Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, I am no longer interested in playing mind games with you.
Interesting.
You would come off as more mature if you just admitted your mistakes instead of trying to pretend the other guy is playing games.
what mistake? I would admit to them if I knew I what in God's name you were talking about.
I noticed that.It wasn't an attack, but I will dropit because this circular garbage is rather pointless.You just accused me of being a hypocrite because I asked someone questions that pertain to their position. If that isn't an attack, what is it?
You havent seen anything yet. Quantum is a master at deflecting when caught in a lie.
He honestly wants people to believe he made a decision to be gay and was born without a sexual orientation.
No it isn't, you said that homosexuality is genetic, That is flat out wrong, if it were all monozygotic twins would either be gay or straight. The studies show that this is not true.
Understanding Genetics
Did you notice that I, once again, used a link that disagrees with my position? Feel free to pretend to yourself that you are the one that is being unbiased and objective even though I have proved you wrong twice.
Gene's are traits that are passed on. In twins (or any family descent) one can get the gay gene while the other doesn't. Just like in heart disease. Two identical twins can be born and one inherits the gene that leads to coronary artery disease while the other doesn't.
Your argument is ridiculous.
How do monozygotic twins, which nave identical DNA, get different genes? Or did you not even read the blurb from the link I posted?
Keep telling me how smart and open minded you are, it amuses me.
Agreed, religion in and of itself it's more about conformity than GodInteresting.
You would come off as more mature if you just admitted your mistakes instead of trying to pretend the other guy is playing games.
what mistake? I would admit to them if I knew I what in God's name you were talking about.
Some scriptures in some versions of the old testament state that we should stone gays. But "versions of bibles" is a question even beyond versions of the old test.
Murder in the Bible
^The bible isn't evil. but people should know their talking points.
Why did you pick it?1972
Why did you pick the shirt you wore today?
to you perhaps, but what relevanceis your opinion?Homosexuality isn't an act.
Sodomy is an act - You are an actor and homosexuality is am umdesirable acquired trait.
Like I already said, you are not interested in truth, you just want to spout your ignorant opinion and ignore the science, homosexuality is not genetic.
If you don't know what heritability means why did you declare yourself to be the board expert on science?
How wrong you are. I am interested in facts. Truth is the purview of religion not science. To that end the definition of HERITABILITY is
1: the quality or state of being heritable
2: the proportion of observed variation in a particular trait (as height) that can be attributed to inherited genetic factors in contrast to environmental ones.
Heritability - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
YOUR link supporting what I said. Don't you dare lecture me about science when you don't even know what the basics are. This is a simple definition which you seem to not understand.
No it isn't, you said that homosexuality is genetic, That is flat out wrong, if it were all monozygotic twins would either be gay or straight. The studies show that this is not true.
Understanding GeneticsTwin studies of homosexuality have shown that identical twins are about twice as likely to both be gay compared to fraternal twins. This means that being gay is partly genetic and not simply something that a person learns or chooses to be.
There is one important thing to note, though. If the DNA sequence is the only thing determining whether someone is gay or not, we would expect that if one identical twin were gay, then the other would be too 100% of the time.
But this is not what scientists have found – the rate is actually closer to 50%. So while we know that genetics is involved, it doesn’t tell us the whole story. This is where environment comes in.
Did you notice that I, once again, used a link that disagrees with my position? Feel free to pretend to yourself that you are the one that is being unbiased and objective even though I have proved you wrong twice.
Twin studies of homosexuality have shown that identical twins are about twice as likely to both be gay compared to fraternal twins. This means that being gay is partly genetic and not simply something that a person learns or chooses to be.
There is one important thing to note, though. If the DNA sequence is the only thing determining whether someone is gay or not, we would expect that if one identical twin were gay, then the other would be too 100% of the time.
But this is not what scientists have found – the rate is actually closer to 50%. So while we know that genetics is involved, it doesn’t tell us the whole story. This is where environment comes in.
If this came from anybody else it might be less hilarious.to you perhaps, but what relevanceis your opinion?Sodomy is an act - You are an actor and homosexuality is am umdesirable acquired trait.
Apparently more qualified than a juvenile with no zero life experience and limited life expectancy because he engages in un-healthy and un-natural acts of degenerate depravity.
Of course you realize that I am not referring to you by that statement - but I wouldn't want to walk a mile in that juveniles shoes - however - in your case case - if the shoe fits .........
[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]You are carrying on about sexual abuse. That is not what this thread is about. Why do you bring this up in every single post? This isn't the topic it isn't even in the right forum. Ifyouwant to talk about faith healing start a thread in health and lifestyle.
If this came from anybody else it might be less hilarious.to you perhaps, but what relevanceis your opinion?
Apparently more qualified than a juvenile with no zero life experience and limited life expectancy because he engages in un-healthy and un-natural acts of degenerate depravity.
Of course you realize that I am not referring to you by that statement - but I wouldn't want to walk a mile in that juveniles shoes - however - in your case case - if the shoe fits .........
Some scriptures in some versions of the old testament state that we should stone gays. But "versions of bibles" is a question even beyond versions of the old test.
Murder in the Bible
^The bible isn't evil. but people should know their talking points.
I am sorry you still are clearly way off topic.Short answer: How this applies to the topic:
The people/researchers with KNOWLEDGE of spiritual healing will arrive at different research conclusions than people/researchers who exclude this field of experience.
A. People replying on here, including OP, might even change their entire opinion/perception if they added this field of research and practice
B. the APA and other Professional/Medical sources cited as "proof" would also have to change their reports and stats if cases of spiritual healing were included in their studies
Since this field is NOT being included or even considered,
then ALL the answers on this thread will be SKEWED.
That is like basing a study on numbers by only studying the negative numbers
and leaving out the positive side of the scale. So of course your research and
answers all come out negative, because that was the ONLY pool included in the set.
[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]You are carrying on about sexual abuse. That is not what this thread is about. Why do you bring this up in every single post? This isn't the topic it isn't even in the right forum. Ifyouwant to talk about faith healing start a thread in health and lifestyle.
Hi Inevitable Sorry
I understand people better on this subject
if I see their understanding, perception or misperception of the healing process.
If they
1. have no knowledge of this, but are open minded it COULD be true
2. if they have their minds made up and won't consider anything otherwise
3. are willing to look into it because they understand the impact it would have
The degree of resistance or rejection to the process, tells me how biased and closed someone is, or how open they are to new information and change.
For example, when you first posted very open questions, and very clear corrections.
I thought you might be more objective, one of the types who can handle all sides.
But when you immediately "assumed and accused" ANY and ALL reports of healing to be FRAUD (without proof); but then you insisted that "I show proof" but didn't require proof of your assertions, that told me you would project your judgment without proof, while expecting others to show proof. This indicates a slight bias, but not major. You seem to stay objective about corrections, so I trust you to check yourself as well against biases that could be adjusted for.
I found both sides of the natural/unnatural debate cite "personal testimony" to justify their views; yet you struck this down as not viable proof, but that is what people use, even my own boyfriend, to understand that some are that way and cannot change. How can you prove someone "can never change"? It is based
on people knowing someone that was naturally that way; I even know Christians who completely changed their minds when they met such people. So it is based on personal testimony, that people even have their opinions on here, which shapes what data we will consider and how we interpret it.
Inevitable, I applaud and agree with your approach to stick to logical terms and arguments. It makes sense that if something is not a pathology or disease/illness to be cured then how can it be healed?
a. what I would clarify:
Unforgiveness and the conditions attached to it can be healed and it is not a disease.
Unforgiveness causes "racism" and "projection" and "unresolved conflicts" which can be changed, and that's not a disease.
Relationships can be healed of discord and misunderstanding, and that is not a disease.
Just because something can be healed or changed does not require it to be a disease.
b. if people do not understand the depth of the forgiveness and healing process,
even what we perceive with medical studies is going to be SKEWED.
We "project" our personal biases even when interpreting scientific data.
So THAT is why researchers will not include spiritual healing that works
in their data - If they DON'T have any notion that this could be real or valid.
Like you, they just EXCLUDE it "unless it is proven already"
Well, how do you expect ANY researchers to PROVE it, if they keep waiting for
someone else to prove it?
Inevitable, I still believe you are openminded and objective about this.
Thank you for that, and sorry if I push too hard to try to get this research added in.
Because it changes the whole debate, I see it as a shortcut to resolving many issues.
Last Note: If we DON'T address this issue of personal biases and perception, we will keep running into problems with interpreting data.
For example QW keeps posting research on genetics showing there is not 100% matching orientation with identical twins.
But people will continue interpreting that data as showing genetic connection. Why? Because we keep projecting our personal understanding
that some people are born that way. So this TRUMPS the scientific stats and research. We are human and will put our personal experiences and beliefs first.
So I am saying we need to address this level first, or all the other data we discuss will still get blocked by projection and not be perfectly objective.
Sorry for the long response, and thank you for your objective approach which is sorely needed here!
I am sorry you still are clearly way off topic.Short answer: How this applies to the topic:
The people/researchers with KNOWLEDGE of spiritual healing will arrive at different research conclusions than people/researchers who exclude this field of experience.
A. People replying on here, including OP, might even change their entire opinion/perception if they added this field of research and practice
B. the APA and other Professional/Medical sources cited as "proof" would also have to change their reports and stats if cases of spiritual healing were included in their studies
Since this field is NOT being included or even considered,
then ALL the answers on this thread will be SKEWED.
That is like basing a study on numbers by only studying the negative numbers
and leaving out the positive side of the scale. So of course your research and
answers all come out negative, because that was the ONLY pool included in the set.
[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]You are carrying on about sexual abuse. That is not what this thread is about. Why do you bring this up in every single post? This isn't the topic it isn't even in the right forum. Ifyouwant to talk about faith healing start a thread in health and lifestyle.
Hi Inevitable Sorry
I understand people better on this subject
if I see their understanding, perception or misperception of the healing process.
If they
1. have no knowledge of this, but are open minded it COULD be true
2. if they have their minds made up and won't consider anything otherwise
3. are willing to look into it because they understand the impact it would have
The degree of resistance or rejection to the process, tells me how biased and closed someone is, or how open they are to new information and change.
For example, when you first posted very open questions, and very clear corrections.
I thought you might be more objective, one of the types who can handle all sides.
But when you immediately "assumed and accused" ANY and ALL reports of healing to be FRAUD (without proof); but then you insisted that "I show proof" but didn't require proof of your assertions, that told me you would project your judgment without proof, while expecting others to show proof. This indicates a slight bias, but not major. You seem to stay objective about corrections, so I trust you to check yourself as well against biases that could be adjusted for.
I found both sides of the natural/unnatural debate cite "personal testimony" to justify their views; yet you struck this down as not viable proof, but that is what people use, even my own boyfriend, to understand that some are that way and cannot change. How can you prove someone "can never change"? It is based
on people knowing someone that was naturally that way; I even know Christians who completely changed their minds when they met such people. So it is based on personal testimony, that people even have their opinions on here, which shapes what data we will consider and how we interpret it.
Inevitable, I applaud and agree with your approach to stick to logical terms and arguments. It makes sense that if something is not a pathology or disease/illness to be cured then how can it be healed?
a. what I would clarify:
Unforgiveness and the conditions attached to it can be healed and it is not a disease.
Unforgiveness causes "racism" and "projection" and "unresolved conflicts" which can be changed, and that's not a disease.
Relationships can be healed of discord and misunderstanding, and that is not a disease.
Just because something can be healed or changed does not require it to be a disease.
b. if people do not understand the depth of the forgiveness and healing process,
even what we perceive with medical studies is going to be SKEWED.
We "project" our personal biases even when interpreting scientific data.
So THAT is why researchers will not include spiritual healing that works
in their data - If they DON'T have any notion that this could be real or valid.
Like you, they just EXCLUDE it "unless it is proven already"
Well, how do you expect ANY researchers to PROVE it, if they keep waiting for
someone else to prove it?
Inevitable, I still believe you are openminded and objective about this.
Thank you for that, and sorry if I push too hard to try to get this research added in.
Because it changes the whole debate, I see it as a shortcut to resolving many issues.
Last Note: If we DON'T address this issue of personal biases and perception, we will keep running into problems with interpreting data.
For example QW keeps posting research on genetics showing there is not 100% matching orientation with identical twins.
But people will continue interpreting that data as showing genetic connection. Why? Because we keep projecting our personal understanding
that some people are born that way. So this TRUMPS the scientific stats and research. We are human and will put our personal experiences and beliefs first.
So I am saying we need to address this level first, or all the other data we discuss will still get blocked by projection and not be perfectly objective.
Sorry for the long response, and thank you for your objective approach which is sorely needed here!
I don't wish to talk about faith healing. It seems the only topic you are capable of willingto discuss. I bow to your superior knowledge and wish to discuss it no further.
Yes I don't study faith healing, therefore it isway over my head, furthermore I have no interest in faith healing. It doesn't matter because it is off topic.I am sorry you still are clearly way off topic.Short answer: How this applies to the topic:
The people/researchers with KNOWLEDGE of spiritual healing will arrive at different research conclusions than people/researchers who exclude this field of experience.
A. People replying on here, including OP, might even change their entire opinion/perception if they added this field of research and practice
B. the APA and other Professional/Medical sources cited as "proof" would also have to change their reports and stats if cases of spiritual healing were included in their studies
Since this field is NOT being included or even considered,
then ALL the answers on this thread will be SKEWED.
That is like basing a study on numbers by only studying the negative numbers
and leaving out the positive side of the scale. So of course your research and
answers all come out negative, because that was the ONLY pool included in the set.
Hi Inevitable Sorry
I understand people better on this subject
if I see their understanding, perception or misperception of the healing process.
If they
1. have no knowledge of this, but are open minded it COULD be true
2. if they have their minds made up and won't consider anything otherwise
3. are willing to look into it because they understand the impact it would have
The degree of resistance or rejection to the process, tells me how biased and closed someone is, or how open they are to new information and change.
For example, when you first posted very open questions, and very clear corrections.
I thought you might be more objective, one of the types who can handle all sides.
But when you immediately "assumed and accused" ANY and ALL reports of healing to be FRAUD (without proof); but then you insisted that "I show proof" but didn't require proof of your assertions, that told me you would project your judgment without proof, while expecting others to show proof. This indicates a slight bias, but not major. You seem to stay objective about corrections, so I trust you to check yourself as well against biases that could be adjusted for.
I found both sides of the natural/unnatural debate cite "personal testimony" to justify their views; yet you struck this down as not viable proof, but that is what people use, even my own boyfriend, to understand that some are that way and cannot change. How can you prove someone "can never change"? It is based
on people knowing someone that was naturally that way; I even know Christians who completely changed their minds when they met such people. So it is based on personal testimony, that people even have their opinions on here, which shapes what data we will consider and how we interpret it.
Inevitable, I applaud and agree with your approach to stick to logical terms and arguments. It makes sense that if something is not a pathology or disease/illness to be cured then how can it be healed?
a. what I would clarify:
Unforgiveness and the conditions attached to it can be healed and it is not a disease.
Unforgiveness causes "racism" and "projection" and "unresolved conflicts" which can be changed, and that's not a disease.
Relationships can be healed of discord and misunderstanding, and that is not a disease.
Just because something can be healed or changed does not require it to be a disease.
b. if people do not understand the depth of the forgiveness and healing process,
even what we perceive with medical studies is going to be SKEWED.
We "project" our personal biases even when interpreting scientific data.
So THAT is why researchers will not include spiritual healing that works
in their data - If they DON'T have any notion that this could be real or valid.
Like you, they just EXCLUDE it "unless it is proven already"
Well, how do you expect ANY researchers to PROVE it, if they keep waiting for
someone else to prove it?
Inevitable, I still believe you are openminded and objective about this.
Thank you for that, and sorry if I push too hard to try to get this research added in.
Because it changes the whole debate, I see it as a shortcut to resolving many issues.
Last Note: If we DON'T address this issue of personal biases and perception, we will keep running into problems with interpreting data.
For example QW keeps posting research on genetics showing there is not 100% matching orientation with identical twins.
But people will continue interpreting that data as showing genetic connection. Why? Because we keep projecting our personal understanding
that some people are born that way. So this TRUMPS the scientific stats and research. We are human and will put our personal experiences and beliefs first.
So I am saying we need to address this level first, or all the other data we discuss will still get blocked by projection and not be perfectly objective.
Sorry for the long response, and thank you for your objective approach which is sorely needed here!
I don't wish to talk about faith healing. It seems the only topic you are capable of willingto discuss. I bow to your superior knowledge and wish to discuss it no further.
TRANSLATED: Zoom - Boing Way over your head ?
Do you prefer to be spoken down to ?
Emily was trying to treat you as an equal - hoping you would apply the mental effort required to engage with her - you chose the lazy way out - WHY ? Did it put a strain on your brain ? Or did she touch a nerve?
This above all: To thine own-self, be true.
I think Shakespeare had it right.
Is this discussion turning into a Bible discussion? Is this what the OP had in mind?
Hi A I was referring to SOME cases where orientation is not from birth.
In SOME cases the homosexual behavior was not natural for the person
but was a reaction to abuse or child rape, molestation, etc.
A friend of mine recently counseling a lesbian who was working through issues of being abused herself.
When she healed of this abuse, the desire for homosexual sexual relations also went away.
so in SOME CASES the PERSON attributes their homosexuality to abuse.
Agreed, religion in and of itself it's more about conformity than Godwhat mistake? I would admit to them if I knew I what in God's name you were talking about.
Some scriptures in some versions of the old testament state that we should stone gays. But "versions of bibles" is a question even beyond versions of the old test.
Murder in the Bible
^The bible isn't evil. but people should know their talking points.
Epigenetic factors are known to alter the genetic structure of monozygotic twins as they age or is that beyond your knowledge base?
"Epigenetics involves genetic control by factors other than an individual's DNA sequence. Epigenetic changes can switch genes on or off and determine which proteins are transcribed."
Epigenetic Influences and Disease | Learn Science at Scitable
Why are you pointing out something I already posted? What does it have to do with the fact that monozygotic twins have identical DNA, and your claim that they can still get different genes? You do understand that epigenetics, if valid, is about how the same genes develop differently, don't you?
In other words, you are wrong, just admit you made a stupid mistake and move on.
I have heard others claim you were being intentionally obtuse but had never seen it till now. I said that homosexuality is genetic. You said it's not and posted a study in support of what you said that actually supported me. Then you bring up the twins issue and once again I post a study that shows how epigenetic factors CAN TURN GENES ON AND OFF AFTER BIRTH and that sails right over your head.
Like I said. You don't understand even the basics so until you learn something you're merely wasting mine and everyone else's time. It's YOU who refuses to learn something new QW. Not me, and not anyone else who has posted here except for the religious nutters.
Agreed, religion in and of itself it's more about conformity than GodSome scriptures in some versions of the old testament state that we should stone gays. But "versions of bibles" is a question even beyond versions of the old test.
Murder in the Bible
^The bible isn't evil. but people should know their talking points.
I think it's ridiculous for religious gay haters to comment on what motivates you. You're demonstrating the reverse is also true.
