- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Yes, I am proud of my education. I took a lot of very hard work and sacrifices. Why shouldn’t I be proud of it? No, I don’t think I am an intellectual, I know I am an intellectual. Do you have a problem with that?
My wife earned a Law degree in South America and became a top-notch lawyer. When she emigrated to New Zealand (because I am from there) she basically had earn another law degree and she persevered and again she is a top-notch lawyer. The thing is, she doesn’t blow her own trumpet neither does she hold the view that her education makes right. No, she gets cred based on her work and results. I don’t mind being proud of her and to me it is up to other people like me to shout her praises, but I don’t think praising oneself is wise.
Albert Einstein didn’t say I have a few letters after my name, so my theories are true. He didn’t say, I went to this university so that makes me great. I doubt he said such things anyway. Instead, he is great because his ideas were revolutionary and his theories stood up. No matter if he was just a lowly patent clerk or graduated with honors we remember people for their ideas, their works, their character. God himself gives no points to people who have letters after their names, but credits them for their works.
Likewise, if your ideas are scriptural then I will be very interested to hear them. If not, then I will use scripture to prove they do not stand. Do not be afraid of scrutiny BTW, it is there to help you. I would prefer a rebuke if it led to me embracing more truth, than respect for ideas that are false. It can be hard not to take it personally, but humility helps big time here.
So I give no cred to men’s education apart from the fact that they worked hard and will get a job they deserve for that work and hopefully a good remuneration package as a result. Outside of that, it is your ideas, advice, works, and care for others that will give me respect toward you. Of course it may lead to a lack of respect too if I do not see much godly merit to your contributions. But I always give people the benefit of the doubt till they prove to me time and time again that they are seriously lacking.
Hi again, t8,
Einstein was, interestingly enough, a horrible student who could barely get anything but a flunky job and even that took considerable pull from some friends in influential places. Einstein had a one-track mind. What he was into, he was really into. What bored him, he simply skipped, which was most of the subjects taught in schools, including electrical lab, which his record showed he kept cutting in college and therefore got an F. However, he is the exception, not the rule. Edison said he had only three months of grade-school education and, interestingly enough, could not do advanced math or chemical equations. When he was asked how he then figured out things, he said he really couldn’t explain it, that he just “sees” answers. However, Edison is the exception, not the rule. For the rest of us, there is school, and without that, you are sunk, believe me. In highly academic subjects and fields, such as biblical studies, theology, philosophy, etc., yes, your really do need da solid formal education. Yes, as general rule, those with the advanced degrees so know their subject matter far better than do the laity. There is no doubt about that. As far as tooting your horn goes, yes, you do have to do that. That’s why we all send out resumes for job openings. If I appear to be tooting my own horn here, so be it. I am simply trying to share where I am coming from. Yes, I don’t think I have a better understanding of the Trinity than you do, I know I do. And I can assure you that from a solid, scholarly standpoint, you hypothesis that the Trinity is some sort of conspiracy thought up by early fathers violating biblical teachings is pure hogwash. Granted, the Trinity has been subject to great debates and controversies, but never on the basis that it had no biblical foundation, as you are vainly arguing.
HI, t8,
I would encourage you to read, not skim, posts I send. If you don’t care to take the time to read them, let me know and I will simply stop sending them.
Hi, t8,
The question remains, however, why you consider homosexuality something weak or inappropriate. If your argument is that teh Bible forbids it, then what are your standards for cherry picking, for determining what biblical laws you will follow and what not? What makes you think it’s OK for you to eat ham, but not be homosexual, for example? You need to clarify all this.
HI, Kerwin,
Oh, OK, I’m unduly subject to cultural influences, but you aren’t, I suppose. C’mon. Generally, universities encourage students and faculty to us respectful language. That’s the essence of political correctness. You have a problem with that?
Hoghead1,
I am afraid I have difficulties with them as well but my nature tends to rebel against norms. I am also at the same time I am some what subject to peer pressure. The third element is what Scripture teaches me by the Spirit or the flesh. All together it resembles walking through a spiritual midfield. Some would call it interesting.
I believe you are more subject to them than me but then I have other issues resulting from being an introvert. You are probably more social than me and operate in a different social circle. There is social-economical background as well but that effect is weaker due to more resent environmental factors.
You could probably word it all better since it is where you have been taught more than me.
Hi, Kerwin,
We are all subject to cultural influences, which is not all bad. I will grant you that I work out of a very different environment than you do. However, it is also true that political correctness, if that is what you want to call it, is encouraged in most work places and with good reason.
hoghead,
Reason’s the culture thinks are good are not always good or healthy. In all culture works for peace which includes the tolerance of evil. There is a reason Jesus claimed he brought the sword and not peace.
Hi, Kerwin,
That is also my point. Views our culture had of homosexuality and other forms of sexual practices were not always rational or anything but a sanctified form of sexual oppression.
Hello from Satan
Just to notify you, homosexuals were not “made”. They were born that way. You all are stupid fucks if you belive in this Christian bullshit then having an opinion on your own. This only shows how all of you are stupid and being manipulated by Christian belifes then having one of your own.
Let me tell you the truth, people were not made gay.
And if anyone says that bible said that on the Earth was man and women, I will seriously slap the shit out of them.
That bible of yours says that men MUSTN’T SHAVE THEIR BEARD. Why are you doing that then?
That same bible says that men mustn’t cut their hair? Then why are you doing that?
Your bible says that we allowed to kill women.WHY WE DON’T DO THAT?
WHY IS THAT PUNISHED BY LAW??
TO ALL OF YOUR SHIT EATERS AROUND THE WORLD, YOU ARE STUPID.
HUMANS ARE BORN WITH SEXUALITY. NOT MADE.
So just to let you know, today we are doing a cult and we will destroy humanity beacuse of your bullshit. We had enough. See you in hell.
xoxo
@admin and hoghead1,
That is a troll and it is best not to feed them. The post serves no purpose but to attempt to get a flame war going. The individual signed up to make that one post as homosexuality is an issue they hold but are not rational with. They will probably loose privileges on the board quickly.
To Satan.
Did you read the second post in this topic? It offers evidence that homosexuals are not born that way. If the data is wrong, then show us why.
I will quote the post in my next post for your convenience.
Eight identical twin studies in the U.S,, Australia, and Scandinavia over the last two decades arrive at the same conclusion: Homosexuals were not born that way. This is said proof that homosexuality is not genetic.
“At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.
Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.
“Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”
Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”
The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.
Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by “non-shared factors,” things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.
For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. “These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate,” he says.
The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.
“Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books.”
A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females—lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.
In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.
“Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual.”
“Sexual orientation is not set in concrete,” he notes.
Read our writing called Why are some people homosexual?
t8,
“Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”
I have to disagree with him on this one as some genetics is more complex than just a change of an allele. Gene expression would reduce the 100% in some cases. I am surprised he made that error.
I assume there was also a control group. How does the percents compare to those of the control group?
This is a political hot button issue and so studies are more likely to be flawed.
@t8,
In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.
Psychologists used to claim this in the late 70’s and early 80’s and perhaps still do.
Hi, Kersin,
Yes, most psychologists subscribe to the idea that sexual preferences are learned, not inherited.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
