Cross_+_Flame wrote:Aineo wrote:so you don't think what a celibate 30 year-old Jewish Rabbi teaching Jews Jewish religious law regarding marriage and human sexuality is relevant?
"Irrelevant." Aineo, the Gospel is completely relevant to society and, when appropriately used, to most discussions.
I disagree that what Jesus taught is irrelevant. Jesus taught God’s truth. However, I totally agree that the Gospel is completely relevant to society and when appropriately used is beneficial to any discussion.
Now, what is the Gospel to you?
We can prooftext all day long if we so desire; but it is to exhibit fidelity to biblical tradition to actually sit down and examine those prooftexts. I don't feel it does justice to that prooftext to fling it around without reading what it says.
Aineo wrote:The helper God found acceptable for Adam was a woman named Eve; not another man.
Actually, it seems from the biblical text that the reverse is true..God presented yet another option to man, and
man chose what was acceptable. Read these lines again:
[url=http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Genesis+2%3A19-22&version=nrs:2mhzbady]Genesis 2:19,22 NRSV[/url] wrote:19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
See the green and red parallels? In both texts, God formed a potential partner/helper, and brought it/her to the man. The presentations of both are identical, save their substance is different (which is arguably identical as well since the man was formed from dust from the ground as well
). In both texts, man did not make the potential partner/helper, God did, and presented them to the man. And man named them, but chose woman as his partner/helper.
If you really believe what you posted regarding prooftexts why did you pull 2 verses out of context to come up with a false conclusion? This Cross + Flame is why prooftexts are usually false. So lets again look at the whole context of the creation of woman:
Genesis 2:18-24
18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 And the man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 And the LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 And the man said,
"This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man."
24 For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. NAS
God made a choice for His creation, a choice He found suitable. God also created mankind with free will, which mankind has used since creation to rebel against God.
God’s design and will for mankind is one man and one woman, however the first recorded account of polygamy comes 7 generations after creation.
Aineo wrote:Indeed, it does..for now. See my post above where I mentioned "but this is 21% more than it was 10 years ago." That's called an acknowledgement of concession
Misquoting an article does not make your point.
Your statement is quite correct; however, it does not apply to this interaction. The study was a study on the genetic probability of the survival of a "gay gene" because in men it would be a possibility for homosexuality, but in women it would result in increased fertility. Nature always finds a way to find balance for what it creates; therefore, there was no misquoting in this interaction.
Aineo wrote:But Camperio-Ciani calculates the contribution of this effect to male homosexuality at 7% at most. So together, he says, the “maternal” and “immune” effects only account for 21% of male homosexuality, leaving 79% of the causation still a mystery.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996519
Camperio-Ciani did not state homosexuality has increased by 21% he stated that only 21% of gay's can be attributed to a possible genetic source leaving the cause of the other 79% as non-genetic.
Quite right, that was my point also. The possible genetic reasons for homosexuality are only 21% via that study, which is still 21% higher than 10 years ago. I'm glad we pick up on the same points.
You are reading what you want to read in this study, which does not state a possible genetic reason for homosexuality has increased 21% in the last 10 years.
The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann, et al., The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994). This amounts to nearly 4 million openly gay men and 2 million women who identify as lesbian.
http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic ... 40&start=0
There is no evidence that the percentage of homosexuals has increased over the last 100 years let alone the last 10 years.
Just for the sake of this thread lets assume this study is totally true, then based on 21% of 4 million gay men who might have a possible biological reason for being gay we can show that 3.16 million of these men are gay for other possible treatable causes. Science can show that some human conditions are the result of genetic anomalies or aberrations such as hemophilia. The genetic link to hemophilia is also found in the X chromosome and is considered a mutation.
You have not established God created homosexuals and the possible genetic link to homosexuality can be a mutation and therefore an abnormality in animals.
As to dealing in personalities, this is addressed in our Forum Rules:
4. No slandering other posters or dealing in personalities. Some posters hold strong opinions about topics under discussion however, resorting to name calling or derogatory remarks aimed on any poster will not be tolerated. Take you personal differences to emails or private messages. Posting private communications or alluding to such communications on any public forum will be grounds for deactivation of your account and the deletion of your post.