There is more than one God

1234568

Comments

  • PJammin'
    PJammin' Posts: 1,913
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Right from the Bible check it out. There is more than one God and they do not want us to live forever.

    1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

    3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

    3:19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

    Interesting anyway, heard this on a Caltech conference, the speaker was John Hartung

    mr. ahnimus, you amuse me with your lack of knowledge concerning the Word of God. i get a kick out of your posts, because quite frankly, you(and/or mr. john hartung)have NO IDEA what you're talking about concerning this matter. :)
    I died. I died and you just stood there. I died and you watched. I died and you walked by and said no. I'm dead.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    Someone who will not tell me if it is "good" or it is "bad". (On a side note: if you do happen to know a website that gives an unbiased analysis on homosexuality then please refer me to it.)

    im trying to envision what kind of research you're talking about? what is neutral analysis of homosexuality supposed to look like? how do you define good and bad? cos i think simple logic tells you that there is nothing "bad" about two guys doing consensually whatever they want behind closed doors. i dont think it's good either. it just is.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    Well, it's really hard to learn from a 3rd perspective without actually hearing a dogmatic attitude from the other end. For instance, if I want to do a research on homosexuality I will either find a website dedicated to bash it or to bash those that bash it. I will never find a website that focuses on homosexuality for what it is. Someone who will not tell me if it is "good" or it is "bad". (On a side note: if you do happen to know a website that gives an unbiased analysis on homosexuality then please refer me to it.)

    It sometimes works the same ways in religion. Every single person on earth, I believe, has a fixed belief. Sometimes as human beings we have to respect the differences of beliefs. I, for one, have understood that my beliefs can mislead others into thinking that I propogate hatred, just because of certain issues like homosexuality and abortion. So I sometimes have to refrain myself from saying certain things in order to avoid confrontations or offending others. I truly believe that this is the most hopeful way of reaching a better understanding between us all.

    So, to answer your question, I would honestly like to look at Christianity from a 3rd perspective but many times I find very hostile attitudes that seem there sole purpose is to discredit the beliefs of others. For whatever reasons they might be are beyond me.

    I think most scientific sources are going to be non-bias in the good and bad sense, because science it's self doesn't draw moral conclusions. But what it does is provide solid insight into a thing. In this case homosexualitly, I would recommend wikipedia or J. Michael Bailey's papers on it. Or perhaps Richard Pillard. You will see through these studies the true nature of sexuality. It's difficult to call it good or bad. Some will view it slightly bad because it strays from what they consider to be natural order. Others will view natural order as adaptive as evolution it's self and hence it is not necissarily bad, but morally neutral. I think you will find taking a non-bias approach to all phenomena will reveal a morally neutral mechanism. I believe that morality is something that humans have constructed, for if it were a universal property, we would not have moral dillemas.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I think most scientific sources are going to be non-bias in the good and bad sense, because science it's self doesn't draw moral conclusions. But what it does is provide solid insight into a thing. In this case homosexualitly, I would recommend wikipedia or J. Michael Bailey's papers on it. Or perhaps Richard Pillard. You will see through these studies the true nature of sexuality. It's difficult to call it good or bad. Some will view it slightly bad because it strays from what they consider to be natural order. Others will view natural order as adaptive as evolution it's self and hence it is not necissarily bad, but morally neutral. I think you will find taking a non-bias approach to all phenomena will reveal a morally neutral mechanism. I believe that morality is something that humans have constructed, for if it were a universal property, we would not have moral dillemas.

    Since I can't understand every scientific principle 100%, I don't believe in it. I mean, come on - that would take faith :)
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    soulsinging wrote:
    what is neutral analysis of homosexuality supposed to look like?
    The kind of research that simply explains it in a scientific approach. Instead of making some kind of analysis into trying to make the religious one's look like "nutheads" for teaching that it's wrong or making studies on homosexuality simply to discredit religious people. And vise-versa, instead of some christian/mulsim/jew trying to explain why a homosexual has a mental illness, just give a scientific approach and let the learner judge for himself. As you said, taking homosexuality for simply what it is.
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    The kind of research that simply explains it in a scientific approach. Instead of making some kind of analysis into trying to make the religious one's look like "nutheads" for teaching that it's wrong or making studies on homosexuality simply to discredit religious people. And vise-versa, instead of some christian/mulsim/jew trying to explain why a homosexual has a mental illness, just give a scientific approach and let the learner judge for himself. As you said, taking homosexuality for simply what it is.

    this has been done endlessly. it's mainly genetic with a handful of social factors. it's quite prevalent and common in the animal kingdom and has been widely known and accepted in human society for centuries. it's been studied by biologists, psychologists, sociologists, and everyone else. what more do you want? it causes no harm to anyone. not even adopted children, and certainly not society as a whole.

    you think the APA removing it from the dsm-iv was some sort of swipe at religion? come on...
  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    soulsinging wrote:
    this has been done endlessly. it's mainly genetic with a handful of social factors. it's quite prevalent and common in the animal kingdom and has been widely known and accepted in human society for centuries. it's been studied by biologists, psychologists, sociologists, and everyone else. what more do you want? it causes no harm to anyone. not even adopted children, and certainly not society as a whole.
    I know it's been done endlessly. You're a little confused about what I'm asking. I'm simply asking for a website that gives a brief insight on homosexuality in a scientific approach. I'm not asking for a website that explains why homosexuality is ok or a website that explains why it is wrong.
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    I know it's been done endlessly. You're a little confused about what I'm asking. I'm simply asking for a website that gives a brief insight on homosexuality in a scientific approach. I'm not asking for a website that explains why homosexuality is ok or a website that explains why it is wrong.

    what is there scientifically to know? what causes it? what its effects are? i dont get it.
  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    soulsinging wrote:
    what is there scientifically to know? what causes it? what its effects are? i dont get it.
    For instance, I remember someone arguing that homosexuals are not born gay. I clearly remember you responding to them that they are and that they are discovering something of, I don't know, a chemical or something that proves that they are born gay. Do you remember? I don't know. Only if I could find those posts would probably be easier. Nonetheless, I will google it. Although I've done so many times before.

    But I'm assuming that you are implying that there isn't anything to know about it scientifically, or otherwise, psychologically. Right? I know that there is nothing that causes it, because I know that homosexuality is not an illness. I know that there are no effects, because again, It's not an illness. But what I don't know is how scientists, or psychologists, have discovered that homosexuals are born this way. I would like to find a website that analyzes this.
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    For instance, I remember someone arguing that homosexuals are not born gay. I clearly remember you responding to them that they are and that they are discovering something of, I don't know, a chemical or something that proves that they are born gay. Do you remember? I don't know. Only if I could find those posts would probably be easier. Nonetheless, I will google it. Although I've done so many times before.

    But I'm assuming that you are implying that there isn't anything to know about it scientifically, or otherwise, psychologically. Right? I know that there is nothing that causes it, because I know that homosexuality is not an illness. I know that there are no effects, because again, It's not an illness. But what I don't know is how scientists, or psychologists, have discovered that homosexuals are born this way. I would like to find a website that analyzes this.

    there have been preliminary reports that they are closing in on the "gay gene." im not a scientist, so i couldnt understand much of it. but i have many gay friends and all of them confirm that this is far more accurate than the view on the other side... that they just choose to be gay for reasons that side has never been able to describe (why would anyone WANT to be gay?). so i give credence to the science i've read about it. unfortunately, i really don't care enough to save these links so i can't offer them to you, and im far too lazy to find them. but it is out there. there is a very strong genetic component to homosexuality. there are also other factors as well.

    im not saying there isnt anything to know about it, im just curious what you want to know about it and why? if scientists found conclusively it was genetic, would you change your mind about it being immoral? would you still tell gay people they were going to hell for the way they were born? i just dont see what impact objective scientific research would have on you.
  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    soulsinging wrote:
    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.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    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.

    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.
    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
  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    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.
    thanks ahnimus... although I have already read this. still, thanks. :D
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    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.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    Collin wrote:
    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.
  • ForestBrain
    ForestBrain Posts: 460
    uhg. I hate it when people use perversions. Use the real verse, will ya?
    When life gives you lemons, throw them at somebody.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    ForestBrain wrote:
    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
  • ForestBrain
    ForestBrain Posts: 460
    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.
  • ForestBrain
    ForestBrain Posts: 460
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I don't think we read Hebrew
    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.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    ForestBrain wrote:
    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

Categories