By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Editor
(CNN)–In the face of withering criticism over a sermon he apparently delivered on homosexuality in the 1990s, the Rev. Louie Giglio has withdrawn from giving the benediction at President Barack Obama's inauguration.
Giglio informed inauguration officials Thursday morning of his decision to withdraw from the ceremony, an inauguration official told CNN.
"I am honored to have been invited by the president to give the benediction at the upcoming inauguration on January 21," Giglio said in a statement delivered to the White House and the Presidential Inaugural Committee. "Though the president and I do not agree on every issue, we have fashioned a friendship around common goals and ideals, most notably, ending slavery in all its forms."
"Due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago, it is likely that my participation, and the prayer I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda a focal point of the inauguration. Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past fifteen years. Instead, my aim has been to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ."
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
Giglio, a pastor and the leader of the Passion Movement, was chosen to deliver the benediction because he's a "powerful voice for ending human trafficking and global sex slavery" and due to his work in mobilizing young people in that effort, an inauguration official said earlier in the week when the reverend's selection was first announced.
Criticism over the selection swirled after the liberal website Think Progress posted a sermon that it said Giglio gave in the mid-1990s, a speech the site called "vehemently anti-gay."
A spokeswoman for the Presidential Inaugural Committee said the committee was "not aware of Pastor Giglio's past comments at the time of his selection and they don't reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this Inaugural."
"As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration's vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans," said PIC spokeswoman Addie Whisenant.
In an audio copy of the sermon posted on the Think Progress website, a voice identified as that of Giglio's called homosexuality a sin. "That's God's voice. If you want to hear God's voice, that is his voice to this issue of homosexuality. It is not ambiguous and unclear. It is very clear."
"If you look at the counsel of the word of God, Old Testament, New Testament, you come quickly to the conclusion that homosexuality is not an alternate lifestyle... homosexuality is not just a sexual preference, homosexuality is not gay, but homosexuality is sin. It is sin in the eyes of God, and it is sin according to the word of God."
The recording continues: "The only way out of a homosexual lifestyle, the only way out of a relationship that has been ingrained over years of time, is through the healing power of Jesus."
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
"We've got to say to the homosexuals, the same thing that I say to you and that you would say to me... it's not easy to change, but it is possible to change," he can also be heard saying during the sermon.
Giglio is a rising voice in evangelical Christianity. Last week, the Passion conference, which he founded, wrapped up its annual event for college students in Atlanta, with more than 60,000 students attending and vowing to end global slavery. They raised $3 million for charities that work to stop slavery and aid its victims.
Giglio said Thursday that he and his team don't feel "it best serves the core message and goals we are seeking to accomplish to be in a fight on an issue not of our choosing; thus I respectfully withdraw my acceptance of the president's invitation."
"I will continue to pray regularly for the president, and urge the nation to do so. I will most certainly pray for him on Inauguration Day," Giglio's statement to the White House continued.
"Our nation is deeply divided and hurting, and more than ever need God's grace and mercy in our time of need," it concluded.
Giglio took to his church blog Thursday to further explain his position to his congregants at Passion City Church in Atlanta.
"The issue of homosexuality (which a particular message of mine some 20 years ago addressed) is one of the most difficult our nation will navigate. However, individuals' rights of freedom, and the collective right to hold differing views on any subject is a critical balance we, as a people, must recover and preserve," he wrote.
He asserted that his main goal as a pastor was to love people.
"I'm confident that anyone who knows me or has listened to the multitude of messages I have given in the last decade would most likely conclude that I am not easily characterized as being opposed to people - any people. Rather, I am constantly seeking to understand where all people are coming from and how to best serve them as I point them to Jesus."
Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said Giglio's decision to withdraw was the right one.
"Participants in the inaugural festivities should unite rather than divide. Choosing an affirming and fair-minded voice as his replacement would be in keeping with the tone the president wants to set for his inaugural," Griffin said in a statement.
Giglio represents a new type of evangelical leader who "doesn't like to get involved in the culture war because it blurs the larger points he wants to make," said Michael Cromartie, the vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington.
"What I want to remind his critics is he's not being named to a Cabinet position," Cromartie said. "He was being asked to deliver a prayer. All sorts of people deliver prayers who we don't agree with on a number of issues."
"It's unfortunate that this kind of political correctness doesn't allow people who are doing great work to pray at inauguration," he added.
CNN's Athena Jones contributed to this report
Fred who keeps posting here incessantly has clearly been demonstrated to be a liar.
It depends on how the political winds are blowing where Obama stands on this issue. It's just another lie he has been caught in... after he gets finished with his use for the LGBT community, he may swing back.
You know what's really great about this video? The fact that one can clearly see how, as Obama is honestly/candidly answering the question posed to him, he's thinking "how badly am I screwing up my political career by being totally straightforward like this?" It's a bit like when Yosemite Sam runs off a cliff and doesn't immediately fall, due to the fact that he hasn't realized he SHOULD be falling. Obama is being honest, and stating the common-sense view (so obvious that it's frequently lost on some folks) which is held by millions of Americans: marriage IS "man and woman". As he points out, the Consti.tution never went to the trouble of defining marriage, because marriage has never needed a definition (until now, that is.) I'm all for civil unions as well, just as Obama was until his PR guys tested the waters and realized "eh, you're better off capitulating and going with the GLBT flow." But the GLBT doesn't want "civil unions": they want to take something they are denied (marriage) and make it their own, regardless of the legitimacy or practicality of their demand (attempting to change something from what it is into something it is not.) At no point in human history has marriage been anything but "man and woman." Until now, that is. People can laugh at and pooh pooh the rationale behind Conservatism all they like, but the Real World, the one we live in, Nature, Evolution, everything around us happens in a "conservative" manner. Change takes place gradually. Even catastrophic change, when it does occur in nature, happens infrequently. "Rapid Change" in the natural world is the exception, not the rule. The "rule" is gradual, slow change. Mankind (current-day Lib/Dem/Proggie "American" mankind, at least) seeks to turn the Natural World on it's ear, and attempts to change Nature's Law to suit its own very capricious and self-serving whims. The Real World doesn't work like that, no matter how you try to force it...
Whew what a relief. Was starting to feel like all witch hunts were from the right. It's good to see the left is keeping pace on such things.
Nonsense. Giglio withdrew. Reading comprehension is a skill.
Your bigotry is hurtful and I'm glad you wont be there. Good choice.
I thought it said: Gigilo bows out of inauguration over sermon on gays.
It's official I need glasses.
Well IIIIIIII thought it said "Gigolo blows out gurglegargle of semen onto gays"
hehr hehr HEHRRRRR <-- ("Paul Lynde on Hollywood Squares / Roger on American Dad" voice)
"You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices,” Finkle-McGraw said. “It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticize others-after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism? … Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticize others’ shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticize another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behaviour-you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy.
We take a somewhat different view of hypocrisy,” Finkle-McGraw continued. “In the late-twentieth-century Weltanschauung, a hypocrite was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign of deception-he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy. Of course, most hypocrites are not like that. Most of the time it’s a spirit-is-willing, flesh-is-weak sort of thing.”
“That we occasionally violate our own stated moral code,” Major Napier said, working it through, “does not imply that we are insincere in espousing that code.”
“Of course not,” Finkle-McGraw said. “It’s perfectly obvious, really. No one ever said that it was easy to hew to a strict code of conduct. Really, the difficulties involved-the missteps we make along the way-are what make it interesting. The internal, and eternal, struggle, between our base impulses and the rigorous demands of our own moral system is quintessentially human. It is how we conduct ourselves in that struggle that determines how we may in time be judged by a higher power.”
(from The Diamond Age, by Neal Stephenson)
So is someone trying to sell more of this cyberpunk fiction?
Sounds like Finkle is justifying being a fink. Einhorn is a man.
What they say: "we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans."
What they mean: "This administration is inclusive and accepting of all Americans who believe the same way we do and want to support this administration's vision"
Everyone else is excluded and not acceptable. Hello hypocrisy.
your persecution complex is laughable. The bible's view on gays is medieval nonsense. The administration is right to distance itself from it, even if you can't see the hypocrisy of your religion.
Excellent analysis and right to the point.
Obama went to Rev. Wright's church for 20 years and said "Amen" during the sermons.
When the news media digs up past Rev. Wright sermons denouncing America's sinful
and racist past and present actions...bro' Obama throws him under the bus when the right
wing whines about the truth.
Rev. Giglio is honored as a modern day abolitionist, championing the end of human trafficking
and invited to the White House for the Inauguration. When the news media digs up a past sermon
in which Rev. Giglio openly expressed the Biblical position on the sin of gay coitus...bro' Obama
throws him under the bus when the left wing whines about the truth.
So much for "tolerance and inclusion".
Truth is the first casualty in the PC war.
" Truth is the first casualty in the PC war ". Truly laughable, coming from Douglas.
doug you said in another post "The prime rule has an exception...it does not apply to acceptance of sinful behavior." The administration is tolerant until it sees the sinful behavior of Giggity and Wright, then exercises the exception you have granted.
"Biblical position on the sin of gay coitus"
The scriptures actually say nothing about homosexuality as a psychosexual orientation. Our understandings of sexual orientation are distinctly modern ones that were not present in the minds of Scripture writers. A few passages of Scripture (seven at the most) object to certain types of same-sex expressions or acts. The particular acts in question, however, are sexual expressions which are exploitative, oppressive, commercialized, or offensive to ancient purity rituals. There is no Scriptural guidance for same-sex relationships which are loving and mutually respecting. Guidelines for these relationships should come from the same general Scriptural norms that apply to heterosexual relationships.
Gay coitus and gay relations are a sin in the Holy Bible.
Rev. Giglio was spot on in his analysis of a sinful nation's permissiveness to gay coitus.
Take heart Rev. Giglio and remember what Jesus said in Matthew 13:57:
" And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor."
homophobes could be gay: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=homophobes-might-be-hidden-homosexuals
Gay behaviors and gay coitus are a sin in the Holy BIble...both Old and New Testaments.
The resurgence of STDs, with many now resistant to anti-virals/anti-bacterials, the outrage of teacher-student
molestations and coitus and the explosion of s@xting transmissions through social media are all the
direct result of the loosening of morals and permissiveness trend unleashed by the gay activists.
With the morality bar lowered...it's anything goes.
This is our harvest of shame from the gay activists in practice
"Gay coitus and gay relations are a sin in the Holy Bible."
So what? Your god is a pr1ck,
doug, would you just come out of the closet already? We understand it can be difficult. We realize the amount of guilt you'll feel for your current antics seems overwhelming. We can empathize with all the hate you've experienced from others like you, causing you to cower deeper in the closet. Break free, Doug.
Do you unreservedly accept ALL of god's teaching and lessons from the bible?
If that's the case Douglas, then we should comply with the other "Sins"
-No tossing the skin of a pig, so I guess Football is out
-Cannot wear clothing of multiple fabrics
-Take multiple wives
No, it's not. The scriptures actually say nothing about homosexuality as a psychosexual orientation. Our understandings of sexual orientation are distinctly modern ones that were not present in the minds of Scripture writers. A few passages of Scripture (seven at the most) object to certain types of same-sex expressions or acts. The particular acts in question, however, are sexual expressions which are exploitative, oppressive, commercialized, or offensive to ancient purity rituals. There is no Scriptural guidance for same-sex relationships which are loving and mutually respecting. Guidelines for these relationships should come from the same general Scriptural norms that apply to heterosexual relationships.
Every time this bibletard types "gay coitus" I get a little laugh.
Keep it up bozo, you a far better job of making bibletards look stupid than any atheist ever could.
1. No human being is qualified to speak for God.
2. The bible was written and edited by human beings.
Are you attempting to make a syllogism ? Is there a formal conclusion 'you' are inferring ?
Doesn't look like a syllogism. Perhaps Laura is just inferring a question. I bet you can figure out what it is.
Human beings inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.
"Human beings inspired by the Holy Spirit of God."
Easy claim to make
Not quite sure why he railed against gays anyway, as he looks like he is one too.
But the biggest gay basher are usually gay themselves.
What do they look like?
apparently it matters more what one drinks
I'm guessing Mohitos?
Seriously? Bailey's Irish Cream is gay, now? What the hell kind of country are they even trying to run over there...
My goodness. Sounds like Cameroon is just a step up from where ever the hell pervert alert is from.
Not that it's a laughing matter I guess but I did laugh for nearly a minute straight when I read that part. I almost cried, I laughed so much at the absurdity. Just the thought of people jailing someone because they think Bailey's is a gay drink. We seem barely removed from the caves sometimes.
Sadly, many cavemen were "outed" when caught drinking Blind Russians back in the Paleolithic...
"What do they look like?"
Like Bill Deacon
Do we really need prayer at the inauguration of the leader of a secular and free country? Perhaps just a reading of the US Const itution would be more useful.
don't forget to include the Bill of Rights.
Although you call our nation "free and secular," our nation was founded on Biblical principles by men that believed in God. Therefore, I believe that prayer during the inaguration is very fitting and should continue to be upheld.
I agree that a secular society does not need to have prayer at their inauguration, and our government is indeed secular, and our population is increasingly secular as well. However, you seem to suggest that we can't have prayer at our inauguration and remain free. Barack Obama is a Christian, practices prayer in private, and keeps a trusted inner circle of spiritual advisers who are all Christian, and he has done much to champion freedom. You will find that some of the greatest champions of liberty in our own country's history were devout Christians. Ghandi was a devout Hindu. And the first abolitionists were Anglican Christians.
"our nation was founded on Biblical principles by men that believed in God"
Our nation was founded on the exact opposite of christian principles.
Christian belief instructs absolute acceptance of prescribed doctrine. There is no room for free thought or expression in christianity.
The United States was founded on the principle of free though and expression. The founding fathers would have had no room for absolute acceptance of prescribed doctrine. Hence the reason the made the very first amendment to guarantee separation of church and state, and protected free speech.
Was Adam created with a penis? If so, please explain why.
Why do you need yours?
Good question, really. According to the Bible, it would not have been for either defecation, or for procreation, since there was no woman to procreate with.
Perhaps becaues he was created in the image of God, who needed one for something?
Bettre question: Did Adam and Eve have navels?
"Why do you need yours?"
To bang your wife
on this very thread? you're seriously claiming that you're not also Erik? And (on another thread) the period-mark guy? Come on...
Trouble with replying, EB?
No, I am not. I have actually been absent from this board for a while now, it's called having a real life. I have even notice others using my handle. Now why don't you share how many handles you continue to post under? It's seems to be a game of yours.
I noticed people do use other peoples handles on here, it's annoying and I wished they'd fix it. It would also make people more accountable for what they post too.
I've noticed that when a new name appears on the boards others start to use it as well to hide behind their multiple postings. I just view as someone who is highly immature, especially when they keep making the same stupid spelling mistakes regardless of the name their using.
I've had similar trouble with stolen names. I used one for a long time, then an idiot started using my old name, and started filling pages with 666 over and over, for pages. Since then I have used a few different names, but a rose by any other name....
If you sign in with a WordPress account, it tends to deter imposters.
"Ender's Beginning" who degenerates to:
"Ronald Regonzo" degenerates to:
"truth be told" degenerates to:
"The Truth" degenerates to:
"Atheism is not healthy ..." degenerates to:
"Dodney Rangerfield" degenerates to:
"tina" degenerates to:
"captain america" degenerates to:
"Atheist Hunter" degenerates to:
"just sayin" degenerates to:
"Chad" degenerates to
"Thinker23" degenerates to
"Bob" degenerates to
"nope" degenerates to:
"2357" degenerates to:
"WOW" degenerates to:
"fred" degenerates to:
"!" degenerates to:
This troll is not a christian..and there are more names than that.
That's great. Of the 18 other names you've accused me of using, not one of them is me. I have used a few other names on here, and some people have figured out a few of them. But you're really barking up the wrong tree with your list, period-mark.
What other names EB? Why use multiple handles? Are you too much of a pansy to stick to one?
I've seen people accuse Yeah of being multiple people on the gay marriage thread. Yes, it's hard to believe that there is more than one person out of 300 million in the country that supports gay marriage. Shocker.
It's just so hard to grow up as a Christian thinking that all Christians were right about everything and then finding out that many are self serving liars and pedophiles and r a p i s t s and murderers and, well, humans! With all the frailty and confusion that entails! We are no more moral than our atheist counterparts and infact we still hold on to some old immoral prejudices and will verbally attack others just because they admitted to being attracted to someone of their same gender. I know it's sad but what can we do? We want to stop it like we did with the prejudice against interracial marriage. We want to stop like we did about eating pork or shellfish. We want to stop like we did with requiring circvmcision to enter the Church or not allowing women to have a vote or a voice. Those other problems are still in the bible just like the rules against gays but for some reason we are just unable to break free of that one...
Ender's Beginning = Lycidas = Uncouth Swain
"Pansy"? That sounds a lot like hom.ophobia. As well as hate speech. Better watch that kinda stuff...
H o mophobia is a misnomer....it means literally a phobia of apes.
"H o mophobia is a misnomer."
A series of studies recently published in the prestigious Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2012 found higher levels of homophobia in individuals with unacknowledged attractions to the same sex, particularly when they grew up with authoritarian parents who also held homophobic attitudes. In the university press release "Individuals who identify as straight but in psychological tests show a strong attraction to the same sex may be threatened by gays and lesbians because homosexuals remind them of similar tendencies within themselves." In the same release "In many cases these are people who are at war with themselves and they are turning this internal conflict outward."
I understand your point, mine is just that the word should be h o mose xualphobia or something along those lines. h o m o means ape, phobia is the unnatural fear of. Ho mo phobia literally means the phobia of apes.
'Homo' is the Greek root for 'same'. It doesn't mean ape.
so ho mophobia is the fear of things that are the same...still doesn't mean what they say it means.
The genus is ho mo
the latin ho-mo is the same
either way, ho mophobia isn't the right word
I don't seem to be able to get an answer to this question. Maybe Ender's Beginning can answer it. Maybe pervert alert. It's not limited to Christians:
Do you think anyone who is true to their faith, and who follows the Bible as not only true, but the basis for their belief, should feel that slavery is wrong? (Regardless of the current laws in their home country.)
You're not trying to trap someone into the semantic or cultural time warp of the definition and application of slavery are you mama? I've seen you make better arguments. At least I think I have.
It's a question, Bill. Are you afraid of questions about the Bible?
Oh, not at all. I wouldn't presume to answer for everyone who is Bible oriented but I can tell you that I am opposed to slavery to the flesh. Does that concept enter your thinking?
I'm fairly confident that it is your unpleasant demeanor which is keeping folks from answering your (now very tedious) question, mama...
It is only tedious because she has to keep asking it and has yet to get a single real answer. Your faith has been weighed and judged and found wanting and you have no defense for it. As the Punk Magician once said "They're foolin ya and ya don't like it!!"
Bill, I will clarify my question a bit – maybe it will help avoid any confusion. My question is regarding slavery such as we once had in the U.S., where people are commodities that can be legally bought/sold/inherited, but also throughout history (including the present) where anyone is forced to work for another.
I think before one could properly answer my question, though, I think we would have to agree (or not) that slavery (as I described above) was as normal a way of life in Biblical times covered by the OT and NT as using one's feet as a mode of transportation.
I don't know that I agree with your claim that slavery has been a contiguous condition throughout all of history and that is the error with your argument. You want to tie the word slavery as it appears in the Bible with the emotional reaction we have to recent history in the United States. I don't think it works that way. But the real mistake you make is that you hope to confound Bible believers with a semantic discussion on the history or social structure and economics and side step any talk of how you might be a slave to your flesh which is vastly more important.
However, just for the record:
Throughout Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages, theologians generally followed St. Augustine in holding that although slavery could not be justified under natural law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law. As a consequence the Roman Catholic Church, up until the modern era, came to accept certain types of slavery as a social consequence of the current human condition, connected by some with original sin, but teaching that slaves should be treated humanely and justly.
I'm not sure what the early thinkers in the atheist set were teaching about slavery while Augustine was pope are you?
Yea, like as long as they don't die within a few days of a beating, then that's ok.
I couldn't find anything on early secular opponents to slavery but this is more recent:
On February 20, 2012, the British newspaper the Daily Mail reported that Richard Dawkins' "family fortune came from the slave trade". On February 19, 2012, The Daily Telegraph reported that Dawkins is being called to make reparations for his family's past.
The Daily Mail reported:
“ Ancestors of secularist campaigner Richard Dawkins made their fortune from the slave trade, it has been revealed.
The outspoken atheist, who once branded the Catholic Church 'evil', is the direct descendent of Henry Dawkins who owned 1,013 slaves in Jamaica until he died in 1744.
His 400-acre family estate, Over Norton Park near Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, is believed to have been bought with money made through slave ownership hundreds of years ago...
Richard's son, Henry, married into another of Jamaica's powerful slave trading families and left 1,013 slaves worth £40,736 when he died 1744.
The links with slavery continue down the family tree and in 1796 another ancestor, James Dawkins, voted against William Wilberforce's plans to abolish the slave trade
I would say that the idea it is acceptable to own another human being is directly tied to several slave of the flesh intoxications:
Greed, Sloth, Envy, Lust, Wrath, Pride and should we include Gluttony?
Bill Deacon: "I don't know that I agree with your claim that slavery has been a contiguous condition throughout all of history and that is the error with your argument."
So, Bill, obviously you think I've assumed too much. So let's fix this – you think there have been periods of time where slavery (as I described it) did not exist? Yes?
But do you agree or disagree that slavery (as I described above) was as normal a way of life in Biblical times covered by the OT and NT as using one's feet as a mode of transportation? (Note that I haven't tried to define history here. I did read your response, but interested in your response to that specific question which involves a time period.)
Should I assume, based on your last paragraph, that even today, certain forms of slavery would be OK in your book, so to speak? In other words, would that help cure some of the problems we face today, if our social structure reverted back to the way it was before "the modern era" of "the Roman Catholic Church", where slavery was more "allowable" by "natural law"?
"As a consequence the Roman Catholic Church, up until the modern era, came to accept certain types of slavery as a social consequence of the current human condition, connected by some with original sin, but teaching that slaves should be treated humanely and justly."
And that is why the RCC or the christian god should not be held up to be a moral guide. This is just an example of something that should be obviously seen as immoral, is ratioalized as being part of the "human condition".
typo correction – my last post – end of 3rd paragraph: but I am interested
Hawaii, I think you watch too much TV. Although I can imagine someone reacting just as you have to calls for human treatment of other human beings, the fact is that slaves were substantial investments, as our friend Richard Dawkins can attest. To beat a slave to the point he couldn't work would be bad business. It's much more profitable to keep your slaves employed, extend them generous credit terms and medicate them with movies, sports, and generous employer provided benefits. Just ask Barron Rothschild.
And for the benefit of other readers, my last reply was responding to Bill's reply at: January 11, 2013 at 3:19 pm.
Blessed you are making the mistake of measuring yesterdays heroes by today's yardstick. I don't think we can arbitrarily find fault with men of good will who struggled with the social issues of their day. Do you? We don't say that democracy is a failure, or Thomas Jefferson was a failed thinker because, at one time certain people were denied equal rights do we?
No mama, your straw is falling out. It's okay with me if you don't want to believe in a God who guides men's thoughts and actions. It's also okay with me if you revile the Church. At least do us the dignity of hating us for what we are though, not for what you construct us as in your own mind. The Catholic church, with notable exceptions among her flock, has staunchly and strenuously advocated the freedom of people, the rights of workers, the dignity of life and the progress of science for over 2000 years. Can you name any other organization with a track record that can even be compared to it?
That's in your bible you dishonest, dodging piece of shit.
You are right Bill,
The failure does not lie with the men of the time. The failure lies with your god, your god's "holy book" and your "divinely inspired" religious leaders to advocate that owning people is wrong...period. I don't expect men to act more moral than the time they live in....unless they claim they are in direct communication with the most moral being in the universe.
"Can you name any other organization with a track record that can even be compared to it?"
La Cosa Nostra
Bill – I am simply trying to get those last set of questions answered. I even used some of your words so that it might be easier for you to honestly answer yes or no to each. For all I know – you advocate slavery in certain forms. You've made a lot of assumptions in that last post, but no worry – I would just like some honest answers.
Bill wrote, " progress of science for over 2000 years. "
Tell that to Bruno.
Sorry Cheesy. Your only off by 17 centuries though. Nice shot
As an organisation, the Mafia originated sometime after 1700. The (retrospective) tales of its establishment during the War of the Sicilian Vespers, or as a "revolutionary" reaction against "foreign" domination, are fanciful at best, lacking in any historical foundation. That said, several social developments may have fostered the development of the Mafia, perhaps influencing popular attiitudes and even a few of its practices (especially its secrecy) to some extent.
Mama, if it isn't obvious to you by now, I am not going to be baited into a psuedo-debate on your interpretation of certain Scriptures on slavery. If you really want to know what the Church has to say about slavery, human trafficking and workers rights then it is available to you either at the Vatican website or other Catholic social study outlets. I am surprised at your insistence on avoiding the discussion of your personal slavery to self however. It would be a much more productive conversation.
Prime. I said "with notable exceptions". At least you had the sense not to use Galileo.
I have to say I love how I have a string of comments almost two pages long and Hawaii accuses me of dodging. That's rich!
Dodgeball players stay on the court while they do their dodging. You're not being accused of abandoning the topic, you're being accused of dodging the issues. What a stupid retort. Did you actually think it was a good reply?
Obviously my comparison of the RCC and the Mafia was tongue in cheek. The RCC has a much more storied history of criminal activity than the mafia could ever hope for.
I also find it interesting that you ignored my post previous about the moral failures of your god, your book and your religious leaders.
So Cheesy, if I understand your complain, it's not whether slavery was right or wrong in ancient times, it's that people both inside and outside the church were not clearly aligned with what we now know to be morally defensible. I say that that does not indict the moral value or the giver of the value. It indicts those to whom the value is communicated. Us.
Take an issue today. I don't care which, it's just an issue. Abortion, same seex marriage, those are good ones. Each side has true believers that just absolutely know that they are on the right side. There are also those who are "evolving". When, in the passage of time, the moral right becomes apparent to us all, will we accuse those who struggled through the tough times because they were unable to convince or incapable of coercing the wrong side into compliance? I would hope not. Mankind has, is and will continue to struggle with acceptance of God's will, Which I will define for this discussion as what is right. If I am wrong it won't be your fault that you couldn't convince me and if you are wrong it won't be my fault that I didn't coerce you. In either case, that which is right is still right, whether we accept it or not. You want to hold ancient men accountable for things which they were unable to accomplish but it is precisely because men refuse to do what is right that they failed.
Moby, you must be referring to the success with which mama has dodged the question in my first post about personal slavery to self
And how Hawaii has abandoned the discussion on societal slavery through fiat currency
Bill dodges questions he doesn't like by calling it being 'baited into a pseudo-debate'. That's as cute as Sarah Palin claiming the simplest questions were 'gotcha' questions when she wasn't smart enough to answer them.
restate the question please sam
Bill: "Mama, if it isn't obvious to you by now, I am not going to be baited into a psuedo-debate on your interpretation of certain Scriptures on slavery. [..] "
Wow. You know, Bill, if a stranger walked up to me on the street and asked me if I could ever condone slavery in any way (based on my definition above) – I would tell them 'no', without thinking about it for more time than it would take to process what they asked me.
Likewise, and although I can't prove it, if a stranger asked me if I believed there has ever been a time in human history that slavery (based on my definition above) has not existed, I would immediately say 'probably not'. You did give me an 'I'm not sure if I agree' on this one as that's good – I noted that.
They might not ask me the third question above I last asked you, because they might think the second question covers it. But if they did, I would say that I believe that slavery (based on my definition above) probably did exist throughout the period of time described by the Bible and, for that matter, throughout the time during which it was written and assembled. And we all know the references about it withing the Bible, but I just wanted to establish whether or not you thought it existed during that time frame. I mean, you know, there are people who still don't believe we've landed on the moon.
But I find it troubling that you avoid those simple questions that I would answer all in about a half a minute. I have practicing Catholic members in my immediate family and I'm confident that they would answer those questions just as quickly as I would. Not that I'm making any assumption about your particular religion – just saying.
In your last couple of replies, it's quite obvious that you're jumping to some conclusions.
"It indicts those to whom the value is communicated. Us."
No it does not Bill, because my point is that the value was NOT communicated ever. We can't read your god's mind so if he never indicated that "owning people is wrong" and actually provides regulations FOR the owning of people, he is therefore consenting to humans owning other humans. The fact that owning people is now considered morally reprehensible just shows how the bible, and the god of the bible, were creations of men. I would expect that the "value giver" should be able to actually PROVIDE values that were more than just a reflection of accepted values for the time.....THAT is the failure.
Bill, I do commend you for sticking with the discussion even if you are throwing out red herrings.
mam you restated your question which allowed you to present the simple answer. In your original post you insert several qualifiers which were obvious attempts to create a false dichotomy. If there is anything in any of my lengthy relies that leads you to believe I personally have ever supported slavery, I can't explain how that could be. I probably used the word contiguous incorrectly, by which you think I meant "without interruption". What I meant was (and the word still escapes me) "without changes in levels of cruelty or condition". Certainly slavery has existed and still exists in the world. When Augustine declared that slavery was a human condition, he didn't meant that it was a just condition. he meant it was present in the world as he encountered it. This is why I argued with Cheesy about how the Church could tolerate or accept slavery while at the same time working to bring about justice. The church still encounters human conditions which we are trying to remedy. As the revelation of God's will is made more and more apparent to more and more people, change will occur. Also, the fact that there is not simple "tab A into slot B" instructions does not mean that revelation is not available. But, it is more than getting a memo from God or a hand out that says "In situation X, the answer is B" God's will, like the journey to truth or justice is a road to travel, not a pill to swallow. That is why I can tie the societal ill of slavery, or abortion, or seexual immorality to personal slavery of self among myself as well as other people. It's still too bad that you choose to argue against the venue wherein so many people have engaged their own freedom at the cost of ignoring your own personal slavery.
You're wasting your breath. It is pointless to be reasonable, civil or gracious towards the people here who sidestep every reasonable point you make, who misrepresent to others everything you say, who pretend to misunderstand your clearest and most logical point in order to frustrate you, and who respond to a post you spent ten minutes writing with a dismissive one-sentence reply. They're not worth your time or mine. It all fuels the fires of non-communication going on here. You'll convince them of nothing, and you will only grow frustrated and eventually wear yourself out. Which is what they want. These people are indicative of a very definite type. They know what they are, and their greatest fear is that they'll be seen for what they are. There are some people who hate goodness for the very fact that it (goodness) exists, and because they know they are not and can never be good. It is not in them. They are as frightened and confused and hateful of goodness as a dumb animal is of loud noise or fire. It (goodness) is beyond their comprehension. Give up on them, and on trying to reason with them...
You said the following: "Wow. You know, Bill, if a stranger walked up to me on the street and asked me if I could ever condone slavery in any way (based on my definition above) – I would tell them 'no', without thinking about it for more time than it would take to process what they asked me."
Yes, but you see, that stranger would have asked you a simple, easily understood question, that was on terms you already understood. You have yet to do so, with Bill Deacon or with myself last night. You're couching your weirdly-worded questions in all sorts of circular logic spirals, unclear terminology, and confusing sentence-constructions in order to get someone to make a statement that you can pounce on and say "AH HA!!" to. Seriously. Last night, you made even our relatively short conversation interminably tedious and picayune, and you've made this thread interminable and picayune as well. If you're like this in real life, I think it might be the reason that you, apparently, can only find people online to talk to. Or at...
I find it interesting that the you are accusing us (the ones arguing against the immorality of slavery, genocide and human sacrafice) as lacking "goodness". You don't want to argue with us because you know your assertions that your god and "holy" book as being moral are untenable.
Yes and no, Thomas J. It is true that the stranger scenario might need some clarification. In fact, it would probably be me seeking the clarification to such a question, but nevertheless I would still answer the question that way. When someone says God in the U.S., don't most people assume they are referring to the God of Israel? (Maybe not a good assumption, but hopefully you get my point.)
Now for the no part. I intentionally added "(as I described above)" to each occurrence of slavery in subsequent replies to Bill above. Why? Because, Bill had a different notion of slavery. I had already posted the definition by which I sought an answer against as:
"such as we once had in the U.S., where people are commodities that can be legally bought/sold/inherited, but also throughout history (including the present) where anyone is forced to work for another."
So, even with that inline clarification, it seems all I got was avoidance.
And exactly what was it I asked you last night, Thomas J? Do us a favor and paste the time stamp for the post/reply here so we can examine that.
What the fuck are you even talking about now? I'm talking about your own holy book you dishonest tard. I was responding to your utterly fucking vapid remark of the RCC teaching that slaves should be treated humanely. I was pointing out something IN YOUR OWN FUCKING HOLY BOOK that doesn't reflect that.
The Bible's position on slavery is clear. It NEVER said that slavery was a sin or even an abomination. Instead, it showed support for slavery by giving rules for how much you could injure your slave without punishment. Slavery is not a sin to God, but what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is a big deal to him. So much for God's idea of morality.
Wow. This obsession you have with time stamps (you've mentioned it a number of times elsewhere) is rather OC of you. Here's a straightforward "yes/no" question for you, mama k: do you, personally, have a history of mental illness? Cuz I wasn't kidding last night when I asked you if you were on pills of some kind.
Maybe I should have asked if you were OFF pills of some kind?
I like to think I'm eccentric weird, but you are unnervingly, unpleasantly, disconcertingly weird.
Don't forget to time stamp this!!!
Bill: "In your original post you insert several qualifiers which were obvious attempts to create a false dichotomy."
What qualifiers, Bill? You never moved past the original post, Bill?
Go back and look at the post at: January 11, 2013 at 3:49 pm
All you should have to do to interpret it correctly and answer the three questions is understand everywhere I wrote:
"slavery (as I described above)"
that it refers to my definition as posted on: January 11, 2013 at 2:39 pm, where I say:
"slavery such as we once had in the U.S., where people are commodities that can be legally bought/sold/inherited, but also throughout history (including the present) where anyone is forced to work for another."
I have to assume you are capable of that, Bill. Even in your last reply, you really didn't commit to any answers for my key questions at : at: January 11, 2013 at 3:49 pm. But, that's OK, we'll just put all of them in the 'Bill avoided' category.
Time stamps are great, TJ! They are all the rage. Here they allow one to reference a specific message, don't'cha know. They can also be useful in pinpointing where someone is lying when making claims about posts from others. So anyway, TJ, you were saying something about something I posted last night containing " all sorts of circular logic spirals," I mean, I probably was tired when I wrote it, but why don't you do us a favor and pinpoint that – it shouldn't be hard to find.
Why would I want to participate in the Gordian Knot-like Tar Baby every conversation with you seems to turn into, mama k? You are a classic example of what is meant by "Bait and Switch", and everyone here knows it. It's wearying. Seriously. You are tiresome. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has told you that. Tiresome.
Instead of focusing on time stamps, why not just communicate an idea in as few words as possible, and not try to obfuscate your intent?
Is that all you have, Thomas J? I believe it was you, yes, it was you who brought up something I posted last night containing "all sorts of circular logic spirals,". So, OK, TJ – if time stamps scare you, then why don't just post the entire thing here – you know to support your point – if you can. And actually, Thomas J, it would be good if you did that dear, because, if I remember correctly, that should contain the line of questioning that I want to pursue with Bill next. So be sure to grab the whole, thing, dear, Okeee dokee?
Are you an adult, mama k? I won't ask your age, but are you a grown-up? I'm being serious.
mama k isn't the one behaving like a three-year-old. Either cite your proof or shut up, loser.
And Thomas J makes another poor attempt to evade supporting his accusations. Next.
Hello Tom Tom.
Thomas, I doubt your credentials as a card-carrying adult aren't that spotless. You should shove it.
(actually I like this song better):
Go take a blood test and find out the monkey in you have a great day !
Church and State Clause
True order of things with FACTS !!!
BRAND NEW FOR review All starts with the brain.
Don't need religion to tell us where Origin of Life began OR how LIFE WORKS
Origin of Life: Just add WATER !!!
Hypothesis Traces First Protocells Back to Emergence of Cell Membrane Bioenergetics
Dec. 20, 2012 — A coherent pathway – which starts from no more than rocks, water and carbon dioxide and leads to the emergence of the strange bio-energetic properties of living cells – has been traced for the first time in a major hypothesis paper in Cell this week.
It is called Separation of Church and State
Can't teach ID/creationism in public schools in US as fact. PERIOD
NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial – PBS
Nov 13, 2007 – Featuring trial reenactments based on court transcripts and interviews with key participants, including expert scientists and Dover parents, ...
New science standards created by MAJORITY of 26 states for 2013 (Stem).
Origin of life
Simple blood test will tell you what % of Neanderthal is in your DNA
Origin of Life no religions needed.
They just want $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and votes
NOVA: Decoding Neanderthals – PBS Pressroom
NOVA: Decoding Neanderthals. Wednesday, January 9, 2013, 9:00-10:00 p.m. ET. Check your local listings. Decoding Neanderthals Ep Main. Find out what
Linked to below are two of the most interesting essay on Hom-ose-xuality I've read in a looooong time, by science fiction writer Orson Scott Card: "Hom-ose-xual 'Marriage' and Civilization", and "The Hypocrites of Hom-ose-xuality."
He's not entirely 100% on the mark, but he's close enough that it's barely worth quibbling about.
I heartily recommend his two essays on this subject to all well-meaning Christians on this board.
"“The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.”"
Guess what gays have these very same type of relationships and the writer completely ignores this fact as well as what the hundreds of thousands of experts have stated in this country. Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."
Like their heterosexual counterparts, many gay and lesbian people want to form stable, long-lasting, committed relationships. Indeed, many of them do and that large proportions are currently involved in such a relationship and that a substantial number of those couples have been together 10 or more years.
Research demonstrates that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners closely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships. Like heterosexual couples, same-sex couples form deep emotional attachments and commitments. Heterosexual and same-sex couples alike face similar issues concerning intimacy, love, equity, loyalty, and stability, and they go through similar processes to address those issues. Research examining the quality of intimate relationships also shows that gay and lesbian couples have levels of relationship satisfaction similar to or higher than those of heterosexual couples.
A large number of gay and lesbian couples raise children. Children and teenagers whose parents provide loving guidance in the context of secure home environments are more likely to flourish – and this is just as true for children of same-sex parents as it is for children of opposite-sex parents. Based on research findings, mental health professionals have also reached a consensus that the quality of relationships among significant adults in a child’s or adolescent’s life is associated with adjustment. When relationships between parents are characterized by love, warmth, cooperation, security, and mutual support, children and adolescents are more likely to show positive adjustment. In contrast, when relationships between parents are conflict-ridden and acrimonious, the adjustment of children and adolescents is likely to be less favorable. These correlations are just as true for children of same-sex parents as for children of opposite-sex parents.
Assertions that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children of heterosexual parents, have no support in the scientific research literature. On the contrary, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has consistently shown that the former are as fit and capable as the latter and that their children are as psychologically healthy and well adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.
Dude that was written way back in 1990 and you think it's relevant today with all the advancements about the truth about gays and lesbians?
YeahRight, you are the up and coming "Cut and Paste" King of the CNN Belief Blog. You've veritably filled the page with your recycled, cut and pasted thoughts. How about sharing some of your own with us...
"In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man.
Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. And, in fact, many homosexual men have done precisely that, without any legal prejudice at all.
Ditto with lesbian women. Many have married men and borne children. And while a fair number of such marriages in recent years have ended in divorce, there are many that have not.
So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage. "
LMAO! Does this prove the stupidity of this writer or what. LOL!
"You've veritably filled the page with your recycled, cut and pasted thoughts. How about sharing some of your own with us..."
It's called the real facts and prejudice people like you can't handle it. Tough.
The Mormon fundiots are busy I see. Regarding the second link (2004), the author Card attempts to link ho mo se xuality with paraphilia. Then, in Card's novella Hamlet's Father, which re-imagines the backstory of Shakespeare's play Hamlet, some claim that Card directly links the king's pedophilia with hom ose xuality. The novella prompted public outcry and its publishers were inundated with complaints. The trade journal Publisher's Weekly criticized Card's "flimsy novella" and stated that the main purpose of it was to attempt to link hom ose xuality to pedophilia. Card responded to the claim:
...[T]here is no link whatsoever between hom ose xuality and pedophilia in this book. Hamlet's father, in the book, is a pedophile, period. I don't show him being even slightly attracted to adults of either se x. It is the reviewer, not me, who has asserted this link, which I would not and did not make.
LOL, right. A grade schooler can see what this fundiot's agenda was.
Ender? Cut and paste, as opposed you linking a site? How delightfully hypocritical of you!
In order to think either one of those articles is a good one you must have had a full frontal lobotomy.
You're ridiculous. I did it once. YeahRight has filled the page with his cut/paste work. He (or she) is even doing it using other screen names.
PS- I love how an accusation of "hypocrisy" here seems to be the go-to watchword for you (and so many others) here. It's always OTHERS who are hypocrites, right? But never ever ourselves...
you said: "LMAO! Does this prove the stupidity of this writer or what. LOL!"
Card was being whimsical, and ironic, with his "Hom-os-exuals can already marry" line of thought. It's called humor, which there is a lot of in his essays. If that fact was lost on you, I'm sorry.
But be sure to throw in a few more LMAOs and LOLs in all of your responses: it'll make your point seem even more valid to the kinds of people influenced by such Internet shu-ck and jive...
"He (or she) is even doing it using other screen names."
More lies from the xtians – 90!
"it'll make your point seem even more valid to the kinds of people influenced by such Internet shu-ck and jive..."
I am laughing at the prejudice stupidity of people. LOL! You can call it want you want but I am actually posting what the hundreds of thousands of experts in this country are stating. All you are providing is a person personal prejudice remarks on the subject not based on any real facts. That's what's hysterical. LOL!
Ender? You cut and paste first, and in doing so legitimized the process. So it was indeed hypocritical for you to complain when another person responded in kind.
so much for orson scott card...
Orson Scott Card is a Mormon, why am I not surprised?
yeah, I'd sure hate to be orson scott card. what with that movie based on his book coming out next year, the one with Harrison Ford in it. poor guy. of course, at some point just before the very last minute, the GLBT community will try to torpedo the movie in the press, shortly before it's released, since it will have been based on a book written by a guy they deem to be a "virulent hate-filled ho.mo.phobe" or somesuch utter drivel. but it'll only add to the box office ticket sales. poor poor poor orson scott card ;)
Normal people are not welcome.
You are my kind of "person" Thomas J....lol!!!!!!
Posts by Jean Baptiste and Hobby Lobby made some interesting points, a page or so back :)
Yea Thomas J it is........ Even with all the ignorance that's being posted..... An educated explanation or defense can't seem to make on here.... I'll just pray instead......
"An educated explanation or defense can't seem to make on here"
Then how about what the hundreds of thousands of experts state about it. Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."
Probably for the best. It certainly can't hurt, and it will accomplish more than anything you or I or anyone on our side will ever manage on this page. It's like some of the people here aren't understanding the English language. I know they do, of course, but it's like they're hearing what they want to hear, and arguing against it. Last night, and one page back, Stiffler spent a couple of hours being reasonable (and funny) in a "discussion" with three or four people all at the same time, and every point he made got sidestepped or ignored, in lieu of personal attacks and vitriol. C'est la vie. If you remain here, I wish you well. You'll need a thick skin and a lot of patience...
YeahRight sayz, "Blah, blah, blah......".......The gubmint money goes a long way in keeping those experts employed. Nobody's gonna rock the boat. BTW, after 400,000 years of evolution you still haven't figured s e x out?
"The gubmint money goes a long way in keeping those experts employed. Nobody's gonna rock the boat. BTW, after 400,000 years of evolution you still haven't figured s e x out?"
All major medical professional organizations concur that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, from gay to straight or otherwise. The American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and European Psychological, Psychiatric, and Medical Associations all agree with this, as does the World Health Organization and the medical organizations of Japan, China, and most recently, Thailand. Furthermore, attempts to change one's sexual orientation can be psychologically damaging, and cause great inner turmoil and depression, especially for Christian gays and lesbians.
The scientific evidence of the innateness of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism is overwhelming, and more peer-reviewed studies which bolster this fact are being added all the time. Science has long regarded sexual orientation – and that's all sexual orientations, including heterosexuality – as a phenotype. Simply put, a phenotype is an observable set of properties that varies among individuals and is deeply rooted in biology. For the scientific community, the role of genetics in sexuality is about as "disputable" as the role of evolution in biology.
On the second point, that there is no conclusion that there is a "gay gene," they are right. No so-called gay gene has been found, and it's highly unlikely that one ever will. This is where conservative Christians and Muslims quickly say "See, I told you so! There's no gay gene, so being gay is a choice!"
Many of these reparative "therapists" are basing this concept on a random Bible verse or two. When you hold those up against the mountain of scientific research that has been conducted, peer-reviewed, and then peer-reviewed again, it absolutely holds no water. A person's sexuality – whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual – is a very deep biological piece of who that person is as an individual.
The fact that a so-called "gay gene" has not been discovered does not mean that homosexuality is not genetic in its causation. This is understandably something that can seem a bit strange to those who have not been educated in fields of science and advanced biology, and it is also why people who are not scientists ought not try to explain the processes in simple black-and-white terms. There is no gay gene, but there is also no "height gene" or "skin tone gene" or "left-handed gene." These, like sexuality, have a heritable aspect, but no one dominant gene is responsible for them.
Many genes, working in sync, contribute to the phenotype and therefore do have a role in sexual orientation. In many animal model systems, for example, the precise genes involved in sexual partner selection have been identified, and their neuro-biochemical pathways have been worked out in great detail. A great number of these mechanisms have been preserved evolutionarily in humans, just as they are for every other behavioral trait we know (including heterosexuality).
There are many biologic traits which are not specifically genetic but are biologic nonetheless. These traits are rooted in hormonal influences, contributed especially during the early stages of fetal development. This too is indisputable and based on extensive peer-reviewed research the world over. Such prenatal hormonal influences are not genetic per se, but are inborn, natural, and biologic nevertheless.
When I say an educated explanation or defense, I'm not speaking of news articles, statistics or anything by that nature, I'm speaking of my OWN defense, concerning my faith, but since I'm not into arguing my faith or debating it with ANYONE, although I stand ready to "give answer to every man concerning the hope that is within me," I'll take the advice of my friend Thomas J and gracefully bow out of here, I'm not into hating anyone, I'm all about love.
There are a handful of people here who hang out here more or less all the time, and are only here to bully and harass any and all Rep/Con/Christian points of view. Until last night, the only other time I'd posted here was back in mid-November. That same handful of bullies was here then, as now. Their job is to curtail free speech: to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, if they have opposing views. No one wants to make an innocuous statement and get dogpiled for it. It's wearying. Most Christian new posters here split, I would imagine, after their first or second comment gets viciously ridiculed, parodied or misrepresented. And further up the page, Ender's Beginning has posted some links to a couple of great essays by Orson Scott Card, that are definitely worth reading. Have a good one :)
"Ender's Beginning has posted some links to a couple of great essays by Orson Scott Card, that are definitely worth reading. Have a good one "
Its' outdated material that aren't based on any real facts of today. The idiot is trying to tell gays to marry a person of the opposite sex, that's just plain stupid.
Ender's Beginning = Thomas J
. and Erik = YeahRight
^that's a little period mark, by the way ;)
The A&A's have talked themselves into paranoia. Don't forget to whistle when you walk by the cemetery tonight.
"and Erik = YeahRight"
Actually you're wrong we are not the same writers.
How exactly is ignoring the facts "intelligent"? I believe the word best used to describe a person who trusts mythology over science is "ignorant". I hope you avoid hypocrisy by praying instead of going to a doctor when you are ill.
The pain of cognitive dissonance is what drives Christians away. Continually waving away the facts which dispel their delusion can't be fun for them. Much easier to run and hide back into ignorance. it is cozy in there.
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.