|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 28, 2006 2:33:16 GMT -5
It's late and I should be in bed, but I recalled that I saw something about a religious gene somewhere. A gene that actually determines a person's propensity for how religious they can be in their life. Interesting, no? I'll see later if I can find any information pertaining to it.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Apr 28, 2006 8:36:45 GMT -5
LOL!! and there's also studies that show our grandfathers as apes! But those "studies" are later found bunk because their failed attempts to disprove of a Holy Creator that demands justice for our immoral lives.
Science constantly disproves itself, though I love it because once they find something real and concrete, they're then amazed to see the Bible already gave reference to it... earth being round, the endless universe expanding, the moon illuminating the sun's light, natural laws of physics, etc., etc.
But as man plucks out the feathers of the chicken to disprove its a chicken, they only come to find they still have a chicken... but an ugly one at that.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 28, 2006 8:50:56 GMT -5
Who said it disproves a Holy Creator?
And yes, science does constantly disprove itself. It's a work in progress that will never provide all of the answers. I like how it can admit when it's wrong =)
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 28, 2006 9:00:11 GMT -5
HOLY...SOMETHING HOLY.
Hopeful! Where is this study??? I must see it!. OMG. Sooooo excited. Can I find it on PsychInfo? Never mind. I will look. OMG. Heeheehee.
::ignores the silliness of Grant Conklin and runs off to look for religious gene::
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 28, 2006 15:23:13 GMT -5
It's late and I should be in bed, but I recalled that I saw something about a religious gene somewhere. A gene that actually determines a person's propensity for how religious they can be in their life. Interesting, no? I'll see later if I can find any information pertaining to it. Modified: A Religious gene? Baloney.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 28, 2006 15:54:10 GMT -5
If I end all of my posts with the phrase 'deny God,' will you be anymore likely to do so?
Well, your use of the term 'repent' as a closing is nothing more than spiritual masturbation: You derive pleasure, but you don't actually accomplish anything.
STAND UP FOR EQUALITY!
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 28, 2006 17:47:12 GMT -5
If I end all of my posts with the phrase 'deny God,' will you be anymore likely to do so? Well, your use of the term 'repent' as a closing is nothing more than spiritual masturbation: You derive pleasure, but you don't actually accomplish anything. STAND UP FOR EQUALITY! "spiritual masturbation"?...is that a term you learned in sin-school? Repent means turn. It will be a constant reminder of the call of God to men in all places. You are without excuse. Repent. Turn from your sin. Receive Jesus. Accept His Atonement. Cling to Calvary. Die to self. Live for God. Repent.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 28, 2006 22:04:07 GMT -5
"spiritual masturbation"?...is that a term you learned in sin-school? Actually I learned it in Church. Actually it means "to make a change for the better as a result of remorse or contrition for one's sins." Since I am happy with who I am and because I don't believe in sins, you're going to need to try a different method. What will be? This can be summed up as "Trekker exists without 'an explanation offered to justify or obtain forgiveness'." Yes. I am glad that you finally picked up on that. You wanna prize for restating what I've said from the beginning? This is repent count 122,607. I'm holding out on repenting until I get to 500,000. Keep it up and you can convince me to repent by repeating that 377,393 times. But each post only counts as one, so you'd better get to work. I'm not in sin. Remember, I don't believe in sin. We really need to work on your logical arguementation skills. Jesus is dead. What you really mean is "accept Christ," but I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth so you'll have to do better than that. Right, do I need to repeat that non-divinity thing, or did you get it like the first couple of times? You want me to go hug a hill outside of Jerusalem? If you mean, 'live a selfless life,' then I am working on it. Do you mean that I should live in God's stead? Live to serve God? Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the meaning of that statement, you know prepositions can be so confusing. Sorry, Thumper, that one doesn't count. You see, you've already said it once this post, and I only count them once per post. Therefore the repent count stands at 122,607.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 30, 2006 19:28:16 GMT -5
HOLY...SOMETHING HOLY. Hopeful! Where is this study??? I must see it!. OMG. Sooooo excited. Can I find it on PsychInfo? Never mind. I will look. OMG. Heeheehee. ::ignores the silliness of Grant Conklin and runs off to look for religious gene:: I wish I could remember. I'm drained. Finals.... *whimpers* *smiling inside, because he wouldn't have life any other way*
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 30, 2006 20:12:04 GMT -5
What about the atheists who become Christians or the Christians who become atheists?
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 30, 2006 20:33:34 GMT -5
What about the atheists who become Christians or the Christians who become atheists? Well, I am not aware of any study but I can use my brain to draw a few hypotheses. If there is a religious gene (not saying I agree), then someone who was raised non-religiously, yet had the religious gene would have a higher propensity for turning to God. Someone raised in a Christian (or other creedal) household without the gene would see no need to remain involved in church. I see no contradiction. Although, please note that I am not endorsing or disclaiming the religious gene.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 30, 2006 20:38:58 GMT -5
I know of some who were raised Christian, then when they left their parents became atheists, and then later in life became Christians.
I know of some atheists who have gotten saved in their 40s,50s and +
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 30, 2006 20:54:04 GMT -5
I know of some who were raised Christian, then when they left their parents became atheists, and then later in life became Christians. I know of some atheists who have gotten saved in their 40s,50s and + And I know gays who didn't come out until they were well past 40. I also know gays who were basically out at age 13. Nothing you have said disproves my hypothesis. People with a genetic propensity for heart disease don't get it until they are over 40, usually. Some people who are genetically predisposed to become alcoholics don't.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 30, 2006 21:07:35 GMT -5
Your hypothesis seemed to say that one who doesn't have a religious gene yet raised in a Christian home would leave the Church once leaving his parents because he hasn't the gene. Or that one raised in a family of unbelievers, yet has the religious gene, would later find God.
This hypothesis doesn't make sense when you consider the Christians, raised in Christian homes, become atheists when leaving their parents and yet later come back to God.
But a Christian becoming an atheist or an atheist becoming a Christian is far different then a closet homosexual "coming out". Unless you believe that an atheist who becomes a Christian was actually a "closet" Christian to begin with and that the Christian who becomes an atheist was actually a "closet" atheist to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 30, 2006 21:42:37 GMT -5
I would simply say that there is no real proof for such a thing as a "Religious Gene" and there never will be. It will NEVER exist! The fact that you are even bringing this up leads me to believe that you are just trying to make more excuses for not repenting and turning to the Savior yourself!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 30, 2006 22:15:22 GMT -5
That's right RevK. It is just another excuse to be an unbeliever.
The whole arguement is simply prejudicial conjecture.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 30, 2006 22:21:07 GMT -5
I would simply say that there is no real proof for such a thing as a "Religious Gene" and there never will be. It will NEVER exist! The fact that you are even bringing this up leads me to believe that you are just trying to make more excuses for not repenting and turning to the Savior yourself! God forbid we question anything. Education is a trick from the Devil! I honestly don't think the idea of a "religious gene" is any more plausible than a "gay gene." While there might be genetic predispositions for certain traits like spirituality and sexuality, etc., the idea of one gene being in charge of all that seems far fetched to me. But I'm not closed to the idea, because I can't know either way until it is studied by science. You guys on the other hand, close off your minds to the possibility because your Book told you to. Hm.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 30, 2006 22:30:41 GMT -5
Morluna,
Are you open minded to be racist or sexist? What if racism or sexism is found in their genes? Are you open-minded enough to believe that maybe racism and sexism comes from someones genes?
Neither am I open minded to the rebellious sin of unbelief nor sexual perversion, to be found in the genes.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 30, 2006 22:35:35 GMT -5
wanderingtrekker,
Do you know what the word repent means? The way you were using it seems to indicate you do not know what it means.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 30, 2006 23:44:55 GMT -5
Dictionary.com comes through again...
re·pent - Pronunciation Key (r-pnt) v. re·pent·ed, re·pent·ing, re·pents v. intr.
1. To feel remorse, contrition, or self-reproach for what one has done or failed to do; be contrite. 2. To feel such regret for past conduct as to change one's mind regarding it: repented of intemperate behavior. 3. To make a change for the better as a result of remorse or contrition for one's sins.
v. tr.
1. To feel regret or self-reproach for: repent one's sins. 2. To cause to feel remorse or regret.
^_^
Does homosexuality hurt you if it is genetic? No. It doesn't affect you at all. Sexism and racism does affect one's fellow human beings however, and thus I am not open-minded to tolerating such isms. This argument gets old fast.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on May 1, 2006 1:01:06 GMT -5
I honestly don't think the idea of a "religious gene" is any more plausible than a "gay gene." While there might be genetic predispositions for certain traits like spirituality and sexuality, etc., the idea of one gene being in charge of all that seems far fetched to me. But I'm not closed to the idea, because I can't know either way until it is studied by science. You guys on the other hand, close off your minds to the possibility because your Book told you to. Hm. Thank you Morluna - I think that was an accurate clarification. Now, not to be rude, but I really think that this is fair to say. I've heard a lot of people criticze those who don't know the Bible back and forth, saying that they should become more familiar with what they're talking about so they don't sound ignorant. It seems fair to say the same thing to those who don't know the scientific theories back and forth, as well. That aside, the propensity, or 'predisposition', as Morluna cleverly substituded, is a starting point. It can also be viewed as the rate to which a person may be open-minded or close-minded towards things, right? In other words, let's say that this 'religious gene' sets you somewhere on the spectrum from more-likly 'believing is seeing' to more-likely 'seeing is believing' AND/OR determines how easily you'll move along that spectrum. Where you are on that spectrum will have to do with your environment and you own actions. I honestly am not trying to start something, I just thought it was interesting. It is similar to my view on a lot of genetics. It makes sense to me - you have to start off at some point. I simply don't believe that everything is %100 shaped by environment. In fact, most studies show that behavior and such is formed by a mixture of Both genetics and environment. Edit:Actually, it wouldn't surprise me at all if there was a propensity for those things, lol. Maybe not those in specific, but traits that add up to create a potential for those things.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on May 1, 2006 1:15:54 GMT -5
wanderingtrekker, Do you know what the word repent means? The way you were using it seems to indicate you do not know what it means. I had always thought it meant what Morluna posted above, but I think I was wrong. Judging from context clues it seems to mean: "I can't handle the question asked of me. I am not willing to accept the consequences of rethinking my belief structure. GO AWAY! STOP MAKING ME THINK! STOP MAKING ME QUESTION, I CAN'T HANDLE IT!" I can understand why you'd shorten that to "repent." It's much easier to type, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on May 1, 2006 1:16:28 GMT -5
That's right RevK. It is just another excuse to be an unbeliever. The whole arguement is simply prejudicial conjecture. Funny, that's how I always understood the religious arguement against homosexuality.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on May 1, 2006 17:12:17 GMT -5
Sigh... once again no response from Jesse...
*nods at Trekker* Yep.
>,> ... <.< ... >,>
REPENT! xB
|
|