|
Post by cervyy on May 7, 2006 23:01:14 GMT -5
hehe,
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 7, 2006 23:02:47 GMT -5
Love is not a feeling, love is action. Feelings come and feelings go. But love is always action. John 3:16 does not say, "For God so loved the world that He sent it tingly feelings" No, It says, "For God so loved the world that He sent His only Begotton Son that whosoever believes in Him might not perish but have everlasting life."
If love were a feeling, rather then action, how could God command love?
The two greatest commandments are to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. If love were an uncontrollable feeling, how could God command us to love Him or anyone else?
No, love is not a feeling. Love is action.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on May 7, 2006 23:09:33 GMT -5
Its easy to say that when your feelings have been numbed by hate and lies. If I could choose to love, I might just let myself by brianwashed by y'all and call it quits on my own life.
Also, the Bible says what it says from back THEN. Do we use textbooks from the 80s? Do we still use textbooks that call Russia the Soviet Union? Get with the times and go with love, not hate.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 8, 2006 3:14:12 GMT -5
...if love was only action then marriage would only account for sex, i.e. reproduction. there would be no unity, no responsibility, and that is not love. love is emotion.....................and action, sort of how faith is dead without deeds. you need emotion and action, and you need faith and deeds.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on May 8, 2006 20:59:54 GMT -5
Is it a choice? Well, let's look at some more evidence. www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/05/08/lesbian.brains.ap/index.htmlCNN.com Monday, May 8, 2006; Posted: 6:28 p.m. EDT (22:28 GMT) Lesbians' brains respond like straight men WASHINGTON (AP) -- Lesbians' brains react differently to sex hormones than those of heterosexual women.
An earlier study of gay men also showed their brain response was different from straight men -- an even stronger difference than has now been found in lesbians. Lesbians' brains reacted somewhat, though not completely, like those of heterosexual men, a team of Swedish researchers said in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A year ago, the same group reported findings for gay men that showed their brain response to hormones was similar to that of heterosexual women. In both cases the findings add weight to the idea that homosexuality has a physical basis and is not learned behavior. "It shows sexual orientation may very well have a different basis between men and women ... this is not just a mirror image situation," said Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. "The important thing is to be open to the likely situation that there are biological factors that contribute to sexual orientation," added Witelson, who was not part of the research team. The research team led by Ivanka Savic at the Stockholm Brain Institute had volunteers sniff chemicals derived from male and female sex hormones. These chemicals are thought to be pheromones -- molecules known to trigger responses such as defense and sex in many animals. Whether humans respond to pheromones has been debated, although in 2000 American researchers reported finding a gene that they believe directs a human pheromone receptor in the nose. The same team reported last year on a comparison of the response of male homosexuals to heterosexual men and women. They found that the brains of gay men reacted more like those of women than of straight men. The new study shows a similar, but weaker, relationship between the response of lesbians and straight men. Heterosexual women found the male and female pheromones about equally pleasant, while straight men and lesbians liked the female pheromone more than the male one. Men and lesbians also found the male hormone more irritating than the female one, while straight women were more likely to be irritated by the female hormone than the male one. All three groups rated the male hormone more familiar than the female one. Straight women found both hormones about equal in intensity, while lesbians and straight men found the male hormone more intense than the female one. The brains of all three groups were scanned when sniffing male and female hormones and a set of four ordinary odors. Ordinary odors were processed in the brain circuits associated with smell in all the volunteers. In heterosexual males the male hormone was processed in the scent area but the female hormone was processed in the hypothalamus, which is related to sexual stimulation. In straight women the sexual area of the brain responded to the male hormone while the female hormone was perceived by the scent area. In lesbians, both male and female hormones were processed the same, in the basic odor processing circuits, Savic and her team reported. Each of the three groups of subjects included 12 healthy, unmedicated, right-handed and HIV-negative individuals. The research was funded by the Swedish Medical Research Council, Karolinska Institute and the Wallenberg Foundation.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on May 8, 2006 21:31:03 GMT -5
Oh ya, CNN you're my daddy!!!
Sorry, news nerd.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 9, 2006 6:36:31 GMT -5
CNN? Coward's News Network? ? The most biased and liberal station on planet E? Come on....give us something better than CNN! CNN...in association with the AP hahahahahaha Sorry for the chuckle but I can;t help it.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 9, 2006 8:14:08 GMT -5
haha. i watch fox for entertainment purposes. i do not watch american news... i believe you get a more objective approach to current events if you are an insider, looking outside, and back in. i read foreign news concerning america and i've noticed that our 'news alerts' are usually exaggerated to grapple for people's minds. fox grabs republicans and christians, and cnn grabs anyone who is left. the news in america lost its objectivity years ago.
a good example of exaggerated affairs is terrorism. terrorism has existed since man walked upright, or if you are a christian, since the fall of man. terrorism is not bin laden, but anything and everything that causes fear. the american government, through media outlets, feeds on people's fears to control how we see events, and even how we vote. so, stop watching american news, yet stay informed and you will see that you have become less fearful, and less controlled by the government.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on May 9, 2006 9:58:02 GMT -5
CNN? Coward's News Network? ? The most biased and liberal station on planet E? Come on....give us something better than CNN! CNN...in association with the AP hahahahahaha Sorry for the chuckle but I can;t help it. Then were do you get yer news then?? And the AP rocks my socks, thank you very much
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on May 9, 2006 15:38:43 GMT -5
Sorry Thumper, I forgot that you think everything has a liberal bent. I went to foxnews.com and searched for "lesbians." The first hit was the following story. They report. You decide.
Lesbians' Brains Respond Differently From Those of Straight Women Tuesday, May 09, 2006 Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Lesbians' brains react differently to sex hormones than those of heterosexual women, new research indicates.
That's in line with an earlier study that had indicated gay men's brain responses were different from straight men — though the difference for men was more pronounced than has now been found in women.
Lesbians' brains reacted somewhat, though not completely, like those of heterosexual men, a team of Swedish researchers said in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
A year ago, the same group reported findings for gay men that showed their brain response to hormones was similar to that of heterosexual women.
In both cases the findings add weight to the idea that homosexuality has a physical basis and is not learned behavior.
"It shows sexual orientation may very well have a different basis between men and women ... this is not just a mirror image situation," said Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.
"The important thing is to be open to the likely situation that there are biological factors that contribute to sexual orientation," added Witelson, who was not part of the research team.
The research team led by Ivanka Savic at the Stockholm Brain Institute had volunteers sniff chemicals derived from male and female sex hormones. These chemicals are thought to be pheromones — molecules known to trigger responses such as defense and sex in many animals.
Whether humans respond to pheromones has been debated, although in 2000 American researchers reported finding a gene that they believe directs a human pheromone receptor in the nose.
The same team reported last year on a comparison of the response of male homosexuals to heterosexual men and women. They found that the brains of gay men reacted more like those of women than of straight men.
The new study shows a similar, but weaker, relationship between the response of lesbians and straight men.
Heterosexual women found the male and female pheromones about equally pleasant, while straight men and lesbians liked the female pheromone more than the male one. Men and lesbians also found the male hormone more irritating than the female one, while straight women were more likely to be irritated by the female hormone than the male one.
All three groups rated the male hormone more familiar than the female one. Straight women found both hormones about equal in intensity, while lesbians and straight men found the male hormone more intense than the female one.
The brains of all three groups were scanned when sniffing male and female hormones and a set of four ordinary odors. Ordinary odors were processed in the brain circuits associated with smell in all the volunteers.
In heterosexual males the male hormone was processed in the scent area but the female hormone was processed in the hypothalamus, which is related to sexual stimulation. In straight women the sexual area of the brain responded to the male hormone while the female hormone was perceived by the scent area.
In lesbians, both male and female hormones were processed the same, in the basic odor processing circuits, Savic and her team reported.
Each of the three groups of subjects included 12 healthy, unmedicated, right-handed and HIV-negative individuals.
The research was funded by the Swedish Medical Research Council, Karolinska Institute and the Wallenberg Foundation.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on May 9, 2006 15:41:57 GMT -5
Fox news said that? Man, they surpirse me sometimes. At least THEY don't ignore science.
oh, thumper you got POWNED!!
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on May 9, 2006 20:55:20 GMT -5
Well, actually, I was attempting to shed light on the fact that most stories are not significantly biased between broadcasters. Go back and read both articles. They are almost identical. If a broadcaster with a supposedly "extremely liberal" bias reports the same story about a controversial issue as one with a supposedly "far-right" bias, something should ring a bell. As a matter of fact, the only significant difference between the stories is that CNN posted theirs a day before Fox did.
|
|
|
Post by wkufan on May 10, 2006 11:26:42 GMT -5
The most common arguement for homosexuality being natural is, "why would someone choice to be a homosexual in a society that frowns upon it? Would someone really choose to suffer so much for it?" My answer to that is yes. Homosexuals do choose to suffer for their sin. Much as a drunkard will choose to suffer for his sin. Why would a drunkard choose to drink when in many cases it costs him his job, his family, his house, and he is left to be the homeless bum sleeping in a drunken daze on the park bench? Why? Simply because he loves the bottle. Is robbing a house a choose even though the robber suffers for it when he gets caught and goes to jail? Does the fact that he suffered for it deny the fact that he choose to do it? The question is not whether or not he choose to do it, the question is why did he choose to do it? The point is that people are willing to suffer for what they love. Some men suffer for righteousness because they love righteousness. Some men suffer for sin because they love sin. But the arguement that homosexuality cannot be a choice because they suffer in some respects for it does not hold weight and it not a logical arguement as we can clearly see that many choices bring about suffering and yet they are chosen because of the love of it. Do you know why people sin? Because they are sinners who love their sin. 30 years ago, they tried to tell us there was some gene responsible for criminal activity. "They were just born that way". A few people advocated not punishing people for this very reason. Pretty silly, eh? Some claim Hitler was the way he was because of his genetic and psychological make up even today. In other words, they're implying "Hitler was just born and raised that way". The Bible is oh so very clear. The heart is wicked. We're all "born that way" to commit sin. It's a choice whether we comply with God's commands or not. The Scriptures are very, very clear that no sinner will enter the Kingdom of Heaven and cast into firey torment forever. If you think live is tough now, wait until you get a taste of forever.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 10, 2006 21:15:56 GMT -5
...or you could stop using a two thousand year old book to rip on everyone that is not like you.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on May 10, 2006 23:17:06 GMT -5
If you think live is tough now, wait until you get a taste of forever. If it means spending forever with y'all, DEF count me out. We're living beings on this planet for a reason and if it's just to prepare us for death then count me OUT. That's a sucky life and afterlife.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 11, 2006 13:37:53 GMT -5
...or you could stop using a two thousand year old book to rip on everyone that is not like you. Or you could come to terms with the fact that you're a God hater and will one day answer for it
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on May 11, 2006 14:09:38 GMT -5
Hey, like i've said, do we still use textbooks from the 80's? NO, the Bible was great back then, but it's old AND as of now, inaccurate.
God inspired those back then with his message, but that message has been lost. Clearly, look at who founded this message board!
REPENT!!
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 11, 2006 15:19:25 GMT -5
Your ignorance shines through ("Clearly")
The very reason we "don't use textbooks from the 80's" is because man is fallible, always changing, always adapting.... always wrong.
God's Word was here before you came along and it will be that INfallible Word which meets you at death, to judge you according to the Law of God, the 10 Commandments, and you'll have no excuse...and you WILL bow, and you WILL confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on May 11, 2006 15:35:13 GMT -5
Your ignorance shines through ("Clearly") The very reason we "don't use textbooks from the 80's" is because man is fallible, always changing, always adapting.... always wrong. God's Word was here before you came along and it will be that INfallible Word which meets you at death, to judge you according to the Law of God, the 10 Commandments, and you'll have no excuse...and you WILL bow, and you WILL confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Shines through clearly, haha, cute. Already have confessed that JC is my one and only. Benn there, done that. Yes, God's word and law are infallible I agree TOTALY. BUT it's been muddled and lost thanks to people through the ages! Without questioning everything around you, you risk being blinded and led astray. People were born with the ability to question, to wonder. Don't be another of those who fall for the falsities of hate, hook, line and sinker!
|
|
|
Post by rsmportland on May 11, 2006 16:07:45 GMT -5
Is it a choice? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 11, 2006 16:10:17 GMT -5
yes it's a choice... the choice to sin
|
|
|
Post by wkufan on May 11, 2006 17:02:55 GMT -5
Hey, like i've said, do we still use textbooks from the 80's? NO, the Bible was great back then, but it's old AND as of now, inaccurate. God inspired those back then with his message, but that message has been lost. Clearly, look at who founded this message board! REPENT!! Current culture touts the marvels of the Orgin of Species by Darwin. Ever read the first versions of this book? I have. Did you know that Darwin claims that black people were less evolved than white and they were still ape like? Women (or wopersons for you feminists) would never evolve the intelligence to compete with men. I'm sure these have been edited out of their bible nowadays. I nearly majored in palentology. I took one class and that was enough. What a laugher. But had Darwin really believed what God told him in the Scriptures, that Man was of one blood, he wouldn't have made such assisinine statements. So much for the wisdom of man. Point is, every thing Man thinks he knows falls away, but God's Word is like a granite tower. It'll never fall or change. I would be interested to review and discuss these "inaccuracies" you believe exists. One thing you can be sure of, the nature of man has never changed since the days of Eden. Truth never changes. That's why the Bible remains intact and without error and is applicable to today.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on May 11, 2006 18:41:23 GMT -5
I don't necessarily believe Darwin, most of what he said. Those above reasons are why I know I can't trust everything the Bible says. It's sad, but God entrusted his word to us and the selfish and corrupt in our history have used that word for their own power by changing it.
If the Bible remains intact, how come we have oh so many versions? That granite tower is lost, in tact, but lost. It's been painted over and other "similiar" towers were contructed to look like it, but not.
Tell me, have you ever tried translating something into another language? Any language? Does it ever translate completely as is? No, different cultures have different wordings, different unique things ... I just learned in my German class, that if you wanted to say you can't dance because you have two left feet, they actually have a version of that saying. Only there, you have two left HANDS. Weird? I was surprised there was an equivelent saying in German at all!
|
|
|
Post by wkufan on May 12, 2006 10:04:55 GMT -5
Tell me, have you ever tried translating something into another language? Any language? Does it ever translate completely as is? No, different cultures have different wordings, different unique things ... I just learned in my German class, that if you wanted to say you can't dance because you have two left feet, they actually have a version of that saying. Only there, you have two left HANDS. Weird? I was surprised there was an equivelent saying in German at all! If God is powerful enough to speak into existence everything in a flash, then He certainly can invoke His will to mere men to transcribe His points properly. I consider it much like you'd see a car operations manual. It may be written in different languages, but the intent and written instruction maintaining the vehicle gets you to the same point/objective.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 12, 2006 10:27:46 GMT -5
Hey cerv, can you give us the "true" Word of God since yuo have some insside info that we no longer have it?
Looking forward to your reply.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on May 12, 2006 13:04:53 GMT -5
First to wkfun, a car instruction, i guess that analogy could work, but then there SOOO many of them, updated versions for updated cars, and you can compare right there what it says in spanish to what it says in English. He he wanted to make us write it all down verbatium then we would simply then just make us do everything he wanted and keep us away from sin by his own will.
Remember, I said that original and true word was lost. I've been living my life what I felt deep down was right, coupled what I learned in church. I feel this is somewhere on the right track to doing God's work. You to have it, deep down in your heart. It's that crazy love thing I keep mentioning.
I don't totaly dismis the Bible, it is some of what we have left from God's words. Completely ignoring is not right for a Christian.
|
|
|
Post by wkufan on May 12, 2006 13:20:47 GMT -5
First to wkfun, a car instruction, i guess that analogy could work, but then there SOOO many of them, updated versions for updated cars, and you can compare right there what it says in spanish to what it says in English. He he wanted to make us write it all down verbatium then we would simply then just make us do everything he wanted and keep us away from sin by his own will. That's a valid point. However, when you state "then we would simply then just make us do everything he wanted", think of it in these terms. If I came up behind you with a knife and held it to your throat and demanded you declare your love for me, would you not do so? Because if you didn't, I would kill you. So even if I made you repeat your love for me 20 times or else, would it make you really love me? No, you'd hate me. Because the only reason why you're saying this is because you know your throat will be slit. This isn't love, it's intimidation. God does not want us to love Him because we're forced to. What kind of love is that? It's not love at all. God wants us to come to Him because we want to, not because he forces us. If that's what He wanted, He would have made us that way.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on May 12, 2006 13:38:00 GMT -5
Mmm, another good analogy ... ummm, well, I see that as how God's message is portrayed most times. Replace the knide with eternal hellfire. Ya, that so does NOT lead to love. Intimidation all the way.
It's hard to do, love everyone, but if everyone did then we wouldn't have the problem anyways. That's kinda what I see as God's ideal plan for us
|
|
|
Post by wkufan on May 12, 2006 20:12:17 GMT -5
Replace the knide with eternal hellfire. Ya, that so does NOT lead to love. Intimidation all the way. I don't see this as intimidation at all. Only as knowledge of the ramifications if I choose x, y, or z. God tells us what happens depending on the path we choose. He's not demanding we choose anything, although He tells us He's not wanting for any of us to be lost. I can skateboard on handrails, knowing eventually I'll knock my teeth out or break my neck. I still do it knowing the possible consequences because that's my choice. We know if we jump off a 15 story building, we die. Some do this even with this knowledge. God doesn't necessarily demand we live in a particular way--but the ramifications are if we live counter to His design are clear. If we live within those parameters, here's the reward. If we live outside those parameters, here's your punishment. Much like a father warns his child not to stick his finger in a light socket. And when a child does, the father states, "See? I told you what would happen." When we die and are judged. God will say "See? I told you what would happen if you were a fornicator, thief, liar, murderer..."
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on May 13, 2006 2:13:47 GMT -5
Wkufan said:
... I have NEVER heard ANYONE say such a word as "wopersons." You clearly know nothing about feminism... you're an idiot. Stop trying to sound intelligent or cute or whatever it is you're going for... There is a word that some women's rights groups use: "womyn" It's just a different spelling to take the "men" out of the word. I believe it was created by members of the sub-philosophy that branched off of feminism, called womanism. Basically, a lot of groups felt pushed out of the feminist movement, mostly ethnic groups like African American and Latino women. The feminist movement has historically been geared towards middle-class European American women, and that's how womanism sprang up. But the term "woperson" is just something you made up to look cute. It's not working... you just look stupid.
|
|