more like, it goes to you, as an individual, is willing to believe what the church tells u or not. And why do u have to consider that bit about the earliest one being 37 years from his resurrection? His life, what he did and said, was just as important. The point is, those are written ABOUT him. Different from texts written to express the own ideas of the author.Originally posted by Chin Eng:Three of the Gospels were written at between AD 50 and AD 60. Luke may have been written as late as AD 80.
The book of Romans was written in the early spring of AD 57.
Source: The NIV Study Bible
So chronologically speaking the gospels and the Romans were not far apart. In the first place, why believe the gospels anyway, seeing that the earliest one was a good 37 years from the resurrection of Christ? What determines this to be "factual"..... As far as I can see, where you are concern, it goes back to what you, as an individual, is willing to accept or not, isn't it.
2 things wrong with what u said.Originally posted by alfagal:there is no such thing as gay from birth as our sex is determined by XX(male) or XY(female) chomosomes (of cos there are other defects where pple r born w XXY and XYY combi).
gays: but some pple have higher mobidity (nature) rates than others. so yes true in e sense that it could b genetically inherited. however whether e person will become gay or not in later life, it will depend on his enviroment (or nurture)
Originally posted by HENG@:1. yes, i ans to his qn u see...cos there is no gays at birth at all ma...so its e language use..anyway as a baby, how to think if u gay or not?
2 things wrong with what u said.
1) Chromosomes determine PHYSICAL GENDER. [b]NOT sexuality.
2) Nuture will not determine whether a person will become gay or not. It will determie whether he/she will be in denial or not, whether he will try to convince him/herself that he/she is not gay but straight. But that doesn't make him/her a real straight person. It only makes him/her a gay person in denial. Likely to develop homophobia as well because gays will reflect on something deep within his/herself that he/she doesn't want to face or accept and wants to repress.
[/b]
1) as a baby u won't know if u're straight either. but that doesn't mean that its not coded deep into your mind. Many of my gay friends have known from a young age (5 or 6) that they simply have no interest in the opposite sex.Originally posted by alfagal:1. yes, i ans to his qn u see...cos there is no gays at birth at all ma...so its e language use..anyway as a baby, how to think if u gay or not?
2. yes..tatz wat i m trying to say, cos genes are already fixed..therefore its only nurture that will b e factor..
if u wanna look into another way under psychoanlaytical view, it would be a fight against e id and superego (freud theory) therefore fighting to b in denial or not..
1. okie interesting for tat..cos nv read up in cases so young!Originally posted by HENG@:1) as a baby u won't know if u're straight either. but that doesn't mean that its not coded deep into your mind. Many of my gay friends have known from a young age (5 or 6) that they simply have no interest in the opposite sex.
2) what u said is someone will turn gay due to nuture. it is different from what i said. u dun 'turn gay' if in your mind, u're straight coded. u can try, u can be gay for a short while, but u'll end up frustrated and return to being straight. if u're gay coded on the other hand, your nuture will either decide if u understand that your gay thoughts are because u are gay by nature, and decide if u will accept that u are gay or not. nuture DOES NOT affect if someone will be gay, only affects if someone will REALISE and ACCEPT that they r gay.
2) genes do play a part in deciding a person's sexuality. There are several genes which are the 'sexuality factor' genes. For eg, a man has the genes A B C D, which in that combination makes him want to love a woman as a man himself. Thus he is straight. His wife has the genes E F G H, which makes her want to love a man as a woman herself. So she is straight. Their child receives the genes A B and E F from his father n mother. A B E F is a gay combination. So he is born gay.Originally posted by alfagal:1. okie interesting for tat..cos nv read up in cases so young!
2.as stated: genes are inherited from parents. they r e genotype (genes tat are expressed). they determine many stuff in u...eg colour of ur eyes...there is no such thing as weak genes..its either a on or off switch..e.g in tis case e gay might have an on switch, but e enviromental or nurturing factors did not trigger it off in the behavior (phenotype - how much potential from genotype) therefore, not a gay...
therefore, if u have a on switch for gay in e genetics, plus positive factors in e env, or nurture, then e person might turn out to b gay lo..
for words in orange, it will be off switch in e genetics, but positive factors in e nurture doesnt makes e person gay...
Precisely..... unless there is an autobiography by Jesus (which there isn't), all the gospels are merely biographies. On the assumption that all the writers are human, each gospel writer can freely inject his own ideas. My question to you is still: in spite of the fact that none of the gospels are autobiographies, what makes you believe in them rather than the epistles? Who is to say that Matt is not a bigot? What is the authority of Luke as his was believe to be some as a copying from the other gospels, especially when he was not even around at the time of Jesus' ministry.Originally posted by HENG@:more like, it goes to you, as an individual, is willing to believe what the church tells u or not. And why do u have to consider that bit about the earliest one being 37 years from his resurrection? His life, what he did and said, was just as important. The point is, those are written ABOUT him. Different from texts written to express the own ideas of the author.
yes i dun deny tat part..and yes i see where u coming from..was stated right? 'gays: but some pple have higher mobidity (nature) rates than others. so yes true in e sense that it could b genetically inherited.'Originally posted by HENG@:2) genes do play a part in deciding a person's sexuality. There are several genes which are the 'sexuality factor' genes. For eg, a man has the genes A B C D, which in that combination makes him want to love a woman as a man himself. Thus he is straight. His wife has the genes E F G H, which makes her want to love a man as a woman herself. So she is straight. Their child receives the genes A B and E F from his father n mother. A B E F is a gay combination. So he is born gay.
i dun think its an "on" switch because deep down, a person who's in denial will know he is gay. he just won't believe it or face it or accept it. but that doesn't make him not a gay. u can't "be" someone u are not, so even if he is not living a gay lifestyle, doesn't mean he is "being" straight.Originally posted by alfagal:yes i dun deny tat part..and yes i see where u coming from..was stated right? 'gays: but some pple have higher mobidity (nature) rates than others. so yes true in e sense that it could b genetically inherited.'
i still say tat genes n nurture interact..and there is a chance, where genes are a on switch, and e negative fators prevent e person from being gay..like i stated: e.g in tis case e gay might have an on switch, but e enviromental or nurturing factors did not trigger it off in the behavior (phenotype - how much potential from genotype) therefore, not a gay...
Originally posted by Chin Eng:The difference is, they are simply writing down what he did.
Precisely..... unless there is an [b]autobiography by Jesus (which there isn't), all the gospels are merely biographies. On the assumption that all the writers are human, each gospel writer can freely inject his own ideas. My question to you is still: in spite of the fact that none of the gospels are autobiographies, what makes you believe in them rather than the epistles? Who is to say that Matt is not a bigot? What is the authority of Luke as his was believe to be some as a copying from the other gospels, especially when he was not even around at the time of Jesus' ministry. [/b]