Thou Shalt Not Kill

absalom

Quote:

---

this is a vb forum you want to go argue about the bible go to Ireland and fight for it

---

Very democratic of you. I guess "freedom of speech" and all that stuff is lost on you?

Quote:

---

and every one in there right mind knows that the commandment says thou shalt not murder!

---

Really?

"Knows its murder" = "right mind"

"Hello Mr Chinaman... Is the commandment in the Bible 'Kill' or 'Murder'?"

"The what? The Bible? never heard of it"

I guess he isn't in his "right mind"

"Hello Mr Indian... Is the commandment in the Bible 'Kill' or 'Murder'?"

"I do not believe in the Bible"

Well... I guess he isn't in his right mind either.


Is there anyone else you want to insult?

So far you have insulted at least half of the worlds population and even about 25% of the Christian community as well.

Not bad for only your 13th post. :)

Gen-X, give him a break. That's not what he meant and you know it.

Fair point about Moses... I'd be more suspiscious of Mary with her story about immaculate conception ;)

I think the minimum you should come away with IS the fact that an English copy will most likely be flawed. Hebrew and Greek are the most likely accurate texts. My point has been that in order to truly study the meaning, you may have to go to such an early text.

I left a church that pretty much insisted on the NIV version and I disagreed with what they were telling us of the Greek meaning in a critical passage (from the Christian perspective).

***********************************************************
BTW; How do you do the cool "indented quote or code" thingy?
***********************************************************

You said, "Not relevant. I don't read books and take them to indicate the absolute TRUTH in the world. If they are history books then I know they were written by the "victors" and read the "story" for the purpose it was written."
If these questions are irrelevant for any book, why ask them of the bible and why post this thread?
Which one IS the original text?
Where is it located?
How long has it been there?
How do you verify its authenticity?
How do you PROVE it was written 2000 years ago?
How do you PROVE who wrote it?
How do you PROVE "where" it was written?"

Also, it would show the type of answers that would be acceptable to you.

First of all, many people saw the burning bush (from a distance). My point about Moses IS that maybe he could have carved two copies with the "evil" intention of breaking one in public and then going up again to retrieve the "reprint/recarving". So, even if I find that the "reprint/recarving" took a much shorter time than the "original", it is probably not good evidence for being "written by God's own hand". But I am interested and have not yet checked that out.

VirtuallyVB
Firstly I have a problem with "Greek" texts. Considering that the Greeks have their own panthenon I find it strange that you would use the texts from a people who believe in multiple deities for a thousand years while their "biblical" texts were running around.

Secondly... Do you know Hebrew? Why aren't there more Christians out there running around learning Hebrew so they don't get it wrong?

As for the codes, when you make a reply have a look at the top part of the message and click on a link called "vb codes", it will show you have to do them all.

Quote:

---

If these questions are irrelevant for any book, why ask them of the bible and why post this thread?

---

Because the bible is touted as being 100% accurate, 100% TRUTH and never wrong (hence the whole discussion about "proving the bible wrong").

When people make such grandiose claims it is easy to void them... Ask anyone about a history book, ask people from the other side and they will tell you the history books have it wrong... then again, we never CLAIMED that history books ever had it 100% accurate, 100% TRUTH and never wrong.

So it is irrelevant to ask that question of any book because the "claims" being made are not the same.

Quote:

---

Which one IS the original text?
Where is it located?
How long has it been there?
How do you verify its authenticity?
How do you PROVE it was written 2000 years ago?
How do you PROVE who wrote it?
How do you PROVE "where" it was written?"

---

Can you answer these questions of the "Hebrew and Greek" texts you keep mentioning? I am yet to actually get an asnwer that doesn't have you being jovial.

Quote:

---

First of all, many people saw the burning bush (from a distance).

---

Are you sure about this? It was my impression that Moses went up into the mountains for "40 days and 40 nights" and that God came to "him and him alone" in the form of the bush. Others may have seen "light" coming over the mountain top but I don't ever remember there being an account of anyone BUT Moses seeing the bush burn.


The bottom line is that there is no difference between someone "claiming" to write something under the influence of God and someone who might ACTUALLY do so.

I could tell you "I write God's words not mine"... but what would make you believe or accept it?

That I agreed with your philosophy?
That the end result was good?
That you had some corroborating evidence?

Just how exactly can you tell the difference between someone who is making false claims and someone who is claiming in truth?

When you can do that... THEN you can place some credibility in texts that were written by the hands of men and say it is IMPOSSIBLE that they are incorrect or even bias towards the writers own agenda.

If you know that the bible was not written in English and you know that translations can be in error, isn't it more likely that an older Greek text will be more accurate for the Old Testament? How would you suggest writing to a person who reads Greek and worships multiple gods that they should worship one God?

No, I don't know Hebrew. I suppose the Christians that take whatever is put before them need not go to the original texts. It is when a further search of truth is desired that people go to the best sources they can authenticate. Obviously texts not in the original languages are less authentic. This is the point I would expect a rational person seeking truth to come to. If you don't come to this conclusion, don't flame me, this is my opinion (notice the part that says, "I would expect")
However, I have had people that speak Hebrew and don't believe the bible to tell me (translate) what the words are saying. I also have had people that believe the bible do translations for me. My most recent one (thank God for the Internet) was finally to find out if my speculation that "God" is probably the 3rd word in the first sentence of the bible. This is based totally on my own personal belief of harmony and harmonics and God's exact interest in numbers (there's a whole chapter named "Numbers") and a possible Bible Code. Also, the first sentence of the bible is 7 words. But thats very deep stuff. Engineering has helped me get familiar with Greek and it is easier for me to read than Hebrew.

I don't see why you say it is irrelevant when you are not even asking about the claims at this point. I don't think this is being fair to the search for truth. Why trust any text of any dead author?

Actually, I meant they saw something burning but didn't know it was a bush that wasn't consumed. Regardless, even my revised statement needs to be verified. The only reference coming to mind is from a movie. Exodus 3 doesn't explicitly say that others saw the light from the burning bush (although someone-not me-might argue that tending the flock required more than one person). Exodus 4 talks about Moses's staff which turns into a serpent. You'd have to follow Exodus for the other signs with the staff. Did Egypt have Jewish slaves? If so, why were they set free (according to the Egyptians)? Did any if all of the Egyptian first born die right before the exodus? Is that proof for you that God said it would be so? Was Pharoah's army blocked by fire and then drowned in the once parted waters? Again, where the bible stops and the movies continue is critical here for truth. There is alot to verify here.

While I would be interested in Egyptian history to verify these things, even if their history did verify it, would that be acceptable to you? I would think not.

Also, I don't think you used "jovial" accurately. The way I perceived you intended its meaning, I disagree with. How's that for internet text comunication?

VirtuallyVB

So you are telling me that you don't even know the language in which the most sacred book in your life was written in???

Obviously it is such a big part of your life that you are happy to have others translate it for you and believe at every step of the way you are being told the truth.

Some people may call that "gullability" :)

Quote:

---

I don't see why you say it is irrelevant when you are not even asking about the claims at this point. I don't think this is being fair to the search for truth. Why trust any text of any dead author?

---

Exactly. Why trust any books unless you can "repeat" whatever they are saying?

I get a science book that tells me adding sulfur to Water causes an explosion... I go out and I do it, guess what??? it explodes.

You are claiming that on the whole, the Bible is TRUE and in the majority has not been tampered with to any great extent for nearly 2000 years.

What I am claiming is that for the exact reasons I have stated it is folly to believe it has not been changed or tampered with and that its information is not reliable. The fact that a lot of what is written was done in the context of the time (It should be 10 cubits long, sacrificing sheep etc) shows that it wasn't "meant" to be something we swallow whole today.

Quote:

---

Actually, I meant they saw something burning but didn't know it was a bush that wasn't consumed

---

So Moses came down the mountain and said it was a Bush that wasn't consumed and the crowd believed him... There is that gullable word again :)

Quote:

---

Is that proof for you that God said it would be so?

---

If you could prove that the first born of every Egyptian at the time died on the same night then I would believe you... unfortunately it is not recorded anywhere in Egyptian history that there was such a great disaster as that. There might have been a plague that struck down a lot of children, and as the first borns are the eldest they would be more likely to be outside and thus easier to contract the plague... But taking that to an illogical step that says "God killed hte first born of every Egyptian" is just zealous speculation.

Quote:

---

While I would be interested in Egyptian history to verify these things, even if their history did verify it, would that be acceptable to you? I would think not.

---

If Egyptian history verified it, and I mean TRUE verification... not simply a recording of an event that you personally fashion into your own WANTS, then yes I would believe it. That both histories record a flood, or a parting of the Red Sea isn't proof of anything... it only shows that both parties witnessed the event and because they were ignorant of its causes they wrote it from their own cultural point of view...

"The waters just parted... it MUST be God because its a miracle"

Quote:

---

I could tell you "I write God's words not mine"... but what would make you believe or accept it?

That I agreed with your philosophy?
That the end result was good?
That you had some corroborating evidence?

---

So are you going to answer this? or are you going to ignore it again because you can't answer it.

*sigh*, once again I put an extremely valid point in here and all you focus on is "Jovial"... Most people call that "Evasion" and it leaves me wondering why you try so hard to avoid these questions.

If the waters did part, how would you explain it?

Sam said a while ago that if the wind conditions were exactly right, it could happen. Now that's pretty damn unlikely. In fact, I'd believe that bats developed their special ears, voice and brain at the same time before I'd believe the waters parted by accident ;)

The reason I post to this particular thread is because the actual topic exposes, in my opinion, reliance upon a flawed English translation of a Hebrew document. That is why I said that minimally, you should get so and so from this discussion.

Quote:

---

I think the minimum you should come away with IS the fact that an English copy will most likely be flawed. Hebrew and Greek are the most likely accurate texts. My point has been that in order to truly study the meaning, you may have to go to such an early text.

---

Thanks for showing me how to do the quote thing.

1)I at least know that for this text (the bible), there are things written in my language that are flawed translations of the text that was written before it.
2)I can go to a Greek text and cross-reference a Greek-English dictionary.
3)I also know that dictionaries are flawed.
4)Mostly whenever you use a dictionary you are comitting this, "You are happy to have others translate it for you and believe at every step of the way you are being told the truth." Even when a word is in your own language it may need "translation" or "looking up in a dictionary". Are you arguing that Gen-X is gullible because he uses a dictionary?

You on the other hand, take what a dictionary says as fact. You believe that evidence is proof because a dictionary implied it. If you found one that explicitly said it, you would also take it as fact. Scientists, Lawyers and Logicians would disagree with you, yet you claim to be using logic in your search for truth.

"Repeatability" is a limitation of the scientific method as well as its strength. You never get a second chance to make a first impression.

You dismiss my questions as being irrelevant and then continue asking more questions and accuse me of being evasive.

You might want to look up the word "focus" and compare that to the other content I posted where I mentioned "jovial".

It was refreshing while we seemed like we were covering ground, but now it seems like my first impression of Gen-X is back (I'm sure you'll say that your 1st impression of me is back). This addresses another of your questions:

Quote:

---

"That I agreed with your philosophy?"

---

My answer to you here is Consensus Is Not Truth.
That's why I've mentioned how I may disagree with what is placed before me in the form of texts, or Pastors, etc. You had turned that around to attack me once.

Quote:

---

That both histories record a flood, or a parting of the Red Sea isn't proof of anything... it only shows that both parties witnessed the event and because they were ignorant of its causes they wrote it from their own cultural point of view...

---

How do our great informed scientists explain it? A few feet shallow is a joke compared to the claim.

I think I answered your topic thread question and look forward to other threads. This one is getting old. If in my opinion, you are really struggling with something that I can assist with, I'll post. Thanks for pointing out the block quote tag.

Was it Shakespeare that said, "To thine own self be true."? Good luck in your search for truth.

[Edited by VirtuallyVB on 07-28-2000 at 12:49 PM]

VirtuallyVB

This is very trying.

You don't even know the REAL language of a book you believe... I find that not only hypocritical but also non-sensical.

Would I believe in a book on Maths or Science if I did not understand its language? Would I put so much trust in it if I had to go back to translations time and time again?

Quote:

---

You on the other hand, take what a dictionary says as fact

---

Only because I have validated it as fact. I use the word to other people and they understand me which means the meaning of the word was used in the correct context. Occasionally there can be misunderstandings at which time a Dictionary is consulted and you determine if one of you hasn't understood it properly.

That is completely different to reading a textbook that has been translated possibly 200 times over the passed 2000 years and cannot even be agreed upon by people who share the same view?!?!?!

At least the MAJORITY of society agrees with the dictionary, which after all is the purpose of it.

Quote:

---

You never get a second chance to make a first impression

---

Why not? if I were to meet someone and then not see them for the next 10 years, could it not be said that there is no knowledge between us and thus would replicate all of the conditions required by a "first impression"?

Quote:

---

You dismiss my questions as being irrelevant

---

At least I actually ACKNOWLEDGE your questions!!

Quote:

---

My answer to you here is Consensus Is Not Truth.

---

I love the way you answer one of my questions by taking it totally out of context.

I asked you (and I will quote myself)

Quote:

---

I could tell you "I write God's words not mine"... but what would make you believe or accept it?

That I agreed with your philosophy?
That the end result was good?
That you had some corroborating evidence?

---

Please explain to me how "Consensus is Not Truth" answers what would make you believe or accept me telling you that something I had written came from God?


(Yes I did bold this and underline it on purpose... perhaps then you will actually read it for a change)

Quote:

---

How do our great informed scientists explain it? A few feet shallow is a joke compared to the claim

---

So you are telling me you know how deep the sea was 2000 years ago? Is that what you are claiming??????

Quote:

---

I think I answered your topic thread question and look forward to other threads

---

Yes you did answer it and the answer was pretty much as I was expecting. That the Bible isn't as correct as people would believe. That means there are a portion of christians out there who are following incorrect Bibles and that leads to the natural curiosity of what else is NOT correct.

Quote:

---

You don't even know the REAL language of a book you believe... I find that not only hypocritical but also non-sensical.

---

Your statement is nonsense. Pick any text originally written in a foreign language, but you also have a copy in your own language. If you question a verse that you read in your own language and want to study it's real meaning, you are saying it is invalid to use a "Foreign Language to English" dictionary. I don't think you truly believe this is invalid.

Do you still believe that evidence is proof? Or do you now disagree with the dictionary and now agree with Lawyers, Scientists and Logicians that evidence can lead to a proof, but is not itself proof? This exposes the flaw in your "majority" statement as I have stated, "Consensus Is Not Truth".

Quote:

---

Why not? if I were to meet someone and then not see them for the next 10 years, could it not be said that there is no knowledge between us and thus would replicate all of the conditions required by a "first impression"?

---

You can't seriously be saying that a second time is a first time. I know you are sharper than this. Please at least be true to yourself here.

"Consensus Is Not Truth" I said that this addresses another of your questions, not that it addresses all of your questions. What makes me believe that no further things written (or so-called "prophesied") will be from God is Revelation22:18-19.

Telling me that you read all my questions and concluded they are irrelevant is a poor "acknowledgment" at best. What is obviouse here is arogant dismissal of my questions or your inability to provide an answer.

The claim in the bible is Exodus14:28 The waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen and all the host of Pharaoh that had followed them into the sea; not so much as one of them remained. 29 But the people of Israel walked on dry ground through the sea, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left. Whether it was the "Red Sea", I didn't notice in this chapter.
This gives you an indication of depth. Deep enough to kill Pharoah's army and surely not shallow receeding waters since the claim is an easy walk through on the dry ground.

VirtuallyVB

I loved the way you got around that one.

You don't even know the language of your own God... what does that say? "Oh hi God, yeah I know all of your work was written in this langauge but heck, I grew up knowing english so I can't be bothered learning YOUR language... I'll just stick with my own and ask friends to translate it if I find the translation a bit iffy"

Lets say your son grew up in China and spoke Mandarin... How would you feel if he didn't bother to learn YOUR language?


On to Evidence and Proof.

Evidence is the Proof of "something". While I agree with you that evidence does not necessarily prove that which you intend it to prove it most certain DOES prove something.

Secondly, I would like you to show me a published piece of work either by a Lawer, Logician or Scientist that states evidence and proof are not linked.

As for it being a flaw in my majority statement, I was not asking for a conscencious of opinion... I was asking for others to reproduce what I had found such that its validity stands up through weight of information... which is what a scientist does.

Have you ever heard a scientist go around "asking" if people agree with his experiment and then by "majority" claims it is right? Of course not!!!

Quote:

---

You can't seriously be saying that a second time is a first time. I know you are sharper than this. Please at least be true to yourself here.

---

But what is the definition of "first time"?

It is the coming with no preconceptions, meeting without any information of the person to whom you are meeting. If that is the total extent of the definition then yes you can recreate (under special circumstances) a "first time".

Lets say one of the people had amnesia. You could claim this person isn't the same one they were before and so a meeting would be a "first time".

Don't get confused with an actuality of "numbers" with the definitions behind what they mean.

Quote:

---

What is obviouse here is arogant dismissal of my questions or your inability to provide an answer.

---

Actually, the arrogance stems from someone who glosses over ones questions and then asks there own as if they deserve to HAVE answers but not GIVE them.

It seems both of us feel the other does not answer questions and so we continue the cycle by not giving full "focus" to the others questions until we feel our own have been answered.

Quote:

---

This gives you an indication of depth

---

No, it means you can read from a book that you already have presupposed is telling you the truth. That doesn't mean you have knowledge of what the world climate was like 2000 years ago.

Now if I were a story teller and I thought this was a big event I would have made the water standing 200 feet high (ala Prince of Egypt from Walt Disney).

You come into this with a Bible in your hand as if the words in it are more factual than the world you actually exist in and the ONLY thing you offer in evidence for the occurance of these things are the words in it.


I have said it before and I will say it again.. the fact you already believe is what gives validity to what you see as being "truth".

Quote:

---

Would I believe in a book on Maths or Science if I did not understand its language? Would I put so much trust in it if I had to go back to translations time and time again?

---

not wishing to contradict you here but we've had many an argument about string theory etc. String Theory is written entirely in maths (go to a university libry or something and get a proper book on string theory) There's no way I'd claim to understand maths like that, and I doubt you claim to, so when you read books on string theory, quantum mechanics and general relitivity. They are translated into English, yet you put a lot of trust in it indeed.

Sam

The trust I put into it is based on how much logic and reason it seems to indicate. I don't just accept it on face value because the apparent "Author" happens to be an omniscient being that created everything ;)

Christians don't claim the Bible was writtan by God, they claim it was written by profits etc, the argument stands stronger for books translated from maths so complicated that few people in the world could hope to understand it, translated into english. The Bible is just stories which don't loose much in translation, it's just when the text is taken literally word for word (as it so often is in dispelling the attacks on large holes in the text) that we can claim the translation argument.

I know this was discussed quite a few posts back but I just wanted to add another comment about the shroud.

Gen-x
The original carbon dating dated for that time but it didn't take into account the history of the shroud(mostly the fire it was damaged by). When they recalculated the age of the shroud, it dated to the time of Jesus' death.

I will be trying to catch up on everything since I just moved into my house this past week and my wife had our second child.

Later

Sam

Quote:

---

Christians don't claim the Bible was writtan by God, they claim it was written by profits etc

---

actually they claim it is the Word of God. I think it is obvious that humans put pen to paper, but Christians claim it was God speaking through them.

dvst8

I dont think that the carbon dating process is inacurate but I do think one of it's fall backs is that you have to know what events have occured in the history of the object you are dating. How can you trace the events back to the earths origin. There have been floods, fire, etc... that affect the process. Then again I believe the earth is older than what most christians believe too. This relates back to a translational difference from the hebrew texts of genesis.

jda
the geological methods for dating rocks and such are pretty sophisticated. we learnt a bunch about this in a univ. class i had, but sadly i can recall none of it. (i found geology incredibly boring). So i am quite confident in their estimate of the age of the earth.

you believe the bible provides a timeline for the creation of earth?

dvst8

Sorry, I'm new 'round these parts and I just read through this thread for the first time, and wanted to pose a comment or two on the original topic. Feel free to ignore.

Disclaimer: These are random ponderings. I do not by any stretch truly know what I believe regarding religion vs. science or any similar topics - that's why I've so enjoyed reading the various opinions offered in this forum. Also, I do not want to offend ANYbody - these are just random thoughts that I've had that are meant as nothing more than fodder for conversation.

Anyway...

On THOU SHALT NOT KILL;
Someone mentioned a bit back how ludicrous it would be to think that THOU SHALT NOT KILL was to be taken completely literally... Even to the point of saying that one could not fight off a common cold.

...but it it really that crazy to think that perhaps the original intent of the message did mean it literally?

Stay with me for another moment...
Way back in old Europe, before we were even ABLE to fight off disease, the human mortality rate was much higher. People didn't live as long, and the survival rate among infants and birthing mothers was much lower. Then came modern medicine. Of course it wasn't all at once, but over time, people began to live longer as a result of enhanced medical practices.

Now the world faces a major threat. Overpopulation. We've got 6+ billion people, and that number is increasing exponentially. How many people would there be on earth if medicine, as a concept, never made it? If everyone who contracted the flu died?

Is it possible, with that commandment, God was trying to prevent the overpopulation of the Earth?

Is it possible that by the same measure God had introduced factors into the human environment to continue to try to prevent the overpopulation and eventual self-elimination of his most favored of science experiments?

Think of homosexuality. Don't slap me yet. What if God, in an effort to slow the human natality rate, introduced a genetic factor that would alter sexual preference, thus pairing people in such a way that they are unable to reproduce? If people don't reproduce as quickly, the whole system may last longer.

All this said, it would then be possible that God had originally intended for us to 'turn the other cheek' when faced with any organism, microbial or human or animal, and deal with death with an optimistic hope for Heaven.

But, of course, all of this is dependant upon God actually existing, which I personally have not yet accepted as truth OR untruth. I'm still in the pondering phase. ;)

-tainc

By the way, sorry for disrupting the direction of the thread. (even though I'm sure I haven't done THAT much damage...) :)

-tainc

God would not have done this. The bible say that it is an abomination unto the Lord for a man to lay with another man like a woman. Would it be logical for God to cause homosexuality?

*thwart! thwart-thwart!*

I see. Well then, maybe not.
::)

Tanic,

Nice one, you've brought some new life into a very boring conversation about carbon dating.

I don't think that god would have meant us not to kill literally, there's nothing in the bible about not eating meat, and we're pretty much commanded to kill things as sacrifices to god.

I was using the point to illustrate that a line had to be drawn somewhere of what you can kill and what you can't. and we may as well define that line as you can feel free to kill those who disobey the commandments.

You've raised a good point about Homosexuality though, the bible Expressly forbids Homosexuality

Levaticus 18:12 (I think, I don't have a bible to hand)

Thou Shalt not Lie With a Man As With a Woman, God Hates that.

Now surely nobody can argue that people have a choice whether to be Homosexual or not, And God created all men.

So why did god create Homosexuals if he hates them?

Back to an old point:
It is not actually thou shall not kill but do not murder. The only translation I have seen use kill is the King James and thats translated in middle english and kill may have been used somewhat differently back then, But I don't know for sure.

Homosexuals:
God did not create homosexuals, it is a choice. I have known many homosexuals and they would tell you it is a lifestyle choice. I have seen many change and become heterosexuals and never be tempted again. I highly doubt their brain was suddenly rewired when they did this. Most of what causes one to do this is psychological.

I just want to note that I have nothing against homosexuals and have friends that are homosexuals. I will say I don't agree with this choice, but it is your choice.

Kill/Murder

I personally don't think the whole Kill/Murder thing is a strong argument either way, I just brought it up again to illustrate why I brought it up in the first place.

Homosexuality.

I don't have anything against Homosexuality, I do have homosexual friends as well, and they all say it's not a choice, Either You Find Men Attractive or you dan't. It's not a choice you can make, you can choose to come out of the closet etc But you can't change what you are.

I have to agree with Sam on this one...

Your taste in people is no different than your taste in anything else. I hate to make such a crude analogy, but I love Ketchup. I'm obsessed with the stuff. I'll put it on anything I eat. Now, with psychological training, sure, I could learn to prefer mustard, and possibly even so much as hate ketchup. But as long as I can remember, I've loved it. It's a defining characteristic of me. Similarly, (well, kind of), Some people are simply attracted to people of their own sex. It's as simple as that. Sure, they CAN change, but it's not a choice they originally made. It just happened.

-tainc

Guess it'll just be one of those eternal questions of humanity that no one'll ever figure out. The answer, my friend, is blowin in the wind... o|' The answer is blowin' in the wind... o|'

(I promise, the musical notes look better in other fonts!)

jdavison

Quote:

---

Homosexuals:
God did not create homosexuals, it is a choice. I have known many homosexuals and they would tell you it is a lifestyle choice. I have seen many change and become heterosexuals and never be tempted again. I highly doubt their brain was suddenly rewired when they did this. Most of what causes one to do this is psychological.

I just want to note that I have nothing against homosexuals and have friends that are homosexuals. I will say I don't agree with this choice, but it is your choice.

---

Just as the word "Christian" covers so many different kinds of people so does the word "Homosexual".

Not only does it cover those people who do make a personal choice... but it also covers those people who feel the same genetic desire and urge to be with a man as we do to be with a woman.

To simply say because you have friends who are one type of Homosexual is like me saying I met one Christian and therefor condemn anyone the same way... And you have certainly accused me of that before and rightly so I would have to say (thought I am still waiting to meet a Christian who didn't fit the mould of my perception).

Its convenient for you to believe things like Homosexuality is choice isn't it jdavison? Because that way you don't have to deal with the whole issue of why God would create people like that... instead you can just say "Its Free Will" and not have to upset the delicate balance inside you.


What about those people who steadfastly deny being Gay, who show their disgust and hatred for everything it entails and yet you can look at them and KNOW they are homosexual... and that at some point in their future even THEY realise the reality of themselves? They did not make a "choice".. in fact they purposely chose the OPPOSITE to fight it, and yet they were drawn to it not on a social or mental level... but on a fundamental genetic level.

Of course JD's going to say that it's choice, what else would you expect? It's not just 'convenient', it's a part of the teachings of the religion.

I have met many types of Christians, some of which you would never think were religious unless someone told you. There is certainly no mould for it. If you don't think you've met any different ones then maybe you just don't know when they are around you because you're looking for what you expect.

I heard of an experiment where some geneticists managed to genetically engineer gay fruit flies. Now that's an interesting outcome, but it's not enough to convince me absolutely that it's purely genetic.

To what extent do you believe behaviour is down to genetics?

Harry

I have gone over my philosophy on this before in another post ;)

I think we are made up of 3 parts... Body, Mind and Soul.

Each of us have different quantities of each of these parts and I think THAT is what determines our actions.

Body
This refers to genetics (nature). Those who have a higher body component to themselves than the other 2 tend to follow hereditary lines.

Mind
This refers to your upbringing (nurture). Those who have a higher mind component to themselves than the other 2 tend to follow what they have been taught growing up and what the environment around them exposed them to.

Soul
This refers to that which is neither of the 2, that which my personal opinion is the unique part about you. Those who have a soul component to themselves that his higher than the other 2 have the opportunity to overcome their upbringing and to stop their hereditary.


The reason I hold this philosophy is because I have spent the better part of 20 years watching human behaviour and noting that it appears to fit into these categories.

People who drink because their father was an alcoholic tend to be "body" people.... Religious people who believe simply because their parents told them are "mind" people, and those who even though growing up in the ghetto managed to rise above their "environment" are "soul" people.


If you apply this to those who are homosexual the theory still holds. If you are a body person then homosexuality would be a genetic marker for you and that lifestyle is NOT a choice but as natural to you as a hetrosexual finds being with a woman.

If you are a mind person then you have made a "choice" on what lifestyle you want, possibly as a result of your upbringing, experiences or whatever.

If you are a soul person then again its a "choice" but not for any reason other than you simply chose it.


There has always been a debate about nurture vs nature... they have shown identical twins seperated at birth that grow up doing the same things in life (indicating nature) and again in children from different parents growing up together who did the same thing (nurture)...


Its just my thoughts and despite what you may think I have probably seen more people in my life than most others on here having worked in an industry that brought me into contact with 2000 people every day for nearly 15 years.

So far this theory has worked well in all cases that I have come across... so until it breaks I will stick with it

Oh god, this

I'm not going to argue with you on it this time, because the argument went nowhere last time and I don't think it will this time round. but essentially I see your Soul part as a product of the complicated way in which nature and nurture react with each other.

If you look at Cancer and see a cell reproducing like crazy you could say that this is a product of your genetics producing a faulty cell or you could say it is a product of the cells environment that has caused it to do this. Because it's so complicated and can be attributed to both of them you could see this as a third thing where the cell has a mind of its own and decides to reproduce.

while I can see that the soul component is a good way of modelling the human psyche I still maintain that anything you attribute to the Soul can be seen as a product of the complex way genetics and environment react.

That is a valid viewpoint Sam.

It does still indicate that there are 2 sides.... one genetic and the other environment.

This would explain the 2 kinds of "Homosexuals" rather than jdavison's limited understanding of only a single type.

Not only that.... but in all honestly, do you think a religious person would get deep enough into homosexual circles to even bother understanding them????

Well no I wouldn't actually expect anyone to do that unless they were undertaking some kind of personal study of homosexuals. I mean, why should he? I suppose you have then have you?

Unless you are homosexual yourself, I do not believe that you can know what makes somebody homosexual, or how many different kinds of homosexual there are.

And if you had met 2000 people a day for 15 years, that's an average of one new person every 43.2 seconds (not inluding sleep). Over 15 years (at 365.25 days a year) that's 10,957,500 people. Clearly, I find myself doubting this figure, and I expect others will too. Yes, I'm being pedantic ;)

Harry

One of the night clubs I like going to locally just happens to be a Gay and Lesbian club so I have had many conversations from different people... certainly far more than jdavison would have so I already know there is a difference.

As for the quote of 2000 people a day, I worked in a Newsagency... started work at 6am and got home at about 6pm... I watched people walk in and out of that place like ants on an ant hill. Of course when I said "for 15 years" I didn't mean every single day during that time but still it was "2000 people a day" and it was for about 3/4 of the year for 15 years.

I have the till receipts to prove it ;)

Well I suspect that most of them probably came in more than once. And you didn't exactly get to know them (not in 40 seconds at least ;))