If you pick up a genetics textbook anywhere you can study about selection against a recessive or dominant trait.  If it were dominant there would be no homosexuality; if it were recessive it would be as common as albinism, or 1 in 5,000  instead of 1 in 20.

I'm sorry but you really are in correct there I have to say. In the case of one recessive gene the odds on expression are 3:1 (dominant : recessive), the odds for characteristics requiring two recessive genes are 15:1 (9:3:3:1 (DD, DR, RD, RR)) . for charecteristics requiring the expression of more than two recessive genes the odds go up in an exponetial manner

Well, I am pretty sure I am wasting my time but here goes.  Hitler wanted to create a blonde hair blue eyed population of humans.  Both of those are recessive homozygous traits, meaning that they are each the expression of 2 recessive genes being paired together.  In any pairing of genes there can be three solutions: 2 dominant genes, 1 dom and 1 rec, or 2 rec.  Dominant is always expressed over recessive.  Brown hair and brown eyes are dominant.  So if you breed 2 people with brown hair and brown eyes you can have a blonde haired blue eyed child because both of the parents could have  been  carrying  both genes but only expressing the brown ones because they are dominant.  Now that that is out of the way on to selection.  If we select against the dominant i.e. shoot all people with brown hair or brown eyes, all we will have left will be blue eyed blonde haired  people.  Their children will be blonde haired and blue eyed forever and on and on. Now if we do the reverse and shoot all the blonde hair blue eyed people we will be left with only brown haired brown eyed people but some of their children will always have blonde hair or blue eyes because the gene was hidden as it was paired with the dominant.   But they will become less and less frequent and it is virtually impossible to remove from the gene pool, but will become very rare.  

understand now?

[the husband of one wife]

I am just making sure noone thought that  1Tim 3:10 means women should be deacons.    


1 A faithful saying: If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth good work.

2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,

3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity.

5 But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

6 Not a neophyte: lest, being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil.

7 Moreover, he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

8 Deacons in like manner: chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre:

9 Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience.

10 And let these also first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime.

11 The women in like manner: chaste, not slanderers, but sober, faithful in all things.

12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children and their own houses.

13 For they that have ministered well shall purchase to themselves a good degree and much confidence in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

14 These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly.

15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

16 And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared unto angels, hath been preached unto the Gentiles, is believed in the world, is taken up in glory.

It's  nice to know that you have nothing to worry about.  Here's a fitting saying:  The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.  

If someone is an actual 100% pure homosexual who has no feelings at all and never has for the opposite sex, I don't think it was really a choice of theirs to make.  I think that is the case in a small percentage of situations though.   Wanting to know why it exists if God did not make it is a very simple question with a very simple answer, you have probably been trying too hard.  I find the best way to elevate the level of the conversation from the elementary level up to one that can actually be engaged in and not just puzzled over is the selective use of thought provoking questions.   Such as, Why is there gasoline if God didn't make it?  Why are there computers?  The answer is simple enough, God gave us free will to create many things, good and bad.

You get to the top by starting at the bottom, I think.  You get to the head by going through the body, and being a part of it (if you like that phrasiology better).  Jesus said his church would be one flock  and that there would be one shepherd and he would stand by it until the consummation of the world.   Naturally implied is that there will be one set of doctrinal truths and I think it would be important to know that information in order to serve the Lord the way he set it down to be done.

Noone is born homosexual.  It is not genetic.  For two hundred years psychiatrists have agreed that it is due to a number of factors during the developmental years, such as amount of interaction with the same sex parent.  If it were genetic it would either be a dominant or recessive gene.  If you pick up a genetics textbook anywhere you can study about selection against a recessive or dominant trait.  If it were dominant there would be no homosexuality; if it were recessive it would be as common as albinism, or 1 in 5,000  instead of 1 in 20.

Oh, man!  I missed it!  I bet those were pretty funny posts.

If Jesus is the head of the church, shouldn't you go through the church?

If we get to the Father by Jesus, how do we get to Jesus?

A few facts for the discussion.  The books in question(deuterocanononicals) were accepted by the Jews as part of the OT at the time of Christ.  Christ quoted from them several times, and so did the apostles.  He never once said anything negative about  them.  Jerome later in his life declared that he was incorrect to have doubted their authenticity and inspiration in his younger years.

I agree with the person above who said that birth control pills of all types are abortion.  Abortion was specifically stated in the Didache(also known as the teaching of the twelve apostles, ca.  100-150 A.D.) as being a sin.  So, birth control and abortion have been considered immoral by all of Christianity since the apostles until 1930 when at the Anglican conference it was decided that Protestants had a new and better interpretation that allowed  for contraception.  Both Birth control and abortion are very old, not modern at all, and when abortion was mentioned in ancient texts many times it was used in the context of being a birth control agent and both were condemned.  Barrier methods such as condoms are a less grave offense in that they do not ever destroy life but are truly "contraceptive".   However, they do fall into the realm of the Onan story from Genesis.  I will note in opposition to the poster above that Onan was not acting on an order given from God but from his father.  The real question here should not be if contraception is wrong, but why after 1930 only the Protestants, and not the rest of Christendom, decided that they would reverse their position on birth control.  Was all of Christianity wrong until 1930?   Oh, and if anything, it has become easier to raise and afford children now, especially here in the richest society ever.

This is what Paul said:  1Cor: 4

But to me it is a very small thing to be judged by you or by man's day. But neither do I judge my own self.  For I am not conscious to myself of anything. Yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.  Therefore, judge not before the time: until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. And then shall every man have praise from God.

BEP- I understand what a church is and I fully agree that a church is built of the members and is not just a building.  I thought that the point of discussion in this thread was that people know they are saved and haven't yet been judged.  Typically, this conclusion is derived from some of Paul's letters when Paul himself, when asked, said he did not yet know if he would merit eternal salvation because he had not yet stood before the Lord for judgement.  I feel that that is an erroneous belief based on misinterpretations.

They profess that they know God: but in their works they deny him: being abominable and incredulous and to every good work reprobate.

I don't have any idea what you were talking about.  The above passage is talking about people who are in the 'Lord's Church'.  It says explicity in the passage that unless they change they will go to Hell.  So again, your original point is stupid.  

What happened to sleeker?