Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Dec 2001 05:12:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
348 times
|
| |
|
|
I am finding that making so many individual replies is somewhat taxing. I
seem to be saying too much in some posts, and not enough in others. Here, I
should have distinctly referred to Christianity, rather than religion in
general. Other religions have little or no bearing on my part of the
discussion as I do not know enough about them.
As for the age of Christianity, it must be noted that homosexuality is
considered a sin within both the Old and the New Testament. Since the Old
Testament is the basis for the Jewish religion as well, I would assume that
the Jewish religion would also have issues with a gay gene. However, I do
not know enough about the Jewish religion to actually argue that point.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> "Kirby Warden" <inourimage@msn.com> writes:
>
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> > > "Kirby Warden" <inourimage@msn.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > Proving that the gay gene exists is a very serious matter. If it
> > > > does exist, then over 4,000 yrs. of religious doctrine must be
> > > > either changed or simply buried.
> > >
> > >
> > > Are you implying that possibly apart from the gay gene question, the
> > > 4,000 years of religious doctrine is _correct_?
> >
> > Most Christians believe the Bible is indeed correct.
>
>
> Clearly, "4,000 yrs. of religious doctrine" must include more than just
> the Bible. The Bible, as we know it today, was not available 4,000
> years ago.
>
>
> Take an example. According to Jewish belief, Jesus is not the son of
> God. According to Christian belief, he is. I'm not going to speculate
> as to which of these is correct, but you may agree that at least one of
> them has to be wrong. Hence, even if you exclude the "gay gene"
> thingey, "4,000 yrs. of religious doctrine" cannot be correct.
>
>
> If you want to exclude Jewish beliefs from "4,000 yrs. of religious
> doctrine", I could still quote that Christianity over the last 2,000
> years have included various different beliefs, which are not consistent
> with each other. This would still prove my point above.
>
>
> Fredrik
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) I don't see how this relates to my post. You said that all of 4000 years of religious doctrine was correct (except possibly the gay genes). I argued that with the diversity of the various doctrines, it couldn't _all_ be correct. Fredrik (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) Clearly, "4,000 yrs. of religious doctrine" must include more than just the Bible. The Bible, as we know it today, was not available 4,000 years ago. Take an example. According to Jewish belief, Jesus is not the son of God. According to (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
97 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
