Traditional America

[Hemodoc]

HemoDoc seems to know what God is thinking.  ESP among humans would be a phenomena, but ESP with God?

Uh, HemoDoc, the Founding Fathers had a variety of religious faiths and none of them were especially religious.  Example:  Ben Franklin was an atheist.

America has Israel’s back.  Bronco Bama has said that many times, all of which you seem to have ignored.  To think otherwise is disingenuous.

Dear Gerald,

I won't bother describing the born again believer's relationship with God, but in fact, everyone can know the mind of God simply by knowing what He has spoken and written in the Bible. Not a great mystery at all my friend and certainly not some sort of voodoo ESP nonsense.

In any case, have a great day. BTW, Obama publicly is noted for his "chilly" relationship with Israel. To date, he has done the minimum needed to keep Israel's back, but many of the things he has done and not done place Israel in a more dangerous situation. Obama has four years to put actions to his words. So far, not so good my friend.

[Rerun]

Bronco Bama        


I don't even know what "hominem" is but I'll look it up and get back to you.
   

Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument, whereas mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.

Yea, you guys do this to Peter.     

[Wat76]

I have truly enjoyed reading everyone post. Hemodoc even though we don't share the same views, I enjoyed reading your post. May God continue to bless everyone. Great discussions everyone. Happy holidays.

[Gerald Lively]

Dear HemoDoc;

I know the bible, my eight great grandfather, Edward Lively, was one of the Chief translators of the King James Bible.  Look it up.  For me, I have a Catholic education.

Conclusion: you are nuts and there is no God. One third of the Bible is the word of Edward.

[jbeany]

Dear HemoDoc;

I know the bible, my eight great grandfather, Edward Lively, was one of the Chief translators of the King James Bible.  Look it up.  For me, I have a Catholic education.

Conclusion: you are nuts and there is no God. One third of the Bible is the word of Edward.

All right, easy on calling people nuts, Gerald.  You're welcome to claim there is no God all you want, but you don't get to call Hemodoc nuts for believing in one.  Site rules - no personal attacks.  I know this is the political board, and we tend to give everyone a lot more leeway over here, but try to be a bit less blatant with the "ad hominems" you ALL are tossing around on here.

jbeany, Moderator

[MooseMom]

Bronco Bama        


I don't even know what "hominem" is but I'll look it up and get back to you.
   

Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument, whereas mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.

Yea, you guys do this to Peter.   

I have just reread every single post that I have made on this thread, and I do not see one single instance in which I attacked Peter personally in order to invalidate his arguments.  Well, I did suggest that he was being rather a wet weekend, but that was more a comment on his apocalyptic tone than on any specific point he was trying to make.     Far from attacking him, I have asked him MANY specific questions for which I'd really like to hear a well-thought out reply, and at the same tiime, I've asked him to clarify and give evidence for several sweeping statements that he has made.  I get tired of the whole "apology tour" and "appeasing Muslims" meme because it reeks of hyperbole and negates the possibility of any reasonable discussion on the topic.  Such sweeping and hysterical statements do not strike me as being illustrative of the "pure political discourse" that Hemodoc claims to desire.

[MooseMom]

That's fine, Hemodoc, that you choose to believe we here at IHD have no common bond.  If you want to exclude yourself from a group of people who care about each other, you are free to do so.  We are all free to form whichever bonds we choose, and I choose to form bonds with the people here who have devoted their time and energy in creating a community that supports and comforts, informs and entertains each other.  If this is not evidence of God's grace, I'll accept that.  What I won't accept is the idea that bonds formed by us ourselves here on IHD are somehow invalid if there are members who may not share the same religious beliefs that you do.

You really are a wet weekend, Hemodoc!   Is there any joy in your life at all?

My two oldest friends both happen to be gay.  I've known them since high school, but it wasn't until several years after graduation that they told me they are gay.  (They are not partners and never were.  Neither are married.)  I've had many talks with them about their sexuality, and as a result of those conversations, I've come to the conclusion that people are just born with their sexual preferences.  It's like being born left-handed.  I don't know anyone who has made a conscious decision to be gay.  So if you believe that each of us is created by God, it makes me wonder why God created gay people?  What is His purpose? 

What are two gay people supposed to do if they want to enter a committed relationship?  Do you support civil unions but not marriage for these couples?  What is acceptable to you?  And what is acceptable to God?  If God created gay people, what kind of relationship does God envisage for these people that He has made in His image?  Does He require that they be lonely?

What had God said about marijuana?  Where does the Bible say that pot is "wicked".  Why is pot wicked but morphine and opiates OK?  How does the Bible address this question? 

Are you seriously saying that the only way that this country could have sought the face of God was to vote for Romney?  That campaign was financed by a non-Christian who is also a casino owner, and isn't gambling supposed to be "wicked"?  Romney's campaign was flooded with money from corporate interests, gamblers and who knows what other kind of sinners, and you are seriously saying that a vote for Romney was a vote for God but a vote for Obama was a vote for, well, not God?  Seriously, this is what you are telling us?

And you really think you have some deep understanding of the current generation in its entirety?  That doesn't strike you as arrogant?  We have members here on IHD who are of a generation younger than you and I, and you post on here that all of them are undeserving of the blessings of God because they are all marching toward Sodom by way of Gomorrah?  I'm astonished that you have condemned them all, like you know them all so well.

Our generation witnessed the Jim Crow laws in full effect.  The Beavers of the world didn't live in every area of the Deep South where dogs were set upon people and black girls were burned.  God has seen the USA commit far worse atrocities upon living human beings that He created, yet somehow you seem to believe that through it all, this was a blessed country.  We have killed, destroyed, enslaved and debased in the name of God, but you see gay marriage and smoking the dried leaves of a plant to be more offensive to God than slavery and the ensuing debasement of whole races of people?  Is this the American for which you are so nostalgic?

No problem Moosemom, but if you want God to bless America, perhaps you should actually read what God states are His requirements. Have a great day.

Peter

Very well punted.  You didn't even try.

These are the questions I'd really like to hear your answers to, Hemodoc.  I am really sorry, but I cannot find anywhere in the Bible where God tells us why he created gay people and how he wants them to live their lives.  I am not interested in changing your opinion.  What I AM interested in is some guidance on why gay people exist and why they are so reviled if it is true that God has created all of us in His image. 

If anyone else has an answer or can point me to Scripture that would enlighten me, I'd be grateful.  I have had this question in my mind for literally decades.  I've seen the anguish my gay friends have felt as they've struggled with the implications of their sexuality.  So many people say that God has a plan for everyone and that He does everything for a reason, so what is His reason for creating gay people?

[Hemodoc]

That's fine, Hemodoc, that you choose to believe we here at IHD have no common bond.  If you want to exclude yourself from a group of people who care about each other, you are free to do so.  We are all free to form whichever bonds we choose, and I choose to form bonds with the people here who have devoted their time and energy in creating a community that supports and comforts, informs and entertains each other.  If this is not evidence of God's grace, I'll accept that.  What I won't accept is the idea that bonds formed by us ourselves here on IHD are somehow invalid if there are members who may not share the same religious beliefs that you do.

You really are a wet weekend, Hemodoc!   Is there any joy in your life at all?

My two oldest friends both happen to be gay.  I've known them since high school, but it wasn't until several years after graduation that they told me they are gay.  (They are not partners and never were.  Neither are married.)  I've had many talks with them about their sexuality, and as a result of those conversations, I've come to the conclusion that people are just born with their sexual preferences.  It's like being born left-handed.  I don't know anyone who has made a conscious decision to be gay.  So if you believe that each of us is created by God, it makes me wonder why God created gay people?  What is His purpose? 

What are two gay people supposed to do if they want to enter a committed relationship?  Do you support civil unions but not marriage for these couples?  What is acceptable to you?  And what is acceptable to God?  If God created gay people, what kind of relationship does God envisage for these people that He has made in His image?  Does He require that they be lonely?

What had God said about marijuana?  Where does the Bible say that pot is "wicked".  Why is pot wicked but morphine and opiates OK?  How does the Bible address this question? 

Are you seriously saying that the only way that this country could have sought the face of God was to vote for Romney?  That campaign was financed by a non-Christian who is also a casino owner, and isn't gambling supposed to be "wicked"?  Romney's campaign was flooded with money from corporate interests, gamblers and who knows what other kind of sinners, and you are seriously saying that a vote for Romney was a vote for God but a vote for Obama was a vote for, well, not God?  Seriously, this is what you are telling us?

And you really think you have some deep understanding of the current generation in its entirety?  That doesn't strike you as arrogant?  We have members here on IHD who are of a generation younger than you and I, and you post on here that all of them are undeserving of the blessings of God because they are all marching toward Sodom by way of Gomorrah?  I'm astonished that you have condemned them all, like you know them all so well.

Our generation witnessed the Jim Crow laws in full effect.  The Beavers of the world didn't live in every area of the Deep South where dogs were set upon people and black girls were burned.  God has seen the USA commit far worse atrocities upon living human beings that He created, yet somehow you seem to believe that through it all, this was a blessed country.  We have killed, destroyed, enslaved and debased in the name of God, but you see gay marriage and smoking the dried leaves of a plant to be more offensive to God than slavery and the ensuing debasement of whole races of people?  Is this the American for which you are so nostalgic?

No problem Moosemom, but if you want God to bless America, perhaps you should actually read what God states are His requirements. Have a great day.

Peter

Very well punted.  You didn't even try.

These are the questions I'd really like to hear your answers to, Hemodoc.  I am really sorry, but I cannot find anywhere in the Bible where God tells us why he created gay people and how he wants them to live their lives.  I am not interested in changing your opinion.  What I AM interested in is some guidance on why gay people exist and why they are so reviled if it is true that God has created all of us in His image. 

If anyone else has an answer or can point me to Scripture that would enlighten me, I'd be grateful.  I have had this question in my mind for literally decades.  I've seen the anguish my gay friends have felt as they've struggled with the implications of their sexuality.  So many people say that God has a plan for everyone and that He does everything for a reason, so what is His reason for creating gay people?

Sorry, I don't buy into the notion that God creates any person to sin, no matter what the sin is. You are implying that God created them gay, I don't buy that.

What verse, well, you won't like it, but here it is, and it covers many more sins than simply the sin of homosexuality. God did create all men with free will. What you do with it is your choice.

Romans 1:16     For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17     For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18     For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19     Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20     For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21     Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22     Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23     And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24     Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25     Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26     For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27     And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28     And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29     Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30     Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31     Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32     Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

[MooseMom]

Thanks for that, Hemodoc.  Whether or not I "like it" isn't the point.  I'm not looking for answers I "like".  I'm looking for answers that will make me a more informed person.  Plus, I like hearing what others think, and why.

I honestly don't know if God created certain people to be gay.  But I am pretty convinced that gay people have not chosen to be gay just as others have not chosen to be straight.  There are one or two hypotheses in evolutionary biology that offer some clues as to why some men are homosexual, but that's all they are...hypotheses. 

So now I've read the Scripture you've posted.  What I'd like to know is how YOU think gay people should live their lives.  Do you think that gay people can be made to be straight?  Should they pretend to be straight and strive to form heterosexual relationships and even marry and have children?  Do you think that it is OK to set up a household with your gay partner but refrain from having homosexual relations? 

I get it that God says that homosexuality is a sin.  What I can't quite suss out is what God wants gay people to do about their sexuality.  Can you provide Scripture that addresses these questions?  Thanks!

(Important update:  I'm going to bed now; I've just started a new book, and I'm eager to get on with it.  So, you have all night to answer my questions!  LOL!  Have you picked up your socks this evening?  Cleanliness is next to Godliness, you know!  :hug)

[Hemodoc]

Dear HemoDoc;

I know the bible, my eight great grandfather, Edward Lively, was one of the Chief translators of the King James Bible.  Look it up.  For me, I have a Catholic education.

Conclusion: you are nuts and there is no God. One third of the Bible is the word of Edward.

Sounds good Gerald, just keep saying that to yourself, Hemodoc is nuts, Hemodoc is nuts. Kind of rhymes don't you think. To each his, but Gerald, choices do have consequences.

[Rerun]

My friend from 4th grade Dean then became my boyfriend in high school.  We went to all the dances and such and then he broke up with me. All we ever did was kiss.  He moved to San Diego after high school and finally came out of the closet.  He lived the gay lifestile.  He was not too promiscuous had one or two relationships.  He said during those years he was running from God.  He was stuck in lust and in sin.  He finally was walking the fence and told God he was going to jump to Him and He had better catch him.  God did. Dean moved back to Spokane. Dean and I are still good friends and go to dinner about twice a month.  He works full-time at the Union Gospel Mission here in town helping the homeless.  He keeps unto himself and is not in a sexual relationship ..... because he is not married yet.... (Dha)

I've been to several ex-gay seminars in support of my friend Dean.  Men and woman get up to give their testimony and just weep in joy to be out of the lifestyle.  They all have said they were not born that way.  Some boys  were never close to their fathers and thus always craved same sex acceptance.  Some girls felt shunned by their mothers and just could not get enough of same sex attention.  Once they gave their life to Christ and knew he loved them no matter what.  It changed their lives.  It is still not easy because the enemy is always trying to drag them back.  Dean says he doesn't feel anything when he looks at a hot babe in a bikini nor does he feel anything when he sees a man in a Speedo.  The bible tells us not to marry because it is a hard road but to marry if you burn with lust.  He is talking about Marriage... not lying with same sex.  Man has created same sex marriage which will be forgotten by the next generation.  Dean says he is like Peter (not Hemodoc) who lived with a thorn in his side reminding him to stay close to God.

Hemodoc did not site all the scripture where God abhors homosexuality and sex with animals. 

God did not create gays no more than he created whores. Sexual sin is sexual sin.  Dean says in his testimony that he was about 8 years old when he was swimming and some man pulled off his swim trunks and made him swim to shore naked.  Something in Dean's little brain changed that day. Sin.  Dean's father is the nicest man and a Godly man but not very macho.  He never wrestled with Dean or played catch with Dean.  Dean loves sports and was MVP in football his senior year.  Dean says he wasn't like the other dads.  To hear this kills Dean's father.  He feels like he failed his son in some way.  (I think his dad should have kicked his ass a few more times myself)

I'm glad I don't have those struggles.  But, I'm here to help my friend and his many friends who have chosen the side of God.

I've said this before Adultors were not born that way.... it is a lust of the flesh that keeps in their thoughts.  And thoughts grow.

Hope this helps you understand.

[cariad]

Bronco Bama        


I don't even know what "hominem" is but I'll look it up and get back to you.
   

Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument, whereas mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.

Yea, you guys do this to Peter.   

Well, I only asked about myself as mine is the only behaviour I can control. Rerun, I would like to know just what it is I wrote that could be considered an ad hominem attack against Peter. I have not, for example, called him 'comical' or any other of the names he has flung at me. Would you agree that those are ad hominem statements? I think it's poor form to accuse someone of attacking and then refuse to answer simple questions about where precisely that attack is.

I also am incredibly uncomfortable with homosexuals being labeled as sinners or worse on this forum. I am not homosexual myself, but there are absolutely members who do identify as homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual on IHD. They can hear you when you say these things about them! How can we be a welcoming community with these sorts of hostile statements being put forward? I would really like to know how we as a community can negotiate these tricky situations. Any ideas?

I have just reread every single post that I have made on this thread, and I do not see one single instance in which I attacked Peter personally in order to invalidate his arguments.  Well, I did suggest that he was being rather a wet weekend, but that was more a comment on his apocalyptic tone than on any specific point he was trying to make.     Far from attacking him, I have asked him MANY specific questions for which I'd really like to hear a well-thought out reply, and at the same tiime, I've asked him to clarify and give evidence for several sweeping statements that he has made.  I get tired of the whole "apology tour" and "appeasing Muslims" meme because it reeks of hyperbole and negates the possibility of any reasonable discussion on the topic.  Such sweeping and hysterical statements do not strike me as being illustrative of the "pure political discourse" that Hemodoc claims to desire.

Yes, same here! Except I never said anyone was a wet weekend! I too have requested clarification for sweeping statements and did not receive the courtesy of a reply. I have no idea what 'go rule' is supposed to mean in this context. I asked and asked why Saul Alinsky was so dangerous to America and only received coy deflection and repetition in response. This is not the way to foster stimulating conversation. It takes two (or more) people to create an interesting dialogue and I've come to learn which members I can actually exchange ideas with and which seem to enjoy making provocative remarks and then ignoring any follow up questions. 

[Rerun]

People are warned before coming on here to be thick skinned.  Sorry, but I'm not going to change my morals on here.  It says it in the Bible and until the Bible is banned in this land I have the right to quote it. 

I won't go back and try to find the ad hominems but in the future I'll just say "see how ya are" and that will show you.

You can say that to me or others too.  "see how ya are"??

         

[cariad]

People are warned before coming on here to be thick skinned.  Sorry, but I'm not going to change my morals on here.  It says it in the Bible and until the Bible is banned in this land I have the right to quote it. 

I won't go back and try to find the ad hominems but in the future I'll just say "see how ya are" and that will show you.

You can say that to me or others too.  "see how ya are"??

   

Rerun, hun, I think you know that I am not asking you to change your morals. I don't believe in book-banning, not of the bible nor any other important work, and I certainly don't believe in stopping people from respectfully expressing their views. See how I am? Too liberal for my own good. Your story about Dean was interesting and moving. There is a wealth of scientic evidence showing that homosexuality is biological, but your friend seems to have found what works best for him, so that's good.

I like the Rerun-approved statement and will have to find reasons to use it.

[Hemodoc]

People are warned before coming on here to be thick skinned.  Sorry, but I'm not going to change my morals on here.  It says it in the Bible and until the Bible is banned in this land I have the right to quote it. 

I won't go back and try to find the ad hominems but in the future I'll just say "see how ya are" and that will show you.

You can say that to me or others too.  "see how ya are"??

   

Rerun, hun, I think you know that I am not asking you to change your morals. I don't believe in book-banning, not of the bible nor any other important work, and I certainly don't believe in stopping people from respectfully expressing their views. See how I am? Too liberal for my own good. Your story about Dean was interesting and moving. There is a wealth of scientic evidence showing that homosexuality is biological, but your friend seems to have found what works best for him, so that's good.

I like the Rerun-approved statement and will have to find reasons to use it.

Sorry, but the gay gene hypothesis truly lacks evidence, nor is it upheld in twin studies as well. If a gay gene existed, then why are 50% of identical twins with exactly the same genetic make up heterosexual when one is homosexual? In fraternal twins, it is only a 20% association. Nurture vs nature sides on the social makeup of a a household much more than any alleged genetic effect. In addition, gays reproduce at a much lower rate than heterosexual people thus defying evolutionary constraints. To date, the gay gene hypothesis is built on speculation instead of absolute science. Many chromosomal loci have been postulated yet on further examination each drops out of contention. To state categorically that homosexuality is biologic and genetic lacks evidence at this time.

[Hober Mallow]

For an American in the 21st century to cling rigidly to a set of rules and values based on cosmology dating from the third millennium B.C. and a book written over two millenia ago by Semitic tribes about life on the other side of the planet -- life which bears virtually no resemblence to our lives today -- is, frankly, silly.

Human beings think in categories. All words are categorized in the brain and are references to concepts which we normally encounter in our everyday lives. But there is a truth beyond categories of thought, beyond the limitations of our brains, where words can't penetrate, namely the very ground of our being. What is life? What is existence? What's beyond existence? No one knows. No one can know for sure, because our brains are limited in what we are capable of understanding. Naturally, our brains evolved to deal with the problems of the visible world, bounded by three dimensions of space and one of time. This is all our brains ever needed to think about.

That is, until we came up with the word God. Or any word in any language which means God in our language. God is a word, a metaphor, whose reference transcends all categories of thought. It's a symbol which allows us to transcend our own limitations in thought and refer to something which is beyond thought.

The problem arises when we take the symbol literally. When we do that, we cut ourselves off from a real experience of God. We think of God not as transcendent, but as a literal old man somewhere in the clouds. Then we point to someone else's symbol of God, which dsoesn't match our image, and call that image false. We, in essense, have created God in our image rather than the other way around.

To take one's symbols literally is akin to going into a restaurant and eating the paper menu instead of realizing the menu items are symbols for something else. (And, of course, the atheist denies there's any food in the restaurant at all.)

Religion is not literal history, nor should it be. Taking it as such cuts you off from any religious experience whatever. If one takes Jesus' parables literally, one misses the point entirely. The same can be said for any religious text.

History and science have to do with the literal world. Religion, myth, and literature have to do with mankind's spiritual development. And no religion which refuses to accept the science of the day can thrive and live in the hearts of people. Religion is supposed to put one in accord with the world and his/her society. A religion which pits itself against nature and society is dead. Two-thousand years ago, the Bible was in perfect accord with the world as people knew it back then. Not so today. In order for Christianity to continue and to thrive -- as I hope it does -- is for people to look beyond the literal interpretations and discover the truth waiting there behind the symbols.

There. Said my piece. Or my peace. I've never been clear on which word is correct. But it doesn't matter. Like I said before, it's not the word that's important, it's the reference.

Love you all.

[lmunchkin]

Yes everyone, Peter Laird (Hemodoc) is NUTS!!!  He is NUTS for JESUS, and Im NUTS right with Him! Let us all get NUTTY together, there is plenty of room for another NUT!!!!

God Bless,
lmunchkin

[Hemodoc]

For an American in the 21st century to cling rigidly to a set of rules and values based on cosmology dating from the third millennium B.C. and a book written over two millenia ago by Semitic tribes about life on the other side of the planet -- life which bears virtually no resemblence to our lives today -- is, frankly, silly.

Human beings think in categories. All words are categorized in the brain and are references to concepts which we normally encounter in our everyday lives. But there is a truth beyond categories of thought, beyond the limitations of our brains, where words can't penetrate, namely the very ground of our being. What is life? What is existence? What's beyond existence? No one knows. No one can know for sure, because our brains are limited in what we are capable of understanding. Naturally, our brains evolved to deal with the problems of the visible world, bounded by three dimensions of space and one of time. This is all our brains ever needed to think about.

That is, until we came up with the word God. Or any word in any language which means God in our language. God is a word, a metaphor, whose reference transcends all categories of thought. It's a symbol which allows us to transcend our own limitations in thought and refer to something which is beyond thought.

The problem arises when we take the symbol literally. When we do that, we cut ourselves off from a real experience of God. We think of God not as transcendent, but as a literal old man somewhere in the clouds. Then we point to someone else's symbol of God, which dsoesn't match our image, and call that image false. We, in essense, have created God in our image rather than the other way around.

To take one's symbols literally is akin to going into a restaurant and eating the paper menu instead of realizing the menu items are symbols for something else. (And, of course, the atheist denies there's any food in the restaurant at all.)

Religion is not literal history, nor should it be. Taking it as such cuts you off from any religious experience whatever. If one takes Jesus' parables literally, one misses the point entirely. The same can be said for any religious text.

History and science have to do with the literal world. Religion, myth, and literature have to do with mankind's spiritual development. And no religion which refuses to accept the science of the day can thrive and live in the hearts of people. Religion is supposed to put one in accord with the world and his/her society. A religion which pits itself against nature and society is dead. Two-thousand years ago, the Bible was in perfect accord with the world as people knew it back then. Not so today. In order for Christianity to continue and to thrive -- as I hope it does -- is for people to look beyond the literal interpretations and discover the truth waiting there behind the symbols.

There. Said my piece. Or my peace. I've never been clear on which word is correct. But it doesn't matter. Like I said before, it's not the word that's important, it's the reference.

Love you all.

Dear Hober,

I am a medical doctor who became a born again believer through the literal truth of the Bible AFTER I graduated from medical school, and internal medicine residency and had started my practice. I have a degree in biology with minors in math and chemistry. I understand quite well the theory, or rather the theories of evolution and the so called science behind those claims. I must confess that your views of the Bible are clearly not at all accurate.

The Bible contains many pages of literal history. Every time someone tried to disprove that literal history in the Bible, new evidence surfaced showing it is indeed accurate. In addition, God is not an old man sitting in the clouds but instead, we worship Him in spirit and truth because God the Father is a spirit. Being born again is to be born of the water (our physical birth) and of the spirit. For those of us who have been born of the spirit of God, it is not some sort of nebulous affair but instead a true and literal event in our lives.

If you wish to know more, please ask, but I have no doubts of the literal truth of the Bible. I hope and pray that you as well shall know here and now the true, literal Bible that is our source of who God truly is. Once again, I take great issue with our incorrect characterization of God, His Holy Word and my relationship with the creator of the universe.

[cariad]

People are warned before coming on here to be thick skinned.  Sorry, but I'm not going to change my morals on here.  It says it in the Bible and until the Bible is banned in this land I have the right to quote it. 

I won't go back and try to find the ad hominems but in the future I'll just say "see how ya are" and that will show you.

You can say that to me or others too.  "see how ya are"??

   

Rerun, hun, I think you know that I am not asking you to change your morals. I don't believe in book-banning, not of the bible nor any other important work, and I certainly don't believe in stopping people from respectfully expressing their views. See how I am? Too liberal for my own good. Your story about Dean was interesting and moving. There is a wealth of scientic evidence showing that homosexuality is biological, but your friend seems to have found what works best for him, so that's good.

I like the Rerun-approved statement and will have to find reasons to use it.

Sorry, but the gay gene hypothesis truly lacks evidence, nor is it upheld in twin studies as well. If a gay gene existed, then why are 50% of identical twins with exactly the same genetic make up heterosexual when one is homosexual? In fraternal twins, it is only a 20% association. Nurture vs nature sides on the social makeup of a a household much more than any alleged genetic effect. In addition, gays reproduce at a much lower rate than heterosexual people thus defying evolutionary constraints. To date, the gay gene hypothesis is built on speculation instead of absolute science. Many chromosomal loci have been postulated yet on further examination each drops out of contention. To state categorically that homosexuality is biologic and genetic lacks evidence at this time.

Where did I state ("categorically" no less) that homosexuality is genetic? Would you stop trying to put words in my mouth PLEASE, Peter? There's more to biology than just genetics. Also, those stats do not rule out a genetic component - I have to admit I'm very surprised that you did not know this.

I don't really have time to get into the whole science of homosexuality right now, and I don't think it's particularly on-topic in this thread anyway.

[MooseMom]

My friend from 4th grade Dean then became my boyfriend in high school.  We went to all the dances and such and then he broke up with me. All we ever did was kiss.  He moved to San Diego after high school and finally came out of the closet.  He lived the gay lifestile.  He was not too promiscuous had one or two relationships.  He said during those years he was running from God.  He was stuck in lust and in sin.  He finally was walking the fence and told God he was going to jump to Him and He had better catch him.  God did. Dean moved back to Spokane. Dean and I are still good friends and go to dinner about twice a month.  He works full-time at the Union Gospel Mission here in town helping the homeless.  He keeps unto himself and is not in a sexual relationship ..... because he is not married yet.... (Dha)

I've been to several ex-gay seminars in support of my friend Dean.  Men and woman get up to give their testimony and just weep in joy to be out of the lifestyle.  They all have said they were not born that way.  Some boys  were never close to their fathers and thus always craved same sex acceptance.  Some girls felt shunned by their mothers and just could not get enough of same sex attention.  Once they gave their life to Christ and knew he loved them no matter what.  It changed their lives.  It is still not easy because the enemy is always trying to drag them back.  Dean says he doesn't feel anything when he looks at a hot babe in a bikini nor does he feel anything when he sees a man in a Speedo.  The bible tells us not to marry because it is a hard road but to marry if you burn with lust.  He is talking about Marriage... not lying with same sex.  Man has created same sex marriage which will be forgotten by the next generation.  Dean says he is like Peter (not Hemodoc) who lived with a thorn in his side reminding him to stay close to God.

Hemodoc did not site all the scripture where God abhors homosexuality and sex with animals. 

God did not create gays no more than he created whores. Sexual sin is sexual sin.  Dean says in his testimony that he was about 8 years old when he was swimming and some man pulled off his swim trunks and made him swim to shore naked.  Something in Dean's little brain changed that day. Sin.  Dean's father is the nicest man and a Godly man but not very macho.  He never wrestled with Dean or played catch with Dean.  Dean loves sports and was MVP in football his senior year.  Dean says he wasn't like the other dads.  To hear this kills Dean's father.  He feels like he failed his son in some way.  (I think his dad should have kicked his ass a few more times myself)

I'm glad I don't have those struggles.  But, I'm here to help my friend and his many friends who have chosen the side of God.

I've said this before Adultors were not born that way.... it is a lust of the flesh that keeps in their thoughts.  And thoughts grow.

Hope this helps you understand.

First of all, I am very glad that you have not used your faith as a weapon of mass condemnation but, rather, have used it to support someone you care about.  You don't just talk the talk.

Secondly, I am not quite sure I understand.  Are you saying that Dean's father is to blame for his homosexuality?  Oh my...that is a terrible burden to place upon a parent.  If I read your post correctly, the implication is that his homosexuality was caused by the incident with the man who took off his shorts and by a father who was "not very macho".  Is this correct?

I happen to be very interested in the causes of things.  Please forgive me for drawing an analogy between homosexuality and autism.  As you know, my son is autistic, and no one knows what causes it.  I personally don't think there is one cause.  I suspect that in some individuals, there IS an "autism gene" or there IS a specific environmental cause (although that environment may be biologic in nature) because you often see more than one autistic child in a family.  However, it is more often the case that a family will have only one autistic child.  On top of that, you see families where one child is autistic and another may have something like ADHD or some other developmental abnormality.

I also suspect that in some susceptible individuals, the MMR may have played a role.

In my son's case, his autism just seemed to develop over time in his early childhood.  It began to slowly erase his verbal abilities.  It used to be that autism was blamed on "refrigerator mothers".  Imagine being blamed for causing such a horrific malady in your child!  That's why Rerun's suspicion that Dean's father caused Dean's homosexuality really hit home to me.  This seems so cruel.  If Dean's father really believes this, his life must be a horror.  My husband's brother had a very high fever when he was very young that eventually lead to brain damage; he is now non-verbal and autistic.  His mother was blamed for not getting him to the hospital on time.  She is now so psychologically damaged that it is impossible to have a reasonable conversation with her.  She was told that this was her punishment for marrying a Catholic.  Yes, the truly religious and Godly strike again.

So, @Hemodoc, while it is true that the whole "gay gene" hypothesis has no real evidence in science, it is equally unscientific to believe that homosexuality is a "choice".  Of course it is true that homosexuals can choose NOT to ever have homosexual sex, but I don't think that someone's underlying sexuality is purely and only a matter of choice.  Have any of us reached a point where we've said to ourselves, "OK, hmmm....I think I am going to choose to be heterosexual."  No, I don't think so.

Rerun, how do you see Dean's future?  Do you think he will ever find a life partner?  Or do you think he will eventually shut himself off from intimate relationships because he lives in fear of sin?

Do you think he is lonely?

[cariad]

So, @Hemodoc, while it is true that the whole "gay gene" hypothesis has no real evidence in science

This is not true at all. There is plenty of "real" scientific evidence for genetics playing a role in homosexuality, 20 + years of it.

[jbeany]

I've also read some studies that are looking into the environment in the womb.  It may be an imbalance of testosterone that helps cause homosexuality - too much for girls, too little for boys.  My paper just had an article about a new study out that believes there might be a link between autism and pregnant women with fevers or the flu.  This makes perfect sense to me - we're already well aware of what exposure to drugs and alcohol do to a developing fetus, so why wouldn't all kinds of other factors that affect the growing infant have consequences as well?   

I also don't believe we're going to be able to pinpoint a single genetic cause easily, either.  The best theory they have right now for Type 1 diabetes is a combination of a genetic predisposition and a chance exposure to a virus.  It's not just a single thing that you can find and use to predict the future.  But while I'm musing....if they ever do find a way to predict it while a child is still in the womb - will the fundamentalist pro-life Christians who believe ihomosexuality is a sin still want to carry the child to term?

And the idea that homosexuality can be caused by the emotional environment provided by the parents was based on old gender studies have been debunked.  Dr. Money, the leading researcher who claimed that gender and sex roles were based on how the kids were raised and not their genetics is no longer considered credible at all.  He did a lot of damage with his crock-pot theories before the truth came out, though.

 I think those who undergo some religious "cure" and renounce their homosexual life style may have been more bisexual than gay.  I don't think it would as difficult, given the religious and societal pressure in some communities and families, to decide to only act on half of your natural sexual attractions.  I have a bi-sexual friend who is happily married.  She loves her husband, and has no problem giving up her lesbian affairs - because she's given up all sex with ANYONE except her spouse.

And as for those who believe it is a choice - when did you choose to be straight?   My gay friends say they were aware of their sexuality as children - long before anyone even explained what sex was.  How do you make a choice at that age of who to sleep with when you don't even know what it is?

 

[Hemodoc]

I've also read some studies that are looking into the environment in the womb.  It may be an imbalance of testosterone that helps cause homosexuality - too much for girls, too little for boys.  My paper just had an article about a new study out that believes there might be a link between autism and pregnant women with fevers or the flu.  This makes perfect sense to me - we're already well aware of what exposure to drugs and alcohol do to a developing fetus, so why wouldn't all kinds of other factors that affect the growing infant have consequences as well?   

I also don't believe we're going to be able to pinpoint a single genetic cause easily, either.  The best theory they have right now for Type 1 diabetes is a combination of a genetic predisposition and a chance exposure to a virus.  It's not just a single thing that you can find and use to predict the future.  But while I'm musing....if they ever do find a way to predict it while a child is still in the womb - will the fundamentalist pro-life Christians who believe ihomosexuality is a sin still want to carry the child to term?

And the idea that homosexuality can be caused by the emotional environment provided by the parents was based on old gender studies have been debunked.  Dr. Money, the leading researcher who claimed that gender and sex roles were based on how the kids were raised and not their genetics is no longer considered credible at all.  He did a lot of damage with his crock-pot theories before the truth came out, though.

 I think those who undergo some religious "cure" and renounce their homosexual life style may have been more bisexual than gay.  I don't think it would as difficult, given the religious and societal pressure in some communities and families, to decide to only act on half of your natural sexual attractions.  I have a bi-sexual friend who is happily married.  She loves her husband, and has no problem giving up her lesbian affairs - because she's given up all sex with ANYONE except her spouse.

And as for those who believe it is a choice - when did you choose to be straight?   My gay friends say they were aware of their sexuality as children - long before anyone even explained what sex was.  How do you make a choice at that age of who to sleep with when you don't even know what it is?

 

Dear Jbeany,

We are discussing traditional America which many construe as following the Judeo-Christian set of ethics and the nontraditional "family" values of today which include acceptance of homosexuality. The mantra comes back all the time that these folks were "born that way." Yet to date, all of the theories of a gay gene or other biologic component have fallen into disfavor despite widespread media reports to the contrary.

Interestingly, many in the "gay" community are themselves debunking the biological, born gay hypothesis and stating openly that they should have the right to choose this lifestyle without condemnation. Interesting article from NYT a few months back talking about someone stating that her homosexuality is her "choice." They consider it a civil right according to this article to choose homosexuality. With the very shaky "evidence" to date of "born gay" it appears that they may be moving away from that mantra within the community itself. Not sure if this represents a minority view of this minority nontraditional lifestyle folks or not, but it appears that there are some within the community that don't adhere to the "biology of homosexuality." Interesting take on this that I believe is a lot closer to the truth of the issue.

For 15 years, until 2003, she was in a relationship with a man. They had two children together. She then formed a new family with a woman, to whom she’s engaged. And she told The Times’s Alex Witchel that homosexuality for her “is a choice.”

“For many people it’s not,” she conceded, but added that they “don’t get to define my gayness for me.”

. . . What’s more, the born-this-way approach carries an unintended implication that the behavior of gays and lesbians needs biological grounding to evade condemnation. Why should it?

Our laws safeguard religious freedom, and that’s not because there’s a Presbyterian, Buddhist or Mormon gene. There’s only a tradition and theology that you elect or decline to follow. But this country has deemed worshiping in a way that feels consonant with who you are to be essential to a person’s humanity. So it’s protected.

Our laws also safeguard the right to bear arms: not exactly a biological imperative.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/opinion/sunday/bruni-gay-wont-go-away-genetic-or-not.html?_r=0

[Hemodoc]

So, @Hemodoc, while it is true that the whole "gay gene" hypothesis has no real evidence in science

This is not true at all. There is plenty of "real" scientific evidence for genetics playing a role in homosexuality, 20 + years of it.

Sorry, that is not the consensus of scientists who have studied this issue for years:


What causes a person to
have a particular sexual
orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists
about the exact reasons that an individual
develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or
lesbian orientation. Although much research
has examined the possible genetic, hormonal,
developmental, social, and cultural influences
on sexual orientation, no findings have
emerged that permit scientists to conclude
that sexual orientation is determined by any
particular factor or factors. Many think that
nature and nurture both play complex roles;
most people experience little or no sense of
choice about their sexual orientation.

http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf

[cariad]

So, @Hemodoc, while it is true that the whole "gay gene" hypothesis has no real evidence in science

This is not true at all. There is plenty of "real" scientific evidence for genetics playing a role in homosexuality, 20 + years of it.

Sorry, that is not the consensus of scientists who have studied this issue for years:


What causes a person to
have a particular sexual
orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists
about the exact reasons that an individual
develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or
lesbian orientation. Although much research
has examined the possible genetic, hormonal,
developmental, social, and cultural influences
on sexual orientation, no findings have
emerged that permit scientists to conclude
that sexual orientation is determined by any
particular factor or factors. Many think that
nature and nurture both play complex roles;
most people experience little or no sense of
choice about their sexual orientation.

http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf

Uh, how does this contradict what I just said? There is plenty of evidence for biological (including genetic) components to sexuality - lack of consensus does not equal lack of compelling evidence. It has not fallen into disfavor - this is studied frequently and I challenge anyone to get through all of the scientific journal articles about this. Biology and environment, as jbeany just explained very well, probably work in conjunction with one another, which is consistent with a complex gene. Schizophrenia has almost identical statistics to homosexuality when it comes to fraternal and identical twins, and the search for a genetic component to that has continued at a pace. There is also evidence that homosexuality is sex-linked, same suspicion for autism, since more men are homosexual than women and more boys are diagnosed autistic than girls.

I agree with the second half of the final statement that you quoted. Indeed, living in San Francisco, I never heard a single person say they chose homosexuality, though I can agree that it is not at all outside the realm of possibility. Absolutes when it comes to human behaviour almost never hold.