BF2S Forums Christianity

MOG Disciple wrote:

This is GREAT 22 pages I love this.

JaMDuDe wrote:

The book is 6 years old, there are probably plenty of "rebuttals" by now. I chose to believe him and not talkorigins who tell people what they want to hear instead of the truth.

Skruples wrote:

MOG Disciple wrote:

This is GREAT 22 pages I love this.

Still waiting on that rebuttal to my last point disciple.

JaMDuDe wrote:

The book is 6 years old, there are probably plenty of "rebuttals" by now. I chose to believe him and not talkorigins who tell people what they want to hear instead of the truth.

The Harvard bioscience department saw fit to link talkorigins in their references... I imagine they do a pretty good job. Besides which, how can you possibly justify saying that talkorigins just tells people what they want to hear after the mountains of ridiculous links you've provided over the course of several threads? I can't imagine talkorigins is any less reputable than answersingenesis.org, who still maintain the universe is less than 10000 years old. I think even you have admitted that to be a silly belief.

The link I was referring to: http://www.mcb.harvard.edu/BioLinks/Evolution.html under 'evolution faqs'.

Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-07-13 19:31:36)

JaMDuDe wrote:

They are just one of hundreds of links on that page. I really doubt harvard thought too much about if they should put a talkorigins link on their website. They answer the questions and tell evolutionists what they want to hear. If your going to believe everything talkorigins says then you should also believe everything on http://www.trueorigin.org/ neither are very good scientific websites. I will admit that the idea of the universe being less than 10,000 years old is a silly belief. But there was some evidence for it and its not too much of a stretch to believe it if your not an atheist.

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

Secondly, if the moon can be covered craters surely the Earth must have been hit by huge numbers of meteors as well. Yes the atmosphere protects us to some degree, but enough massive hits would have occured to cause worldwide devastation.  He stopped responding to my emails after that one.

MOG Disciple wrote:

What was your last point I've lost count.

Skruples wrote:

MOG Disciple wrote:

Skruples wrote:

This belief is profoundly ignorant in the light of modern psychology. Have you done any research on the subject, or did you, like so many other christians, flash-form opinions about something you know little about based solely on the words of the Bible and perhaps your local clergy? According to the American psychological association:

http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31

some more articles:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h … nging.html
http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/Researc … icall.html

There are plenty more sources waiting out there, but I suspect that like Jamdude you will choose to side with your preconceived religious beliefs over the combined research of the entire scientific community.

Lastly, no, I am not gay.

You said it, its all theories and speculations. Hhomosexuality is, its a choice. Just like it was said before most of what we were taught at a young age we grow up beliving be it believing in Jesus or being an athiest, being a homosapian or homosexual.  I have seen many homosexuals leave their ways and even marry and have children.  So don't give me that.  It was a choice they made

I will say it again!!!!!!!   [[[[ Please read all these verses]]]]]]

I believe that God gave us free will and that is why we have homosexuality. Homosexuality is a perversion and a lie from satin himself. You need to fall on your face and ask The Heavenly Father for forgivnes and He can and will change your heart and your life.

I personally believe that Rom 1:32 is what the Aids epidemic is all about. Not just homosexuality but the whole scoop of sexual perversions, that is including unfaithful spouses and sleeping around before you’re married.

"There are plenty more sources waiting out there, but I suspect that like Jamdude you will choose to side with your preconceived religious beliefs over the combined research of the entire scientific community. "
Thank you for making my point. Did you actually read those articles I posted? I should think the APA would know a little more about the psychology of homosexuality than yourself. Yet instead of trying to back your argument up with factual or reliable evidence, you quoted the bible again and related a personal anecdote. Good work, but I think you fail on intellectual grounds. Now, on to your points:

You said it, its all theories and speculations. Hhomosexuality is, its a choice.

From the first article I linked: "No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."
Tell me, are you a licensed psychologist? Is your opinion based on a solid medical education? Or are you simply regurgitating whatever you have learned in your religious experience? Remember that the APA bases this on actual research, the references for which you can probably get if you wanted.

Just like it was said before most of what we were taught at a young age we grow up beliving be it believing in Jesus or being an athiest, being a homosapian or homosexual.

I'm not sure how you would teach someone to be a homosapian from a young age... as for 'teaching' someone to be homosexual, that idea also has no basis in fact.

The APA wrote:

Gender-Role Behavior. A number of studies have examined gender-role behavior among the offspring of lesbian mothers (Golombok et al., 1983; Gottman, 1990; Green, 1978; Hoeffer, 1981; Kirkpatrick et al., 1981; Patterson, 1994a). These studies reported that such behavior among children of lesbian mothers fell within typical limits for conventional sex roles. For instance, Kirkpatrick and her colleagues (1981) found no differences between children of lesbian versus heterosexual mothers in toy preferences, activities, interests, or occupational choices.

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

I will say it again!!!!!!!   [[[[ Please read all these verses]]]]]]

Believe it or not, quoting the bible is not a substitute for having a valid point.

I believe that God gave us free will and that is why we have homosexuality. Homosexuality is a perversion and a lie from satin himself. You need to fall on your face and ask The Heavenly Father for forgivnes and He can and will change your heart and your life.

Yes, clearly satin is lying to us, and that is the cause for homosexuality.

I personally believe that Rom 1:32 is what the Aids epidemic is all about. Not just homosexuality but the whole scoop of sexual perversions, that is including unfaithful spouses and sleeping around before you’re married.

This is not worthy of a response.

strongly recommend a book called "THE UNHAPPY GAYS: What Everyone Should Know About Homosexuality" by Tim LaHaye (Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton Illinois, 1978) to gain a good insight into the factors that lead to the development of homosexuality. In his chapter on "What Causes Homosexuality?" Tim LaHaye first describes...

Lets see what the APA has to say about it. Let me remind you: Tim LaHaye is one man, and the APA is the foremost authority on psychological health in the United States.

The APA wrote:

The decision to remove homosexual orientation from the list of mental disorders reflects the results of extensive research, conducted over three decades, showing that homosexual orientation is not a psychological maladjustment (Gonsiorek, 1991; Reiss, 1980; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston, & McKee, 1978). The social and other circumstances in which lesbians and gay men live, including exposure to widespread prejudice and discrimination, often cause acute distress; but there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning (Freedman, 1971; Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart et al., 1978; Hooker, 1957; Reiss, 1980).

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
I would also point out that 1978 (the time that book was written) was just around the time homosexuality was being removed from the DSM as a mental disease.

This leads to the second reason why I believe it IS possible to overcome homosexuality...

Let me remind you that quoting the Bible is not a substitute for solid, empirical evidence supporting your position.

Anfidurl wrote:

MOG Disciple wrote:

I strongly recommend a book called "THE UNHAPPY GAYS: What Everyone Should Know About Homosexuality" by Tim LaHaye
<truncated>
power of the Holy Spirit!

So, you have been given solid, well researched evidence stating that Homosexuality is not a choice. What do you do? Regurgatate what you read, no matter how shaky the author has been with other books and dealings in the past. Brilliant.

Problem is, LaHaye has been criticized widely among both the laymen and the religious scholars over the content of his most popular series, the Left Behind books. Thelogically inaccurate, misconstruing Biblical verses, and in some cases extrapolating Biblical events to unfounded outcomes.

Lets move on to a few links.

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/tim … bible.html
http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/archives … me_a_2.php
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Boo … s/left.htm
http://www.catholic.com/library/false_profit.asp
http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/lahaye.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020701/books3.html
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/l41.html
http://rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes … eneral.htm
http://www.wayoflife.org/otimothy/tl010006.htm

Now, do you still believe it is wise to follow a man with such a delusional world-view, who follows his own religion, not Christianity?

Edit: Don't even get me started about the Left Behind FPS. LaHaye and his software team want you to convert or be murdered. http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/29/195855/959

Edit #8 Holy crap! I'm getting flooded with good links. Keep up the good work, people, and feel free to PM me with more evidence of this guy being a paranoid whackjob! This is the 8th edit to add more linkage, sorry!

Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-07-14 10:25:24)

JaMDuDe wrote:

They are obviously an anti creation pro evolution website. Besides the mottos true origins and talk origins are about the same scientifically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TalkOrigins_Archive  "The archive has been criticised due to its lack of peer review, a procedure normally considered a benchmark of scientific validity"

wikipedia wrote:

The Archive has responded to this by saying, "While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive. Most of our materials provide links and/or bibliographic references to enable the reader to evaluate the evidence for themselves."[1]

The Archive engages in something of an informal peer review by refusing to publish badly written, badly sourced, or unsupported articles, and it should be noted that many of the participants in the newsgroup, as well as the Archive, are practicing scientists. Many scientific organizations recommend the site, and its contents have been incorporated into many college courses. This attests to the veracity of the information at the site and a generalized attitude toward its contents by the members of the conventional science community. However, the Archive publishes no original research and focuses instead upon deploying information in scientific journals to counter criticisms of evolution. It is not in the format of a scientific journal and the peer review method of these journals may well be inappropriate for such a secondary source.

JaMDuDe wrote:

I gave you the link right next to the quote so you could read the whole thing. Talk origins is scientifically equal to true origins and people use it because it tells evolutionists what they want to hear, and shows evolution as fact without a single flaw.

JaMDuDe wrote:

It was by karma not pm If they were right about everything on the website we wouldnt be talking about evolution and creation, to them evolution is 100% fact without any flaws.