BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 06:22 PM

No--it's about changing yourself--

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 05:45 PM

Funny, Frank, but that's exactly how I feel about the government! ;-) Just replace "Christianity" and various other words in your post with "the government" and you'll see what I mean right away.

Like this...

You ask me why I left my faith in The Government behind.

The Government is based on an authoritarian mindset. You have a pecking order in which a supreme authority tells you what to do. It is a Big Parent in the Capitol and it bosses you around.
It takes away from the responsibility of an individual to make their own decisions. I realized that if I were ever to grow up and become self-sufficient I could not bow down or pray to a
Big Daddy in Washington (or Ottawa). The Government turned out to be an insufficient source of inspiration. It was contradictory and a jumbled mess of stories that didn't add up to anything important for me.

I also found out that morality has nothing to do with The Government. Therefore, after exploring other possible avenues of belief, that is...other governments, I found them all to be pretty much the same thing, rules and dictums that have no bearing on my day to day life. I would be so happy to be free of all that.

When I left mythology behind I began to appreciate the needs of others. I believe I became a better citizen.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 05:36 PM

Hi Mike,

You ask me why I left Christianity behind.

Christianity is based on an authoritarian mindset. You have a pecking order in which a supreme deity tells you what to do. It is a Big Parent in the sky and bosses you around.
It takes away from responsibility of an individual to make their own decisions. I realized that if I were ever to grow up and become self-sufficient I could not bow down or pray to a
Big Daddy. The bible turned out to be an insufficient source of inspiration. It was contradictory and a jumbled mess of stories that didn't add up to anything important for me.

I also found out that morality has nothing to do with religion. Therefore, after exploring other religious avenues, I found them all to be pretty much the same thing, rules and dictums that have no bearing on day to day life. I am so happy to be free of all that.

When I left mythology behind I began to appreciate the needs of others. I believe I became a better citizen.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 04:48 PM

"A camel is a horse designed by a committee."

A platypus is...........

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 04:39 PM

"-1- The Authorized Version was translated by 47 scholars (although 54 were originally approved)("


                         My god, it could have been written in Congress!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 01:22 PM

New word: HACKtivist. It's the kind of activist who hacks into systems...

And changing the world one person at a time is what this is all about, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 12:23 PM

Amos followed a link, read it, and thought about it.

Maybe someday, some one else will. And then, maybe someone else. And someone else, and someone else, until finally, many people will be reading things and thinking about them instead of just skimming threads full of IMHOs. What a wonderful world we could have then!

I believe in that world, and I guess that makes me an idealist. I posted the link that Amos read.
and I guess that makes me an activist.

I could feel pretty good about myself today--but I don't. Not yet, anyway, because I know that pasting up one link to something that someone else wrote, it is not going to change the world. But if I I paste up one link a day, that's 365 links in a year, and nearly 4,000 links in a decade, and think what a difference that could make!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 12:07 PM

There is one really strong and good reason, to my way of thinking, for reading the King James translation of the large colelction of rag-tag moral and mythic assertions collected int he two Testaments, and it is the remarkable color and beauty of the English language used to express the sentiments (correctly or not) found in those myriad palimpsestuous parchments, producing a masterpiece of Jacobean prose. The men who did the scholarly work¹ of moving the Greek and Hebrew versions of the early Aramaic into solid 17thC English were deeply read and at the same time poetically inspired, and their turns of phrases are in many cases so elegant as to be stunning.

I think a lot of the devoutness assigned to the Bible may be misplaced, and should be laid at their feet.


A

^-1- The Authorized Version was translated by 47 scholars (although 54 were originally approved)(Daniell 2003, p. 436) working in six committees, two based in each of the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, and Westminster. All except one - Sir Henry Savile - were ordained priests of the Church of England (Bobrick 2001, p. 223) , but the panels included scholars with Puritan sympathies, as well as High Churchmen. Forty unbound copies of the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible were specially printed so that the agreed changes of each committee could be recorded in the margins (Daniell 2003, p. 442). They worked on certain parts separately; then the drafts produced by each committee were compared and revised for harmony with each other (Daniell 2003, p. 444) . The scholars were not paid directly for their translation work; instead a circular letter was sent to bishops,, encouraging them to consider the translators for appointment to well paid livings as these fell vacant(Bobrick 2001, p. 223) . Several were supported by the various colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, while others were promoted to bishoprics, deaneries and prebends through royal patronage. In overall scope and scale - and in the thorough application of procedures for checking, cross-consulting and review - this was far the most ambitious biblical translation project undertaken in Europe in the Reformation era. (Wikipedia)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 11:54 AM

No, no, I'll do that tomorrow - well, maybe next week.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 11:48 AM

You've made idealists out of slackers everywhere, Mrzzy-

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 10:46 AM

Ah, but to some of us, this argument IS implementing our ideals...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 10:30 AM

I propose a new sacred season, between Christmastide and Lent, called "Nopiphany." The theme of the season's observance is to waste time on this argument-- time that could have been spent living and implementing our ideals.

Nice, carrying over as it does from sometimes-busy Advent/Christmastide to sometimes-busy Lent, distracting anyone who might have observed either of those seasons.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 08:36 AM

Besides, it will be interesting to see what Georgiansilver will have to say once he's researched all the stuff being bandied about here...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 08:57 PM

Quite a few people, Amos, by all accounts, which is why I think it's interesting to point out that it is a multiply copied and translated and misinterpreted agrarian warrior society collection of manuscripts.

And then there's the literary value, which is significant, if only because of its age and the amount of time people have spent feverishly reading their own desires, fears, hatreds into its hoary language.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 07:36 PM

JEsus, this thread has really corkscrewed south, I must say.

Who gives a tinker's dam what an ancient tome from a lot of pre-industrial farmers says?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 07:18 PM

ah,,,Romans 14:14

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 07:09 PM

from memory:
"Verily I say unto you: nothing is unclean of itself, but if a man esteemeth a thing to be unclean, unto him it is unclean.."

Can't remember exact passage right now..

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 04:53 PM

I thought I'd lost the post before it posted, hence two, only slightly different postings. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 04:37 PM

GS--Bee addressed some of those verses--Here is a more extensive discussion, written by Rev. Mel White. What the Bible Does, and Doesn't Say About Homosexuality

I don't expect you to accept what he has to say--but I hope you will consider that, as an ordained minister and Bible scholar, his views are as honest and legitimate as others that may differ.

You may also want to read the Wikipedia Entry on the King James Version. It helps to understand that it was a creation of men, and, if it was based on the word of God, it also was tainted by the religious and secular politics of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 04:24 PM

Bee posted comments about a number of those verses already, but here is a more comprehensive discussion, written by Rev. Mel White. What the Bible Does, and Doesn't Say About Homosexuality

I don't expect you to accept it--it is simply to show you that there is another side than the one that you have chosen to accept.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 02:05 PM

M.Ted..re your post at 13th Feb 0907am.
Perhaps you could read the following and make comment.
1 Corinthians 6v9.
Romans 1 v 26-31.
Leviticus 18 v 22-30.
Leviticus 20v13.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 01:16 PM

"'Cat came back cause she couldn't stay away", Ted. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 11:32 AM

"...Huckabee has a lot of 'splainin' to do."

He won't even try. *IF* he were the nominee, it might come up, but right now, he will mostly avoid the topic and just appeal those others who also do not question biblical truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 10:50 AM

"easy...he'll say carbon dating in merely an 'aid' and not accurate."


                   With written text there is a lot more than just carbon dating to work with. I really think Huckabee has a lot of 'splainin' to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 10:32 AM

easy...he'll say carbon dating in merely an 'aid' and not accurate.

It must be time for my repost regarding one of my favorite cartoons of all time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a cartoon strip called "Hagar the Horrible", about a silly Viking type with very modern problems. One Sunday saw him visiting the local wizard, Dr. Zook, who had a huge stone ring leaning against the wall, like that 'money' on Yap Island.

"What's this?", asks Hagar.
"That's my new scientific measuring device." replys Dr. Zook, "Step in!"
....so Hagar squirms into the center of the stone ring....

"More...hunch down...squeeze tighter..." Zook says, as Hagar tries to cram himself into the tight space. Finally, he is in, awkwardly peering out at the pleased wizard.

"There!", says Dr. Zook with authority, "You are exactly 5 feet tall!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
......if you already HAVE the answer, it is important to make all data conform to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 10:06 AM

"I suppose it's just fortunate that Jesus didn't have anything specific to say about the defination of 'folk'."


                How do we know he didn't, and it just got edited out.

          "It is important to understand that the various versions of 'the' Bible were assembled from many sources..."


                True, and it's very possible that some of that material is over 6,000 years old. I wonder how Mike Huckabee will explain where it came from?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:32 AM

It is important to understand that the various versions of 'the' Bible were assembled from many sources, passed thru several translations by 'scholars' of different degrees of skill...and with various personal agendas.

Much of the New Testament, in particular, was circulated in Rome after being translated into what my college history prof. called "dockyards Greek": a simplistic format dumbed down for the mostly uneducated working classes. This linguistic jumble was redone and tinkered with many times...with the King James bible being the most 'accepted' version for many years. Many, many important terms and concepts were only vaguely understood and were carelessly treated over the years.

I suppose it's just fortunate that Jesus didn't have anything specific to say about the defination of 'folk'.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:07 AM

I find it interesting, Georgiansilver, that when Bee has given you evidence that the Bible doesn't really say what you think it does about homosexuality, you question the validity of the scientific evidence.

Whatever the validity of the science is, it doesn't change the fact that the Bible doesn't really say that homosexuality is a sin.

Thanks for coming back, Bee.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 08:10 AM

All science is based on theory, GS. Theory, and facts (data) compared iteratively. It's when the data stops matching the theory that it gets interesting. Faith based reasoning lacks that advantage -- the paradigm is unchanging by first definition and postulate. This eliminates growth, and progress, and fundamental change.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 07:28 AM

Once upon a time....there was 'evidence of' the world being flat. I'm sorry folks but much of the science of sociology is and always has been based on theory. The Wikipedia clip is proof of that if read correctly. It implies that there are certain people who MAY fit into the particular mould but there is no definitive proof that all do!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 10:57 PM

lol, M.Ted

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 10:44 PM

From another board: I have permission to repost this response regarding various anti-homosexual Bible passages. I thought some might find this interesting.


(Direct reply to another poster removed by me - Bee)

A literal reading of the bible shows that there is no condemnation of homosexuality at all.

The various letters of Paul have historically been used to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, religious reformers, and the mentally ill. Currently the popular target of this discrimination are homosexuals

The phrase "shameful lusts is a modern invention and has no basis for translation. Just as the earlier "vile afflictions". In the original Greek, "vile affliction" translates as ecstatic or ecstasy, (the original meaning was not the modern meaning or the street drug name)…the word did not mean passion or lust but rather referred to ecstatic trance states described by anthropologists (Ref: Mircea Eliade). These ecstatic trances were part of every religion, such states were generally achieved by religious leaders but lay people could engage in them as well, the process was to connect to the spirit world for healing and blessing. The Hebrew version of ecstasy involved fasting and isolation in the desert usually. The Modern Christian analog would be "speaking in tongues" and the meditative state achieved in ritualistic prayer. Originally, the condemnation was against any religion but the one Paul was founding, (which was founded on the strange notion that the only way to connect with the spiritual or the Divine was through the church) but like so many other non-Christian traditions, ecstasy found its way into Christianity.

As for "natural." The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexuality be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural for Paul's audience would have been to force oneself to go against one's own nature, to pretend to be something one is not. Such relationships are referred to as being unnatural by many writers of the era.
The bible specifically used the Greek word paraphysi, contrary to popular belief paraphysi does not mean "to go against the law(s) of nature", as those promoting discrimination against homosexuals often claim, but rather it means to engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic for that person or more simply an individual denying his/her true nature. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals. And what Paul is condemning is the unnaturalness of going against one's nature. In the verse you cite God punishes individuals engaging in ecstatic trance work by forcing them to be something they are not.

The sin here is pretending to be something you are not.

Romans 1:26-27 is not a condemnation of homosexuality but a condemnation of trying to change or lying about ones sexual oriention. Thus it is a condemnation of ex-gay ministries.


Quote:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.         
At issue here is the translation of the Greek word arsenokoites to mean homosexual. It is only in recent history that this word has been translated to mean homosexual. Prior to the writing of the King James Bible it was translated as masturbation and that translation continued in some bibles until the late 1960's. There is no reason or evidence to believe that arsenokoites translates as homosexual at all.

Various attempts have been made to defend the interpretation of arsenokoites as a reference to male-male or homosexual sex in 1 Corinthians and the denial that there are translation issues with that word appears to be political rather than anything else. This defense is made by claiming that the meaning of this compound word is derived from the meaning of its two root words: arseno (man or men) and koitai (bed). This approach is linguistically invalid. Deconstructing compounds is generally a more sound strategy in Greek than English. It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the basic meanings of either "stand" or "under" has any direct bearing on the meaning of "understand." This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to have any necessary reference to a chair, even if it originally did. Thus, all definitions of arsenokoites that derive its meaning from its components are naive and indefensible. Using this method it would be equally valid to claim that when using the word arsenokoites Paul was condemning the lazy.

The most damming evidence that arsenokoites does not means homosexual is the fact that arsenokoites is a plural first declension noun. The word koitai, without the arseno- prefix, is feminine, just as most first declension nouns in Greek are. Thus referring to a man in a woman's bed, not in the bed of another man.

The only reliable way to define a word is to analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible. The word "means" according to its function, according to how particular people use the word in different situations. However writings contemporary to Paul that also use the word arsenokoites do not use it to mean homosexual, rather they use the word to refer to men who use women sexually in exchange for money…IE prostitutes.

Some have tried to claim that Paul was using words from the Hebrew to illustrate his point and that he really did mean homosexual. Given the audience Pual was writing to this is not likely. While loose analogies of the words koitai and arseno appear they are not combined into a compound word and always refer specifically to male/female intercourse. If you are going to use the appearance of the separate words arsen and koites in Leviticus as evidence that the compound word arsenokoites means homosexual then you have to ignore all the other appearances of the words in Leviticus.


Quote:

Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (Genesis 19:3-13)         
this of course says nothing about homosexuality.



"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did hateful things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
Ezekiel 16: 49-50

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 09:16 PM

LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:15 PM

"Sturdiness", eh? Don't even go there, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:07 PM

The definition of "theory" in scientific parlance is much sturdier, it must be stated, than the loose sense in which it is used in common parlance. It is a hypothesis guided by factual data, not just a flight of possibility.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:04 PM

I told Amos I was going to sit the rest of this one out, but it is really too irresistible.

The thing is, Georgiansilver, to scientists, this is may be theory, but gay men have been checking out your hands for a long, long, time. If you don't believe me, ask around.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 06:46 PM

Georgiansilver, you're failing to see that the evidence all supports the theory, kind of like evolution is still a theory that is supported by, but not proven by, evidence.
NO piece of evidence will prove ANY theory. Plate tectonics, gravity, are all Theories supported by, but not proven by, all their evidence.
There are no data collected in biosociology that support any OTHER theory. There are no data collected in biosociology that are NOT explained by this theory.

Like it or not, the "theory" is the accepted model of today. There are no competing SCIENTIFIC theories. There may be competing religious "theories" (sic) like ID, but I wouldn't believe that of you, personally, so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 05:47 PM

GS:

Give it up -- you're hiding from hard evidence here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 05:41 PM

What would you consider PROOF? There are those today who STILL claim that smoking as a cause of lung cancer is 'not proven' and just statistics.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 05:19 PM

There is evidence of....is not definitive.......If you read through it aghain Ebbie you will find that most'evidence' is suggested...not proven. As I said before, there are many differing theories. Nothing has been proven.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 02:16 PM

Georgiansilver, you cite the Wikipedia link that M.Ted posted. Have you read it yourself?

From the link:

Male homosexuality as hyper-masculine

"There is evidence of a correlation between sexual orientation and traits that are determined in utero. Williams et al. (2000) found that finger length ratio, a characteristic controlled by prenatal hormones, is different in people of distinct sexual orientations.[1] Another study by McFadden in 1998 found that auditory systems in the brain, another physical trait influenced by prenatal hormones is different in those of differing orientations, likewise the suprachiasmatic nucleus of homosexual men was found by Swaab and Hopffman to be larger in homosexual men than in heterosexual men, [2], the suprachiasmatic nucleus is also known to be larger in men than in women [3]. Gay men have also been shown to have higher levels of circulating androgens [1] and larger penises [2], on average, than straight men.

"Gay men have more older brothers on average, a phenomenon known as the fraternal birth order effect. It has been suggested that the greater the number of older male siblings the higher the level of androgen fetuses are exposed to."

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 01:29 PM

Re pre-natal hormones and sexual orientation...I believe if you look into this you will find that all these suggestions are based on theory and not definitive proof....different scientists have differing theories as you may find if you follow the link provided by M.Ted.
Frank, you claim that you were once a Christian.....how did you become one and how did you depart from being one please? I am truly interested.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 12:06 PM

Hi Georgian Silver,

You state:

"God made man...man is given free-will by God, man(and woman) procreate to make man and instill him with his education, starting with the family"

You will be hard put to prove this assertion.

Man made your god, and the problem with free-will is this....can your god be benevolent and omnipotent at the same time? If he gives man free will to deviate from his commandments then he is not omnipotent to change his/her behavior. If he condemns them for not following his commandments the way he likes and punishes them, he is just mean. If he can not change their behavior, then he is not omnipotent.

You state:

"......you are suggesting that God made homosexuals the way they are...I disagree..I suggest that parents made the child and parents/environment made him/her what he/she is."

You would also be hard put to prove this assertion as well. Clinical studies have shown
that sometimes the parental environment has no effect on a child's behavior. Many nice parents have brought up not-nice kids, for example. Parents do not always influence a child's behavior in the way that they would like it.

" I don't assume sins...I am also not superior to anyone...I also love my neighbour as best I can.....What is known as scripture has been around for thousands of years and it is not my cherrypicked interpretation."

What is known of the "scripture" has been edited, rewritten, and radically changed through thousands of years, first taken down by illiterate scribes and then revamped by political church figures who changed the text to fit their own personal agendas. Constantine and King James come to mind.

" Because you lack the knowledge needed to understand a Christian stance you believe that you can join those who choose to try to disprove the existence of God...no-one has succeeded yet..I gravely doubt that you will either."

There is a logical fallacy that states, "you can't prove a negative". A "Christian stance"
is certainly not monolithic and there are many Christians who say contradictory things.
Christianity is a new religion comparitively that borrows many of its parables and teachings from older religions and deities. Much of what happens in the bible can be
traced back to other myths and legends historically. The bible is also a mass of contradictions, statements that are conflicted and were not written by the Apostles
who put their names on the New Testament. These mythic apostles would have been
long gone by the time that the treatises that bear their name were written. They were undoubtably written by other people, official clergy or scribes who were unclear as to what they were copying.

I was oddly enough once a Christian until I realized that this was an untenable position
to take in a rational scientific world. I studied the bible a little and also studied the Torah and became interested in comparitive religions. I have read the Ghita and some of the Koran. I delved a little into Buddhism as well. I see similarities in many of these tenets. I think that there is no evidence for any of the information of these respective texts to be any more than myths, stories and hearsay.

I think that it's ok for people to believe whatever they want as long as their beliefs are not forced upon the general public.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:09 AM

GS--For a coherent accounting of the theories that Mrzzy is trying to explain, check this:

Prenatal Hormones and Sexual Orientation

A lot of Christians accept gays and lesbians into their congregations, and even as clergy.
Christ doesn't seem to have said anything against homosexuality, and if he had a problem with something, he wasn't one to keep quiet about it--

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 08:54 AM

Thanks, A.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 06:50 PM

Well said, Mrrz.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 06:05 PM

Georgiansilver, sorry, but science has already shown the effects of prenatal hormones on masculinity/femininity, including external genitalia and internal sexual preference. Environment *after* birth, as in rearing, has nothing to do with it. This is not, in human biology circles, a matter of opinion any more.

And the pregnant woman doesn't have complete conscious control over her uterine environment - if there are twins, if there are stressors, if there are other genetic factors that lead to changes in sensitivity to or production of various proteins, there will be changes in the degree to which the embryo will be masculinized (if you leave it alone, as in no masculinizing hormones, it grows into something that looks like a girl no matter what the chromosomes say). It doesn't take the addition of feminizing hormones to make a female. And the womb may be completely normal and the embryo itself have a greater or lesser than usual hormonal receptivity or production.

And if what is a sin is homosexual behavior, then either the gay kids have to behave counter to their nature, or they will sin. That's not very fair to the poor gay kids. And being unfair to gays sounds awfully like bigotry, to me.

Gay is going to turn into the same thing as left-handed - Most people prefer to sleep with the other, some will do either but have a preference either way (mostly other), and some really only like the same. Remember, there has to be variation so that nature has something to select from. And you don't have a gene for "being gay" - you have that preference for women is part of being male, and some women are a little over-masculinized in utero, and are formed with a few male characteristics. One of these might be being turned on by women. Likewise, some men may be under-masculinized during formation, and retain the default preference for desiring men. Believing that being at the tail of the distribution is somehow "evil" (sin is evil, isn't it? I wasn't raised in any religion so my book-learning may be off) was exactly what superstition used to hold about left-handed people.

Before she got to be a Holocaust survivor, Mom got to spend several school years with her left hand tied behind her back.... I am reminded of a song:

But these are more enlightened days
No room for all these savage ways
Leave them, let them go...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 04:45 PM

Stringsinger, sorry Frank.....>>>>>There is the added ill-logic that if this
god made them, then he is very cruel to condemn what he made.<<<<<< is what you suggest. God made man...man is given free-will by God, man(and woman) procreate to make man and instill him with his education, starting with the family......you are suggesting that God made homosexuals the way they are...I disagree..I suggest that parents made the child and parents/environment made him/her what he/she is.
You also state >>>>>>
The fact that you assume a sin against someone else means that you must take the position of somehow being superior to that person. This is not love. This is based on opinion. It is your cherrypicked interpretation of what is known as the "Scripture".<<<<<<<<< I don't assume sins...I am also not superior to anyone...I also love my neighbour as best I can.....What is known as scripture has been around for thousands of years and it is not my cherrypicked interpretation. Because you lack the knowledge needed to understand a Christian stance you believe that you can join those who choose to try to disprove the existence of God...no-one has succeeded yet..I gravely doubt that you will either.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 04:28 PM

The idea that non-believers are somehow a kind of believer doesn't hold up to logical
scrutiny. How can you be one thing and not that thing at the same time?

I have some friends whose beliefs I do not respect. But I respect them as people.

Ah Georgian Silver you say "Mrrzy....as a Christian I am anti the sin of a man lying with another man as man does a woman but we are COMMANDED by Jesus/God/Holy Spirit...to love everyone in spite of their sin."

The fact that you assume a sin against someone else means that you must take the position of somehow being superior to that person. This is not love. This is based on opinion. It is your cherrypicked interpretation of what is known as the "Scripture".

A true love would be based on the understanding of biology. There are certain homosexual males who are wired differently and for any god to condemn them
speaks very poorly of this kind of tyrant. There is the added ill-logic that if this
god made them, then he is very cruel to condemn what he made.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 12:51 PM

No, dear, I am not trying to prove guilt. I am trying to explain what I mean when I say that I can no longer respect faith-based beliefs just because they are based on faith. Many people, both of faith and of none, seem to be telling me that it is wrong of me to consider faith as being protected from disrespect simply becuase of the freedom of religion guaranteed by our constitution (in theory, at least!).

Thus I used this hypothetical, to see if I could explain something that is faith-based and *still* not worthy of respect. I have apparently finally managed to make that clear, I think...

Thus, if it's OK to disrespect *some* ideas that are based on faith but nonetheless WRONG, then I'm fine not respecting religious belefs that are in direct contradiction with reality. Which is where I came in. And apparently, you agree with me, which I thought you would, since you seem so (otherwise) rational.

Hope I'm not putting words in your mouth! My little conclusions, as you say, smack of my recent accusations (that is, the recent times I've been accused, not hte times that I've made accusations) that *my* conclusions aren't rational, and that therefore they are just as much faith-based as the ideas I don't respect. By spelling out my logic step by step, I am trying to avoid that specious argument.