http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/ Posts for alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:29:33 PST http://www.nnseek.com/ http://www.nnseek.com/img/64.png 64 64 NNSeek http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/the_origins_of_the_pope_2_51155537t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/the_origins_of_the_pope_2_51155537t.html "duck" <> wrote in message

> Actually I have key statements re mithra from the CE saved.

You saved the wrong ones!!

Save the ones having to do with father.

Oh, never mind duck - I'll do it for you!!

"The fathers conducted the worship. The chief of the fathers, a sort of
pope, who always lived at Rome, was called "Pater Patrum" or Pater
Patratus." The members below the degree of pater called one another
"brother," and social distinctions were forgotten in Mithraic unity."

And what was it that Jesus said again??
Matthew 23: 9 - And do not call anyone on earth
> >'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.


Let's review - If you call your priests and the old pope father, are you
doing like Mithraism, or are you doing what Jesus told you??

Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe!!

Posted In: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic

no comments

Reply

]]> Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:29:33 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/fw_uk_catholic_church_loses_against_gay_adoption_quite_51153489t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/fw_uk_catholic_church_loses_against_gay_adoption_quite_51153489t.html "duck" <> wrote in message

> We do have lots of statues and Saints,

Exodus 20: 4 - Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any
likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Clear enough to anyone that can read!!

Posted In: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic

no comments

Reply

]]> Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:21:17 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/the_gospels_ain_t_fiction_51149137t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/the_gospels_ain_t_fiction_51149137t.html
On Jan 26, 5:23 am, Christopher A.Lee optonline.net> wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2007 19:08:34 -0800, "David" earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 25, 3:02 am, Christopher A.Lee optonline.net> wrote:
> >> On 25 Jan 2007 00:26:51 -0800, "David" earthlink.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jan 23, 11:29 pm, raven1 nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:59:47 -0500, "John W. Kennedy"
>
> >> >> attglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >> >raven1 wrote:
> >> >> >> On 20 Jan 2007 21:00:34 -0800, "Sound of Trumpet"
> >> >> >> myway.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >>> Suppose I rushed up to you, all excited, and said, "The most incredible
> >> >> >>> thing has happened! Sit down, because you are going to be astounded! I
> >> >> >>> know some of this is going to be hard to believe, but you've got to
> >> >> >>> understand, I'm not making this up! I saw it with my own eyes. And what
> >> >> >>> I have seen with my own eyes, what my hands have handled, is the very
> >> >> >>> word of life itself! God has become man, died on the Cross and been
> >> >> >>> raised from the dead! Now He makes Himself available to us in the most
> >> >> >>> intimate communion possible in this life, through the sacrament of His
> >> >> >>> Most Holy Body and Blood! I saw it, I tell you. This is no myth! This
> >> >> >>> is really happened!"
>
> >> >> >> I'd probably respond by asking you why four supposedly divinely
> >> >> >> inspired writers wildly contradict each other in their accounts of the
> >> >> >> Resurrection.
>
> >> >> >The answer is that they don't. As Dorothy L. Sayers pointed out over
> >> >> >half a century ago, all that is needed to "harmonize" the gospel
> >> >> >accounts, without exception, is sufficient imagination to visualize a
> >> >> >number of confused and frightened disciples running back and forth in
> >> >> >the dawn light of the first Easter morning.Does "could have" mean "did"on your planet?
>
> >> >> And sufficient imagination to visualize that they couldn't determine
> >> >> the difference between a stone already rolled back, or one that rolled
> >> >> back in their presence.
>
> >> >One thing you have to realize about ancient authors is they don't
> >> >necessarily report things in chronological order, in this case you are
> >> >referring to, Matthew is clearly arranging things in topical order, so
> >> >the angel rolling back the stone could happen at any time before or
> >> >during the women's arrival. Matthew simply doesn't specify.Then show they did instead of could have.
>
> >> Until you do that it is merely an ad hoc rationalisation.


> So demonstrate that they did,

I already have Christopher, by analyzing Matthew chapters 27 and 28,
try and keep up.

> instead of asserting they could have -

No Christopher, I don't make unsupported assertions like you do.

> which is worthless.

Indeed, your unsupported assertions are worthless.

>
> >> >Mark and Luke though, clearly identify the stone as having been rolled
> >> >back before they got there. So there is no contradiction in the Gospels
> >> >here, we have two authors identify when, and one author who does not,
> >> >instead describing what was done.The contradiction is still there until you demonstrate that it
> >> actually happened that way instead of hiding behind "could have".
>
> >> Why don't believers have any honesty in this area?


> Asian, demonstrate "did" rather than "could have".
>

I already have Christopher, by analyzing Matthew chapters 27 and 28,
try and keep up.

> Until you do that you're pissing into the wind.
>

No Christopher, I don't use your methods.

> >> >> And sufficient imagination to visualize that
> >> >> they couldn't tell the difference between one man, two men, one angel,
> >> >> or two angels.
>
> >> >Here keep in mind ancient Jewish sources describe angels as young men.
>
> >> >I am not seeing any problems in the text between telling the difference
> >> >between one angel and two angels. For example, Matthew and Mark don't
> >> >actually say there is only one angel, they just focus on describing the
> >> >angel who speaks the words they choose to relate to the reader. Luke
> >> >describes two angels, but those two speak something else. Each author
> >> >reports only what is necessary to carry the narrative.Duh. Does one equal two on your planet?
>
> >> Or is this another pretence that an ad hoc rationalisation proves
> >> anything?


> You're still rationalising.

No Christopher, I don't use your methods.

> Not provide.

I already have Christopher, by analyzing Matthew chapters 27 and 28,
try and keep up.

>
> >> >> And sufficient imagination to visualize that Mary
> >> >> Magdalene couldn't recognize Jesus on sight.
>
> >> >The text doesn't help with this. No description of Jesus' looks in the
> >> >Gospels, before or after the crucifixion. Scarring? Fully healed? A
> >> >completely different look? Some kind of Moses awe? The authors simply
> >> >don't say.
>
> >> Another dishonest rationalisation.

> So prove it

It is not my job to prove your own assertions Christopher. Heh, if you
want someone to prove your unsupported accusations of dishonest
rationalizations, you will need to look elsewhere.

>instead of hiding behind "could have".
>

Never said "could have" Christopher, once again I must correct your
error, pointing out John W Kennedy said that.

> >More laughable nonsense from Christopher A. Lee. If he would like to
> >show where the authors of the Gospels describe how Jesus looks, he can
> >go ahead.

>Why don't you address what you are told

You don't tell me what to do Christopher, if you want a bitch to slap,
look elsewhere.

>instead of adding personal
> lies

Notice Christopher has utterly failed to show any lies on my part, that
is because he cannot, since I tell the truth.

>to your worthless rationalisations?

No Christopher, I don't use your methods.

>
> >Oh, that is right, Christopher cannot, because they don't. Another
> >error of yours I have corrected for you Christopher.


> You've corrected

Several errors on your part, including your misattribution of John W
Kennedy's words to myself, and your reading comprehension errors,
particularly your mistaken assumptions about the Gospel of Matthew
always maintaining chronological order, and your failure to realize two
angels means there is one angel and another angel.


>nothing,

Your misattribution of John W Kennedy's words to myself, and your
reading comprehension errors, particularly your mistaken assumptions
about the Gospel of Matthew always maintaining chronological order, and
your failure to realize two angels means there is one angel and another
angel, is not nothing Christopher.


> liar.

Unsupported assertions.

> Just given worthless

Unsupported assertions.

>ad hoc
> rationalisations

Correcting your misattribution of John W Kennedy's words to myself, and
your reading comprehension errors, particularly your mistaken
assumptions about the Gospel of Matthew always maintaining
chronological order, and your failure to realize two angels means there
is one angel and another angel, is not ad hoc rationalizations
Christopher.

> that prove nothing,

On the contrary Christopher, I have proved you are in error, and have
now corrected you.

> but only demonstrate your
> intellectual dishonesty.
>

I cannot demonstrate something which is not true Christopher.

> >Everyone, note that Christopher adopted this stance last time,
> >laughably asserting that those who disagree with him and correct his
> >errors are dishonest.

> A liar

Unsupported assertion.

>and an idiot.
>

Unsupported assertion.

> But then you're a Christian.

Unsupported assertion.

>It's expected of you.

And since your expectations are false, you underestimate me, which is
why you have lost so badly in the past, and why you are losing so badly
now.

Everyone, as I originally pointed out, while I use logic and reason in
analyzing the text and drawing conclusions, all Christopher can do is
whine and make ad hominem attacks in response.

Posted In: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic

2 Comments

Reply

]]> Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:02:20 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/solution_to_creation_vs_evolution_50782033t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/solution_to_creation_vs_evolution_50782033t.html "Ralph" yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RZcsh.904$pg2.760@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Sugien" adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:-MqdnTR82-pN2CzYnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>>
>> "Masked Avenger" _yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:45b0b5a5$0$5748$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> john w >>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:39:57 -0600, Free Lunch
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 04:40:53 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism john w
>>>>>@yoo.hoo> wrote in
>>>>>4ax.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>x-no-archive: yes
>>>>>>On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:06:21 GMT, cactus nonespam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>john w >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>x-no-archive: yes
>>>>>>>>On 13 Jan 2007 10:46:52 -0800, "Wombat" wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>john w wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>x-no-archive: yes
>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 09:23:23 -0800, IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com
>>>>>>>>>>(IKnowHimDoYou- A.) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Solution to Creation vs Evolution
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>God will show us the Truth if you know Him.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>If you don't know Him it won't matter will it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>IKH, don't you realize that you are trying to be reasonable with
>>>>>>>>>>people who aren't interested?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>IKHDY reasonable? Pull the other one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You have every right to express your POV; so do I! I just did!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Creation happens to make more sense to me than does evolution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>To each his own.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I refuse to believe that billions or trillions of years ago, I
>>>>>>>>started
>>>>>>>>life as an amoeba.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You didn't. You started, as did all humans, as a sperm and egg.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We are ascended from one-celled creatures, after billions of years of
>>>>>>>evolution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You can't prove that! There has never been any test done of that in a
>>>>>>controlled environment in a laboratory!
>>>>>
>>>>>What hogwash.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What's hogwash, unprovable hogwash is this idea of "evolution."
>>>>
>>>> Do you know anything about evolution?
>>>>
>>>> Um... Yeah! I know that the theories have changed remarkably since I
>>>> was in college!
>>>>
>>>> ???
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>So that idea is merely what some foolish folk choose to believe.
>>>>>
>>>>>So claim the anti-science religious zealots.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ?????
>>>>
>>>> Stupid bigots like you crack me UP!
>>>>
>>>> Tell the doctors and the nurses and the lab technicians at my church
>>>> that they're anti-science!
>>>>
>>>> smirk.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I am educated enough to see MAJOR problems with the concept of
>>>>>>evolution!
>>>>>
>>>>>Please identify them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For YOU? Why bother?
>>>>
>>>> Would I convince you of the time of day or the season of the year?
>>>>
>>>> Probably not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here ya go Johnny .....
>>>
>>> get yourself an education ........
>>>
>>> http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/
>>>
>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/
>>>
>>> I suspect you will ignore these though ...... 'cause that's the kinda
>>> guy you are ......
>>>
>> the same way you do this one:
>>
>> http://207.234.208.119/bibleweb.info/=Guest=/_-_/=DVD-ROM=Bibleweb-Info-06/where...
>
> That's probably because the link doesn't work.
>

The link did work back when several refused to view it; but it isn't working
now, I apologize; because I should have tested it *again* before reposting
it. I will look for another link to it. I suspect that the person hosting
the link could not afford to continue to give it away for free; because I
can only guess that he was paying for it on a volume linking type of program
seeing as how it was copyrighted material. You can buy it if you want and I
can give you a link to that , or you can wait until I find another free
link.


--
From the Desk of Paul CKC
/}
@###{ ]::::::Cyber Knight for Christ::::::>
\}

Posted In: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic

no comments

Reply

]]> Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:15:00 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/hell_bound_50780753t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/hell_bound_50780753t.html leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou- A.) wrote in
news:IKnowHim-1901070824100001@pm3-16.kalama.com:

> In article , "Zadok"
> wrote:
>
>> "2Blessed" <> wrote in message
>>
>> > It is the same in the Christian faith as well cactus. A person can
>> > repent (accept God's free gift) on their deathbed and their name
>> > will be written in the Lamb's Book of Life.
>>
>> You should really check Revelation 20: 12 -
>>
>> And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and
>> books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of
>> life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as
>> recorded in the books.
>>
>> Then compare that to Matthew 16: 27 - 7For the Son of Man is going to
>> come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward
>> each person according to what he has done.
>>
>> If you read the KJV that reads, For the Son of man shall come in the
>> glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every
>> man according to his works.
>>
>> Therefore Revelation, says that your works are recorded in the book,
>> and that is what you will be judged on.
>>
>> Smile.
> _______________________________________________________________
>
> There are two judgments:
>
> One for Christians (Romans 14:10).
>
> One for the dead (the unsaved) (Rev 20:11-15).

So why aren't you repenting your lies and getting saved?


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

Posted In: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic

no comments

Reply

]]> Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:09:55 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/i_don_t_get_it_50779985t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/i_don_t_get_it_50779985t.html leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou- A.) wrote in news:IKnowHim-
1901070819060001@pm3-16.kalama.com:

> I Don't Get It

You were on a roll with those four words. For once you told the truth.
But then you had to spoil your chances....

Of course you don't get it. It's your own straw man that you invented in
order to not get it. You never intended to get it and it has no
relationship to anything real.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

Posted In: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic

no comments

Reply

]]> Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:06:56 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/solution_to_creation_vs_evolution_50779729t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/solution_to_creation_vs_evolution_50779729t.html "Ralph" yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jdQrh.4688$FL5.2604@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Sugien" adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:hqGdnXnktexPLzPYnZ2dnUVZ_oKnnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>>
>> "Wild Bill" qwest.net> wrote in message
>> news:45aeb158$0$61929$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>>>
>>> "Sugien" adelphia.net> wrote in message
>>> news:OLednckHi8KHFzPYnZ2dnUVZ_ualnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Wild Bill" qwest.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:45ada30c$0$697$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Incitatus" Rome.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Senate-1701070754580001@192.168.0.2...
>>>>>> In article adelphia.com>, "Sugien"
>>>>>> adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No I don't agree with it. I haven't responded; because any number
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> articles can be found on either side and citing this one or that one
>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>> prove anything. It comes down to what one believes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus spake National Socialism
>>>>>
>>>>> Sigh...Sugien continues to trust in the scribblings of ancient,
>>>>> ignorant goat-herders rather than modern science. We have two gay
>>>>> people in our family; a female lesbian on my wife's side, and a male
>>>>> cousin on my side. Both have told us that they never consciously chose
>>>>> their sexual orientation. They both said that before they became
>>>>> sexually aware, they knew they were somehow different from most other
>>>>> kids. They are born that way, and Sugien needs to understand that very
>>>>> important fact.
>>>>>
>>>> The only important fact is that needs understanding by you and they
>>>> is that they would never have thought they were different had they not
>>>> been exposed to that life style, there for it was a choice either
>>>> consciously or subconsciously.
>>>
>>> Just as I thought, you're not only delusional and brainwashed, but
>>> incredibly stupid! I'm done with you.
>>>
>> Good one less agnostic or atheists in this and other threads will not be
>> missed in the least
>
> Don't worry your little Christian mind there Sug, I'll be here. I've been
> here for seven years and as long as there are scientific illiterates like
> you
> I'll be here.
>
You believe any lie you like. I am content to know the truth

Posted In: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic

no comments

Reply

]]> Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:04:49 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/solution_to_creation_vs_evolution_50779473t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/solution_to_creation_vs_evolution_50779473t.html "Ralph" yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jdQrh.4687$FL5.3064@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Sugien" adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:OLednckHi8KHFzPYnZ2dnUVZ_ualnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>>
>> "Wild Bill" qwest.net> wrote in message
>> news:45ada30c$0$697$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>>>
>>> "Incitatus" Rome.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Senate-1701070754580001@192.168.0.2...
>>>> In article adelphia.com>, "Sugien"
>>>> adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> No I don't agree with it. I haven't responded; because any number of
>>>>> articles can be found on either side and citing this one or that one
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> prove anything. It comes down to what one believes.
>>>>
>>>> Thus spake National Socialism
>>>
>>> Sigh...Sugien continues to trust in the scribblings of ancient, ignorant
>>> goat-herders rather than modern science. We have two gay people in our
>>> family; a female lesbian on my wife's side, and a male cousin on my
>>> side.
>>> Both have told us that they never consciously chose their sexual
>>> orientation. They both said that before they became sexually aware, they
>>> knew they were somehow different from most other kids. They are born
>>> that
>>> way, and Sugien needs to understand that very important fact.
>>>
>> The only important fact is that needs understanding by you and they
>> is
>> that they would never have thought they were different had they not been
>> exposed to that life style, there for it was a choice either consciously
>> or subconsciously.
>
> Whew! Care to parse that sentence for us?
>
I have an errant "is" *fact is that needs *, other then that it is fine.
You do grasp as straws don't you when you know you have nothing else

Posted In: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic

no comments

Reply

]]> Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:03:54 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/solution_to_creation_vs_evolution_50778961t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/solution_to_creation_vs_evolution_50778961t.html "Ralph" yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jdQrh.4686$FL5.1595@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Sugien" adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:uJudnblfHtXjLzPYnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>>
>> "cactus" nonespam.com> wrote in message
>> news:Dewrh.6$4H1.2@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
>>> Sugien wrote:
>>>> "Incitatus" Rome.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Senate-1701071254590001@192.168.0.3...
>>>>> In article adelphia.com>, "Sugien"
>>>>> adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What you cite disagrees with not only common sense; but also with
>>>>>> nature and
>>>>>> the bible. Are you trying to say that homosexuality is not a sin
>> >>
>>>>> John Shelby Spong (Bishop of Newark retired)
>>>>
>>>> Why do you not fess up and admit that *you* *ARE* Spong?
>>>>> From "The Sins of Scripture" (his latest bestselling book)
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted as a recommendation (reparagraphed for clarity
>>>>
>>>> I do not hate those that have *chosen* to be homosexuals; but rather I
>>>> pity their poor judgment in choosing a life style.
>>>
>>> They don't "choose" it. You speak from ignorance.
>>>
>>> Homosexuals are *not* born
>>>> but rather they *choose* to be what they are. When they likewise *
>>>> choose * to refrain from engaging in their sinful lust one for the
>>>> other
>>>> God will welcome them back.
>>>
>>> They don't "choose" it. You speak from ignorance.
>>>
>>>> However that being said, I do *not* agree with churches that
>>>> refuse
>>>> to allow homosexuals to come to church; because the well have no need
>>>> of
>>>> a doctor; but rather the sick.
>>>
>>> The churches who do that are simply manifesting the same fear and lack
>>> of
>>> acceptance that you do. Does your church accept them? Does it allow
>>> them
>>> to hold church offices?
>>
>> To pull a page from another posts book, here is a CnP from another post
>> relevant to your statements:
>>
>> http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf States in part that
>> Science does not support the claim that homosexuality is genetic
>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1160065/posts States that
>> Homosexuality is not biologically determined
>>
>> and lastly by certainly not least:
>>
>> http://www.dunamai.com/articles/Christian/is_homosexuality_genetic.htm
>>
>> There have been many articles published in various publications
>> regarding homosexuality that do not reflect the scientific literature. In
>> fact, their social advocacy suggests a greater reliance on politics than
>> on
>> science. Perhaps it is time to examine the innate-immutability, argument
>> about homosexuality. In other words, are men and women born with a
>> genetic
>> propensity for same-sex attraction?
>>
>> The issue is enormously complex and cannot he reduced to a simple
>> nature vs. nurture" debate. Homosexual attraction, like many other strong
>> attractions includes both biological and environmental influences.
>> Scientific attempts to demonstrate that homosexual attraction is
>> biologically determined have failed. The major researchers have arrived
>> at
>> such conclusions.
>>
>> Dr. Dean Hamer, a gay researcher, attempted to link male
>> homosexuality
>> to a stretch of DNA located at the tip of the X chromosome, the
>> chromosome
>> that some men inherit from their mothers. Regarding genetics and
>> homosexuality Hamer concluded:
>>
>> "We knew that genes are only part of the answer. We assumed the
>> environment also played a role in sexual orientation, as it does in most,
>> if
>> not all behaviors.... Homosexuality is not purely genetic.environmental
>> factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people
>> gay. I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay."
>>
>> Hamer further states: "The pedigree failed to produce what we
>> originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never
>> found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the
>> obvious
>> pattern that Mendel observed in his pea plants."
>>
>> When the study was duplicated by George Rice with robust research,
>> the
>> genetic markers were found to be non-significant Rice concluded,
>>
>> "It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer's
>> original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer's et al,
>> we
>> certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as
>> reported
>> in that study. Nonetheless, our data does not support the presence of a
>> gene
>> of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position XQ 28."
>>
>> Dr. Simon LeVay, in his study of the hypothalamic differences
>> between
>> the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men, offered the following
>> criticisms of his own research, "It's important to stress what I didn't
>> find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic
>> cause
>> for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most
>> common
>> mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay
>> center
>> in the brain."
>>
>> In commenting on the brain and sexual behavior, Dr. Mark Breedlove,
>> a
>> researcher at the University of California at Berkeley, demonstrated that
>> sexual behavior has an effect on the brain. In referring to his research,
>> Breedlove states:
>>
>> "These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be
>> the case--that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain,
>> just
>> as genes can alter it. It is possible that differences in sexual behavior
>> cause (rather than are caused by) differences in the brain." LeVay
>> observed,
>> "... people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also
>> more
>> likely to support gay rights."
>>
>> A third study, which was conducted by researchers J.M. Bailey and
>> Richard C. Pillard, focused on twins. They found a concordance rate of 52
>> percent among identical twins, 22 percent among non-identical twins and a
>> 9.2 percent among non-twins. This study provides support for
>> environmental
>> factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical
>> twins would have been homosexual.
>>
>> Prominent research team William Byne and Bruce Parsons, as well as
>> psychiatrists R. Friedman and J. Downey, reviewed the studies linking
>> biology and homosexual attraction. They concluded that there was no
>> evidence
>> to support a biologic theory but rather that homosexuality could be best
>> explained by an alternative model where "temperamental and personality
>> traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual's
>> sexuality emerges."
>>
>> Are homosexual attractions innate? There is no support in the
>> scientific research for the conclusion that homosexuality is biologically
>> determined. Is homosexuality fixed or is it amenable to change? There is
>> ample evidence that homosexual attraction can be diminished and that
>> changes
>> can be made. Particularly disturbing is the lack of media attention to
>> the
>> research reported in the Archives of General Psychiatry, which concluded
>> that gay, lesbian, and bisexual people were at risk for mental illness,
>> specifically suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder. While
>> one
>> might suggest that society's oppression of homosexual people may be the
>> cause of such mental illness, this may not be the case.
>>
>> Gay activist Doug Haldeman, at a recent meeting of the American
>> Psychological Association, focused on the right of individuals who were
>> unhappy with their homosexual attraction to pursue treatment aimed at
>> change. He stated,
>>
>> "A corollary issue for many is a sense of religious or spiritual
>> identity that is sometimes as deeply felt as is sexual orientation. For
>> some
>> it is easier, and less emotionally disruptive, to contemplate changing
>> sexual orientation, than to disengage from a religious way of life that
>> is
>> seen as completely central to the individual's sense of self and
>> purpose....
>> However we may view this choice or the psychological underpinnings
>> thereof,
>> do we have the right to deny such an individual treatment that may help
>> him
>> to adapt in the way he has decided is right for him? I would say that we
>> do
>> not."
>>
>> Finally, lesbian activist biologist Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling of
>> Brown
>> University, referring to the biological argument for the development of
>> homosexuality, states,
>>
>> "It provides a legal argument that is, at the moment, actually
>> having some sway in court. For me, it's a very shaky place. It's bad
>> science
>> and bad politics. It seems to me that the way we consider homosexuality
>> in
>> our culture is an ethical and a moral question."
>>
>> Much of the criticism aimed at those whose value systems view
>> homosexual relations as unacceptable is based on the innate-immutability
>> argument. The argument finds no basis in science. Regarding science and
>> morality, Dr. Hamer stated, "...biology is amoral; it offers no help in
>> distinguishing between right and wrong. Only people, guided by their
>> values
>> and beliefs, can decide what is moral and what is not." Homosexual
>> relations
>> are moral, ethical issues.
>>
>> Those individuals who experience unwanted homosexual attractions
>> have
>> a right to treatment. Whether others agree is not as important as
>> respecting
>> that choice. Tolerance and diversity demand that they do so.
>>
>> Related Editorial Thinking Clearly About Homosexuality
>>
>>
>> A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D. is a trained scientist and board Licensed
>> psychologist who is a clinical psychologist and Vice President of the
>> National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality located in
>> Encino, California.
>>
>> Shirley E. Cox, Ph.D., is a Licensed clinical social worker.
>>
>> Jeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D., is a licensed marriage and family
>> therapist.
>>
>> Reprinted from Good News March/April page 30-31.
>>
>>
>> By the way I would have cited these long ago; but to be frank, it just is
>> NOT worth my time to cite web articles to counter web articles posted by
>> others; because at best such articles counterproductive at best; because
>> as
>> I said in another post, any number of articles can be linked to on ither
>> side and proves nothing; because until science and definitively prove
>> homosexuality is genetic it is a matter of opinion.
>
> No, it is more than a matter of opinion. Many studies are indicating that
> genetics plays a large role in selection. As I told you many posts ago,
> when
> you realize that we aren't 100%% male or 100%% female you will have your
> answer.


I already have the answer I believe; but you are free to believe anything
you like

>
>
>> My side of the debate
>> has history to back it up; because if homosexuality were indeed genetic
>> then
>> a case could also be made for pedophilia, bestiality, and indeed ever
>> sort
>> of sexual perversion under the sun.
>
> Your side of the debate has noting except religious prejudices for the
> last
> four thousand years.

as does yours
>
>
>> All manner of sexual deviant would be
>> using as their defense in a court room "It is not my fault I was born
>> this
>> way".
>
> People use that defense every day. You don't read the newspapers or watch
> TV?

No I don't read newspapers; for the most part because I have yet to find one
without a slanted view. TV on the other hand is useful for the discovery,
science, and history channels and for watching home videos and some movies;
but for the most part I don't indulge in most any of the common shows on TV
in the US.

>
>> Society has long held that those the would harm our children through
>> sexual perversion as being the lowest of the low and rightly so. It is a
>> similar case with homosexuals and this latest ploy of calling it genetic
>> is
>> repugnant; because of it by inference allowing for the same defense of
>> every
>> sexual perversion.
>
> Are you insinuating that homosexuals are the dominant players in harming
> our
> children? If so you need to provide a little evidence.

I am saying that if the premise that homosexuality is genetic were to be
true the odds that *all* perverted sexual acts being genetic would be near
one hundred percent.

>
>
>> I have said time and time again, that I don't hate; but rather pity
>> homosexuals; because their poor choice has lead them away from Gods love.
>
> And I say you're a damn liar. You know it and every person that
> corresponds
> with you knows it!

I do not lie when I say that I *believe* homosexuality is *chosen*.
Likewise all the studies that say homosexuality is a chosen trait do no lie.

>
>> However God will welcome them back if they can contain their lust. In
>> other
>> words if any reading this are homosexual, just don't do it if you want to
>> be
>> reconciled with God.
>
> You assume that there is a god, which there isn't.
>
I don't ass-u-me anything; but you seem to be guessing that there is no God.

Posted In: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic

no comments

Reply

]]> Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:01:26 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/solution_to_creation_vs_evolution_50778449t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/solution_to_creation_vs_evolution_50778449t.html "Ralph" yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:idQrh.4685$FL5.543@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Sugien" adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:VZWdnRyjN_FbEDPYnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>>
>> "Wild Bill" qwest.net> wrote in message
>> news:45ae3e13$0$61929$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>>>
>>> "Sugien" adelphia.net> wrote in message
>>> news:K4OdnQ04Gumd9jDYnZ2dnUVZ_oOonZ2d@adelphia.com...
>>>>
>>>> "cactus" nonespam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:08Hqh.48061$wc5.37609@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>> Sugien wrote:
>>>>>> "cactus" nonespam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:oHBqh.23394$sR.268@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>>> Sugien wrote:
>>>>>>>> "cactus" nonespam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:1Azqh.19983$yC5.12889@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>>>>> john w >>>>>>>>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>>>>>>>> On 13 Jan 2007 10:46:52 -0800, "Wombat"
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> john w wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 09:23:23 -0800, IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> (IKnowHimDoYou- A.) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Solution to Creation vs Evolution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> God will show us the Truth if you know Him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't know Him it won't matter will it?
>>>>>>>>>>>> IKH, don't you realize that you are trying to be reasonable
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> people who aren't interested?
>>>>>>>>>>> IKHDY reasonable? Pull the other one.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have every right to express your POV; so do I! I just did!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Creation happens to make more sense to me than does evolution.
>>>>>>>>> To each his own.
>>>>>>>>>> I refuse to believe that billions or trillions of years ago, I
>>>>>>>>>> started
>>>>>>>>>> life as an amoeba.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You didn't. You started, as did all humans, as a sperm and egg.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We are ascended from one-celled creatures, after billions of years
>>>>>>>>> of evolution.
>>>>>>>> did you mean to say "descended" from?
>>>>>>> Your choice. It's just a matter of how you draw the tree. Up or
>>>>>>> down,
>>>>>>> doesn't really matter. And since we are presumably more highly
>>>>>>> evolved than the first life forms, ascending is as good a term as
>>>>>>> any.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, you haven't responded to my citation of the article about a
>>>>>>> genetic basis for homosexuality. Does that mean you agree with it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No I don't agree with it. I haven't responded; because any number of
>>>>>> articles can be found on either side and citing this one or that one
>>>>>> doesn't prove anything. It comes down to what one believes. I
>>>>>> believe it is wrong; but that is only my opinion based upon my life
>>>>>> experiences and what I have read and the bible. If your opinion
>>>>>> differs that is fine. I do not hate homosexuals, I just don't agree
>>>>>> with their life style and think their engaging in sex with a same sex
>>>>>> partner is against Gods laws and if nothing else nature would tend to
>>>>>> back up it as being wrong; because if everyone engaged in such the
>>>>>> species would go extent; but if all engaged in heterosexual the
>>>>>> species would not; but we could just as well I guess go extinct from
>>>>>> over population, so in a way I guess it is a form birth control.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is a scientific paper, using standard scientific methodology, and
>>>>> published in a peer-reviewed journal. It's good science.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying then that you reject the science because it disagrees
>>>>> with your interpretation of Leviticus?
>>>>
>>>> What you cite disagrees with not only common sense; but also with
>>>> nature
>>>> and the bible. Are you trying to say that homosexuality is not a sin
>>>> according to the bible? or just according to a study? As I said there
>>>> are studies on both sides of the issue so to cite studies proves
>>>> nothing
>>>> more then who can take enough time to search for and then paste the
>>>> url's here.
>>>
>>> Sugien, I don't even know if your getting an education will help...you
>>> need to get a brain first! Now damnit, pay attention. Science simply
>>> says
>>> that homosexuality is genetic in origin, ie. they're born that way. If
>>> you want to accept the superstition and ignorance of ancient
>>> goat-herders
>>> ahead of modern science, be our guest. However, don't you dare feel
>>> insulted when the rest of us consider you to be dumber'n a board.
>>>
>> Science says nothing of the kind, so me a *definitive* study that
>> states euphorically that homosexuality is genetic. You will not because
>> you can not.
>
> Of course he can. A search of PubMed for homosexuality and genetics, lists
> 750 articles. Within this 750 are many that show that genetics are
> involved
> in homosexual choices. Are there those that chose this lifestyle? Of
> course
> and the "Christian" community parade these as if they are a badge of
> honor.
>
>> Yes you can cite a few studies that are not only laughed at by the
>> majority of the scientific community; but most of the world as a whole.
>
> As I said above, there are many scientific studies on this subject and the
> prevailing thought is that homosexuality has a genetic cause in most
> cases.
> If you can understand a few of these you can go here:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
>
> Have fun, you scientific illiterate!
>
>
>
>> Saying that homosexuality is a genetic trait is a last ditch effort by
>> those that have *chosen* to engage in such perversion to try and validate
>> their *chosen* lifestyle in an effort to try and feel good about their
>> self.
>
> Those whom you say have chosen the lifestyle don't do the studies in the
> vast majority of the cases, you scientific illiterate. Here is the site of
> the journal Science. It has over 25,000 hits on homosexual and genetics.
> While some of these may not have the exact article most do:
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=homosexual+genetics&search_submit...
>
>
>> There is NO *homo* gene, it is a myth and a grasping at straws to try and
>> legitimize perversion.
>
> Wrong again, as usual.
>
>> Although the term *perversion* is a moral one it is none the less true
>> that homosexuality is a *chosen* lifestyle. I find it sad that because
>> of
>> this latest attempt to legitimize homosexuality by claiming they were
>> born
>> that way will most likely have a back lash; because although most of
>> society will tolerate someone that *chooses* to live outside the norm,
>> they will most likely never accept the belief in fables about they not
>> having any choice and that they were born the way they are.
>
> Religious taboos aren't previsions in my opinion. I wouldn't chose that
> lifestyle because who would want to live with the attached stigma in our
> society. That, by the way, is a good argument by gays against choosing
> such
> a
> lifestyle.
>
>
>>Although I do agree that they should not be treated any different by
>>society then any other group that has chosen their lifestyle, and that
>>they
>>should not be singled out by society by bigots, unfortunately that is the
>>society in which we all live.
>
> What the hell are you saying? You're a Christian creationist and thus are
> a
> bigot by definition.
>
>
>> Any group that chooses to life outside the norm should realize that they
>> are in danger of having society's consternation; especially if they try
>> and tell society that they did not chose their behavior but rather that
>> they were born that way.
>
> "They" aren't determining this, mole brain, science will have the final
> say!
>
>
>>This blaming it on nature instead of the reality of nurture, is no
>>different then someone saying that "The devil made me do it", and no less
>>repugnant to those that know the truth of the matter.
>
> You don't have a clue as to the truth!
>
> Here are a few understandable web sites that you might be able to
> understand:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3735668.stm
>
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm
>
> http://webpages.marshall.edu/~woods18/homosexuality.htm
>
> http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060224_gay_genes.html
>
> http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html
>
> http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm
>
> http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/06/061605genetic.htm
>


For someone that *claims* to understand the scientific process you sure
don't seem to know what a consensus it; because if you did you would realize
that when just as many studies can be cited on both sides of and issue there
can not be a consensus.
--
From the Desk of Paul CKC
/}
@###{ ]::::::Cyber Knight for Christ::::::>
\}

Posted In: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic

no comments

Reply

]]> Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:53:38 PST