashion and state "This is who I am". Ask a goth, emo, punk, etc.. why they dress as they do and they will likely say "This is who I am". That style is representative somehow of their selves. We accept that, in terms of fashion, their is great diversity, subjectively people find pleasure in different colours. However, sexual preference is not unanimously granted the same diversity and the argument is "Where is the genetic basis?" so I ask "Where is the genetic basis for variation in fashion?" and if you ask a homosexual "Why do you date that way?" they will invariably say "This is who I am".
Biblically speaking in terms of choice. There are two contradictory views, free-will and determinism. God's plan and your ability to choose God's path, retrospectively. Where is the line between what God planned and what was your own volition? It's a grey area. If a terrible disaster occurs, it's God's plan, if it's an extremely positive event, it's miraculous, again God's plan. Is it possible to choose our desires? If we can simply choose not to desire sex, why do priests occasionally do it? We can not turn off our desires. We can wean ourselves off chemical addictions such as alcohol or nicotine, and even biochemical addictions like love and hate, but we can't change our fundamental desires. I sat down and determined that pink is the most visually pleasing colour to me, it doesn't represent me in any way, I'm more of black/red or even blue guy, but I can't deny the fact that pink is the most pleasing colour to me. How do I change that? How do I tell myself that pink sucks, I fucking hate it, it makes me want to puke, and make it a reality?
Here is a challenge. Make yourself gay, then change back, unless you find you want to remain gay. The claim is that gay people can change to straight, but they don't actually want to do that, those who have tried, failed. So perhaps a straight person who believes a person can change their sexual drive will change to being gay to prove it's possible. My suspicion is that they cannot even try. I doubt that anyone who makes these claims could even attempt to become gay. The thought would never cross the mind, and if it had, it would be dismissed promptly. I can't become disgusted with women. If I turned on a porn video, it would take some mental control to stop from getting an erection. Gay porn, I couldn't even watch it, it would probably cause a gag reflex. Anyway, just ranting on because I want to really make the point that sexual preference is not a preference, it's a drive.
you are hardcore.
but i can hit a curve ball...
The Sentence Above Is False
no, take this limited search for 1 example
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:28%20;&version=31;51;50;48;15;
Deuteronomy 22:28
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
28 “Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered,
28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out,
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
There is no evidence that the biblical God built the universe. No more than the Mesapotamian God Gilgamish or the Sumerian Gods the Annunaki, Greek Gods, Roman Gods, Native American Spirits, etc.. etc..
I can look on the back of my car where it says the brand name of the vehicle, look at the owner's manual with the brand and model on it. There are points of reference that tell me, this manual is for this car and it was built by this company. No example, cause I don't own a car. But the universe does not have a big logo on it saying "Built by Yahweh the God of Abraham". If it were so simple, there never would have been a Gilgamesh or Annunaki. Call the Bible history, but then on that same token, we have to accept all ancient texts as facts and they contradict each other. There is absolutely no basis for the belief but the belief it's self.
There are known transcription errors in the King James Bible. Such as Yam Suph. The entire NAV is a transcription error.