Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Scientific Study - Epigenetics & Homosexuals

naturebeckles
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 9:59:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, if I understand this correctly, there is no direct gene that this pair of scientists found, but rather an epigenetic mark passed down from parent to child, that determines homosexuality. Epigenes are switches that don't change the DNA structure, but determine how instructions are carried out. So Epigenetic marks can change a person who is gender female and sexually identifies female, but can become sexual preference female from the epigenetic mark passed down from her father.

This is science folks, a hypothesis verified by experiment and if enough other scientists can reproduce the results, it can become an accepted theory. Once again, supporting the biological early beginnings that people are born homosexual, and that it's not a "sin choice" they make later in life. This is for the people who care because it's interesting. Those of you who wish to only blast this to pieces with your religion will be ignored.

http://io9.com...
"Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own." Bruce Lee
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 10:01:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2012 9:59:07 PM, naturebeckles wrote:
Those of you who wish to only blast this to pieces with your religion will be ignored.

So much for open discussion, then. You only want to hear from people who agree.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 10:01:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2012 10:01:11 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/11/2012 9:59:07 PM, naturebeckles wrote:
Those of you who wish to only blast this to pieces with your religion will be ignored.

So much for open discussion, then. You only want to hear from people who agree.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
naturebeckles
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 10:06:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2012 10:01:11 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/11/2012 9:59:07 PM, naturebeckles wrote:
Those of you who wish to only blast this to pieces with your religion will be ignored.

So much for open discussion, then. You only want to hear from people who agree.

I bet you won't even read the article.
"Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own." Bruce Lee
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 11:20:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I never understood why it even mattered if sexual orientation is a choice or not. (Which, let's face it, it obviously isn't... Are any preferences, likes or dislikes, choices?)
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 1:42:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2012 9:59:07 PM, naturebeckles wrote:
So, if I understand this correctly, there is no direct gene that this pair of scientists found, but rather an epigenetic mark passed down from parent to child, that determines homosexuality. Epigenes are switches that don't change the DNA structure, but determine how instructions are carried out. So Epigenetic marks can change a person who is gender female and sexually identifies female, but can become sexual preference female from the epigenetic mark passed down from her father.

This is science folks, a hypothesis verified by experiment and if enough other scientists can reproduce the results, it can become an accepted theory. Once again, supporting the biological early beginnings that people are born homosexual, and that it's not a "sin choice" they make later in life. This is for the people who care because it's interesting. Those of you who wish to only blast this to pieces with your religion will be ignored.

http://io9.com...

Even if this were the case, it still wouldn't make it morally right; what if they find a gene for murder? Do we then accept murder?

Or would you then accept Gene therapy for homosexuality?
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 3:30:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Depends on what you mean by 'sin choice'. If I was born with kleptomania, that would hardly excuse my constantly stealing things.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
naturebeckles
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 8:39:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 1:42:51 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/11/2012 9:59:07 PM, naturebeckles wrote:
So, if I understand this correctly, there is no direct gene that this pair of scientists found, but rather an epigenetic mark passed down from parent to child, that determines homosexuality. Epigenes are switches that don't change the DNA structure, but determine how instructions are carried out. So Epigenetic marks can change a person who is gender female and sexually identifies female, but can become sexual preference female from the epigenetic mark passed down from her father.

This is science folks, a hypothesis verified by experiment and if enough other scientists can reproduce the results, it can become an accepted theory. Once again, supporting the biological early beginnings that people are born homosexual, and that it's not a "sin choice" they make later in life. This is for the people who care because it's interesting. Those of you who wish to only blast this to pieces with your religion will be ignored.

http://io9.com...

Even if this were the case, it still wouldn't make it morally right; what if they find a gene for murder? Do we then accept murder?

Or would you then accept Gene therapy for homosexuality?

Wow. So, God made them that way, but you believe its morally wrong, because you think God said so in the Bible. What kind of God makes people born the way they are and then punishes them for being how they're born? If that's the kind of God you worship, I'll GLADLY go to hell. Because I really don't want to go to "heaven" with people like you.

The whole "what if they find a gene for murder" is a poor argument. You'll have to do better than that.
"Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own." Bruce Lee
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 9:20:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 8:39:20 AM, naturebeckles wrote:
At 12/12/2012 1:42:51 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/11/2012 9:59:07 PM, naturebeckles wrote:
So, if I understand this correctly, there is no direct gene that this pair of scientists found, but rather an epigenetic mark passed down from parent to child, that determines homosexuality. Epigenes are switches that don't change the DNA structure, but determine how instructions are carried out. So Epigenetic marks can change a person who is gender female and sexually identifies female, but can become sexual preference female from the epigenetic mark passed down from her father.

This is science folks, a hypothesis verified by experiment and if enough other scientists can reproduce the results, it can become an accepted theory. Once again, supporting the biological early beginnings that people are born homosexual, and that it's not a "sin choice" they make later in life. This is for the people who care because it's interesting. Those of you who wish to only blast this to pieces with your religion will be ignored.

http://io9.com...

Even if this were the case, it still wouldn't make it morally right; what if they find a gene for murder? Do we then accept murder?

Or would you then accept Gene therapy for homosexuality?

Wow. So, God made them that way, but you believe its morally wrong, because you think
Maybe he did?
God said so in the Bible. What kind of God makes people born the way they are and then punishes them for being how they're born?
Notice you haven't made this same argument for any other birth condition.
If that's the kind of God you worship, I'll GLADLY go to hell.
Are you sure? (Y/N)
Because I really don't want to go to "heaven" with people like you.
Because heaven is sooooo much worse then hell.
WHAT IS IT IS? (Cue dramatic undertones.)

The whole "what if they find a gene for murder" is a poor argument.
TA: Why is it poor?
My imaginary friend who is an atheist: BECAUSE I SAID SO! SHUT UP RELIGIOUS ZEALOT!
You'll have to do better than that.



My(imaginary) friend's name is Steve, and he is in the Egyptian militia XD.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
naturebeckles
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 10:22:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Notice you haven't made this same argument for any other birth condition.

There's no need to bring up other birth conditions because that's not whats being discussed. And yes I do have the same opinion about them. I don't know what your point is. Let me just go ahead and bring up every other birth condition in the world and state that my opinions of them are the same as this one, just to satisfy YOU. *insert eye roll here*

If that's the kind of God you worship, I'll GLADLY go to hell.
Are you sure? (Y/N)

Yes. I am QUITE sure.
"Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own." Bruce Lee
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 12:19:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 10:22:48 AM, naturebeckles wrote:
Notice you haven't made this same argument for any other birth condition.

There's no need to bring up other birth conditions because that's not whats being discussed.

If you say that homosexuality is genetic, it is a condition at birth.
And yes I do have the same opinion about them. I don't know what your point is.

Point is, is this the rule or the exception?
Let me just go ahead and bring up every other birth condition in the world and state that my opinions of them are the same as this one, just to satisfy YOU.
Well, you need 2 or more. Obviously you exaggerated my statement in order to act like you have a leg up on me.
*insert eye roll here*

If that's the kind of God you worship, I'll GLADLY go to hell.
Are you sure? (Y/N)

Yes. I am QUITE sure.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 12:49:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2012 10:01:11 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/11/2012 9:59:07 PM, naturebeckles wrote:
Those of you who wish to only blast this to pieces with your religion will be ignored.

So much for open discussion, then. You only want to hear from people who agree.

Not what she said. Why don't you respond to the actual post?
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 12:59:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 12:56:14 PM, drafterman wrote:
Fascinating, but belongs in the science forum.

Good point. If OP didn't want people to respond with religion this shouldn't be in this forum.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 1:55:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 1:42:51 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/11/2012 9:59:07 PM, naturebeckles wrote:
So, if I understand this correctly, there is no direct gene that this pair of scientists found, but rather an epigenetic mark passed down from parent to child, that determines homosexuality. Epigenes are switches that don't change the DNA structure, but determine how instructions are carried out. So Epigenetic marks can change a person who is gender female and sexually identifies female, but can become sexual preference female from the epigenetic mark passed down from her father.

This is science folks, a hypothesis verified by experiment and if enough other scientists can reproduce the results, it can become an accepted theory. Once again, supporting the biological early beginnings that people are born homosexual, and that it's not a "sin choice" they make later in life. This is for the people who care because it's interesting. Those of you who wish to only blast this to pieces with your religion will be ignored.

http://io9.com...

Even if this were the case, it still wouldn't make it morally right; what if they find a gene for murder? Do we then accept murder?

Or would you then accept Gene therapy for homosexuality?

This is correct. The OP is one huge is/ought fallacy.

However, the Is/Ought fallacy can be applied to anything:

Even if God is true and he wrote the Bible, it doesn't mean that we ought to follow the Bible.

The Is/Ought fallacy completely destroys all moral reasoning and makes moral statements not based on axioms incoherent.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 2:53:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 1:55:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
The Is/Ought fallacy completely destroys all moral reasoning and makes moral statements not based on axioms incoherent

lol no. The is/ought problem is a hugely overrated argument: http://www.utilitarian.net...

tl:dr of the article (although you should read it): the important issue isn't whether 'ought' statements can follow from 'is' statements - that's just a linguistic side-dispute. The important issue is to what degree moral concerns connect with reasons for action on those concerns. For example, one could define that 'good' is synonymous with the maximisation of happiness. But the pertinent question that follows from that is "what reason do I have, given that we have stipulated this definition of good, to act morally?". Some moral theories fare better under the lense of this question than others.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 2:58:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 1:55:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is correct. The OP is one huge is/ought fallacy.

However, the Is/Ought fallacy can be applied to anything:

Even if God is true and he wrote the Bible, it doesn't mean that we ought to follow the Bible.

The Is/Ought fallacy completely destroys all moral reasoning and makes moral statements not based on axioms incoherent.

Incorrect.

If God is "true", and his truth can be found in the bible, and this truth tells us we should adhere to the gospel, then we should follow it.

Is/ought doesn't apply to God, because the 'is and ought' are specifically related to him and the bible.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 11:27:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 2:53:02 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 12/12/2012 1:55:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
The Is/Ought fallacy completely destroys all moral reasoning and makes moral statements not based on axioms incoherent

lol no. The is/ought problem is a hugely overrated argument: http://www.utilitarian.net...

tl:dr of the article (although you should read it): the important issue isn't whether 'ought' statements can follow from 'is' statements - that's just a linguistic side-dispute. The important issue is to what degree moral concerns connect with reasons for action on those concerns. For example, one could define that 'good' is synonymous with the maximisation of happiness. But the pertinent question that follows from that is "what reason do I have, given that we have stipulated this definition of good, to act morally?". Some moral theories fare better under the lense of this question than others.

"Good" carries moral implication. To define something as good is assuming that there is an objective measurement of "goodness" and even if we can do this, which is clearly false, it doesn't follow that we ought to be "good."

Brushing off whether an ought can follow from an is as a "linguistic side-dispute" is a pure cop-out. An ought cannot logically follow from a factual statement.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 11:28:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 2:58:06 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 12/12/2012 1:55:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is correct. The OP is one huge is/ought fallacy.

However, the Is/Ought fallacy can be applied to anything:

Even if God is true and he wrote the Bible, it doesn't mean that we ought to follow the Bible.

The Is/Ought fallacy completely destroys all moral reasoning and makes moral statements not based on axioms incoherent.

Incorrect.

If God is "true", and his truth can be found in the bible, and this truth tells us we should adhere to the gospel, then we should follow it.

Is/ought doesn't apply to God, because the 'is and ought' are specifically related to him and the bible.

Highlighted is your problem. Is: God is true and the Bible tells us to follow him. Ought: We should follow him. You cannot connect the two.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 12:07:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 1:42:51 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/11/2012 9:59:07 PM, naturebeckles wrote:
So, if I understand this correctly, there is no direct gene that this pair of scientists found, but rather an epigenetic mark passed down from parent to child, that determines homosexuality. Epigenes are switches that don't change the DNA structure, but determine how instructions are carried out. So Epigenetic marks can change a person who is gender female and sexually identifies female, but can become sexual preference female from the epigenetic mark passed down from her father.

This is science folks, a hypothesis verified by experiment and if enough other scientists can reproduce the results, it can become an accepted theory. Once again, supporting the biological early beginnings that people are born homosexual, and that it's not a "sin choice" they make later in life. This is for the people who care because it's interesting. Those of you who wish to only blast this to pieces with your religion will be ignored.

http://io9.com...

Even if this were the case, it still wouldn't make it morally right; what if they find a gene for murder? Do we then accept murder?

Or would you then accept Gene therapy for homosexuality?

Using your argument, why don't we condemn other conditions brought about by epigenetics, such as cellular differentiation? Or, are we going to pick and choose based on our likes and dislikes?

"One example of epigenetic changes in eukaryotic biology is the process of cellular differentiation. During morphogenesis, totipotent stem cells become the various pluripotent cell lines of the embryo, which in turn become fully differentiated cells. In other words, a single fertilized egg cell 'the zygote' changes into the many cell types including neurons, muscle cells, epithelium, endothelium of blood vessels, etc. as it continues to divide. It does so by activating some genes while inhibiting others." - http://en.wikipedia.org...
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 9:46:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 8:39:20 AM, naturebeckles wrote:
At 12/12/2012 1:42:51 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/11/2012 9:59:07 PM, naturebeckles wrote:
So, if I understand this correctly, there is no direct gene that this pair of scientists found, but rather an epigenetic mark passed down from parent to child, that determines homosexuality. Epigenes are switches that don't change the DNA structure, but determine how instructions are carried out. So Epigenetic marks can change a person who is gender female and sexually identifies female, but can become sexual preference female from the epigenetic mark passed down from her father.

This is science folks, a hypothesis verified by experiment and if enough other scientists can reproduce the results, it can become an accepted theory. Once again, supporting the biological early beginnings that people are born homosexual, and that it's not a "sin choice" they make later in life. This is for the people who care because it's interesting. Those of you who wish to only blast this to pieces with your religion will be ignored.

http://io9.com...

Even if this were the case, it still wouldn't make it morally right; what if they find a gene for murder? Do we then accept murder?

Or would you then accept Gene therapy for homosexuality?

Wow. So, God made them that way, but you believe its morally wrong, because you think God said so in the Bible. What kind of God makes people born the way they are and then punishes them for being how they're born? If that's the kind of God you worship, I'll GLADLY go to hell. Because I really don't want to go to "heaven" with people like you.

The whole "what if they find a gene for murder" is a poor argument. You'll have to do better than that.



God does everything perfectly.

Man chose Sin, to be his own god, and now it's all this..

If you read my post again I said 'even if', showing that I do not necessarily buy into any of this..

I know that all sin is 'pleasurable for a season' but then it becomes an ugly prison..

Some people desire and have been set free from homosexuality by the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

I don't have to 'do better' on anything, I'll just keep behaving in the dignified manner I have while you get ever more petty, vulgar and bitter..

This way I'll glorify God and you'll exposed as the virulent gaystapo.
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 9:47:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 12:07:20 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 12/12/2012 1:42:51 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/11/2012 9:59:07 PM, naturebeckles wrote:
So, if I understand this correctly, there is no direct gene that this pair of scientists found, but rather an epigenetic mark passed down from parent to child, that determines homosexuality. Epigenes are switches that don't change the DNA structure, but determine how instructions are carried out. So Epigenetic marks can change a person who is gender female and sexually identifies female, but can become sexual preference female from the epigenetic mark passed down from her father.

This is science folks, a hypothesis verified by experiment and if enough other scientists can reproduce the results, it can become an accepted theory. Once again, supporting the biological early beginnings that people are born homosexual, and that it's not a "sin choice" they make later in life. This is for the people who care because it's interesting. Those of you who wish to only blast this to pieces with your religion will be ignored.

http://io9.com...

Even if this were the case, it still wouldn't make it morally right; what if they find a gene for murder? Do we then accept murder?

Or would you then accept Gene therapy for homosexuality?

Using your argument, why don't we condemn other conditions brought about by epigenetics, such as cellular differentiation? Or, are we going to pick and choose based on our likes and dislikes?

"One example of epigenetic changes in eukaryotic biology is the process of cellular differentiation. During morphogenesis, totipotent stem cells become the various pluripotent cell lines of the embryo, which in turn become fully differentiated cells. In other words, a single fertilized egg cell 'the zygote' changes into the many cell types including neurons, muscle cells, epithelium, endothelium of blood vessels, etc. as it continues to divide. It does so by activating some genes while inhibiting others." - http://en.wikipedia.org...

'Even if this were the case' means I don't believe it to be so..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 11:30:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 9:47:12 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/13/2012 12:07:20 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Using your argument, why don't we condemn other conditions brought about by epigenetics, such as cellular differentiation? Or, are we going to pick and choose based on our likes and dislikes?

"One example of epigenetic changes in eukaryotic biology is the process of cellular differentiation. During morphogenesis, totipotent stem cells become the various pluripotent cell lines of the embryo, which in turn become fully differentiated cells. In other words, a single fertilized egg cell 'the zygote' changes into the many cell types including neurons, muscle cells, epithelium, endothelium of blood vessels, etc. as it continues to divide. It does so by activating some genes while inhibiting others." - http://en.wikipedia.org...

'Even if this were the case' means I don't believe it to be so..

I'm starting to believe truth is not of paramount importance to you; that, in fact, it takes a backseat to some ulterior motive. It is clear a bias presents itself in most, if not all, your disagreements; at all cost, there is a presumption of truth. Yet, to the open-minded, one doesn't presume to know anything; truth is not some dead relic petrified in stone, but a living, breathing ever changing Universe; and, those who refuse to evolve with it become fossilized remnants of the past.
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 10:15:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 11:30:54 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:47:12 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/13/2012 12:07:20 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Using your argument, why don't we condemn other conditions brought about by epigenetics, such as cellular differentiation? Or, are we going to pick and choose based on our likes and dislikes?

"One example of epigenetic changes in eukaryotic biology is the process of cellular differentiation. During morphogenesis, totipotent stem cells become the various pluripotent cell lines of the embryo, which in turn become fully differentiated cells. In other words, a single fertilized egg cell 'the zygote' changes into the many cell types including neurons, muscle cells, epithelium, endothelium of blood vessels, etc. as it continues to divide. It does so by activating some genes while inhibiting others." - http://en.wikipedia.org...

'Even if this were the case' means I don't believe it to be so..

I'm starting to believe truth is not of paramount importance to you; that, in fact, it takes a backseat to some ulterior motive. It is clear a bias presents itself in most, if not all, your disagreements; at all cost, there is a presumption of truth. Yet, to the open-minded, one doesn't presume to know anything; truth is not some dead relic petrified in stone, but a living, breathing ever changing Universe; and, those who refuse to evolve with it become fossilized remnants of the past.

No, the truth cannot change or else there is no truth; 2+2=4.. Always has, always will..

Jesus said 'you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.'

It does. It has.

The truth of this entire thread is for non believers to bully believers using the political 'hot potato' of homosexuality as a bludgeon..

I'll restate my case:

Sin is being cut off from God, being your own god.

sins are the various acts we do in a state of Sin; adultery, murder, homosexuality etc..

It is Sin, not sins, that send us to hell.

BEHOLD THE LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD!
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 4:23:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 10:15:04 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
No, the truth cannot change or else there is no truth; 2+2=4.. Always has, always will..

Jesus said 'you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.'

It does. It has.

The truth of this entire thread is for non believers to bully believers using the political 'hot potato' of homosexuality as a bludgeon..

I'll restate my case:

Sin is being cut off from God, being your own god.

sins are the various acts we do in a state of Sin; adultery, murder, homosexuality etc..

It is Sin, not sins, that send us to hell.

BEHOLD THE LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD!

Take for example, the statement: "The sky is blue." Is this statement true or false? Well, of course, all of that depends on one's vantage point. As lower frequencies of light are absorbed by various gases in the atmosphere, they give the impression the sky is blue. However, if viewing the sky closer to the horizon, it appears to be white. Secondly, high in the sky, the sun appears to be yellow; as it sets, it turns the colors orange and, then, red, just above the horizon; yet, in space, the sun is not yellow, orange, or red; it is white. So, saying the sky is blue or the sun is yellow is true only from one's vantage point. These are only two examples of how the truth is relative to one's perspective; in fact, there are countless other illustrations.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 4:30:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Jesus said somthing along the lines of "It is not what goes into the man that defiles him, but what comes out of him." Mark 11 or 15 something, I forget which.

I think that covers homosexuality pretty well :)

It seems to me that there are far too many Christians who derive more of their behaviour from Paul, than Sermon on the Mount.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 4:41:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 4:30:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Jesus said somthing along the lines of "It is not what goes into the man that defiles him, but what comes out of him." Mark 11 or 15 something, I forget which.

I think that covers homosexuality pretty well :)

It seems to me that there are far too many Christians who derive more of their behaviour from Paul, than Sermon on the Mount.

I grew up in a very conservative church, and I heard, ad nauseam, what St. Paul had to say about this or that. Hardly ever did I hear sermons on the Sermon on the Mount, except when the preacher wanted to guilt people into giving.
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 10:05:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 11:28:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/12/2012 2:58:06 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 12/12/2012 1:55:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is correct. The OP is one huge is/ought fallacy.

However, the Is/Ought fallacy can be applied to anything:

Even if God is true and he wrote the Bible, it doesn't mean that we ought to follow the Bible.

The Is/Ought fallacy completely destroys all moral reasoning and makes moral statements not based on axioms incoherent.

Incorrect.

If God is "true", and his truth can be found in the bible, and this truth tells us we should adhere to the gospel, then we should follow it.

Is/ought doesn't apply to God, because the 'is and ought' are specifically related to him and the bible.

Highlighted is your problem. Is: God is true and the Bible tells us to follow him. Ought: We should follow him. You cannot connect the two.

Firstly I agree with LordKnukle. You must show a reason for following the truth.

On to the main argument of the topic. What the thread starter is trying to imply is that homosexuality has an epigenetic cause, and as such, must be accepted. Truth be told, I read the original article. However, the line of reasoning proffered is the same as that to accept alcoholics. After all, it is a proven fact that alcoholics also have epigenetic causes. Google it.

Now, I"m not a homophobe. I know quite a few homosexuals online and offline (Note: I"m not homosexual myself, and no, that doesn"t mean I approve of their life-style. I"m just not one to tell them what to do. Others might, but not me.). I"m just showing the absurdity of this line of reasoning. This line of reasoning can apply to just about anything else. Including (Besides already showing a line of reasoning to alcoholism) cannibalism. http://www.life.illinois.edu... (Press Ctrl-F, and type "Cannibal")
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 10:08:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2012 10:06:05 PM, naturebeckles wrote:
At 12/11/2012 10:01:11 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/11/2012 9:59:07 PM, naturebeckles wrote:
Those of you who wish to only blast this to pieces with your religion will be ignored.

So much for open discussion, then. You only want to hear from people who agree.


I bet you won't even read the article.

How much you bet?
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 10:11:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 10:08:10 PM, Muted wrote:
At 12/11/2012 10:06:05 PM, naturebeckles wrote:
At 12/11/2012 10:01:11 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/11/2012 9:59:07 PM, naturebeckles wrote:
Those of you who wish to only blast this to pieces with your religion will be ignored.

So much for open discussion, then. You only want to hear from people who agree.


I bet you won't even read the article.

How much you bet?

Oh, and social interactions shape the epigenome. See: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu... This is science.
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.