Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You proposed an "evil" gene" didn't you? What the hell doesmean"
Did you mean pertinent butt instead?



No such thing of an evil gene Mr Expert Biologist

'Nuff said.

At least when you shut up, you can't lie.

And if there's no such thing as an evil gene that dictates human behavior, then there's no such thing as a homosexual or lesbian gene that dictates human sexual behavior.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Mr.Sex ed.

At least when you shut up, you can't lie.

You have obvious sexual problems. Frustrated religious types often do.

Fact: Sexual attraction and orientation are much more often biological and genetic than a matter of upbringing or choice.

Google "do genes determine sexuality"
You will find hundreds of studies.
Like:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2...ronmental.html

"people who are attracted to others of the same sex develop their orientation before they are born. This is not a choice. And scientific evidence shows their parents cannot be blamed."

Original sin requires a pretty obvious gene or genes or chromosomes that should be in everyone. Right?

As common as the x or y chromosome.

Now google evil gene and see if it was found.
Should be a breeze for fundamentalist types to confirm it is found in everyone Mr Expert Biologist. Right?

NO LIE!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You have obvious sexual problems. Frustrated religious types often do.

Fact: Sexual attraction and orientation are much more often biological and genetic than a matter of upbringing or choice.

Google "do genes determine sexuality"
You will find hundreds of studies.
Like:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2...ronmental.html

"people who are attracted to others of the same sex develop their orientation before they are born. This is not a choice. And scientific evidence shows their parents cannot be blamed."

Original sin requires a pretty obvious gene or genes or chromosomes that should be in everyone. Right?

As common as the x or y chromosome.

Now google evil gene and see if it was found.
Should be a breeze for fundamentalist types to confirm it is found in everyone Mr Expert Biologist. Right?

NO LIE!

Mr. Brainiac sir, how can anyone identify and isolate an evil gene when everyone would have it, IF MY THEORY IS CORRECT? To isolate and identify such a gene would require a distinction between those who have and those who have not. But according to scripture, all men are sinners. This is what man is by nature.

Secondly, regarding sexual behavior, read the following:

http://www.councilforresponsiblegene...aspx?pageId=77

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You see that -- you do know how to use a dictionary when it suits your purpose.

I did not get that definition from a dictionary. It's my own definition based on my understanding of what the word means. That understanding derives from a lifetime of study, reading, experience. I seriously doubt that you would find any lawyer or doctor who would disagree with it.

The dictionary definition of insanity (which I have only now consulted) is:

law : unsoundness of mind or lack of the ability to understand that releases one from criminal responsibility.

Originally Posted by boxcar

The second secular definition squares quite well with the biblical definition, ...

Bullshit. The secular definition clearly excuses an insane person from the consequences of his actions. The Bible teaches that sin is never excused.

And you have once again kicked the can down the road. I still have no clear understanding of whether you agree that mental disorder (mental illness, insanity, whatever) is a disease. Why do you avoid making a clear declaration on that?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I did not get that definition from a dictionary. It's my own definition based on my understanding of what the word means. That understanding derives from a lifetime of study, reading, experience. I seriously doubt that you would find any lawyer or doctor who would disagree with it.

The dictionary definition of insanity (which I have only now consulted) is:

law : unsoundness of mind or lack of the ability to understand that releases one from criminal responsibility.

Bullshit. The secular definition clearly excuses an insane person from the consequences of his actions. The Bible teaches that sin is never excused.

And you have once again kicked the can down the road. I still have no clear understanding of whether you agree that mental disorder (mental illness, insanity, whatever) is a disease. Why do you avoid making a clear declaration on that?

But the second definition you provided says nothing about releasing a person from criminal possibility. In fact, your "legal" definition doesn't even touch upon your earlier second definition. So...since both are silent, each in their own way, then your earlier second definition that dealt with uncontrollable impulses very much squares with scripture.

Furthermore, sin is also considered a sickness (or "disease" if you like this term better). Yet, man is still culpable. He's culpable because he doesn't recognize his addiction to sin. He's culpable because he doesn't want to seek forgiveness. He's culpable because he doesn't seek out the Great Physician who can heal him. He's culpable because he doesn't see his need for salvation. He's culpable because he refuses to come to the Light since he loves the darkness of his sickness, as his deeds are evil. And last but not least, sin affects/infects the human mind, which accounts for all our various degrees of irrational behavior. Because the world has a much lower threshold for forgiving or mitigating sin, then it's understandable that the world would not, under some circumstances, hold men legally accountable. But not so with God who has an infinitely higher threshold.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But the second definition you provided says nothing about releasing a person from criminal possibility.

?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But the second definition you provided says nothing about releasing a person from criminal possibility.

Wrong. I noted in #3439 that all 50 states excuse a criminal act if the respondent is found insane. #3454 definitely states that insanity excuses the offense.

Originally Posted by boxcar

In fact, your "legal" definition doesn't even touch upon your earlier second definition.

Why should it. You wanted a dictionary definition. I gave you one.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Furthermore, sin is also considered a sickness (or "disease" if you like this term better). Yet, man is still culpable.

A person who lacks the capacity to understand reality (one of the symptoms of schizophrenia), or the capacity to resist, has no free will.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Wrong. I noted in #3439 that all 50 states excuse a criminal act if the respondent is found insane. #3454 definitely states that insanity excuses the offense.
Why should it. You wanted a dictionary definition. I gave you one.

A person who lacks the capacity to understand reality (one of the symptoms of schizophrenia), or the capacity to resist, has no free will.

But willful lawbreakers do have the capacity to understand reality. And that is included in your personal second definition in 3439, since that particular definition made no statement about moral or legal culpability.

You in 3439

Unable to resist an impulse to act illegally.

One may be unable to resist an impulse to act illegally but that doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong. A pedophile may not be able to control his urges to violate small children, but still knows that what he is doing is wrong.

According to my M-W definition, "insanity" is defined as:

Main Entry:in£san£i£ty
Pronunciation:in-*sa-n*-t*
Function:noun
Inflected Formlural -ties
Date:1590

1 a : a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia) and usually excluding such states as mental retardation, psychoneurosis, and various character disorders b : a mental disorder
2 : such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility
3 a : extreme folly or unreasonableness b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable

Also, I explained why all 50 states would do that. Man's moral/legal bar is much lower than God's. Mankind, generally, tends to drum up excuses for self-justification. This is not to say that there aren't legitimate reasons for a finding of LEGALLY insane, but I suspect they are few in number.

Under definition 3 of the above, the bible has very much to say about folly and connects that with sin or evil. Get yourself a concordance and check it out for yourself. Extreme folly or extreme unreasonableness is defined as "insanity" but I have to think the legal definition of "insantiy" is not nearly as broad.

Finally, you personally do not believe anyone has "free will" and actually lamented the fact of the legal-judicial system as a "necessary evil" once upon a time, as I recall. So...in your world, no one should be morally or legally culpable for anything at all.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But willful lawbreakers do have the capacity to understand reality.

Those that do are not legally sane by criterion #1. They could still be legally insane in a state that recognizes criterion #2, irresistible impulse.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And that is included in your personal second definition in 3439, since that particular definition made no statement about moral or legal culpability.

The purpose of a definition is to establish meaning. The implications are not part of its function. For example, the definition of a triangle does not necessarily imply that the sum of its angles add up to 180 degrees. That's a separate question. That is why the definition given by M-W, which you cite below, is inferior to the one I gave. My definition establishes meaning without implying anything. I noted that all 50 states accept insanity as sufficient reason to excuse a perpetrator from punishment, but I kept that fact out of the definition where it does not belong.

Originally Posted by boxcar

One may be unable to resist an impulse to act illegally but that doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong.

Right. Which is why some states, not all, accept irresistible impulse as insanity.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Date:1590

Kind of excludes the possibility that the word is in the Bible.

Originally Posted by boxcar

1 a : a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia) and usually excluding such states as mental retardation, psychoneurosis, and various character disorders b : a mental disorder

That's a medical definition which the medical community no longer uses.

Originally Posted by boxcar

2 : such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility

The legal definition which commits the sin of combining a definition with a proposition. I wonder if the Oxford dictionary commits the same sin.

Originally Posted by boxcar

3 a : extreme folly or unreasonableness b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable[/i]

That's a street definition which is not what we are talking about here. If you insist on using that definition then you are equivocating.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Under definition 3 of the above, the bible has very much to say about folly and connects that with sin or evil.

Equivocation, as I said before. I maintain that it is folly (and therefore insane) to accept an ancient, unverifiable text as the word of "a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”, and to base one's life of the fear of this thing, when there is zero evidence to support the concept.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Mr. Brainiac sir, how can anyone identify and isolate an evil gene when everyone would have it, IF MY THEORY IS CORRECT? To isolate and identify such a gene would require a distinction between those who have and those who have not. But according to scripture, all men are sinners. This is what man is by nature.

You do not understand that genes produce specific traits. So in order to test for an evil gene, specific characteristics of behavior would have to be defined as "evil" first.

In humans, eye color is an example of an inherited characteristic: an individual might inherit the "brown-eye trait" from one of the parents. Inherited traits are controlled by genes and the complete set of genes within an organism's genome is called its genotype.

Genetics is the study of biological features -- or traits -- that are inherited from parent to child. The term "genetic characteristics" can refer to a genotype, which is the specific DNA sequence that codes for a trait, or a phenotype, which is how the specific DNA sequence manifests itself in the organism

So there are "specific DNA sequences" associated with certain characteristics

What would you look for as specifically evuil even before you identify the specific DNA sequence ?

1-Hates god
2-Dose not attend church
3-How often the 10 commandments are broken?
4-How loving or hateful of others is the subject being tested?


Where is the science in any of this?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar;

Secondly, regarding sexual behavior, read the following:

http://www.councilforresponsiblegene...aspx?pageId=77

So? One non-scientific article, a "Position Paper" which is more about discrimination than biology. The article does not back your position that sexual orientation is a choice, it only casts doubt on the certainty of genetics in sexual orientation, but primarily stands up rightfully AGAINST bigoted discriminatory attitudes.

The conclusion from the article...

Regardless of the extent to which biology influences one’s sexual identity, lesbians, gays, and bisexuals should be afforded protection against discrimination arising from their sexual orientation. In fact, the promise of a quick technological fix for the problem of discrimination against homosexuals distracts us from the larger societal issue. Homophobia and discrimination exist, and it is naive to think that a biological explanation of homosexuality will change that. Only social and political remedies will counter discrimination. Biology is not the issue: society at present protects people against discrimination for choices such as religion (including converts), marital status, or political affiliations. Genetic predisposition is not necessary to create these legal protections.

The scientific argument for a biological basis for sexual orientation remains weak. The political argument that it will bolster gay pride or prevent homophobic bigotry runs counter to experience. The lesbian, gay, and bisexual community does not need to have its "deviance" tolerated because its members were born "that way" and "cannot help it." Rather, society must recognize the validity of lesbian and gay lifestyles. We need an end to discrimination, an acceptance of all human beings, and a celebration of diversity, whatever its origins.

....................................

Don't you read what you post?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

So? One non-scientific article, a "Position Paper" which is more about discrimination than biology. The article does not back your position that sexual orientation is a choice, it only casts doubt on the certainty of genetics in sexual orientation, but primarily stands up rightfully AGAINST bigoted discriminatory attitudes.

The conclusion from the article...

Regardless of the extent to which biology influences one’s sexual identity, lesbians, gays, and bisexuals should be afforded protection against discrimination arising from their sexual orientation. In fact, the promise of a quick technological fix for the problem of discrimination against homosexuals distracts us from the larger societal issue. Homophobia and discrimination exist, and it is naive to think that a biological explanation of homosexuality will change that. Only social and political remedies will counter discrimination. Biology is not the issue: society at present protects people against discrimination for choices such as religion (including converts), marital status, or political affiliations. Genetic predisposition is not necessary to create these legal protections.

The scientific argument for a biological basis for sexual orientation remains weak. The political argument that it will bolster gay pride or prevent homophobic bigotry runs counter to experience. The lesbian, gay, and bisexual community does not need to have its "deviance" tolerated because its members were born "that way" and "cannot help it." Rather, society must recognize the validity of lesbian and gay lifestyles. We need an end to discrimination, an acceptance of all human beings, and a celebration of diversity, whatever its origins.

....................................

Don't you read what you post?

Yeah, I do read what I post and I'm total agreement with the conclusion insofar as discrimination but I do not agree with the conclusion that I should consider deviant sexual behavior as valid behavior. I'm even far more in agreement with what Jesus taught which is: I should love my neighbor as myself (which includes any homosexuals or lesbians I personally encounter); but he never taught that doing that involves tolerating, condoning, supporting, encouraging, celebrating or validating sinful behavior. You will not find one NT verse wherein Jesus did any of these things in loving people he encountered. In fact...what he did in love...was preach the gospel, warn them against continuing in sin and even told them to quit sinning!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You do not understand that genes produce specific traits. So in order to test for an evil gene, specific characteristics of behavior would have to be defined as "evil" first.

In humans, eye color is an example of an inherited characteristic: an individual might inherit the "brown-eye trait" from one of the parents. Inherited traits are controlled by genes and the complete set of genes within an organism's genome is called its genotype.

Genetics is the study of biological features -- or traits -- that are inherited from parent to child. The term "genetic characteristics" can refer to a genotype, which is the specific DNA sequence that codes for a trait, or a phenotype, which is how the specific DNA sequence manifests itself in the organism

So there are "specific DNA sequences" associated with certain characteristics

What would you look for as specifically evuil even before you identify the specific DNA sequence ?

1-Hates god
2-Dose not attend church
3-How often the 10 commandments are broken?
4-How loving or hateful of others is the subject being tested?


Where is the science in any of this?

There is none! Scripture says that all men are sinners. Therefore, it matters not which sin(s) is/are the favorite of any given sinner or even how often a person sins. Sin is sin is sin. Sin is lawlessness. At it's very essence, all sin involves, not trusting God (a sin), not loving God (another sin) and not loving your neighbor (another sin). What makes you think that there must be specific characteristics for each kind of sin? Is there a homosexual gene? Another gene of deceitfulness? A different gene of sexual lust? A gene for sexual promiscuity? A gene for the love of money or material goods? A gene of pride? A gene of covetousness? A bigotry gene, etc., etc., etc? All these and much more are all sinful desires and/or behaviors.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Those that do are not legally sane by criterion #1. They could still be legally insane in a state that recognizes criterion #2, irresistible impulse.
The purpose of a definition is to establish meaning. The implications are not part of its function. For example, the definition of a triangle does not necessarily imply that the sum of its angles add up to 180 degrees. That's a separate question. That is why the definition given by M-W, which you cite below, is inferior to the one I gave. My definition establishes meaning without implying anything. I noted that all 50 states accept insanity as sufficient reason to excuse a perpetrator from punishment, but I kept that fact out of the definition where it does not belong.
Right. Which is why some states, not all, accept irresistible impulse as insanity.
Kind of excludes the possibility that the word is in the Bible.
That's a medical definition which the medical community no longer uses.
The legal definition which commits the sin of combining a definition with a proposition. I wonder if the Oxford dictionary commits the same sin.
That's a street definition which is not what we are talking about here. If you insist on using that definition then you are equivocating.
Equivocation, as I said before. I maintain that it is folly (and therefore insane) to accept an ancient, unverifiable text as the word of "a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”, and to base one's life of the fear of this thing, when there is zero evidence to support the concept.

And He in turn simply says about you and your kind:

Ps 14:1a,b
1 The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
NIV

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And He in turn simply says about you and your kind:

Ps 14:1a,b
1 The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
NIV

The worlds oldest ad hominem argument.