I use Falwell’s name generically. I have a lot more respect for him than I do for the other right-wing Jehovists.
The other day, Falwell was insisting that “no one is born a criminal. No one is born a homosexual.”
Why? Because of Jehovist Dumb Science. Since crime and homosexuality are sins, so every man has an equal choice about being a criminal or a homosexual.
Liberals love the general idea that there is no such thing as heredity, though the gay libbers like the idea that homosexuality is inherited.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, identical twins raised in totally different environments from birth not only tend to commit crimes, they tend to commit the SAME crimes at the SAME age! But Dumb Science Jehovists stand shoulder to shoulder with liberals to suppress any mention of that fact.
Different people are born with a greater tendency to homosexuality than others. In the Victorian society Jehovists worship, Britain’s boys’ school were routinely hotbeds of homosexuality, with almost every Senior having some young lowerclassman in his bed every night.
There is a tendency and there are ways to discourage that tendency. Falwell denies there is tendency, but he has no idea how much Jehovists, with their crazy attitudes on sex, push homosexuality.
Speaking of suppression, the Jehovists and the left are united in favor of censorship. Conservatives say they want to suppress pornography on the Internet “to protect the children.”
Everything conservatives want to do is supposed to “protect the children.” If you are able to treat the public like children, you can forget freedom.
Leftists want to censor anything they call Hate Speech on the Internet.
Everything liberals want to do is supports to “suppress Hate.” If you can tell everybody that you will allow them to do only what leftists call a “preference” and they can keep you from doing anything they call a “prejudice,” you can forget freedom.
In congress, Jehovists and leftists form a solid bloc in favor of censorship.
And they are getting together in other ways. The weird logic of the left that is evil to execute someone but it is OK to lock them in a cage for life goes right along with the idea that a fertilized cell is morally exactly the same as a newborn baby.
They’re both nuts, and this is the only time in history, and it won’t last long, when people take that nonsense seriously. But right now the anti-death penalty and general “criminals are victims” leftists and pro-lifers is growing.
The problem with abolishing the death penalty is the logic behind it. Once you agree the state has no right to execute, you are on your way to saying the state has no right to punish. But Jehovists couldn’t care less about the future. Right now they are getting patted on the head by liberals.
More and more the only difference between Jehovist conservatives and leftists is how you treat Jehovah. Prayers in schools, Merry Christmas, the Ten Commandments, stuff like that.
And everyday, more and more people, including actual Christians, are realizing that both these groups are actually insane.
#1 by Jay on 12/11/2004 - 5:29 pm
I am always shocked whenever I met a white racial realist and then when we talk about evolution they get pissed. Come on man!
#2 by Elizabeth on 12/11/2004 - 7:07 pm
I agree.
Who are we to expect God to use our measurements of time?
If you believe God created the world, how would he have known that 24 hours equals one day?
Time units are human inventions.
#3 by Don on 12/11/2004 - 8:25 pm
RE: “No one is born a criminal. No one is born a homosexual.”
I have to agree that only a very small component might be genetically determined at birth, certainly no more than 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
Sorry about that, but the gays know what they like and I know what I like. And if you tell me that they can get up tomorrow morning and “change their preferences”, then I suppose I can do the same. Anytime you want to get serious put your right hand on the Bible and hold up a sign in your left hand which says “I want to get serious.”
Chantilly lace and a pretty face and a pony tail hanging down.
#4 by H.S. on 12/11/2004 - 11:16 pm
I disagree.
Who is God that He should expect us to use His measurement of time. He will do whatever He wills, within His self-determined order and law. He determined for us what those units of measure would be. It’s mathematical, it’s obvious, it’s earth, it’s His to say.
The only problem is the human, the creature created, with our petty, small minds and self-serving agendas must first presume God to be a language imbecile. Or worse, to be nothing to us at all. There was and is no reason to think He did not mean what He said. There is the crux, to presume to make Him somehow a failure at communication – especially given that we could not understand anything without His condescension to our level to give us what knowledge He has made known by the method He made. Knowledge is not all good. The problem is most will not believe He breathed out, inspired, through communication that men and women heard audibly and that men and women were given spiritually the words we read in the Bible most Christians worldwide use. He specifically did not preserve any original script or documentation. He doesn’t need it. WE NEED HIM. History study is good and useful and time-oriented because we will not live here forever, we don’t know much.
The mind and spirit are unaffected by time other than being in a body that is trapped into having its time end at some determinable point in future time, days, weeks, months, seasons, years, decades, or brief seconds away – it will cease.
The question is, why do we debate it now? A day by any other name or place on earth would be as long. How silly. A night by any other name would be as long — all within its season. Maybe they mean Jupiter? Or Pluto? Even Bob’s old timers out there writing on rocks could tell us. What’s the rub if a day is really a day just like He said, given to us by Him as cycling light hours and dark hours — or really some nebulous, mystical time unit long before time swirling about in all those gaseous primordial soups and salads? Get to the rub and you’ll see for yourself why we still debate this stuff.
Who are we to expect He would not define consistently and verifiably and state it so for us what He has placed us into?
Time units were determined and only have meaning of God, setting His order in motion – we didn’t make that up. All aspects of His creation only have their meaning and definition by Him, we cannot change that. “Science,” an orderly human-only pursuit of knowledge and understanding would not be possible without His perfect creation order that, try as we may, we cannot change one iota.
Time and its non-human consistency and precision and function is absolute by whatever language system man must invent to communicate it or measure it. It is breathtakingly unaffected by humanity or by any created thing. Time is only relative to its Creator – daylight and darkness – pretty simple. Why confuse the little creatures any more? He set its beginning and He knows its end, because it is integral to existing on Earth. We don’t believe Him. We don’t believe He wrote it.
That doesn’t even bring us to species to species Evolution. That has never stood up to any scientific scrutiny yet! It is a cornerstone of Political Correctness. It is religious doctrine.
If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there will not be day and night in their season, then My covenant may also be broken with…. –Jesus
#5 by Richard L. Hardison on 12/15/2004 - 8:13 pm
Man is fallen and, as such, has a number of tendencies that can be strengthened, or supressed, depending upon rearing. Twin studies can be cited in support of Bob’s thesis, but, once again, the situation of rearing, particularly the moral support one is provided during rearing must be thoroughly investigated. I know of identical twins separated that did not commit the same crime. One stayed on the stright and narrow, the other ends up in prison. I’ve known them reared together and the same thing happened. Or one prefers girls, the other boys. The main weakness of everyone involved on the side of inborn preferences iis they ifnore the fact that such tendencies are formed over time.
There was a big deal made about 1994 that a “gay gene” had been found. The entire thing died a very quiet death because the man who supposedly made the “discovery” was grinding political axes and not doing science. A “God gene” has now been postulated by some idiot. Such stuff is voodoo and NOT science. It is an effort to absolve everyone of responsibility for their actions and is simply an aspect of politcal correctness. It is victimhood on steroids.
Sorry Don, preferences can be changed. Usually not immediately, but they can be changed over time. Homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness until the early 70s until the pseudo-scientific psychbabblers decided to remove it from the list of mental illnesses. It has been succesfully treated, but never by anyone that refused to admit what it actually is.
#6 by Bob Whitaker on 12/15/2004 - 10:31 pm
Richard,
My neurologist brother, who has made detailed studies of literature on identical twins, would be fascinated to see those studies about the totally different identical twins you are talking about.
I am not exaggerating, those studies could win you a full professorship at Harvard. Liberals are DESPERATE to find identical twin studies like that. The fact that they NEVER mention identical twin studies when they talk about heredity and environment may give you a hint about what they ACTUALLY find.
One wonders why no one else has found them.
I think you are listening to what wishful thinkers are telling you.
#7 by Richard L. Hardison on 12/16/2004 - 10:12 pm
Whit, I would have to see how extensive the studies are, the sampling criteria and the assumptions that govern the study. Metastudies, however, are always suspect in my book – I’ve the conclusions of too many shot down. On the other hand, I don’t claim that what I have seen is anything other than anecdotal. Maybe I’ve seen the exceptions. Still, a person’s genetic heritage is not really the prime determinate of where one ends up. It has been my observation genetics determines limits. If your parents have IQs of 60, is very unlikely that you will grow up to be a graduate Engineer, just as it was unlikely that would ever play in the NBA – the twitch mucles in my lower body simply weren’t made for it. I could crush a baseball and I was a very interesting prospect for the Astros, but my father was a good ballplayer as well and was invited to a training camp in the 50s as was one of his brothers. While I was physically suitable, I had no desire to sign a contract after seeing how a major league club was run – my choice, just as it was my father’s choice to stay in the Air Force.
#8 by Bob Whitaker on 12/17/2004 - 10:34 am
Richard, as a good believer, you are now arguing environment over heredity, as a good liberal does.
This conversation is following the same pattern it always does with liberals/Falwell. You said you could cite identical twin tests showing how opposite the identical twin tests were.
I said you couldn’t. So you wander off into matters and other verbiage.
I asked you about those tests you said you could cite. Just one or two would be a start.
Or were you just reacting like a good liberal/Falwellian and expecting me to forget what you said?
#9 by Don on 12/17/2004 - 1:28 pm
RE: Sorry Don, preferences can be changed. Usually not immediately, but they can be changed over time.
Actually, I think it would be easier to change them immediately. For example, staring head-on at a 12-guage would seem to be excellent motivation to re-think many preferences.
No, I’m afraid it will take a bit of convincing to make me see the light on that issue. Keep in mind that it is not just two diametrically opposed camps. As they say in baseball, a good switch- hitter can face any pitcher. All the serious evidence I have ever seen points to the genetic side.
Can you tell siamese twins, people born with multiple sex organs, or whatever that “God doesn’t make mistakes.” From my point of view, homosexuals are just another genetic twist. I don’t condemn them and I certainly don’t expect them to change. How society wishes to deal with the situation is another matter.
I once shared an office in graduate school with a jewish homosexual. A friend of his came by on the way to the gym and asked if he could change to his gym clothes. The homosexual trembled with anticipation of this prospect. I could hardly wait to get out the door.
These “preferences” are going to change when? You don’t have a hair trigger on that 12-guage, do you?