Homosexual Books for First Graders [Archive]

Mewtwo-D2

6th April 2004, 01:28 PM

Pariah, I have no idea what kind of school you go to, but at my old one, they never stopped telling us how many Indians died when the Europeans came over. The REAL history they don't teach is that white people are not the source of all evil in the world. In fact, we spent five chapters on the effects of European exploration- such as spread of disease, death, chaos, and the rounding up of Indians to put them in special camps consisting of the land we didn't want. They spent one chapter discussing World War II, and didn't even name any of the battles except for the Normandy Invasion. The war in the Pacific was reduced to a mention of Pearl Harbor and a five-page diatribe of why it was wrong that we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan.

As for the book raising questions about sex, it's because the image most kids will be familiar with at that age is mommy and daddy, man and woman. If I had read a book at that age about daddy and daddy I would've had a lot of questions as how does that work? I think for first graders they should stick with things like Winnie the Pooh, early Betsy~Tacy, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and things like that. Books about children, written specifically for children. They have nothing to do with any relationship other than friendship. Friendship should be one of the main values we're teaching to elementary school children and we're not. You can promote tolerance afterwards, but a child should not be taught to assimilate with what the school board considers to be the norm. They shouldn't be sexualized at that young an age. They should learn about real friends, manners, how to stand on their own two feet. They should have the kinds of books that teach that in their library and on their required reading lists. They have to learn that it's normal to not agree with or like everybody, but should also learn when it's okay to speak up and when they should be quiet about it. Go ahead and take out all the books that deal with relationships other than friendship from elementary school libraries, even Tom Sawyer if they feel the need to. That leaves a lot of books, and a lot of them are much better suited to the age group. Let the parents teach their children about adult relationships. Keep those books in public libraries, in the childrens section and let the parents decide which ones they want their kids to read.

The only books I can think of that they would take out would be a few fairy tales, Nancy Drew, the Hardy Boys, and the Babysitters Club. I still have most of the books I had when I was 6 or 7, and very few of them deal with relationships stronger than friendship. A lot of them barely mentioned the parents, except for Besty~Tacy and the Little House books, and plenty of them had single parents, whether from death or divorce. I think parents should have more control over what their children are being sent home with at that level. No book should be assigned to the required reading list without having a meeting that involves parents. If they don't care enough to show up, then so be it, but the parents who actually care about their children should have a say in what their children are being forced to read.

Razola

6th April 2004, 01:33 PM

oh no, not the trail of tears! lol. who DOESN'T know about that. that's not what I'm referring to at all.
I could've sworn you were talking about it in general. I don't recall any technology back then that could kill millions of Indians instantly. There's also general killing caused by the manifest destiny, along with the Massacre at Wounded Knee. There's a lot of examples. What more do you want?

And Mewtwo-D2 speaketh the truth. I'm not looking for a pardon for any atrocities of the past, but this hidden history you go on about is already part of the curriculum.

The Decapitated Mole

6th April 2004, 02:13 PM

Iveechan

6th April 2004, 02:23 PM

... that's why I said to explain homosexuality at the fourth grade level. At that age, kids are surprisingly intelligent and did not hit puberty yet. And, as ideal as homosexuality being fully excepted and considered "normal" is, in this day and age we still have countless homophobes or folks who are just ignorant of same sex relationships. I think the book is a great idea, I just don't feel that it's ready to be safely put in a public place yet. Try and be a bit realistic.

Zak

6th April 2004, 03:15 PM

I saw this coming, and I'd like a big round of applause to whoever's idea it was. It would drop the rate of homophobia, and to everyone thinking "OMG GAY SEX", gay romance =/= gay sex. Of course, I'm not surprised there's an uproar about this from mainly Christians. The only difference is that homosexuals are a MINORITY, yet that would make banning this even worse. That would mean to ban all books involving minority religions and races.

Also, I'm sure at first people in first grade may be like "wtf I thought love was only between a man and a woman" and just like all shocks, they can learn something. It's just as shocking as learning all those odd science facts, but I'm sure over the years people will get used to this, and it will hopefully drop.

~Zak

Mewtwo-D2

6th April 2004, 03:39 PM

What books that I suggested banning? I've been reading since the age of 2 and 1/2, and if to be fair, they leave books with adult relationships completely out of the first grade levels, then so be it. I was pointing out some good books that focus on children.

As for the teaching of tolerance, they don't. They teach everything that is not straight white Christian is good, and that's plenty intolerant. They should teach not everyone is going to agree, since that's real life. They should teach that the 11th Commandment is not 'Thou Shalt Not Offend Anyone Who is Not a Straight White Christian'. What goes into the school library should be voted on by the parents of the community. Let them decide what to ban and what to allow. There will still be public libraries where the kids can read whatever the hell they want. Teaching homosexuality to first graders won't promote tolerance: in fact, it's likely that plenty of parents will be outraged and treat their children to long lectures about just why homosexuality is wrong. The kids whose parents are more accepting of homosexuality may have already heard of what it is, or the kids whose parents are strongly in favor of homosexuality will be treated to lectures on why homosexuality is right and anyone who disagrees is a homophobe. That's a nice and confusing thing to dump on a 6-year-old, isn't it?

Iveechan is right, if they must teach sex education in elementary schools, do it in the fourth, or maybe fifth grade. Let the children be children, and leave the kindergarteners, first-graders, and second-graders. As for third-graders, they'll read anything you tell them not to, so there you go.

Kris

6th April 2004, 03:49 PM

I only hope this will convince more parents that it's their job, not the school's, to raise their children.

Exactly!

Parents need to teach their own children the facts of life firstly, if they dont then its their own fault for the kids not understanding and getting confused about the subject!

Craig

6th April 2004, 04:01 PM

homosexuality is normal. and i dont care about the rate of occurence. having a leap year every four years is normal, is it not?

by comparing the rate of occurence of homosexuality to leap years,you are in a way saying that the world has 1.5 billion gays as of right now.

Keep the book, this is a new age... Maybe it will stop kids from getting the nasty habit of saying things are gay , that would be :k-rad:

GirlRepellant

6th April 2004, 04:03 PM

Well obviously parents CAN'T be depended upon to teach kids tolerance, or else there would be a hell of a lot more of it in the world. Mewtwo-D2: What kind of idiot are you? I'm a straight, white, middle-class, suburban, ex-Christian American, and I can guarantee that I've NEVER been truly discriminated against. I don't know what kind of books you read in school, but none of mine went into how white Christian males are the devil. Sure, the books document the terrible things they've done in the past: the Holocaust, slavery, massacring natives, etc. But what do you want them to do? Exlude that stuff because it might offend us sensitive straight white Christian males who have been discriminated against and held down for so long? How DARE they dessimate my culture like that by focusing only on the bad, and ignoring all the wonderful things us whites have done; such as installing Democracy in many parts of the world, inventing the cures to countless diseases, revolutionizing every field of science... wait, we do cover that in textbooks. Oops, I guess I'm just a bigot.

Oh, and as far as the "normalcy" of homosexuality is concerned, estimates put about 8% of the U.S. population as being gay. By contrast, only 1.5% of America's population has red hair. Should we not portray redheads in childrens' books because "they aren't used to it?"

The Muffin Man

6th April 2004, 04:14 PM

For as long as there have been stories about Kings and Queens, heros and bad guys, there's always been some relationship element in them. Gay relationships aren't all about sex, as with straight relationships.
This isn't about a book of gay sex positions being handed out to 5 year olds, this is a simple story in which a prince chooses to marry another man, I bet it's more entertaining than anything with all the princesses being unsiutable and such, haven't read it myself, but I bet it's the sort of material children will laugh at and enjoy rather than going to ask mom about how homosexuals work.

If they want to ban this, they should ban every other book with a slight hint of a relationship or marriage, and from what I remember in my first school, that's going to leave them with "My first dictionary".
But it might say sex! Or kissing!! Or even hug!!

*Gasp*We can't have that evil, dirty book! It TEACHES things!

EDIT - FFS...Gay relationships ARE NOT SEXUAL EDUCATION...It's teaching TOLERANCE. No one said to teach our kids sex education in first grade. They want them to accept that gay couples are not only possible, but acceptable. They're not promoting sex. Stop equating gay = buttsex so damn much. There's more to a gay relationship than constant promiscuous sex y'know.

Mewtwo-D2

6th April 2004, 04:42 PM

GirlRepellant, were you not aware that the Holocaust was carried out by majority neo-pagans?

I live in an area of extreme political correctness, and am probably a lot more effected by reverse racism then many because I'm a conservative activist. I've been told I owe blacks reparations despite the fact that not a one of my ancestors ever owned a black slave. The only slaves my ancestors ever owned were the Vikings enslaving other whites. In my area, straight white Christians are all but demonized by the schools. I was in the honors program, and maybe that's why, but the accomplishments of whites were glossed over, and we spent twice as much time studying the cultures of non-whites. I think they should give equal time to both subjects, but when they reduce Isaac Newton's discoveries to a paragraph, and devote a chapter to the religious practices of Aztecs, that strikes me as a tad imbalanced.

In my former high school they had orginizations for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Middle Easterners, and none at all for whites. If you had suggested such a thing as a white student group you'd have been stoned. The golden rule was don't offend the minorities, even if it offends the majority. They were even going to paint over a mural of WWII because it contained a swastika. What next? Banning textbooks because they have swastikas? Not that that would make much difference, since WWII was only in one chapter. Maybe the area you live in uses different text books than mine did, but you couldn't get much more discriminatory.

Razola

6th April 2004, 05:21 PM

Upon further reflection, I'd say that you can either have both types of books or none at all. Either one works for me.

Dean

6th April 2004, 06:03 PM

This is pathetic. I am seriously sick and tired of society judging people and deciding that other people should only believe what they believe. Parents don't want kids to learn about homosexuals and evolution? Maybe I don't want bigot assholes telling kids what to learn. By teaching children "christian morals" and by excluding or including certain details in their teachings, you are essentially brainwashing children to think what you want them to think. That's NOT how you teach someone. Free will my ass, if you are told what to believe from birth then you aren't making a choice, it's already been made for you.

Andrew

6th April 2004, 06:16 PM

I'm wondering why the title of the book isn't Queen&Queen ;) j/k

I think its an interesting book concept really, just a glance at the cover made me think it was just another storybook, but I reckon it'd bring up a few questions in storytime, and only the most foolhardy teacher would really read it to the class, and then, I can see a mob of angry parents coming up and abusing them :\

If they made it part of the lesson plan then the parents really wouldn't have the basis to complain. But its good that well they're educating kids about different relationships, I had no idea gay people existed til they advertised the Gay and Lesbian MardiGras on tv as a televised event to which I was told "They're dirty, evil people!"

So I reckon these kids are getting a good idea, but I don't think that they should have it rammed down their throats either.

GreenShirT

6th April 2004, 06:24 PM

I suppose a book with a hint of a gay relationship in it would be more of a twist than the average run of the mill story of which everyone is used to so wouldn't really get anything from it and find it dull (being able to predict the ending and general story)

Honestly I can't see any harm in it. Plays and storys in the past featured gay relationships and people weren't bothered about it I guess parents and society are way too 'protective' and taboo on subjects like these...

Heald

6th April 2004, 06:49 PM

I am a raving homophobe. Please slap me.What a moron.

He also says 'it's not in our beliefs'. What isn't? The fact that there is homosexuality in the world or you think that homosexuality is morally wrong.

I can guarantee that this is on his favorites. (http://www.godhatesfags.com)

WARNING: The above link is rather extremist and so do not click unless you want to be bombarded with Bible quotes.

Frankly, people need to know about homosexuality and why it is a real issue. When people are sheltered from homosexuality, they begin to believe that it is wrong and hence may perform attacks, both verbal and physical, on other homosexuals.

And besides, I hate the word 'gay' being used as an insult, especially if used as in a derogatory manner.

The Muffin Man

6th April 2004, 07:47 PM

GirlRepellant, were you not aware that the Holocaust was carried out by majority neo-pagans?
~Whart exactly does this matter?

I live in an area of extreme political correctness, and am probably a lot more effected by reverse racism then many because I'm a conservative activist.
~So you're more effected by people loving you for merely your skin color?

I've been told I owe blacks reparations despite the fact that not a one of my ancestors ever owned a black slave.
~OOOOH! You mean RACISM. See, because REVERSE RACISM IS NOT REAL. Carry on.

The only slaves my ancestors ever owned were the Vikings enslaving other whites. In my area, straight white Christians are all but demonized by the schools. I was in the honors program, and maybe that's why, but the accomplishments of whites were glossed over, and we spent twice as much time studying the cultures of non-whites. I think they should give equal time to both subjects, but when they reduce Isaac Newton's discoveries to a paragraph, and devote a chapter to the religious practices of Aztecs, that strikes me as a tad imbalanced.

In my former high school they had orginizations for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Middle Easterners, and none at all for whites.
~Because Black Pride is pride. White pride is racist White supremacy. Apparently.

If you had suggested such a thing as a white student group you'd have been stoned. The golden rule was don't offend the minorities, even if it offends the majority. They were even going to paint over a mural of WWII because it contained a swastika. What next? Banning textbooks because they have swastikas? Not that that would make much difference, since WWII was only in one chapter. Maybe the area you live in uses different text books than mine did, but you couldn't get much more discriminatory.

Sounds like your school is filled with morons. See, THIS is how Political correctness gets out of control. When idiots decide that defending the minority is more important than defending EVERYONE.

Toxicity

6th April 2004, 08:25 PM

Sadly...my mother was probably never taught about tolerance. She thinks gays did in the Roman Empire and they should burn in hell, and when she says that, I start to cry a bit and tell her to not say that, for she is bad-mouthing her deceased younger brother(and oldest of her siblings, my mom's oldest)...=/

Personally, I think homosexual-bashing isn't right at all. It's not that I am, it's that I wish to defend them, because defending them is also defending the spirit of my uncle(wherever he went...). Not all gays show pride, well...at least my uncle didn't; he continued his life like a normal man until he broke down in illness of AIDs and died. Books as in "King and King", as shown, were only made to show tolerance for them so they won't grow up to be people like those in the Middle Ages who were miserable trying to commit themselves to God.

Myself? I have no idea what I am...so I will not bash supporters or revolters: I will only show what I think personally. Now and days, everything is about Christianity, Gays, and the possible fall of America because of pure disagreement. And, in my honors program it is also the case. Me and a selected other few girls(three who seems just like me, one of Middle Eastern descent, and one of Armenian descent) are trying to settle each other to agree with one another, and it fails because of a Christian who spouts off things a lot, but goes right back and makes fun of those trying to get everybody to get along...and what is he really? A prejudice Hypocrite.

Before I veer off subject officially, I shall say this: Tolerance should be taught in schools, before chaos erupts and we, like the Roman Empire actually did, be invaded, have Presidents ousted/killed, and then when a young adolescent takes over for eleven months or so and then gets force-abdicated, we fall for good...

Green_Pikachu

6th April 2004, 08:31 PM

by comparing the rate of occurence of homosexuality to leap years,you are in a way saying that the world has 1.5 billion gays as of right now.

Keep the book, this is a new age... Maybe it will stop kids from getting the nasty habit of saying things are gay , that would be :k-rad:

uh, you're pretty retarded. I was referring to the whole leap year in terms of "normalcy". i was not saying anything about there being 1.5 billion gays, plus I have no idea where you came up with that stat anyway, lol. i was simply refuting some other kid's point, because he said being gay is not normal, because it doesn't occur a whole lot. So i used the point of a leap year only occuring every other 4 years, but we consider that normal, don't we? i admit, it was a weak analogy, but I don't know how you didn't understand it.

Rambunctious Jamirus

6th April 2004, 08:51 PM

And besides, I hate the word 'gay' being used as an insult, especially if used as in a derogatory manner.

Finally someone who agrees with me. It's so stupid saying someone is gay because it just insults other homosexuals around. It's like, 'Yo Mama' and 'Fag' (which used to mean cigarette so you're calling someone a cigarette?).

First off, I kinda like the idea of the book as long as teachers don't force it on the kids without consulting the parents first. Since the girl brought it home on choice, there's nothing the parents can do about that. They can scold the girl but that brings upon the idea that two men being together is wrong.

Second, I do believe that it should be taught in schools when the kids get to the age of 'Healthy Choices' that gay relationships and what they are about to prevent the wrong idea. Since kids have to get a letter signed in the first place to participate in 'Healthy Choices,' the only way they can complain is if they didn't read the letter to begin with since it will be mentioned hopefully in it.

Third, I don't care about homosexuals since quite a few of the kids in my school are homosexual or bi. As long as they don't hit on me continuously (unless it's a joke like me and friends do), it's all right. There's nothing seemingly wrong with the way a person wants to live their life unless it involves physically or emotionally hurting someone without their consent.

And yes, for some people, I was in a private Christian school for about five years, the first five years, of my schooling. I really was oblivious to the world then. It all changes though when I moved to the school I'm at now where almost my entire History class is against Bush (now, no one comment please, I'm just giving out what is fact). One person I know of is gay in this class of thirty and he's one of the funniest guys I know. He can make our teachers laugh (which can be hard).

I'd like to read the book if I can. It can't be worse than Snow White (really, it was confusing at the end. Why in the heck would you kiss a dead girl? You've known her for only two minutes and you kiss her when she's dead? And you know all those dwarves were hitting on her!)

No offense to anyone who liked the movie but yeah, that ending makes no sense when you actually think it through.

DarkTemplarZ

6th April 2004, 09:07 PM

This is hilarious. "Not in our beliefs"? Man, your beliefs are screwed up lol. Typical traditionalist Christian. I actually think it's a brilliant idea, better the kids learn about being homosexual from an educational book written for children than through insults or TV, because they will learn sooner or later. At least the book will teach them that it is acceptable rather than learning it from some outside source which probably will teach them that being gay is a crime punishable by a lifetime of persecution.

Damian Silverblade

6th April 2004, 09:14 PM

Let's compare apples with apples M2D2.

"we spent twice as much time studying the cultures of non-whites. I think they should give equal time to both subjects,"

Except of course you are the one being reductive here - culture is not divided in "White" and "Non-White", and to suggest that the white culture should be given equal time to all other cultures put together is the questionable idea if one want equality between the cultures (now if you want to defend that the european culture was more important to the history of america and that it should be studied in greater depths than others, that's something else and not necessarily something I'd disagree with you. But don't go on about equal times when you are comparing inequal groups to begin with - White (that is to say, European) culture hardly represent half the cultures that there were in the history of the world, or of the American continent for that matter.

Even reducing it to very, very, very broad groups, you have Asian cultures (not really relevant if studying only things in america), African culture (and African-American is rather important), Meso-American culture, etc.

As for Newtwon vs religious practices of the Aztecs? No, I don't think they should be given equal time. You're comparing the discoveries of one man with the religious culture - the very core of their identity - of an entire people. The theory of gravity doesn't belong in history classes either - that's physics, not history.

Green_Pikachu

6th April 2004, 09:17 PM

1). gay has developed a third meaning. It is used as an insult. We aren't actually calling the person homosexual, but it is used in a derogatory manner, probably stemming off the fact that the majority of the US are still scared to death of gays (like bush is).

2). being gay is not a choice, not matter how much you think it is. it isn't completely proven, but it's commonly believed to be genetics. Much like Darwin's theory of evolution tends to be the most commonly applied theory, genetic-based sexuality is a more popular theory, because there is quite a bit of evidence suggesting this. So homosexuality isn't "a way someone lives their life". It IS their life. It is who they are, not some action they do.

Ash_300

6th April 2004, 09:27 PM

uh, you're pretty retarded. I was referring to the whole leap year in terms of "normalcy". i was not saying anything about there being 1.5 billion gays, plus I have no idea where you came up with that stat anyway, lol. i was simply refuting some other kid's point, because he said being gay is not normal, because it doesn't occur a whole lot. So i used the point of a leap year only occuring every other 4 years, but we consider that normal, don't we? i admit, it was a weak analogy, but I don't know how you didn't understand it.

You say that you were refuting the kid's point about homosexual relationships and/or behaviour being abnormal due to it not occurring frequently. When the word normal is used in the context of something not occuring often, the normal that is being referred to is numerical. Your point about people not considering leap years to be abnormal is based on us acknowledging that leap years are there. However, it is a "retarded" example since numerically, leap years do not occur frequently. In short, you attempted to equate two things in different contexts so your rebuttal is quite senseless. You really do not know how to argue a point without using pointless insults.

As for the topic, I think that whether or not kids are taught that kind of thing in the first grade depends on where you live. The social structures of a community will determine whether or not it should be taught at a certain year level. For instance, where I live, I was never taught anything on relationships until year 9. Personally, I think it is a pretty stupid idea to dedicate an entire subject to relationships in general when you could be teaching useful stuff like english, mathematics or science.

pokemaniacbill

6th April 2004, 09:33 PM

Coulda sworn this was just one book in the library... maybe I'm getting the wrong information. Huh.

GirlRepellant

6th April 2004, 09:36 PM

Mewtwo-D2: GirlRepellant, were you not aware that the Holocaust was carried out by majority neo-pagans?

WARNING: MILD SARCASM AHEAD!

Um... I believe that the Holocaust was carried out by this little group, skipped over in the text books, called the Nazi party. You may have heard of their leader, who gets a small role in the footnotes of history -- his name is Hitler. Now, Hitler, as you obviously don't know, since textbooks don't cover this topic, believed that he was cleansing the human race, because that was what God wanted him to do. Oh, I should probably elaborate, since history books skip over these minor details in history in favor of 4 chapters on Incan gods. The Holocaust was a period in history spanning from 1933-1945, starting in Germany when Hitler came into power. (Germany is a country in Europe, a fact which may have been overlooked in favor of Asian, African and Middle Eastern geography... doesn't it just suck not getting to learn about our white heritage?) The goal of the Holocaust was to cleanse the human race through eugenics of the "undesirable" races, such as Jews, Poles, Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc. Now, Hitler believed that he was doing God's work while killing millions of people in some of the most inhumane ways possible. However, he never claimed to be doing Zeus's work, nor did he claim that Mars commanded him to invade Poland. Thus concludes your history lesson from someone who is not a complete idiot. Thank you. Reading assignments include any history text spanning the years 1933-1945 written by a competant author... hell, even by a middle schooler who took US history. Now here's your quiz. It's multiple choice.
1)Hitler was:
a) Pagan
b) Christian
2) Most Nazis were:
a) Pagan
b) Christian
3) Who was right?
a) You.
b) Me.

Answer Key (no cheating now!): b,b,b.

pokemaniacbill

6th April 2004, 09:44 PM

You are wrong. Hitler disliked religion on the premise that it took away from nationalism being first. And even still, there are basic rules of Christianity that I'm told require following, lest you're simply following a dogmatic principle that relies more on the letter of the rules the spirit. I'm not quite sure what the Neo-Paganism is about in her post, but... yeah. Just had to add that in.

Remind me to post the list 'Ten reasons Jesus was a Pagan'. If anyone here can take a joke, it's pretty funny.

GirlRepellant

6th April 2004, 09:49 PM

HITLER QUOTES:

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
"We want honestly to earn the resurrection of our people through our industry, our perseverance, our will. We ask not of the Almighty 'Lord, make us free'!-- we want to be active, to work, to agree together as brothers, to strive in rivalry with one another to bring about the hour when we can come before Him and when we may ask of Him: 'Lord, Thou seest that we have transformed ourselves, the German people is not longer the people of dishonour, of shame, of war within itself, of faintheartedness and little faith: no, Lord, the German people has become strong again in spirit, strong in will, strong in endurance, strong to bear all sacrifices.' 'Lord, we will not let Thee go: bless now our fight for our freedom; the fight we wage for our German people and Fatherland.'"
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited."

And just to sweeten the victory, photographic evidence:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/hitler%26bishop.gif
Hitler wth Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, the papal nuncio in Berlin

Bam.

pokemaniacbill

6th April 2004, 09:51 PM

You are, in fact, one of the most foolish imbeciles I have had the displeasure to meet.

You ignored my post completely. Please stop talking if you're going to ignore what other people are saying.

GirlRepellant

6th April 2004, 09:56 PM

You are, in fact, one of the most foolish imbeciles I have had the displeasure to meet.

You ignored my post completely. Please stop talking if you're going to ignore what other people are saying.

1) You've never met me.
2) I did not ignore your post. You said that Hitler disliked religion. Obviously he didn't.
3) I don't know where you're going with the basic rules of Christianity vs. dogmatism, but Hitler believed he WAS following the rules, and going above and beyond. Kind of a spiritual extra credit.
4) I happen to be a fairly intelligent individual who you'd probably like. You can't base my foolishness or lack-there-of based upon two posts on a message board. If we're going there, I haven't been terribly impressed by your arguments (but I didn't resort to name calling, stupid-face!).

Mewtwo-D2

6th April 2004, 09:58 PM

Since WWII-era history has been my hobby for the past six years, I'd say I have a better understanding of it than you do.

First, Damian, the thing that surprised me about not hardly studying white history was that that particular class was supposed to be focussed on the Americas. Now I realize that the majority of people in the Americas are not white, but to hardly mention white contributions in what was supposed to be a balanced text book? Europeans were shown as earth-raping, blood-thirsty maniacs, while a culture that poured molten gold down people's throats was shown as unfailingly honorable and noble. It wasn't taking into account that non-whites have done some pretty rotten things in their histories as well, only they have less of a tendency to get the whole world involved. As for when I was studying world history, I think the Scientific Revolution deserved as much attention as Aztec religious practices.

Now, GirlRepellant, why did Hitler send Catholics to concentration camps if he was so Christian friendly? (Reference: I Survived Hitler's Ovens by Olga Lengyel) Why did Nazi curriculum teach children that Jesus was a naughty Jewish boy who disobeyed his mother? (Reference: The Story of the Vonn Trapp Family Singers by Maria Vonn Trapp) Hitler started out pretending to be religious to get the majority Lutheran German population on his side. However, he pushed neo-paganism in the ancient German gods, hoping it would cause an upswell in patriotism for Father Germany. Hitler was not a Christian, and neither were Himmler, Goebels, or Mengele. Although I sincerely doubt you know who those people are.

And by the way, if you're above name calling, why call me an idiot? You'll notice I refrained from calling you an artless fly-bitten hugger-mugger or a surly, beef-witted flap-dragon. Why not show the rest of us the same courtesy?

pokemaniacbill

6th April 2004, 10:00 PM

If I were as charismatic as Hitler, I'd use a prevelant political tool like religion to the fullest. He disliked religion as it was BECAUSE IT TOOK AWAY FROM NATIONALISM. You notice how the only time he mentioned it was to further his own goals?

Yes, I have met you. If you're posting a half-assed arguement like this, I'm going to call you an idiot.

And if you've actually read the New Testament, you'd know that those who believe that death, violence, hatred, and all those things will further the goals of God, then you're not a bloody Christian! Hitler was not a Christian. Please cease to exist, you hurt my head.

GirlRepellant

6th April 2004, 10:12 PM

Alright, I'm going to end the Holocaust argument right now, since we're WAY off topic. A few points: while Hitler may have been neo-Pagan (a fact I was not aware of, but if you are as well read in WWII as you claim, I'm sure you know more than me about the subject), most Nazis were Christian. That is a fact you must admit, and that was what I was going for in my original post. Another point, I never called you an idiot, I merely claimed I was not a complete idiot, which was an attempt to referance the supposedly horrible texts you are assigned in your school, not a jab at you.
And I have read the NT. In fact, I've read the whole of the Bible. And many Christians choose to focus on the OT, which happens to promote many forms of "death, violence, hatred", etc. It promotes public stoning of people who use the Lord's name in vain. It promotes slavery of certain peoples, and many other amoral practices. Christianity is not base only on the NT, which is why the OT and NT are a package set.
I apologize if I offended, but I still believe I brought up many valid points, all of which had evidence to back it up, even if it wasn't the same evidence you had for your points. There. Done. Sorry. Bye.

pokemaniacbill

6th April 2004, 10:17 PM

Whereas I believe you cause me a headache. You assume I think more then ten percent of those who claim to be Christian are Christians as intended by the Bible... of course, I think perhaps every last person on the planet (And I go on the top of that list) Is a blithering idiot. While I may refer to myself as double stupid, I was pointing out a source I got my arguement from. I'm tired, sick, and you insulted someone more important to me then my own life. Yeah, I got pissed. Probably, if I didn't think you weren't very used to the world, I would be apologize. But you aren't used to the world as it is, I continue to be an ass no matter what, so I won't. G'bye.

Damian Silverblade

6th April 2004, 10:20 PM

Oh, if you say that the *scientific revolution* and the aztec religion should be given the same importance, then I'd tend to agree. But Newton's discoveries alone doesn't make up the whole revolution, and the general point when studying movement like that in history is to study the causes and effects of important movement, not the specific "incidents" (ie, particular dates and events).

Even if you look in university history classes, you won't be talking about "And Newton discovered the gravity this way, doing this and this..." - you'll be talking about what brought about the scientifical revolution and how it impacted the rest of the world. That's just the way history goes these days - more concerned with causes and effects of events, and the societies underlying those events, than with the events themselves.

Drago

7th April 2004, 07:18 AM

Arguments are fun! I'm waiting for someone to pick up a steel chair. ^_^ People have opinions. When they clash, it turns into a comparison of points in one way or the other. When disagreements stem from the specific points as opposed to the original opinion, it becomes an argument. Then we see Hitler chatting with an Archbishop. :yes:

Anyway, and veering clear of that, I'm for the book. At first, I was a tad torn in my decision, and after reading through other's posts (well, the first two pages. After a while, I got sleepy), I can see valid points in both directions. However, I took a good read through the article, and it all came down to this. The kid took the book out of the library herself. What does this tell you? That she is suddenly filled with questions about homosexuality? No, not really. For me, it just shows that she thinks it's a good read. In fact maybe, just maybe, she won't even notice the fact that it's different from what she's used to reading. Indeed, it shows a new view from the other books, but if she reads it by her own will, then maybe she just doesn't care?
In fact, a very good point was proven in Iveechan's post.
Looking at King & King, it indeed looks like a merry little tale. The princesses Prince Bertie rejects would likely be a laugh, and it all has a bright and cheery premise. It just shows that not everybody has the same views as you do. However, the book Iveechan described sounds like the sort of book that'd negatively affect a kid at that age. Not two men kissing, but a turtle dying. Well, that's how I see it, but I feel there would be a likelihood that a harsh reminder of one's mortality, especially in the form of a turtle, would be a worse experience.

And finally, in that situation, the parents could merely state that they are against her reading the book. She isn't allowed to read it, and that's that. They can explain the rest from there.
However, banning the book entirely is like banning the children's show, Mulligrubs. It starred an inquisitive mouth and eyes who would talk the day away. However, a child was scared by the face. So naturally, the parent managed to ban it for all. Is this fair? That due to some people disagreeing with it, it therefore cannot be shared with the rest of the world? I don't think so, though because I was one of the people who watched and loved Mulligrubs, only to have it taken away, perhaps I see it differently. Nonetheless, I think it's a fair comparison.

Heald

7th April 2004, 09:00 AM

Let's get the facts right.

Hitler was an atheist. He disbanded every organised religion in Germany except the Catholic church as he would have lost the support of many Germans. He allowed the Catholic church to retain control of Catholic schools as long as the Catholic church stayed out of politics.

The Nazis started a nationwide religion called the German Faith Movement, which was based on worshipping the sun. Why would a Christian make such a religion.

Ali

7th April 2004, 01:56 PM

I would add something to the Holocaust argument, except that I don't really know WWII history. Plus some of the wordy posts gave me a headache.

And all I have to say is that I'm going to try to get that book for my cousins, who are three and five years old, for Christmas.

Jay

7th April 2004, 02:00 PM

TRO should split the thread again and take the Holocaust argument out of here.

I personally think that this is a good idea. Children are going to learn about different types of people in the future, so why not learn about them early so they don't have that bad view on homosexuals in the future?

There are enough haters out there as it is.

The Muffin Man

7th April 2004, 02:27 PM

I dunno about other dictionaries, but the one I'VE got says "Gay - Happy*Whatever* SLANG - HOMOSEXUAL"...There CAN be slang for gay meaning unacceptable y'know. Not just gay = homosexual.

Sorovis

7th April 2004, 02:29 PM

The Muffin Man

7th April 2004, 02:32 PM

Well, obviously you know where I stand, being against homosexuality. Once again, homosexuality is wrong and should not encouraged, and once again, I am not a homophobe, so please spare yourselves the time at calling me one.

"I'm not Homophobic. I just think Gays are evil and shouldn't be encouraged ever."

Gee I dunno, chief, sounds pretty homophobic to me...

Homosexuality is natural. You can't ENCOURAGE it. Only accept it.

Sorovis

7th April 2004, 02:35 PM

Wow, Muffin Man, that's the most intelligent thing you've done all day. Keep going and you might be able to go into first grade.

The Muffin Man

7th April 2004, 03:00 PM

Your post would be worth my time if it wasn't absolutely random and only attacking me for pointing out you ARE a homophobe.

Here's a ball. Go entertain yourself.

EDIT - I can't be arsed to spam up the thread any further. So I'll just post this edit to all of your inevitably time-wasting posts that call me an idiot for pointing out you are INDEED a homophobe.

*shoos you off*

Sorovis

7th April 2004, 03:05 PM

I don't know where to begin. Here, how about I call you an idiot. By your logic, you must be an idiot.

Mewtwo-D2

7th April 2004, 03:11 PM

Okay, the whole homophobe thing hits on one of my pet peeves. Disliking and disagreeing with homosexuality is not a fear of it. For myself and for every other person who has to deal with a real phobia, that's plain insulting.

Yes, there are people who are afraid of homosexuals, the kind of people who believe you can 'catch gay', and who panic at the very thought of same-sex couples. Phobias are an unfortunate mental condition that affect a wide swath of the population. They are, for the majority, irrational, but dominating, fears. Personally, I am acrophobic. I'm not just scared of being up on anything higher than a medium-pile carpet, even thinking about it makes me feel afraid. When I actually have to be up high or on a steep slope, it's all I can do not to run screaming in the other direction. I normally take the shaking and whimpering route. That is a phobia. Disagreeing is not. To call dislike of homosexuality a phobia cheapens the trauma that real phobias induce. It would be like a person who has different moods occasionally being called schizophrenic or schizoid.

Phobias are just as natural as you say homosexuality is, and people who have phobias tend to be aware of that fact. Usually, if someone doesn't have a phobia, they are also aware of that fact.

The Muffin Man

7th April 2004, 03:18 PM

Actually homophobia is described as the dislike of gays. Phobia is just tacked on to make it look like they've got some sort of problem, usually...

Sorovis

7th April 2004, 03:23 PM

I'd like to see where you're getting this from. The dictionary online says 'the fear of lesbians and gay men.' Simply put.

Green_Pikachu

7th April 2004, 03:51 PM

Well, obviously you know where I stand, being against homosexuality. Once again, homosexuality is wrong and should not encouraged, and once again, I am not a homophobe, so please spare yourselves the time at calling me one.

look up homophobe, and you'll basically find what you just said.

and homosexuality is not wrong. just so you know. you might THINK it's wrong. that doesn't mean it is wrong. ;(

The Muffin Man

7th April 2004, 03:52 PM

And we all know Dictionary.com is the only source in the world.

Sorovis

7th April 2004, 03:56 PM

We also know that you still haven't given your source.

Pariah, please give a detailed paragraph informing me of why homosexuality is okay.

Heald

7th April 2004, 03:58 PM

"I'm not a homophobe, I just don't like gay people."

:rolleyes:

Green_Pikachu

7th April 2004, 04:13 PM

We also know that you still haven't given your source.

Pariah, please give a detailed paragraph informing me of why homosexuality is okay.

i think the better question is why isn't it ok. I've never known anyone as ignorant as you. How can you call this natural thing wrong? Are you the almighty truth? It's natural, therefore it can't be wrong. So, get used to it, because it's not like you can outlaw homosexuality, lol.

The Muffin Man

7th April 2004, 04:24 PM

We also know that you still haven't given your source.

Pariah, please give a detailed paragraph informing me of why homosexuality is okay.
Dictionary a few feet behind me actually.

And I'm in agreeance with Heald.

Sorovis

7th April 2004, 04:35 PM

Pariah, any explanation I give for homosexuality being wrong will be picked apart and scrutinized by you and others, as I've it tried before. I'm not going through the trouble of putting up my opinion as it will be scoffed at and dismissed as ignorant rubbish. So let's turn the tables, go on and enlighten me.

Muffin Man, if the dictionary is right behind you, why don't you quote it for me? While you're at it, tell me what dictionary it is so I can see for myself.

Green_Pikachu

7th April 2004, 04:56 PM

no, see i hold the opinion of the majority. you are in the minority. so you propose your wrong opinion first.

The Muffin Man

7th April 2004, 05:00 PM

1.I'm a lazy lazy man.
2.I don't need you claiming you have it then claiming "OMG WRONG LOLZ I WIN GAY IS EVIL"
3.See #1

Sorovis

7th April 2004, 05:04 PM

Wow, I expected you to make up a definition and then a nonexistant dictionary, assuming that I had no way of finding out it was fake anyways. You could just admit you don't have the dictionary.

Pariah, I forget. Does it matter that I'm a minority? I thought homosexuals were a minority. So I guess that means it's okay to discriminate against me.

The Muffin Man

7th April 2004, 05:12 PM

What the hell? You're the one calling homosexuality wrong o_O;; I wouldn't talk about discrimination if I were you.

Rambunctious Jamirus

7th April 2004, 05:13 PM

Well, I have the definition of homophobia here:

Homophobia /n/ - irrational fear of, inversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. (Merriam Webster's Dictionary, Copyright 1997)

Well, that pretty much hit the nail on the head. I don't have homophobe but that pretty much sums it up. In a way, you don't like them because what they do is wrong in your opinion. In a way, that's kinda like saying what we think is wrong and you don't like us because we're not on the same track as you.

In my words, I say get over it. You're going to have to live with the fact that homosexuals are out there, just like there's always someone out there that disagrees with you on an issue.

Sorovis

7th April 2004, 05:24 PM

Your definition said irrational, and my disagreement with homosexuality is certainly not irrational. And above all things, I do not fear or discriminate against them.

I've said it many times before, I treat all homosexuals as equals, but I disagree with homosexuality as a practice or preference. I know I will have to live with homosexuality all my life, as it is only a matter of time before it is legalized in the States. However, I am tired of seeing those opposed to homosexuality mocked and insulted with no one to stand for them, and that is why I make my stand here.

The Muffin Man

7th April 2004, 05:26 PM

So it's not because you disagree, but because it's not the norm?

Sorovis

7th April 2004, 05:29 PM

Where exactly did I say that?

The Muffin Man

7th April 2004, 05:30 PM

I've said it many times before, I treat all homosexuals as equals, but I disagree with homosexuality as a practice or preference. I know I will have to live with homosexuality all my life, as it is only a matter of time before it is legalized in the States. However, I am tired of seeing those opposed to homosexuality mocked and insulted with no one to stand for them, and that is why I make my stand here.

Quite loudly states "I stand up for homophobes because no one else will."

Sounds like you're trying to be "cool" with the anarchy crowd ;(

Rambunctious Jamirus

7th April 2004, 05:38 PM

However, I am tired of seeing those opposed to homosexuality mocked and insulted with no one to stand for them, and that is why I make my stand here.

That's kinda what I got as well. From the way it looks and the way I'm interepting it, you say that you're against homosexuality because other people who are against it as well get mocked and insulted. But then again, I could be looking at face value here than into the deeper part of what you mean.

I know we can argue about this but may we slowly re-rail ourselves to the book again. I've voiced my opinion as it's a neat idea to get kids used to the idea so that there isn't as much hating in the world. Though yes, we should teach our kids friendship and stuff like that, that's mostly not what's happening when they reach third grade where I live. It's always "Standardized tests this," and "standardized tests that." Kids are doing schoolwork as homework for school because of this and teachers get in trouble if the students don't pass.

At least she'll know about way before others do.

Sorovis

7th April 2004, 05:56 PM

I did indeed have a further meaning to that. I am here to voice my opinion, one that is commonly looked down upon by people here in particular. Since no person has yet stayed defended my opinion for me, I am here to do it myself.

But yes, back on track.

This seems to me very similar with what I've heard people say, that religion being tought to children at a young age gives them no choice to decide whether it is right, as they are being brainwashed. Here, however, it is homosexuality, which, like religion, some people still oppose. What comes to mind when I think of this topic is a Sesame Street episode planned to be shown in Africa. One where a character is introduced who has HIV. I'm not sure it ever happened, but I think I saw it being discussed here.

When children are tought something at a very young age, they accept it without question. Frequently storybooks are designed for this purpose, to instill in the reader's mind right and wrong on important issues with a definate right or wrong answer. Homosexuality is still a heavily debated issue and should not be introduced to impressionable children.

Rambunctious Jamirus

7th April 2004, 06:22 PM

One of the reasons why I also stated in my first post in this thread that when children start actually learning about 'Healthy Choise/Sex Ed.,' which happened around fourth or fifth grade for me, is when they should teach about it. For a slip is handed out to the children to get it signed by their parents for whether they're child can learn about the topic(s). Without it, the kids don't get to learn about Healthy Choices at all until the next year. In this letter is always what issues will be covered and homosexuality can or will be one of them. Simply, a parent can converse with the teacher about not teaching their child this or write a note.

It all works out but then there's the discussion about how the kids learn about it from their friends because heck, you can't protect your kids completely from the "bad" of the world.

Sorovis

7th April 2004, 06:38 PM

Rambunctious Jamirus

7th April 2004, 06:48 PM

Yes, you cannot completely protect the children who have been chosen not to read it, which is why it should not be done. If the parents wish to explain homosexuality to their children, they can do it themselves.
If it should not be done because parents don't want their children to learn about it, then what do we do about the other topics that are still extremely debatable that parents don't want their children to know about (War in Iraq, terrorists, etc.)? They'll still learn about it in books no matter what, including textbooks.

And heck, we have all this 'OMG, you're plagarizing me!' about that this is such a different idea that nobody will claim it as plagarism.

This actually reminds me of a painting done by someone (sorry!) called 'The Italians' that is in the MOMA exhibit. All it is is a bunch of scribbles in black and red crayon I believe on a huge canvas and looks like it was drawn by a two year-old. The thing that a kid in my class pointed out was that since no one had done the idea before, it was original enough to be in this classical exhibit.

It sometimes pays to be original, no?

Green_Pikachu

7th April 2004, 08:21 PM

I know I will have to live with homosexuality all my life, as it is only a matter of time before it is legalized in the States. However, I am tired of seeing those opposed to homosexuality mocked and insulted with no one to stand for them, and that is why I make my stand here.

1). being gay isn't illegal

2). you're incredibly narrow-minded.

Green_Pikachu

7th April 2004, 08:24 PM

When children are tought something at a very young age, they accept it without question. Frequently storybooks are designed for this purpose, to instill in the reader's mind right and wrong on important issues with a definate right or wrong answer. Homosexuality is still a heavily debated issue and should not be introduced to impressionable children.

first off, its taught, not tought. secondly, if homosexuality shouldn't be TAUGHT because its a heavily debated issue, then really the only thing that can be taught is basic math, and your ABCs. Religion is certainly a debated topic. Science is a debated topic, because we are still ever-changing. And which version of American history do we teach them? The edited version where we make America out to be the hero in every scenario, or the REAL truth?

Pokemaster Matt

7th April 2004, 09:28 PM

I've said it many times before, I treat all homosexuals as equals, but I disagree with homosexuality as a practice or preference

Homosexuality is natural, not a preference. If you're gay, you can't just decide to not be gay, its not just a choice.

Sorovis

7th April 2004, 10:12 PM

First off, you could of done that all in one post. Second of all, at least I'm not so desperate as to correct someone's grammer. If it offends you that much, maybe you shouldn't be debating with me, as it happens often.

The things 'tought' in school are things we agree on. Obviously opinions differ, but we can generally agree on the history about George Washington, or Abraham Lincoln. In case you are so incredibly dim-witted as to miss the fact that religion is NOT 'tought' in public schools, then you will note that currently debated things are not taught as absolute fact. There is certainly a difference between science and opinions on homosexuality, and please tell me you aren't so 'narrow minded' to not see that difference.

Pokemaster Matt, I still have no evidence on how homosexuality is natural. Once again, it is not genetic, and there have been cases where homosexuals have gone 'straight'. And please don't tell me they are just fooling themselves or denying themselves, because I am tired of hearing such nonsense. If you want me to believe homosexuality is natural, then find me some proof. I mean real proof, not the entire board's reassurance that it is natural, because I've said it again and again, I'm not going to accept that.

Until tomorrow, please keep insulting my intelligence, grammer, and please keep posting your collective opinions until I return to continue this endless debate.

Damian Silverblade

7th April 2004, 10:27 PM

The existence of homosexual behaviors among animals would tend to indicate it's a rather natural thing - unless of course one concede that such animals are capable of complex inteligent reasoning that woudl lead them to acting in unnatural ways for reasons we do not at present know.

Also, do you have any proof of it not being genetic?

The Rusted One

8th April 2004, 12:09 AM

Pokemaster Matt, I still have no evidence on how homosexuality is natural. Once again, it is not genetic, and there have been cases where homosexuals have gone 'straight'.

Prove to us that it is not genetic, or stop making such claims. Besides which, if it weren't natural, then why are so many people gay or lesbian or bisexual? Why would someone choose to be that way when society, thanks to people such as yourself, is oh-so ready to denounce love between two men or women as wrong and "sinful"?

Now, I'm sure you've also heard of the "straight" people who have "gone gay" in this world, too? Your argument of gay people going straight is invalid as evidence if you ignore the point I just made.

And please don't tell me they are just fooling themselves or denying themselves, because I am tired of hearing such nonsense. If you want me to believe homosexuality is natural, then find me some proof. I mean real proof, not the entire board's reassurance that it is natural, because I've said it again and again, I'm not going to accept that.

Do you choose to be heterosexual? Or is heterosexuality what you feel is what you are, and therefore is natural for you? I'd say you were someone who never had to "choose" to be heterosexual, given your attitudes; so why should you think a gay person would "choose" to be gay? Could they not just "be" gay, as you are "just" straight? If you think it's "natural" to be straight, you'll have to think it's natural to be gay, too - otherwise, you'll have to say that being sexual in any way is unnatural. Nobody has control of who they fall in love with, who they're attracted to - and really, nobody should be able to tell someone else that they're just making a "bad choice". I note that when you asked me last time about how I was more "right" than you about what homosexuality is really like, and I responded with the fact that I'm bisexual, you didn't reply - surely, if you're so sure of yourself, you wouldn't have let that slip, right?

In response to the main issue, I see the fact that a book about a homosexual relationship between two people being in a library at a school as a good thing; the fact that it's about two people of the same gender doesn't mean it's about two people of the same gender having sex in the least - and if a child makes the logical connection between the two, then they're also going to do it with a book about a man and a woman - so should this also be taken out of the library? No.

I'm glad someone brought up the statistics about redheaded people being less common than gay people - this was something I was certain of, as well - and I've never understood why they, too, are never told that they can't have red hair naturally, and that they must be choosing to be red haired. I personally have never been told that I'm unnatural and that I'm evil, and yet I've got red hair. This is not to say I've never been teased - but on the whole, people have admired my hair colour; and yet, people are very quick to tell a person who is gay that they're evil and a sinner. Why? Neither hurts anyone else; and neither are choices.

Also, just to make a point - a child may be impressionable, but if he or she is not gay, then they will not be "turned" gay - the only thing that can happen for them if they're taught about homosexuality is that it isn't wrong. And you know, the only thing that says it is is the Bible, that oh-so-holy book of "love".

Razola

8th April 2004, 01:33 AM

Animelee

8th April 2004, 01:37 AM

http://fn2.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~martinh/8svriend.htm

I'm a devout Christian, by the way - but even I can admit it's genetic. If we're going to debate homosexuality, then we're going to also have to debate the eating of lobsters or shrimp, or the mixing of different kinds of cloth.

Mewtwo-D2

8th April 2004, 01:52 AM

Actually, the food and clothing laws were revoked in the New Testament. Before God sent Paul to go be a witness to a Gentile, he gave him a vision of all kinds of "unclean" animals and basically told him to eat up. Those laws were put in place at the time because these were people who were wandering the desert. They didn't bathe much, and they prepared food squatting over campfires. It was to protect their health. And I believe the blended fabric was a potential irritant at the time. They didn't have a method for making a smooth poly-cotton blend, any blended fabric would be rough and heavy, not the kind of thing you want to be wandering deserts with.

Actually, all the unclean laws are quite logical when you apply them to people wandering a desert in ancient times. If you can't wash yourself thoroughly afterwards then oral, anal, and menustration cycle sex are very unclean and can lead to a number of infections. They're not even that clean when you can wash yourself thoroughly afterwards. Putting people who had commited sodomy to death prevented the risk that they would pass on bacteria and disease. Pigs, shellfish, scavenger animals, pelicans, and snakes often have bacteria in their meat that only more modern cooking can eliminate. If all you had to cook meat on was a campfire, more likely then not, you'd get food poisoning from those animals. Touching dead people isn't a great idea if you can't wash your hands with soap and hot water afterwards. It spreads bacteria. So when you think of it that way, the laws do make perfect sense.

As for homosexuality being genetic, I think it is in some cases, maybe in most cases, but there has been an upsurge in young people claiming to be bi or gay to shock their parents. Also, there will always be those women who turn lesbian because they hate men, and men who turn gay because they hate women. Those kinds of people bother me severely. Then there are the people who claim to be bi because they think some members of the same sex are attractive, yet would not date and certainly not have sex with them. Those are people who simply need to understand definitions. I know a few girls who decided they were bi because they thought Japanese girls were cute and were attracted to feminine-looking men. Yet I find some girls cute or pretty and I like pretty young men, and somehow managed to escape any crisis in my orientation. Meh...

Bulbasaur4

8th April 2004, 02:27 AM

Well, I think that the book isn't wrongly put in the schools at all. I mean, it says they share a kiss at the end. If kids ask why, they can be explained that two males love each other. Nothing to do with sex. And people can say, "What if the child asks about how this pairing have children?" well it's teh same as if a child were to ask how 'mommy and daddy' have children as well. I agree with whoever said it was better that they learn it early (I think it was L_P) because then it would create a generation that grows less hateful of homosexual relationships.

Besides, I believe that homosexuality isn't a choice. I don't think anyone decides, "Hey, today I'm gonna like the people of the same gender!" It's some thing that they are born with, but under today's society they might not realize it until they are older and exposed to more independence. It's so sad that in today's world, we are so narrow minded to think that homosexuality is wrong. There's nothing wrong with it... love is love. Who are we to define what boundaries love has?

I personally do not think God cares if a man loves another man or not. He loves us all, and we'll all go to heaven as long as we believe in him. He's not going to condemn someone to the depths of hell because they 'loved' some one who was not of the oppisite sex. Of course that's just my opinion. Some people may say that 'The Bible' states that it's morally wrong or whatever. However, it's proven to historical fact that much of the bible was fabricated or altered, so for all we know some guy could have just thrown that in t here. The bible becomes especially vague during the battle of Paganism, (Did you know that a paganist forsaw that the religion Christianity was going to overpower the Paganists, so he joined with Christianity but put a few Paganist symbols in the culture? Such as SUNday. Why is it called Sunday? Well we just think it's a day, but in fact that man put 'sun' in there for the hidden meaning of one of the aspects the Paganists worshiped- the sun! Sorry... off on a tangent.)

Anyway, I just don't see much wrong with it. As time goes on, children of the world are going to be exposed to more things. It's a fact of life. And I believe that if we banned some thing such as a simple book (a freedom of expression and media mind you), it would prove to be 'sexist?' in a way. I mean, we were all hell-bent long ago (not all... but you get my point) during slavery. A lot of people believed that African Americans were second class citizens, adn were racist pigs. Now we've grown out of that... but some how sexuality is different. We're not racist anymore (most), but now we're becoming sexist in teh differences between heteros/bis/homosexuals. It's not their choice, so why should we treat them like second class citizens...

Um, yeah, keep the book.

The Rusted One

8th April 2004, 06:22 PM

Agree with most of what you said, but the red-hair thing is a litle sketchy. While you can see red hair and determine is was natural (technically, you CAN choose to be a redhead, after all) sexuality is not visible, and can be seen as a choose like food preferences.

That's where I think people have a problem with: it's harder to believe that because it's a mental thing.

Which would be a good argument if it were applied to perhaps one or two people - but how many million people are gay or lesbian in this world today, and how many of them are saying that they didn't choose to be gay or lesbian but just are? A food preference is "I like this more than that," but a food aversion is, "I cannot make myself eat that, or I'll vomit"; much like most sexual "preferences". A straight man is going to picture himself engaging in homosexual activities as something he would never do because it wouldn't feel right, and may even make him feel personally ill - and this is just as likely in a gay man thinking of himself engaging in heterosexual activities.

As for homosexuality being genetic, I think it is in some cases, maybe in most cases, but there has been an upsurge in young people claiming to be bi or gay to shock their parents. Also, there will always be those women who turn lesbian because they hate men, and men who turn gay because they hate women. Those kinds of people bother me severely. Then there are the people who claim to be bi because they think some members of the same sex are attractive, yet would not date and certainly not have sex with them. Those are people who simply need to understand definitions. I know a few girls who decided they were bi because they thought Japanese girls were cute and were attracted to feminine-looking men. Yet I find some girls cute or pretty and I like pretty young men, and somehow managed to escape any crisis in my orientation. Meh...

Could you provide evidence for this "upsurgence" of young people claiming to be homosexual just to shock their parents? I mean, I know Raz did it here in order to get attention, but it's more than slightly different. And I'm yet to meet, or hear of, a person who hates one gender and so sleeps with the other on principle, too. I agree that a lot of people aren't clear about "definitions" - but then, if they are only claiming that they're bi because they think someone of the same gender is attractive, but not in a sexual way, then they can't actually be used as examples of bisexuality or homosexuality anyway. If you can see that they're not actually bisexual, and they actually in reality aren't, then they cannot be "lumped" into such a category, and should not be used to represent any of the actual proper members of such a "group".

Sorovis

8th April 2004, 10:03 PM

Well Rusted One, here's your 'proof'. Whether or not you accept it as that is up to you.

http://www.equip.org/free/DH055-1.htm

As for your question as to why there are so many homosexuals in the world when it is openly opposed, there are also a large number of criminals in the world, too. That is generally opposed by the populace, is it not?

As to animals exibiting homosexual behavior, they also eat their babies. To me that does not seem the best thing to do, but you can decide on that.

I would also like to note that the reason I did not reply to you, The Rusted One, in the last debate, is because by the time I came back from my vacation, the thread had already disappeared.

Rambunctious Jamirus

8th April 2004, 10:13 PM

Sometimes the criminals are made by society itself. Quite a few poor people must steal to eat, eat to live. Others are actually insane or have a small mental defect that makes them believe it. Others it is done in hot rage or in a sudden rush of adrenoline (sp?). But yes, some criminals are there for the fun of it, just like smoking once was. And though it is opposed, sometimes there's nothing anyone can do but hope for the best.

And yes, animals eat their children. But, there is a good reason. To live, to decrease the population before the animals starve to death, and other scenarios, depending on the situation and the way of life animals have.

Checkmate

8th April 2004, 10:38 PM

Personally I'd like to back up Sorovis (you're not in this alone anymore) Anti-homosexuality is in the New Testament. Check Romans 1:26

And please, no one say that the phrase "so God gave them over to their lusts" says that God okayed it because the phrase lusts effectively calls it wrong. In fact, that explains how people 'turn' gay as you put it.

Rambunctious Jamirus

8th April 2004, 10:56 PM

For some reason, I most probably would've believed the research report if, I quote:

Today, through the grace and mercy of God

In 1973 he turned back to Jesus Christ

[ex-gays] who have been transformed by the power of Jesus Christ.

had not been in it.

I know this is by the Christian Research Journal but with several people different religions, some atheists, those phrases don't appeal to them.

Now heck, I'm Christian but not that much of a Christian to follow the Bible from cover to cover (like someone in my class, trust me, I've heard his preachings and they are informative, I just have an open mind). I've learned there is other things then just church. There are other religions in the world than Catholism that have different opinions about this.

Another thing that would have made me believe it more is the fact it isn't too recent. Some things have changed since 1992 including policies and further research on the topic.

And then the last thing that knocked me away was that they advertised for people to join their church right at the end of the paper.

Though yes, I'd have to agree with the first part about how the homosexuals changed to heterosexuals. But the thing is, they don't give examples of the other people who changed, the only one they gave was the one who had been abused. If they had given one where there was no abuse or such, then it would've been more valid.

Though, I don't like the example they gave. AA? Heck, that isn't relavent. Alcohol can be addictive, homosexuality is not. That's a big difference right there now.

Mewtwo-D2

8th April 2004, 10:59 PM

TRO, I'm basing the statement on recent cases that have been in the news, such as the one a few months ago where two lesbians were convicted of severe child abuse, male only. One of them had had four sons and one daughter before her husband abandoned her. So, she decided men were scum and hooked up with another another man-hater. Her partner kept the boys in the attic, hardly fed them, and beat them regularly. The girl was treated like a princess. Those are not real lesbians, they are man-haters.

As for the upsurge, it's mostly with girls. Girls kissing and touching each other in schools to tease and tantalize boys is quite common. Homosexuality seems to be the big 'Shock your parents!' thing right now, or maybe it's only on the coasts, in middle class areas. Also, there are 'bi' people who don't care who or what they're sleeping with, as long as it has a pulse. My sister had a friend like that, who strung along his truly gay boyfriend because the boyfriend cooked for him and was always available for sex. It's sad really. And I'll provide articles later, but I'm extremely tired right now.

Sorovis

8th April 2004, 11:08 PM

Rambunctious Jamirus

8th April 2004, 11:29 PM

I can't help whether religous research papers don't sit well with some people on this board.

And about how recent it is, I can understand that. That is why I have found a more recent article that you may find of interest.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28505
Yes, but this is another example of 'an abused childhood.' I understand this, how people can be scared or have no hope in a relationship with the opposite sex to the point where the people turn to the same sex.

Though I would have to say this (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/09/12/national1756EDT0732.DTL) has gone a bit far for the average concern...

But I've been viewing through sites and found a very pro-homosexual site that is quite insulting to Christians and other anti-homosexuality people...I quote from http://www.teenopendiary.com:

"christians" HATE gays, ITS SICKENING!! 9/23/2002
Ok, I’m gonna start this with a disclaimer. READ IT!

I put hate and Christians in quotes for one main reason. These are not real Christians I’m talking about and I do not hate Christians. I do hate the concept and I hate radicals (yes I hate, I’m a human) but I do not hate people for simply believing in the concept. Thank you. If you don’t read this, you add to my support of hard headed… stupid people.

Got some emotions riding there.

Technically I agree with the abuse part, I just don't see how other people who were not abused as a child are cured as you have to find a problem to get the solution.

Sorovis

9th April 2004, 12:14 AM

Finding the problem may not be necessary. Homosexuals becoming heterosexual only happens when the person truly wishes for it to happen. In the case of those who suffered abuse, the cause was easier to find and therefore deal with, as they knew that at one point they had been heterosexual. With those who do not know the cause, the change will be harder to come by because they have no memorable point in their life where they were heterosexual, and so this causes difficulty as they do not have an immediatly palpable goal. The change is still possible in everyone, however difficult it may be.

Checkmate

9th April 2004, 12:19 AM

I would merely like to clear up any possible misconceptions. I speak for myself and probably Mewtod2 and Sorovis. We do not hate homosexuals. We despise homosexuality.

Leon-IH

9th April 2004, 12:23 AM

Mewtwo-D2 I SECOND THAT MOTION!!

Checkmate

9th April 2004, 12:26 AM

I would just like to clear up some possible misconceptions. I speak for myself and probably Sorovis and Mewtod2. I do not hate homosexuals. I despise homosexuality. I do this for reason of it's basically wrong. No use hiding it. I have many reasons to believe the Bible to be correct. Reasons decent enough to step out on the limb I'm currently stepping out on. (btw the I'm speaking for probably the two afforementioned comment only applied to the not hating homosexuals part)

If you want to attack my reasoning, attack the Bible. That's really what 90% of this debate is about. We all know it. There's no use hiding it.

Green_Pikachu

9th April 2004, 12:33 AM

the bible is pointless. it's a piece of literature, and nothing more. and it's not even very good literature. and, it actually never explicitly says God is against homosexuality. it was an adopted translation by anti-gay propagandists.

also...
"I do not hate homosexuals. I despise homosexuality."

explain how despising homosexuality doesn't lead to hating the homosexuals themselves.

The Rusted One

9th April 2004, 12:41 AM

Well Rusted One, here's your 'proof'. Whether or not you accept it as that is up to you.

http://www.equip.org/free/DH055-1.htm

Please - you do realise that that's religious propaganda, right? Basically anything with "CR" in it, for example, "ICR", and "FCR", is going to be anti-homosexuality because it's religious bigotry. If you want me to take your "proof" seriously, make it impartial, unbiased, and unprejudiced against what it's supposed to be presenting information about, okay? Okay.

As for your question as to why there are so many homosexuals in the world when it is openly opposed, there are also a large number of criminals in the world, too. That is generally opposed by the populace, is it not?

Criminal activities are choice, of course - the person has something to gain that otherwise they would not. How is this the same as homosexuality? If it's a choice, then what could a man gain from a gay relationship that he could not from a straight one? Nothing - so why make such a choice, given the hostile way it's viewed, once again, by people like you? Because homosexual people are masochists, and like to have themselves portrayed as sinners and objects to turn one's nose up at? Come to think of it, wouldn't heterosexual relationships be under the same sorts of pressure? I mean, if homosexuality is a choice, is heterosexuality not also a choice? It must be - given that you've never had to choose who to be attracted to, you've never had reason to think, "I could like men and not women (or vice-versa, I'm just guessing at your gender here)", right? I'd say that was about right - so why would anyone else, if they were given equal opportunity as you, think along those lines, and choose to be homosexual? Quite a problem you've got there, really - I mean, to think you're actually just as gay as a gay man, but "decided" not to have any attractions to men.

As to animals exibiting homosexual behavior, they also eat their babies. To me that does not seem the best thing to do, but you can decide on that.

Actually, not all animals do eat their babies, while some do - some exhibit homosexual behaviour, some don't. You can't give me any evidence that there's a correlation between the two - I'm yet to see any evidence that cannibalistic animals are also prone to homosexuality, or vice-versa (i.e., one act does not have any relation to the other, particularly across species, so trying to draw a comparison between a characteristic one species may have with another a totally separate species may have is fallacious). If I were to tell you that some Macaque species exhibit homosexual behaviour, but don't eat their young, you couldn't support your homophobia by stating that some animals do eat their young - because it's a totally unrelated issue. We don't eat our young - but we do exhibit homosexuality. No connection. Invalid argument.

Not only that, however - eating one's young hurts the offspring; it brings about harm and pain to the individual affected. How does homosexuality do the same? I await your grasping at straws as you attempt to argue with this.

I would also like to note that the reason I did not reply to you, The Rusted One, in the last debate, is because by the time I came back from my vacation, the thread had already disappeared.

Which, I note, is rather convenient, given that that thread was still active last week, if my memory serves me correctly. I also note that you should feel free to deal with the point I made there here, and await your doing so.

TRO, I'm basing the statement on recent cases that have been in the news, such as the one a few months ago where two lesbians were convicted of severe child abuse, male only. One of them had had four sons and one daughter before her husband abandoned her. So, she decided men were scum and hooked up with another another man-hater. Her partner kept the boys in the attic, hardly fed them, and beat them regularly. The girl was treated like a princess. Those are not real lesbians, they are man-haters.

I'd say they were also mentally unstable (though still, they may have been lesbians - perhaps they were just femenists, however, you took their anti-patriarchy so far as to actually become what they hate, or worse).

As for the upsurge, it's mostly with girls. Girls kissing and touching each other in schools to tease and tantalize boys is quite common. Homosexuality seems to be the big 'Shock your parents!' thing right now, or maybe it's only on the coasts, in middle class areas. Also, there are 'bi' people who don't care who or what they're sleeping with, as long as it has a pulse. My sister had a friend like that, who strung along his truly gay boyfriend because the boyfriend cooked for him and was always available for sex. It's sad really. And I'll provide articles later, but I'm extremely tired right now.

I'm still not quite confident that the claims of homosexuality-to-shock-the-parents thing is quite right, really. It's true that homosexual contact between women seems to be exciting to many men, but this does not mean that the people involved are actively coming out in order to shock someone. A kiss between two women is not the same as proclaiming that they're lesbian. As for the apparently liberal friend of your sister - he may be bisexual; he may at the same time also be callous and uncaring as to who he hurts. There are such people; whether they are mentally unstable, or just don't care, they still exist - but this does not mean that they're necessarily just in a homosexual relationship for the sake of convenience.

Also, Sorovis - I've read such articles as the one you most recently linked to before, and nothing it says comes as a surprise. What perhaps you haven't thought about while reading that is why, exactly, studies have only concentrated on that single marker, and not a selection of gene markers? You also may not have thought about why the article states that a pair of indentical twins may have only one gay individual, while the other has only a 50% chance of being gay - how does this, exactly, prove that homosexuality is not genetic, especially given that the odds, from what we know, of a person being gay in any population is approximately 0.1, i.e., 10%? 0.1, or 10%, is not the same as 0.5, or 50%. The odds, it seems, are much higher. I'll also bring your attention to such things as differences in brain makeup, that may explain some instances of homosexuality - and perhaps there are genetic markers that cause these brain differences, a "side-effect" of which may be homosexuality? What of the effects of upbringing? Are those choice, too? No. And a final question - how is it logical to state the a gay gene would have been bred out of the population if it was, in most populations, not an accepted part of society (meaning that gay men and women would still have children and pass on their genes)? It isn't. It also isn't entirely logical to state that all people who might possess such a gene might be gay, either - two copies of the same allele may be required for it to be expressed, like red hair - or that all gay people might feel safe enough in their populations to be in homosexual relationships, rather than heterosexual relationships (which they would be in because of societal pressure) - so they might produce children with their genes, too. What if it's a combination of genes? Or perhaps, a combination of genes which cause a natural predisposition to homosexuality, which, when coupled with influences in upbringing, may result in homosexuality? Funny thing is, Sorovis, nothing so far involves choice - so how are they "sinners", or how are they "sinning", if they have no choice in the matter?

I would just like to clear up some possible misconceptions. I speak for myself and probably Sorovis and Mewtod2. I do not hate homosexuals. I despise homosexuality. I do this for reason of it's basically wrong. No use hiding it. I have many reasons to believe the Bible to be correct. Reasons decent enough to step out on the limb I'm currently stepping out on. (btw the I'm speaking for probably the two afforementioned comment only applied to the not hating homosexuals part)

If you want to attack my reasoning, attack the Bible. That's really what 90% of this debate is about. We all know it. There's no use hiding it.

How, exactly, is homosexuality wrong? Is it hurting you? No. Is it hurting anyone? No. Is it something neither person involves wants? No. It's perfectly clear you're stepping out on a limb - you aren't actually thinking for yourself, you're letting a book do it for you. You can't support your statements without saying, "the Bible says so" - indicating you have no actual legs to stand on.

And hating homosexuality but not homosexuals is nothing but homophobia; you can't say, "I hate the Black race but I'm not racist to Black people," because, despite the fact that a Black person is a person in their own right, the fact that they're Black is inseperable from that same person. It's racism, pure and simple - and so is what you're saying.

Sakura12

9th April 2004, 01:09 AM

Green_Pikachu

9th April 2004, 01:21 AM

why the hell do you brainwashed people keep trying to bring religion into this? can't you think of a REAL argument instead of cowering behind religion whenever something doesn't go your way? the bible is literature, and only literature.

Bulbasaur4

9th April 2004, 01:39 AM

Cowering behind religion isn't a good phrase to use.

Of COURSE religion is going to fall into almost every controverisal issue such as this. What do you think the majority of most wars start from? Religion. Same goes with many debates on morally 'right' or 'wrong' issues. There's no avoiding it.

Bah... and what I like to ask, is why do some people care about sexuality? If you think it's morally wrong, then don't be homosexual. ^^;; If you don't think it's wrong, and are homosexual or want to 'turn' homosexual, then go right ahead. It's just like religion... everyone has their own. I don't think it's anyone's business but their own, so allow people to get married to who they want, and etc.. and just butt out of it.
But that's just my opinion. ^^;

Green_Pikachu

9th April 2004, 01:41 AM

you can't turn homosexual. ._.

its biological. and that's that.

RedStarWarrior

9th April 2004, 01:42 AM

I completely agree with your opinion, B4. Religion is an opinion and everybody has one.

Damian Silverblade

9th April 2004, 01:56 AM

Tell me what Sakura12, were animals given free will according to your religion?

If they were not (and thus act exactly as god programed them to), how do you explain the existence of homosexual relationships within natural species? If god had intended heterosexual (male and female) pairings to be the absolute, unavoidable way (as you imply he did), would it not be the impossible for them (since they have no free will) to have homosexual tendencies in the slightest?

Therefore (assuming there is a god), either of the following proposals must be true :

1)The creator (whichever it may be) did NOT give free will to animals. Their homosexuality exists because God allowed it to be, therefore demonstrating that (while we cannot know for a fact wether this vision apply to humans) to god the male/female pairing is NOT the ultimate absolute in creation - they may have been created to go together, but there is nothing automatically wrong about doing things otherwise.

2)The creator (Whichever it may be) gave free will to animals, and therefor the ability to think for themselves and make their own choice, essentialy putting them on an equal footing with humans, perfectly able to sin, have saviors (or should they have no saviors and be condemned to hell with no appeal? After all, all of them are born from sin), go to heaven and so forth. Obviously this disagree with the jewish-inspired christian vision.

Mewtwo-D2

9th April 2004, 02:50 AM

The friend decided he was bi because he couldn't get a girl. He was also quite callous, driving his already emotionally unstable boyfriend into suicidal depression numerous times. Where I live, this girls pretending to be bi is quite common, and with many, it's for shock value. Girls at my old high school would kiss and claim to be bi to get guys interested in them. Some of my friends used me as a prop for the bi act, since I'm a rather large girl, I have no problems letting them sit on my lap and hug me.

As for the hating the sin, not the sinner, it is possible. I don't hate homosexuals for being homosexual. I've known some who were truly delightful people and I've known some I would've liked to lay out on the canvas. It's the same with all people. I feel a certain amount of pity for those born with chemical imbalances that make them feel like a different sex, as it must be terribly hard on them. I despise acting on homosexuality like I despise all sexual sins, like sex before marriage. Sex before marriage concerns me a lot more than homosexuality though. I'm currently mostly neutral on gay marriage, but if it is legalized and the issues I have reservation with don't come up, I don't see how they're different than heterosexual couples who practice "alternative" sex techniques. I find it equally disgusting either way. However, I know that no one will be coming to me for advice about their orientation though, and to tell the truth, I neither care about nor do I want to know about what's going on in anyone's bedroom but my own.

Damian Silverblade

9th April 2004, 03:01 AM

What is the relevance of what kind of sex people practice (or don't), though?

Are not Christians supposed to believe that those who believe in God are saved anyway, and those who don't go to hell anyway?

So at that point what's the relevance of being/not being homosexual in the grand scheme of things? If you believe Jesus was the son of god sacrificed to redeem us, you go to heaven (don't even believing murders do? IIRC I believe I was told quite clearly this was the case in many debates). If you believe he was a random schmoe killed for rebellion against Rome, you go to hell, regardless of sexual orientation et al.

The Rusted One

9th April 2004, 04:55 AM

I think, although the Old Testament is more or less irrevelant because of Jesus' sacrifice, it still applies. I don't think homosexuality is right. God made us as Man and Woman for a reason. He could've made us all asexual beings, but He chose to distinguish between the males and the females, with clear rules that a man should partner up only with a woman. By having homosexual intercourse, we are violating God's rules of life. And I don't think He'll be happy with anyone who disobeys His command.

So you must also believe that women are naturally more evil than man, given that it was them who apparently got us kicked out of "Paradise"; which would, therefore, dilute the "honesty" and "purity" in man, wouldn't it not? Not only that, but my question is, why is homosexuality (which is actually not purely sexual, as perhaps you have either a) forgotten, or b) ignored) a "sin" while discrimination and prejudice...not? All that you say, really, reinforces the image that your "god" is a petty control-freak who doesn't like to be secondguessed, i.e., he is a dictator. If we listen to you, then we're supposed to believe that this being you worship made and makes the rules - so why is it unable to change those rules? Because, if it were real, it wouldn't be all-loving as you claim it is, and really, it would just be another one of those homophobic, possibly racist (depending on your views) bigots that exist around the world today. How "pure" and "good" it sounds.

The friend decided he was bi because he couldn't get a girl. He was also quite callous, driving his already emotionally unstable boyfriend into suicidal depression numerous times. Where I live, this girls pretending to be bi is quite common, and with many, it's for shock value. Girls at my old high school would kiss and claim to be bi to get guys interested in them. Some of my friends used me as a prop for the bi act, since I'm a rather large girl, I have no problems letting them sit on my lap and hug me.

Which, in other words, meant that really, they're just pretending, and then you're turning around and saying, as you do below, that pretending is not quite so bad as actually being what they're pretending to be - and you endorse this act of pretence, making light of what homosexual people have to go through everyday (it was you who originally had the problem with phobia being used to denote hatred of homosexuality and homosexuals, so if you can't see one thing but can the other, then you've got a problem - i.e., bigotry and willful ignorance; and it's nobody's fault but your own. You can, apparently, play the victim in one instance, but you can't see how someone can be ill-effected in the other. Hmmm).

As for the hating the sin, not the sinner, it is possible. I don't hate homosexuals for being homosexual. I've known some who were truly delightful people and I've known some I would've liked to lay out on the canvas. It's the same with all people. I feel a certain amount of pity for those born with chemical imbalances that make them feel like a different sex, as it must be terribly hard on them. I despise acting on homosexuality like I despise all sexual sins, like sex before marriage.

The thing is, you obviously do have a problem - mainly because the only difference between a heterosexual individual and a homosexual one is that one loves members of the opposite sex, and the other doesn't - and that's what the problem is. If you want to profess not to have a problem with a person, and yet you have a problem with what they do, and therefore, in this case, because what they do, i.e., fall in love with members of their own sex, and what they do determines, and is, what they are, then you have a problem with who they are, and they themselves, then you must realise that you are being quite positively hypocritical. You cannot dislike someone's acts but not the person themselves if the act if the person. You can't dislike a "sin" but not the person if they are the "sin", and therefore the "sinner", which you also do not like (which does not say that homosexuality is a "sin"). You also do not tell us why you despise homosexuality - you can't tell us why it's wrong, or a sin, beyond the belief that the Bible says it's wrong, and therefore it must be wrong - which is flawed. If the Bible said that "god" killed everything on the planet apart from two of every species, but was still a good guy, would that make him a good guy as was said? Oh, right, it does say that, and apparently, that does make him a good guy. I guess I just plain forgot about how that must fundamentally make sense, on some hidden and obviously far too convoluted (or simple, I'm not quite sure) level for me to understand.

Sex before marriage concerns me a lot more than homosexuality though. I'm currently mostly neutral on gay marriage, but if it is legalized and the issues I have reservation with don't come up, I don't see how they're different than heterosexual couples who practice "alternative" sex techniques. I find it equally disgusting either way. However, I know that no one will be coming to me for advice about their orientation though, and to tell the truth, I neither care about nor do I want to know about what's going on in anyone's bedroom but my own.

Which is a great line to finish off with - and really, you shouldn't care what goes on in other people's bedrooms...except you obviously do, on some level, and obviously have something to say about it, too. Why else would you be so eager to state that homosexuality is a "sin" (though homosexuality is not limited to homosexual intercourse), and that sex before marriage is concerning to you? I can't see why either should concern anybody in any way unless it involved them, nor why either should be so frowned upon for the same reason, or considered a "sin", to be honest - why should they? They don't hurt anybody uninvolved (or, if they do, not against their will, unless one partner is not being honest, which is just as much a risk in heterosexual sex after marriage anyway), and they don't demoralise or debase any society at all, much the same as interracial interactions and intermarriages do not debase or demoralise any society in any way. It's good that you have no issue with homosexual marriage, but it shouldn't depend on what you think is right or wrong unless you can positively show how homosexual marriage is in any way similar to an act that inflicts harm on some innocent party, as crime does. Religion has no role in this, because religion is not constant nor all-encompassing - and often is quite discriminatory and based on, and encourages, many prejudices anyway (and let's face it - Christianity, really, and I don't mean to offend anyone, is based on the premise that you shouldn't second guess some divine being that nobody has ever seen, but are supposed to believe in anyway [which is an example of the "don't second guess this" in action, anyway]; all Christian beliefs, whatever they say, are based on the principle that they're always for the "best", no matter what, despite what harm they may cause another person, because the Bible, which is supposed to be the word of "god", says so, and you aren't supposed to second guess the word of "god", or "god" itself - and I am yet to see how that is at all justified, or logical. Hitler also had a view that he was right and shouldn't be second guessed; so did Saddam Hussein, and many other people - but did this make them right? Did this mean they should be followed and their words adhered to, because they're fundamentally "good"? No).

Sir Chris

9th April 2004, 05:12 AM

Heh, you guys are simply too much debate for me, way over my head.

Look. about the book. Seriously, parents of the kids are homophobes, its that simple. Not saying this is a good or a bad thing, I am simply stating they are afraid of homosexuality.

What truly pisses me off about christians is that they condemn others rather than be understanding. That is what religion does, it condemns. which is why I will have no part in it.

Sorovis

9th April 2004, 11:19 AM

The Pariah, if you have no proof of your point, please do not waste my time. Have you ignored all of my previous posts? You do know the only way to sway my opinion is to give me evidence, and still you give me none. If you are going to waste space on this thread, please step aside for all those with valid arguments with evidence behind them.

The Rusted One, So if my proof is biased, how can yours not be also? With this in mind, I can simply respond the same way to anything you say. You also ask why a person woulld choose to be homosexual if it is looked down upon. It is like I've said before. This decision generally happens early in life when the person is too small to logically think out there decision. The reason two twins are more likely to be homosexual if one of them is is because twins generally respond to situations in similar matters. If one of them has an experience that causes them to become homosexual, the other may come by the same experience and respond in the same. Or the other may subconsciously note changes in their brother or sister and change as well.

also, my point with bringing up that animals eat their babies is that the human race should not follow the example of animals, as we are above that.

If homosexuality was genetic, then it would run in families, much like hemophelia or another rare disease. It does not pass from generation to generation.

Checkmate

9th April 2004, 11:44 AM

First I'd like to explain to The Pariah that I'm not 'cowering' behind my religion. I'm against homosexuality because of my Christianity.

Someone asked why it's wrong if both people consent? Why is pre-marital sex wrong? Why is adultery wrong? They both involve mutual consent.

Now, God the dictator as you put it. Allow me to quote him "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation. Tell me if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions. Surely you know. Who stretched a measuring line across it?"

God made the universe. He knows how it works. You didn't. You don't. God made rules to help you out. When you obey those rules, good things tend to happen.

The example I use, is the twelve-year-old boy who sees a little porn. Gradually he gets more and more into it. God has ordered to us to even think about things that are 'true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent, and praiseworthy'

Thirty years down the line when that guy is divorced from his (probably hot) wife and loses his job for viewing porn at work, he realizes it would have worked out better had he obeyed God's laws.

When homosexuals started contracting HIV some might have realized it would have worked out better had they obeyed God's laws.

I'm not done yet.

The reason I care about this is that the rule of good things happening to people obedient to God also applies to nations. Things are starting to go down-hill for the once glorious US of A. (yes I know you're not all American, but America is where this point is really going back and forth) Our education is going downhill and drugs are running rampid.

Also, one person said the Bible was a piece of literature. I'm still waiting for someone to prove this statement. Find a flaw that can be proven flawed.

I knew I forgot something. Sir Chris, I already stated in my previous posts that we're not condemning or hating anyone. We are condemning and hating homosexuality not those who practice it.

We're all sinners. We are merely calling homosexuality what it is. A sin.

GirlRepellant

9th April 2004, 12:19 PM

To all you Bible promoters here:

Yes, the Bible says that "homosexuality is an abomination" (Lev. 18:22) Seems pretty straightforward, huh? But the Bible says the same thing about divorce.

If we are to take all of the OT to heart, must we not also sacrifice bulls to God? (Lev. 1:9) Shouldn't we be avoiding all women who are "in their period of uncleanliness"? (Lev. 15:19-24) Why don't we execute all who work on Sundays? (Ex. 35:2) Or those who have their hair trimmed around the temples? (Lev. 19:27)

I know I'm going to get a response that says "we can't take everything in the Bible literally, 'cause that was a whole different time." Then why does this not apply to the rules about homosexuality?

Damian Silverblade

9th April 2004, 12:24 PM

The United States were formed by a group of deists (not catholic or protestsants) philosophers who recognized the existence of a creator deity, but not his intervention in modern matters. So as for "going downhill since we stopped believing", I've seen better arguments.

And frankly, nations comes and go regardless of wether or not they believe. Believing did not save Rome from its decline ; not believing did not keep China from surging back up and heading straight for the world power status (Japan did it too). Europe was Christian and it went through a thousand year of the medieval era while the Arab empire, Chinesse empire and even parts of Africa (and Meso-America) outclassed them.

Please come up with better arguments. That one was an insult to intelligence.

Checkmate

9th April 2004, 12:50 PM

Ok, while I compliment the intelligence of your counter Damian, I did not say that a countries rise and fall is completely based on obedience to God. In the Old Testament Israel was hammered by many ungodly countries such as Babylon and Egypt. These countries were (to my understanding) mostly there as God's punishment on the Israelites for being ungodly.

As for the US not being founded by Christians, I'd like a bit of proof. Before you ask me for some that they were Christians I need to talk to a friend with a book on the matter so be patient.

Also, as far as the old testament comment. a) the ot talks about 'certificates of divorce' (though God doesn't like to resort to that) b) As I've already stated anti-homosexuality is also in the new testament (check Romans 1:26)

Most of the OT has been abolished due to Christ's death on the cross and a few other factors. Christ died on the cross so we no longer need a blood sacrifice for sins, we already have one. Christ.

Most of the uncleanliness rules, Mewto-d2 suggested were for people wandering in the deserts (btw thanks Mewtwo-d2 for that very insightful post a while back)

btw Girl Repellant I'm insulted that you would think I'd respond with such a ridiculous and destructable counter as "we can't take all the Bible literally"

Damian Silverblade

9th April 2004, 01:15 PM

Paul is a debatable source to begin with.

Evidence suggests he was a contested figure even within the primitive christian church. (I believe it's in acts, not sure though).

Evidence also suggests he lied (he claimed to be both a roman citizen and a jew. Roman citizenship at that point requested that you show yourself as a believer (and maintain that show) of the roman gods. Not something that goes well with being a jew).

Finally, even barring that, his words - a human's word - were chosen for inclusion in the bible by *men* - the early church in council. They in no way represent what Jesus' thought, but rather what Paul thought of how the new religion should run. The gospels were also chosen by the early church, of course, but at least there they claim to represent what the religion's founder thought, not what some other person thought about running the religion.

In conclusion : I find the letters to NOT be something much worth consideration, as most of the problems I observe these days with the christian faith (homophobia, sexism, etc) seems to stems directly from these "ancient customs" Paul slapped in (ie, "Women should be silent, obey their husband ; homosexuality is an abomination ; etc"). They were the thougths of a man of the first century on how a first century religion should handle itself, and I see nothing in them that makes me believe they were inspired by any deity.

---

And what you're basically saying on the nations is "Well, nations may rise and fall regardless of religions. But if it ever happens that a poorly-believing nation fall, then it's possibly the work of god!"

That's a bit weak as an argument, really.

And tell me, if God is so harsly set against homosexuality...

Why the hell is the basis of everything in the vaulted, extremely succesful western civilization ancient *GREECE* of all places?

Rambunctious Jamirus

9th April 2004, 01:23 PM

The example I use, is the twelve-year-old boy who sees a little porn. Gradually he gets more and more into it. God has ordered to us to even think about things that are 'true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent, and praiseworthy'

Thirty years down the line when that guy is divorced from his (probably hot) wife and loses his job for viewing porn at work, he realizes it would have worked out better had he obeyed God's laws.

When homosexuals started contracting HIV some might have realized it would have worked out better had they obeyed God's laws.

That ain't because of God's will in mine eyes. That's karma, a different religious term not from Christianity. And if we all were to think things that are 'true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent, and praiseworthy,' then we wouldn't be human. We'd be a drone, completely devoid of emotion and sitting there, doing whatever someone told us to.

In the Old Testament Israel was hammered by many ungodly countries such as Babylon and Egypt.

Ungodly? Egyptian is one of the most fascinating (IMO) religions I can think of. They had a balanced system and though they believe in inter-breeding, had a wide mathmatical system that was on par with ours as it is now. The pyramids anyone? I know of Babylon's Hanging Gardens (I think that's right, I'm no history freak) which were an astounding feat for a culture.

I also noticed something else by the sites Sorovis has provided for us to enjoy and ponder about. All of the cases in which the people were turned from homosexuality to heterosexuality were Christians. For this proof to be completely valid that homosexuals can turn heterosexual, we'd need examples of different religions (ex. Hindu, Athiest, Buddhist, etc.). This would also include the fact that the people didn't convert to Christianity at all during the time they were "cured."

The Muffin Man

9th April 2004, 02:02 PM

First I'd like to explain to The Pariah that I'm not 'cowering' behind my religion. I'm against homosexuality because of my Christianity.
So you're not cowering behind your religion, you're hiding behind Christianity?

Someone asked why it's wrong if both people consent? Why is pre-marital sex wrong? Why is adultery wrong? They both involve mutual consent.

Now, God the dictator as you put it. Allow me to quote him "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation. Tell me if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions. Surely you know. Who stretched a measuring line across it?"

God made the universe. He knows how it works. You didn't. You don't. God made rules to help you out. When you obey those rules, good things tend to happen.
Yes, God made the universe apparently. God also made gays. God also made evil. God created everything he dictates is a sin. That's not very fair.

The example I use, is the twelve-year-old boy who sees a little porn. Gradually he gets more and more into it. God has ordered to us to even think about things that are 'true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent, and praiseworthy'

Thirty years down the line when that guy is divorced from his (probably hot) wife and loses his job for viewing porn at work, he realizes it would have worked out better had he obeyed God's laws.
Ok the "probably hot" part only conveys that by being a good little Christian, a hot woman will marry him. The rest of it assumes that by looking at porn once, the man is now obsessed with porn. That's idiotic.

When homosexuals started contracting HIV some might have realized it would have worked out better had they obeyed God's laws.

Actually, chances are good the first person to have AIDs was heterosexual.

I'm not done yet.

Ah crap...

The reason I care about this is that the rule of good things happening to people obedient to God also applies to nations. Things are starting to go down-hill for the once glorious US of A. (yes I know you're not all American, but America is where this point is really going back and forth) Our education is going downhill and drugs are running rampid.

Also, one person said the Bible was a piece of literature. I'm still waiting for someone to prove this statement. Find a flaw that can be proven flawed.
Looks like Dictionary.com proves the bible is literature. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=literature)

I knew I forgot something. Sir Chris, I already stated in my previous posts that we're not condemning or hating anyone. We are condemning and hating homosexuality not those who practice it.

"I don't hate gays. I hate gayNESS". Seems like a backdoor to get your way and please everyone.

We're all sinners. We are merely calling homosexuality what it is. A sin.
Your post did nothing but waste my time. Please try and give some factual evidence rather than hide behind vague religious examples that have nothing to do with homosexuality.

Sorovis

9th April 2004, 03:04 PM

The Muffin Man, this is in Checkmate's defence and mine as well. First of all, I don't exactly understand how we could be hiding behind Christianity. Does that mean that everybody else here is hiding behind their own set of morals as well? We are defending Christianity, not hiding behind it.

What I don't find very fair is how he allowed the first humans on this earth an eternal life without evil and they instead chose to disobey him, choosing free will instead. From there on, it is not God that forced evil on us, it is us who chose it.

Picking at small things such as how Checkmate said "probably hot" shows that you are desperately grasping at straws. I also have already stated how you can hate homosexuality and not homosexuals themselves, so please listen next time. You have been 'hiding' behind that for this entire debate.

Maybe you need to give some examples. As of now you still haven't proven that I am homophobic despite the time given, in fact, you still haven't proven anything at all. And please stop complaining about how we are 'wasting' your time. You can leave whenever you want to, and posting here is of your own free will.

Rambunctious, you've noted how all homosexuals turned to hetersexuals were Christian. Maybe that just shows the power of Christianity. I don't understand why I would need examples from all religions in order for this to be true.

Green_Pikachu

9th April 2004, 03:07 PM

First I'd like to explain to The Pariah that I'm not 'cowering' behind my religion. I'm against homosexuality because of my Christianity.

lol, i find this funny.

Someone asked why it's wrong if both people consent? Why is pre-marital sex wrong? Why is adultery wrong? They both involve mutual consent.

pre-marital sex isn't wrong. adultery is, because the two consenting people are already in another consenting relationship.

Now, God the dictator as you put it. Allow me to quote him "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation. Tell me if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions. Surely you know. Who stretched a measuring line across it?"

eh, what?

God made the universe. He knows how it works. You didn't. You don't. God made rules to help you out. When you obey those rules, good things tend to happen.

God didn't make the universe. You can obey all of God's commandments, and still get murdered walking down the street. You're just as much of a risk for that happening as i am.

The example I use, is the twelve-year-old boy who sees a little porn. Gradually he gets more and more into it. God has ordered to us to even think about things that are 'true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent, and praiseworthy'

what? who ever mentioned anything about porn? this is a topic about homosexuality, and surely two men holding hands is not porn.

Thirty years down the line when that guy is divorced from his (probably hot) wife and loses his job for viewing porn at work, he realizes it would have worked out better had he obeyed God's laws.

lol

When homosexuals started contracting HIV some might have realized it would have worked out better had they obeyed God's laws.

or...considering America created HIV in a laboratory and sent it to Haiti, your argument makes no sense. you're just brainwashed. and i figured someone would eventually be retarded enough to bring up HIV.

I'm not done yet.

have you even started yet?

The reason I care about this is that the rule of good things happening to people obedient to God also applies to nations. Things are starting to go down-hill for the once glorious US of A. (yes I know you're not all American, but America is where this point is really going back and forth) Our education is going downhill and drugs are running rampid.

there is no rule that says good things will happen to those obedient to God. And we're only going downhill because Bush forgot we have a separation between church and state. And drugs have been running rampant for a while. They used to be pretty acceptable, we're actually getting more prudish as we evolve as a nation.

Also, one person said the Bible was a piece of literature. I'm still waiting for someone to prove this statement. Find a flaw that can be proven flawed.

it's a book with words. therefore, it's literature.

I knew I forgot something. Sir Chris, I already stated in my previous posts that we're not condemning or hating anyone. We are condemning and hating homosexuality not those who practice it.

so, you're telling me you don't look at them any differently, knowing that they DO EACH OTHER IN THE BUTT OH NO!?

and no, homosexuality is not a sin.

Checkmate

9th April 2004, 03:23 PM

By ungodly I meant non-Christian. That is not to say I think they had Gods. They didn't. They thought they did, but the one and only God wasn't on their side.

Also the "true, noble, right..." thing is biblical. Check Phillipians 4:8 to see every one of those attributes for thought.

First, the Bible is devinely inspired. Flawless. Right. True. The fact that none of you Bible-haters have presented one biblical flaw testifies to my point. I could prove it a bit further if anyone's interested. If you want to discredit the Bible then give me a blatant flaw in it. Please! If you can't figure out what's wrong with it, then I beg you to cease your ignorant slams on it. The fact that the hands of men wrote it doesn't necessarily make it flawed.

As far as women go, the verse doesn't exactly make them into slaves. Most women in a church auditorium don't say a whole lot anyway. It says that women shall not teach men somewhere in the epistles. That doesn't stop them from teaching other women and children.

Now I have something to say to the Muffin Man. (btw thank you Sorovis for saving me the time in writing a whole lot of other counters) Here is my response to your claim that I'm trying to please people by saying I don't hate homosexuals. If I was trying to please everyone I wouldn't be on this forum.

P.S. I think this will be my last post for about 2 weeks. I'm going on hiatus.

Green_Pikachu

9th April 2004, 03:28 PM

By ungodly I meant non-Christian. That is not to say I think they had Gods. They didn't. They thought they did, but the one and only God wasn't on their side.

many people have different gods. just because it isn't yours doesn't mean you have any right to call them ungodly.

Also the "true, noble, right..." thing is biblical. Check Phillipians 4:8 to see every one of those attributes for thought.

ok?

First, the Bible is devinely inspired. Flawless. Right. True. The fact that none of you Bible-haters have presented one biblical flaw testifies to my point. I could prove it a bit further if anyone's interested. If you want to discredit the Bible then give me a blatant flaw in it. Please! If you can't figure out what's wrong with it, then I beg you to cease your ignorant slams on it. The fact that the hands of men wrote it doesn't necessarily make it flawed.

no, it isn't divinely inspired. we're all descendants of incest, if the bible is true. Im sure Adam and Eve also had to have sex with the children too, to get a larger society up and going. plus, it's just filled with crap for the most part.

Now I have something to say to the Muffin Man. (btw thank you Sorovis for saving me the time in writing a whole lot of other counters) Here is my response to your claim that I'm trying to please people by saying I don't hate homosexuals. If I was trying to please everyone I wouldn't be on this forum.

Muffin Man is right, you're wrong.

Boy_of_Enders

9th April 2004, 03:40 PM

If you want to discredit the Bible then give me a blatant flaw in it.

Leviticus 11:20-23?(i dunno how to right these things)
"All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be destestable to you. 21 there are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket, or grasshoper. 23 but all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.

So it says these bugs walk on four legs. In leviticus 11:13-19 it names the bat as a bird.

The Muffin Man

9th April 2004, 04:57 PM

By ungodly I meant non-Christian. That is not to say I think they had Gods. They didn't. They thought they did, but the one and only God wasn't on their side.
..."They didn't have Gods. They THOUGHT they did." And yet, I'll be flamed if I say the following(but I'm a big boy):
YOU don't have a God, Checkmate. You only think you do. But it's not real.

Also the "true, noble, right..." thing is biblical. Check Phillipians 4:8 to see every one of those attributes for thought.

Using religious text to defend your point doesn't work on Athiests.

First, the Bible is devinely inspired. Flawless. Right. True. The fact that none of you Bible-haters have presented one biblical flaw testifies to my point. I could prove it a bit further if anyone's interested. If you want to discredit the Bible then give me a blatant flaw in it. Please!

God created everything. Yet homosexuality is natural. The Bible claims that Adam and Eve were the first beings. Yet there's evidence of dinosaurs far longer than humans. The bible was written by a bunch of old christian white men. Ever wonder why women, non-christians, non-whites, and homosexuals are so evil/looked down upon?

If you can't figure out what's wrong with it, then I beg you to cease your ignorant slams on it. The fact that the hands of men wrote it doesn't necessarily make it flawed.

Then I hereby proclaim my post flawless. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it flawed. It makes you wrong. And I'll refute all posts signifying otherwise.

As far as women go, the verse doesn't exactly make them into slaves. Most women in a church auditorium don't say a whole lot anyway. It says that women shall not teach men somewhere in the epistles. That doesn't stop them from teaching other women and children.
So it's fine for a woman to teach, as long as it's not another man? Gee, sounds like men have superiority to me...

Now I have something to say to the Muffin Man. (btw thank you Sorovis for saving me the time in writing a whole lot of other counters) Here is my response to your claim that I'm trying to please people by saying I don't hate homosexuals. If I was trying to please everyone I wouldn't be on this forum.

P.S. I think this will be my last post for about 2 weeks. I'm going on hiatus.

Run out of Bible quotes?

Sorovis

9th April 2004, 05:34 PM

Now that Checkmate is not to be here for some time, I will take up to responding to his posts.
Ender Boy, that is some nice information you have found, but I have something as well,

http://www.stilez.freeserve.co.uk/apol/grass.html

The Muffin Man, there is more historical and scientific evidence supporting the Christian God than any other god in any other religion. If you would like information on this, I would be glad to show you to about a dozen sites. But since you may be offended by it's Christian support and writers, I'll wait for you to ask.

And using atheist writings to prove your points will not work on Christians. Touche.

About Adam and Eve being the first creatures, you should really read the Bible before you make such claims, as this one is clearly flawed. first He created the beasts of the sea, then the land, and then the air. Then He created Man in his own image.

The Bible never declares male superiority over females. In fact, when God cursed Adam and Eve for disobeying him in Genesis, one for men was that they would lust for their wives, and that they would be controlled by their lusts. The Bible is not sexist, but it says men and women have different strengths and weaknesses and therefore natural roles (although it never limits them). It also states the equality of every man in many verses.

By your theory that mistakes are commonly made when writing history, then we can know absolutely nothing about our pasts before the 1900's. Also Jesus's life and miracles have been recorded by more sources than the Bible, as have the Israelites in Egypt, etc.. So unless they are all lying you have no basis.

Finally, I don't know why Checkmate is left, but I can find plenty of Bible verses for you since you are so fond of them.

The Pariah, When Adam and Eve's children were alive, there is no record of how they reproduced. Since Adam and Eve would not have reproduced the conventional way had they not sinned, the incest to live further may have been another sin they commited after being banished from the Garden.

Rambunctious Jamirus

9th April 2004, 05:56 PM

Rambunctious, you've noted how all homosexuals turned to hetersexuals were Christian. Maybe that just shows the power of Christianity. I don't understand why I would need examples from all religions in order for this to be true.

It's called experimenting. You need a constant, in this case a regular homosexual which happens to be Christian. Also, you need the 'lab rats,' homosexuals who are not Christian to prove the point that this homosexuality can be "cured" by other means then the Bible. This is science in a way, an experiment. You need other examples of non-Christians turning heterosexual before you can make a valid answer that all homosexuality can be cured. This is basic seventh grade science rules.

The power of Christianity is no greater than the power of a Buddhist monk.

What I don't find very fair is how he allowed the first humans on this earth an eternal life without evil and they instead chose to disobey him, choosing free will instead. From there on, it is not God that forced evil on us, it is us who chose it.

It's because we're human. Why do dogs run away? Why do squirrels stop in the middle of the road in the path of a speeding car? Why do deer cross highways? It's because we have free will that makes us want to do something against the rules. Like a kid throwing rocks at cars when he was told he wasn't supposed to. They learned their lesson like the kid did (as he probably got yelled at and grounded from TV for six months). We're human, we can't always do the right thing. That's what makes us unique.

By ungodly I meant non-Christian. That is not to say I think they had Gods. They didn't. They thought they did, but the one and only God wasn't on their side.

You became very hypocritical there. You said it wasn't meant to mean that they didn't have Gods and then you said that they didn't. And the last sentence will just kind of anger a few Non-Christians because of the implied and very loudly stated 'their God wasn't the right one to follow.'

I don't hate the Bible. I don't agree with some of the passages in it like the women thing.

Also, why is it that women are superior (by this I mean teachers [since most teachers are female in my statistics] and mothers) when we are young but then men are in control when we grow up? You'd think the logical reasoning would be that women would be in control the entire time...just a thought to ponder there...not to mean anything really but to go with the women verse.

Also the "true, noble, right..." thing is biblical. Check Phillipians 4:8 to see every one of those attributes for thought.

That doesn't mean that all humans can think like that all the time and go to confession every single time they think something not of that group.

Oh, and just to end this now...when Spanish explorers first landed in South/Central America, they thought that the Native Americans' Gods were fake and forced them to believe in God. If they didn't, they were killed/enslaved/imprisoned. If they did, they were killed/enslaved/imprisoned. The greed of man was in them yet they said they did it in the name of the Lord and that since the Natives did not believe in the Lord, then they had to change their ways, forget their past lives of "sinning," and believe in God because if they didn't, they would be put to death in a very disturbing way.

I'm not comparing this to that, it's just by the way the conversation is going, it seems like we must believe in God or be killed suddenly and violently.

And if God was the only God, then why are there so many polytheistic cultures out there? Surely this couldn't be a gigantic leap from monotheism to polytheism in two thousand years time.

Sorovis

9th April 2004, 06:09 PM

Ha! You think you can end this now? There is no use to create an experiment to see if every religion can change homosexuals. The fact that many have already changed should show it is possible.

Just because someone says they do things in the name of God does not make them right or it true. Was it not you yourself who said it is in human nature to sin? Then why does it not make since to you that the conquistadors of Spain would lie to the natives? What about atheists who have killed someone? Does that mean that all atheists are wrong or murderers?

Thank you for wasting your time to type in that last comment on how Christian power is no greater than a Buddhist's powers. Naturally this is just your opinion and I will dismiss it as easily as you dismiss mine.

Damian Silverblade

9th April 2004, 06:30 PM

About Adam and Eve being the first creatures, you should really read the Bible before you make such claims, as this one is clearly flawed. first He created the beasts of the sea, then the land, and then the air. Then He created Man in his own image.

True - that's what Genesis 1:24-26 says.

However Genesis 2 pretty clearly imply that man came first and the animals second.

"By your theory that mistakes are commonly made when writing history, then we can know absolutely nothing about our pasts before the 1900's. Also Jesus's life and miracles have been recorded by more sources than the Bible, as have the Israelites in Egypt, etc.. So unless they are all lying you have no basis."

This is so full of bullshit I don'T even know where to begin.

FIRST : Jesus' *life* has been recorded elsewhere. His miracles, outside the records written down by early christians (ie, the gospels and apocryphal gospels) have not to my knowledge been recorded.

Same thing with the whole Egypt thing. Yes, there are records of the Israeli being there (IIRC), just as there are records of King David. However, I'll point out that the Egyptians (who were excellent at keeping records) have none about such a little thing as the pharaoh and his army being drowned.

Regarding history, you know nothign of what you are talkign about. The bible is NOT a book of history - it is a recording of the oral tradition of the Israeli people, in the same way that the Nihonshoki (I believe that's the title anyway) is in Japan. It was the work of a single scribe (or a few) writing down all that had been passed down from generation to generation for centuries through the Israeli folk.

This is NOT an accurate way to write history. Oral tradition has a way to grow with the passing of years, and CANNOT be taken at face value. Urban legends of today work out exactly the same - a little fact get twisted out of proportion (either by mistake or by someone trying to make the story more interesting, more moralistic or whatever) and eventually grow in an urban myth (such as the alligator-populated sewers). That's not even considering the possibility of nationalism (or tribalism way back when) twisting the events further.

Actual history, however, is not written that way. True history is written by comparing all available sources (archaeological, geological, written sources, folktales) and trying to work out the exact events. Can we know for a fact with 100% accuracy? For many events, no. But can we put together a picture of far more value - and far more accuracy - than any single ancient source based on folktales and hear-say?

Yes, because we simply have access to far more sources of information than the people back when the bible was written did.

Which would you think the most accurate account of the Battle of Midway? A text written from the tales of the grandchildren of japanesse sailors on what their grandparents did, or a text written based on all the official documentation to be found in the US and in Japan, on the eyewitness accounts of the events AND on what submarine exploration can tell us of the wreck of the ships sunk there?

Obviously the second source will be far more accurate.

This is essentialy what you are comparing here with the bible vs history : the account of events according to the descendants of members of ONE tribe which may have been involved (so they claim) in the events (the Bible), or the account of events based on everything archaeology can tell us about the cities involved ; based on all available documentation of Israeli, Roman, Greek, Persian, Egyptians and Assyrians (etc) sources and so forth (and broaded that to include Chinesse and Indians sources and so forth whenver applicable).

Rambunctious Jamirus

9th April 2004, 06:36 PM

Ha! You think you can end this now? There is no use to create an experiment to see if every religion can change homosexuals. The fact that many have already changed should show it is possible.

I meant ending the post. And yes, there is. If Christians turn heterosexual just because the Bible says it's wrong, then there's something weird about that. But if a Buddhist homosexual were to turn heterosexual after conseling with a non-Christian, then there's scientific evidence in that a person just doesn't have to be Chirtsian to turn as what it seems like you are saying.

Just because someone says they do things in the name of God does not make them right or it true. Was it not you yourself who said it is in human nature to sin? Then why does it not make since to you that the conquistadors of Spain would lie to the natives? What about atheists who have killed someone? Does that mean that all atheists are wrong or murderers?

Then why do we use God as a weapon? 'You aren't right so you will burn in hell because God commands it,' would be a nice quote to dissect. They aren't right because of what they said, but they are wrong to use God as a weapon. I'm merely pointing out that the Spanish conquistadors used God as a weapon against the natives, which isn't what God intended them to do. And everyone kills, you can't say that just because an atheist kills makes them all killers. Christians kill, Buddhists kill, Lutherans kill. For one reason or another. But when God is used as a weapon, that's what makes the wrong. Yes, killing is wrong as said in the Commandments but using God as a weapon to kill is also wrong.

Thank you for wasting your time to type in that last comment on how Christian power is no greater than a Buddhist's powers. Naturally this is just your opinion and I will dismiss it as easily as you dismiss mine.

In a way, it is not an opinion. A Christian's power on what is right in the world is no greater than a Buddhist's power on what is right in the world. Cultures contrast and contradict. You can't compare one religion to another and prove that it is better because of the differences that exist in each. Some people find that polytheistic cultures are better suited for their lifestyle than monotheistic cultures. And vice-versa. So, in that way is a Christian's power no greater than say a Hindu's power, or an Aztec's power. From majority, sure why not? But not in the deeper depths of the religions where the contrasts start and the rituals begin. You may like beef and eat cows while Hindu's believe it is against the sacred law and rule to harm a cow. They may like to believe in reincarnation while you believe that we go to a heaven-like paradise or hell.

The Muffin Man

9th April 2004, 07:03 PM

Ha! You think you can end this now? There is no use to create an experiment to see if every religion can change homosexuals. The fact that many have already changed should show it is possible.
Yet all the "cured" Homosexuals are Christian. That does not prove anything.

Just because someone says they do things in the name of God does not make them right or it true. Was it not you yourself who said it is in human nature to sin? Then why does it not make since to you that the conquistadors of Spain would lie to the natives? What about atheists who have killed someone? Does that mean that all atheists are wrong or murderers?
This entire paragraph made no sense. Why would he/she assume all athiests are murderers because one killed someone?

Thank you for wasting your time to type in that last comment on how Christian power is no greater than a Buddhist's powers. Naturally this is just your opinion and I will dismiss it as easily as you dismiss mine.
...It's also true.

Sorovis

9th April 2004, 07:03 PM

The fact that homosexuals have changed shows it is not impossible. If you wish to find if it is only Christians that this happens to, feel free to, but it does not concern me as of now. There is nothing weird about a person changing their sinful ways because the Bible they follow tells them to. It simply shows a strong level of devotion; a strong level that shows the person is strong.

I agree with you that God should not be used as a weapon, and I also agree that everybody kills. When I used the example of the atheist murderer, I was conveying that just one person or groups actions do not define all of them. I know quite a few atheists that are very nice and respectable.

The Muffin Man

9th April 2004, 07:07 PM

The fact that homosexuals have changed shows it is not impossible. If you wish to find if it is only Christians that this happens to, feel free to, but it does not concern me as of now.
It WAS only Christians. Gah, why aren't you even listening?? It only proves they fear some imaginary place more than they value who they are!

There is nothing weird about a person changing their sinful ways because the Bible they follow tells them to. It simply shows a strong level of devotion; a strong level that shows the person is strong.
No. It shows a strong fear and a weak willed person.

I agree with you that God should not be used as a weapon, and I also agree that everybody kills. When I used the example of the atheist murderer, I was conveying that just one person or groups actions do not define all of them. I know quite a few atheists that are very nice and respectable.

And I know a few Christians who are rational, open to other religious beliefs, and not homophobic.

You and Checkmate aren't one of 'em.

Sorovis

9th April 2004, 07:09 PM

I am putting this in a different message so I can more easily touch on what The Muffin Man has said. (note: this is not in response to his most recent post, but the one before it)

How does this not prove anything? You yourself make no sense.

You will find my explanation for the second point in the above paragraph.

For your third point, I believe what you quoted can be my third response.

All you are doing now is pestering me and repeating and rephrasing what you've said before. If you are going to do this, then I will ask you to clear out and leave room for those who are going to give respectable posts, otherwise I will simply ignore you.

The Muffin Man

9th April 2004, 07:13 PM

Ugh. Classic extremist Christian. Avoid the points, and dismiss the "Non-believer".

God, I'm glad we've got intelligent christians arguing...at least Checkmate held up SOME sort of an argument.

Sorovis

9th April 2004, 07:17 PM

You had no points, so there was nothing to respond to. Didn't you just say Checkmate wasn't rational? And I wouldn't be talking if you are going to begin insulting my intelligence.

Rambunctious Jamirus

9th April 2004, 07:35 PM

Uh, I think he meant that he was more of a challenge to argue with, not that he was rational...

I'd have to agree with TMM on the first partof his post quoting you, Sorovis. Just because the people changed doesn't mean that everyone can change. They were Christian, some other people are not. The stories I've read said they 'found the grace and mercy of God' and changed because of that. Get us some proof of an atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, African tribe, so on of one turning from homosexuality to heterosexuality by conseling and you have a valid point.

And we've come to an agreement. God shouldn't be used as a weapon. In the homosexuality issue here, we are using God as a weapon. 'God will not be happy with homosexuality so you should change just because he isn't.' Isn't this like our nice little conversation on Spanish conquistadors?

Though I would like to ask why there isn't any response from my last paragraph on 'contradicting and contrasting religions.' I'm just curious.

The Rusted One

9th April 2004, 07:35 PM

The Rusted One, So if my proof is biased, how can yours not be also? With this in mind, I can simply respond the same way to anything you say. You also ask why a person woulld choose to be homosexual if it is looked down upon. It is like I've said before. This decision generally happens early in life when the person is too small to logically think out there decision. The reason two twins are more likely to be homosexual if one of them is is because twins generally respond to situations in similar matters. If one of them has an experience that causes them to become homosexual, the other may come by the same experience and respond in the same. Or the other may subconsciously note changes in their brother or sister and change as well.

Because, Sorovis, unbiased sources are those that don't start off with preconceptions of what they will or should find; if I was to quote a government study, and the government was interested in statistics, then it would be unbiased. If you quote a church group, and you know the church is already against homosexuality, then anything they "find" is going to "support" that view, isn't it? Yes. It is biased.

And, Sorovis, again, show me proof that homosexuality is based on decision, and show me the evidence of this "decision when the child is too young to think logically". On top of this, don't dismiss people or their decisions as illogical and irrational just because you're biased against them in terms of what they are - it is a common characteristic of religious people to do so. If you have no choice, you can't be illogical - but if you choose illogically, much like you're doing now, then one can be called illogical.

And where in that entire study that you cited does it state that twins are more likely to be homosexual together because one follows the other? It doesn't. You'r jumping to conclusions that are totally unsupported.

also, my point with bringing up that animals eat their babies is that the human race should not follow the example of animals, as we are above that.

No, we aren't - because we are animals. We don't eat our young, but we aren't "above" anything - look at the way we kill each other in war. Besides which, you still haven't shown me how eating one's young is comparable to homosexuality - one hurts someone, while the other doesn't.

If homosexuality was genetic, then it would run in families, much like hemophelia or another rare disease. It does not pass from generation to generation.

How do you know it doesn't? You obviously weren't listening when I said it may require two recessive alleles to present itself - and the fact of the matter is, unless the person themselves makes it known to others around them, there is no way of knowing that they're gay. It's not like they get cut and bleed "gay" blood - you can't state it without them having told you or shown you first. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't the case, either. Not to mention the fact that homosexuality is still frowned upon by many people in society, and people still don't feel welcomed for being themselves and so may hide it.

The fact that homosexuals have changed shows it is not impossible. If you wish to find if it is only Christians that this happens to, feel free to, but it does not concern me as of now. There is nothing weird about a person changing their sinful ways because the Bible they follow tells them to. It simply shows a strong level of devotion; a strong level that shows the person is strong.

Just a question - how do you explain the fact that some apparently straight people fall in love with members of their own gender? Are they choosing this? Why would they do so, if they were able to find love within their own gender before? They aren't; they find themselves attracted to a member of their own gender, and fall in love with them. You don't choose who you fall in love with; you can't. You also can't choose who you are attracted to - and why anyone would choose to be gay or lesbian is something you can't answer, either, given that you're fully aware of the fact that many thousands of people around the world think they're sinners, or are in general homophobic, and treat them with little to no respect (and in fact may go out of their way to persecute them). Your own argument makes no sense - except you don't even attempt to grapple with the fact that despite the societal negativity, stemming from people such as yourself, gay people still exist.

Crazy

9th April 2004, 08:35 PM

I hate those Christain extremists. They give us Christians a bad name. I mean what the heck happened to liking everyone. It seems that those morons overlook one of the most important concepts of Christianity, equality.

Green_Pikachu

9th April 2004, 08:58 PM

The Muffin Man, there is more historical and scientific evidence supporting the Christian God than any other god in any other religion. If you would like information on this, I would be glad to show you to about a dozen sites. But since you may be offended by it's Christian support and writers, I'll wait for you to ask.

no, there is no evidence. anything you show us will be written by Christians. Not an unbiased 3rd party.

About Adam and Eve being the first creatures, you should really read the Bible before you make such claims, as this one is clearly flawed. first He created the beasts of the sea, then the land, and then the air. Then He created Man in his own image.

no one said Adam and Eve were the first creatures.

The Bible never declares male superiority over females. In fact, when God cursed Adam and Eve for disobeying him in Genesis, one for men was that they would lust for their wives, and that they would be controlled by their lusts. The Bible is not sexist, but it says men and women have different strengths and weaknesses and therefore natural roles (although it never limits them). It also states the equality of every man in many verses.

unless that man is gay of course, yes?

The Pariah, When Adam and Eve's children were alive, there is no record of how they reproduced. Since Adam and Eve would not have reproduced the conventional way had they not sinned, the incest to live further may have been another sin they commited after being banished from the Garden

what? they all had incest. use logic. how do you get a nation from 2 people? intra-breeding.

Damian Silverblade

9th April 2004, 09:18 PM

More to the poitn on the last matter

1)According to the Christians, god created man and woman to breed together and multiply.

Genesis 1:28

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

2)Therefore, any claims that any breeding the men and women did after leaving Heaven was their own will and not what God would have wanted them to do is fallacious.

3)The first generation of born humans were necessary all the children of Adam and Eve, and therefore all siblings.

4)Therefore, any children they had was the product of incest.

5)Seeing as human beings were created to breed and multiply (which the Christians all hold true), God necessarily wanted these children to have sex, so that children would be produced.

6)Therefore the first born generation of human beings did commit incest, and it was part of God's plan because if God had wanted to avoid incest he could simply have created extra "original" humans.

Checkmate

9th April 2004, 09:22 PM

Rusted One, I only have a couple things to say to you. If homosexuality was genetic, one would think there would be a gene or chromozone of some sort that would cause it. I would be interested in any evidence you could show of such a gene.

Also, it's not entirely impossible to control who you like, or fall in love with. I know that I have forced myself not to like some girls because I know nothing good would ever come of it. I also know that one girl I dated for a while, I started liking because someone else put the idea in my head. Also, I can control (to a degree) how much I think about a girl. That can also have an effect. So, saying that it's impossible to control who you like or fall in love with is not entirely true.

As far as some other points that I've noticed floating around, I have a few responses. As Sorovis already mentioned, we can't say that just because the Conquistodors threatened to kill people in the name of God, doesn't mean that all Christians do the same thing.

Neither I nor Sorovis have put horseheads in anyone's beds for being atheists and believing we're 'brainwashed' Christians. We are attacking you only as much as you are attacking us. That said I will continue to use God as a weapon.

You all say that the Bible is flawed because it was written by men. Yet if, as the Bible says, there is one omnipotent God that created and rules over the universe, I believe he would be able to trump the flaws of men and make sure that his word is written as it should be. Since, Sorovis disproved your Leviticus flaw, I am once again awaiting someone to find a hard-and-fast blatant flaw in the Bible. And until that happens I see no reason why the Bible shouldn't be respected as correct.

Also I need to respond to Crazy. We have said numerous times that we don't hate the homosexual, just the practice of homosexuality. There's a difference.

Also, someone said that saying women shouldn't teach men is sexist. Well, ok sure. The Bible says that men should be leaders. Not to say that they're better but they are called to be leaders. There have been female biblical leaders, but most are men. I'm admitting this. There's no point in not admitting it.

Muffin Man, you also said that women, non-christians, and homosexuals are looked down upon. When I have I done that. I have not dissed homosexuals except saying that homosexuality is wrong. I've never called them stupid or disgusting. I haven't dissed women, I have a lot of respect for them. I've never called them stupid. I've just said that men are supposed to be the leader more. I certainly never dissed non-christians. I have said that there is one God and he is the God that I worship, not the God of some other non-christian religion. But that's not to say I don't respect non-christians. Some of the best debaters I've ever met are atheists (like the incredible intelligent Rusted One for example) but I believe he's wrong in going against the Bible.

While I'm talking to the Muffin Man, I'd like to thank you for the wonderful compliment you gave me. "checkmate put up SOME argument" That's high praise coming from you.

I think that's all. Btw yes I know my 'two week hiatus' didn't even last a day, but oh well. I just couldn't go on w/o three of you guys trying to tear me apart. I guess I'm getting kind of fond of ya'll.

Oh, Muffin Man. Since you love those Bible Verses sooooooo much...

John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man come to the father except through me"

Green_Pikachu

9th April 2004, 09:30 PM

Rusted One, I only have a couple things to say to you. If homosexuality was genetic, one would think there would be a gene or chromozone of some sort that would cause it. I would be interested in any evidence you could show of such a gene.

humans are too complex a creature for there to be a singular gay gene. there are 54 genes in the human brain that, if enough of them vary in different degrees, it will program your internal hard-drive to be homo or heterosexual.

Also, it's not entirely impossible to control who you like, or fall in love with. I know that I have forced myself not to like some girls because I know nothing good would ever come of it. I also know that one girl I dated for a while, I started liking because someone else put the idea in my head. Also, I can control (to a degree) how much I think about a girl. That can also have an effect. So, saying that it's impossible to control who you like or fall in love with is not entirely true.

he was referring to how it is impossible to make yourself straight if you're gay and vice versa.

As far as some other points that I've noticed floating around, I have a few responses. As Sorovis already mentioned, we can't say that just because the Conquistodors threatened to kill people in the name of God, doesn't mean that all Christians do the same thing.

ok? i never made a dumb point like that, so i'll just brush this off.

Neither I nor Sorovis have put horseheads in anyone's beds for being atheists and believing we're 'brainwashed' Christians. We are attacking you only as much as you are attacking us. That said I will continue to use God as a weapon.

ok, go ahead. doesn't mean you're right.

You all say that the Bible is flawed because it was written by men. Yet if, as the Bible says, there is one omnipotent God that created and rules over the universe, I believe he would be able to trump the flaws of men and make sure that his word is written as it should be. Since, Sorovis disproved your Leviticus flaw, I am once again awaiting someone to find a hard-and-fast blatant flaw in the Bible. And until that happens I see no reason why the Bible shouldn't be respected as correct.

uh...lol. i never said it was flawed because it was written by men. i said it's a piece of literature, and nothing more, which is true.

Also I need to respond to Crazy. We have said numerous times that we don't hate the homosexual, just the practice of homosexuality. There's a difference.

not really

i still haven't heard an actual point DISPROVING sexuality as being genetic/determined at birth.

Ash_300

9th April 2004, 09:35 PM

I just wanted to point out that if you use something which not everyone accepts as being true then it is not evidence. As such, quotes from the bible being used as evidence(oops, wrong word...I meant ludicrous claims) is the equivalent, I mean the same, as stating opinion as if fact.

The Pariah, When Adam and Eve's children were alive, there is no record of how they reproduced

Well it is pretty hard to have a record of something that did not happen. :nut:

Sorovis

9th April 2004, 09:39 PM

The Rusted One, I would like to see your example of a nonbiased article. I have shown you my proof, so now I would like to see your side, so I may judge for myself whether or whether not it is unbiased. I hardly think you have the right to call my scources biased when you have given me none yourself. Until you give me scientific proof that supports what you say, I am going to conclude that you are jumping to conclusions yourself. Admittedly, my thoughts on how two twins were more likely to be gay were derived from something I thought I had posted but had not.

To say we are not above any other animals is to be totally ignorant of our higher intelligence and free will. Why I am not saying to disrespect animals at all, it is quite obvious that we are intellectually superior to any other animal on this planet. Speaking of which, why don't you also post an article about homosexual animals. I've posted my sources and they have been rejected.

I wasn't including your little theory on two alleles because it had as much base to it as what you are attacking of mine. How do you know it is inherited by family members? In order for me to argue your points, you must give some basis as well. If you can prove to me all the points you have been trying to get across, I promise I will leave this board and never trouble you with my presence again. But until then, I will still be here to argue with you every step of the way.

Pariah, if you are tired of my Christian sources, then I issue the same challenge to you. I have found proof to support my point, but you have said it is biased. So why don't you find some unbiased proof to back up your point?

The Muffin Man was the one who said the Bible said Adam and Eve were the first creatures. Go back to page 9 or 10 and you'll see it.

And yes, unless that man is gay.

I did use logic and I did say they may have used incest. Go back and read my post more carefully.

Rambunctious, I honestly cannot find any evidence on any person but a Christian being homosexual and changing, but like I gave to the others above, if you find some evidence to prove what I have been saying wrong, I will leave forever.

Damian Silverblade

9th April 2004, 09:56 PM

It's nice to see any point I raise is dutifully ignored by both Checkmate and Sorovis.

"I have said that there is one God and he is the God that I worship, not the God of some other non-christian religion. But that's not to say I don't respect non-christians."

How would you feel if a muslim came to you and told you that you are a godless heathen because the god you follow does not exist (because only his does)?

Sorovis

9th April 2004, 10:01 PM

Green_Pikachu

9th April 2004, 10:02 PM

i usually have many of my points ignored as well. they really don't know how to debate.

http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-22680.html

that's a nice article. and for animals, would you rather have an article about rams screwing each other, or fruit flies rubbing genitals in a congo line?

Green_Pikachu

9th April 2004, 10:03 PM

I would feel like you haven't read my post above. That's where I am at, and the only people I will respond to are those with valid, recent, unbiased evidence supporting their topic against my beliefs.

then why haven't you been responding to many of my points? Probably because you have no response.

Sorovis

9th April 2004, 10:11 PM

Or probobly because you have yet to link me to an unbiased source of information supporting your point. By the way, I don't believe this is a Christian web page.

http://www.geocities.com/home60515/3.html

Damian Silverblade

9th April 2004, 10:15 PM

Or mine. I've read your post Sorovis. You haven't once bothered to adress anything I said. Then you turn about and talk about us ignoring the poitns you made?

That's good debating indeed.

Sorovis

9th April 2004, 10:17 PM

Ah, that article above almost had me worried. Except of course they said themselves that sexual orientation MAY be wired at birth. There was no evidence there, merely a suggestion. That is my response to that. If you would like me to answer your previous points, please re-post them with links to un-biased articles supporting them. By the way, I don't believe this is a Christian page:

http://www.geocities.com/home60515/3.html

Checkmate

9th April 2004, 10:24 PM

I apologize Damian. Due to the Christians being outnumbered, for the most part, three to one it's hard to get to all of the points. That's why I missed yours.

Muslims believe they are right and I am wrong. I know that. Sticks ands stones will break my bones but calling me a godless heathen will never hurt me, and i'm sure you feel the same way. I'm still waiting for someone to ask about further proof I have supporting the Bible.

And having a masters degree from the redundant school of redundancy I will repeat my challenge for anyone to state flaws they have found in the Bible.

pokemaniacbill

9th April 2004, 10:25 PM

The only real flaw in the Bible I can see is the inconsistancies in that which is written, such as the ever popular 'If my brother's wife dies'. What are we talking about again?

Green_Pikachu

9th April 2004, 10:28 PM

Checkmate

9th April 2004, 10:28 PM

Sorovis

9th April 2004, 10:29 PM

Checkmate

9th April 2004, 10:31 PM

ok. I'll admit you surprised me there, but I dont feel very stupid, so if that was the intent it failed. That's all I have to say. Now because you probably feel so frustrated at how I've ignored your points I'm going to go back to the previous page to see if I missed something.

pokemaniacbill

9th April 2004, 10:32 PM

A prince in England. His brother the king had died, and there were two contrary verses 'The brother must always marry the widow' and "The brother must never marry the widow". In other words, if Christianity is the correct faith, the flaw in the Bible would be that it's written by humans: It will always create controversy because it is written by a fallable source.

Damian Silverblade

9th April 2004, 10:33 PM

Sorovis - they may not be christian, but they are equally biased since their openly stated group name is : "Heterosexual organized for a moral environment", and the first two line of their mission statement are "Why should we be concerned about homosexual issues? Why should they matter to us? The answers to those questions are more fully presented in other sections of this website; but here is a short sketch of them.
First, because morality is the glue that holds societies together, we need to be concerned about moral issues. Homosexual issues are moral issues. We can and do prove that homosexual activity is wrong, is immoral."

Essentialy, they have an openly stated agenda, so their articles - not even a study, just an article - are highly likely to be biased.

And even the article you posted is flawed since one of its opening statement is along the lines of "There are gays who are gay because they were sexually abused. There are more people who were sexually abused than gays. Therefore, all (or at least a vast majority of) gay people were sexually abused.", which is *outright fallacy*.

Then then resort to emotional appeal, stating that anyone who says homosexuality is biological is defending child abuse.

In short : your article is not a valid source.

Checkmate, please go ahead with your proof supporting the bible. It's been a long while since I've had a good debate on the topic.

EDIT : Sorovis - in the case of your second article, if we assume (and you certainly do) that it's possible for born heterosexual people to change their orientation to homosexual due to what happen in their later life (child-abuse, bad experience with men or women, etc), why should the possibility not also exist for born homosexuals to change their life as a result of bad relationships and/or religious pressure (which the article mention were both factor in a majority of cases)?

It does nothing to disprove the "born that way" case, although it does show that it's not "forever set in stone" - but the change require *external factors* on a *personal* level (ie, they have to be religious themselves for the religion argument to affect them ; the stormy relationships have to be their own, etc).

So it really proves nothing.

Sorovis

9th April 2004, 10:35 PM

Then try reading this one and see what you think:

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:SZdBJqXnoK0J:www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/streams-of-life/SL2W0803.pdf+what+causes+homosexuality&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

While you're at it, read this,

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/study.html

I'm busy looking stuff up, so I'll leave Checkmate to deal with the Bible questions.

Damian Silverblade

9th April 2004, 10:42 PM

"Copyright Ankerberg THEOLOGICAL institute".

John Ankerberg, the author, is an ordained Baptist minister. Again a biased source.

He's also a prominent media religious individual.

http://www.ankerberg.com/bio.htm

The second article still has a requirement that the homosexual *deeply want* to change. Of course if someone really want to change chances are they can even overcome their genetic instincts. So it proves nothing.

Checkmate

9th April 2004, 10:43 PM

Pokemaniac Bill, if I was a more intelligent man, I'd know the verses you're speaking of. Unfortunately, I'm not, so I need you to tell me the addresses of the verse. Then I can reply once I can put the verses into context.

Damian, first off in support of Sorovis, I too, I'm getting utterly sick of you and the rest of everyone criticizing his proof when the rest of you don't even have proof. Once you have unbiased proof, then we can accept your point of Sorovis' being biased.

Now about the proof I've been ranting about. Some of you might call this a stretch but I don't. If any of you work at dept. stores you probably know how to read a bar code.

On any barcode you'll find two thin lines on the far right. Two thin lines on the far left and two thin lines in the exact center. I have been informed by walmart employee those two thin lines mean the number six. So everything in stores is marked with, roughly, six six six.

The Bible prophesies that one day man shall not be able to buy or sell without the mark of the beast (666) on his right hand or forehead. All that has to happen is some world dictator (obviously the antichrist) orders as part of an anti-terrorist movement that all citizens where a barcode so that they can be easily recognized as the person they are.

I'm saying that while that prophecy has not yet been fulfilled it is certainly in motion, and no one can tell me that humans wearing identifying bar codes is completely ludicrous.

Sorovis

9th April 2004, 10:44 PM

Well, here's another one for you to read,

http://www.wfn.org/2000/06/msg00308.html

Damian Silverblade

9th April 2004, 10:49 PM

*shrugs* I'm personally not deeply interested in proving anything - I just want to raise the quality of debates, so yes, I will continue criticizing proof. If the others want to bring forth proof that homosexuality is genetic (which they have not) that does not fit my criteria I'll criticize it too - I want solid debating, not one side to win.

However one must admit that the general debating principle is that the burden of the proof rests on the ones *challenging* the commonly accepted theory (which presently is the genetic one for homosexuality). Thus the burden of the proof rests on you two.

Regarding your other theory - it's interesting. But first, one has to remember that it's not 666 that will be tatooed on them. It's 62345326342236 or some other number. That's assuming the whole barcoding of course happens, when we don't really need it - fingerprint, DNA, retina prints could all likely be used for this if there was any need without requiring the barcoding of people. Human bodies are essentialy already barcoded.

Finally, how does the fact that something the bible prophesied could conceivably some day happen in a certain sense proves anything?

Sorovis - Again a heavily biased source. (World FAITH network, PRESBYnews, leader of a non-profit organization dedicated to the prevention of homosexuality, news announced at the luncheon of a ministry organization, etc)

Sorovis

9th April 2004, 10:55 PM

I don't see how the 666 mark area of the Bible could just randomly happen, for one. The fact that many of these prophesies (which I will gladly quote on command) are coming true and have come true shows that the Bible is credible. Sorry about the other Christian one, I didn't see that. Oh, and here's another one,

http://www.jefflindsay.com/gays.html

I think this is another part to one of the pages I have already posted.

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:6ZNed8BFcxUJ:www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/streams-of-life/SL2W0703.pdf+homosexuality+causes&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Is that enough proof yet? I see none for the other side. I will still continue posting sites, so I will return soon.

Damian Silverblade

9th April 2004, 11:00 PM

But you can't use the possibility (very, very, very, very, very, very, very small) that barcoding may perhaps one day happen to say "the bible is credible!".

Go ahead with the prophecies too.

As for your latest articles, the guy admits himself to being biased ("I believe homosexuality is harmful"), and his home page tends toward a less than serious take on thing which kind of make dubious any statements he makes). However, the article itself sounds well-researched enough that it may be worth reading through completely however.

And Ankerberg I already pointed out was a very biased source. He's an ordained baptist minister.

Sorovis

9th April 2004, 11:07 PM

Well, this is a Christian article, but I thought it was worth posting as it brings up useful counters that I have seen already.

http://www.probe.org/docs/homomyth.html

Damian, here are some prophesies from the Bible. I did not examine it that much, and if you want more, I can find more.

http://100prophecies.org/page9.htm

Checkmate

9th April 2004, 11:14 PM

Damian I accept your skeptisism. It's a small stretch I know, but you have to admit the concept of the sixes being where they are on every bar code is somewhat compelling. Here's another thing. I humbly admit I haven't read most of Sorovis' articles, but even if they're biased, I'm presuming they still present facts and even being biased the fact that there are so many must be worth something.

Also, if you're so interested in a good debate, please encourage the pro side of this debate to at least offer something. This is getting annoying, you must admit, and I'm not talking about Sorovis' biased proof.

Sorovis

9th April 2004, 11:20 PM

Here's my last one for tonight. Tomorrow I will resume. This one may be biased to some degree, but I didn't see anything there, so I'll leave it to Damian or someone else to investigate further.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/columnist/0,1886,56-202225-,00.html

(note: I would like to apologize to Damian in particular who I was not able to address. Being the only person on my side for a while, posts came in too fast for me to keep up with them, and I obviously was not able to address all opposing views. Once again, I apologize.)

Damian Silverblade

9th April 2004, 11:41 PM

No problem Sorovis. Checkmate, as I mentioned it's not up to them to bring up proof - you are the one challenging the views most people tend to hold true here, the burden of the proof rest on you. However, it would be nice to see the other side bring out proof.

On the topic of them perhaps having fact worth checking - the last article (not on straitstimes which is simply an opinion piece citing no backing) had some fact that the pro side may wish to adress despite being of mormon origins.

Sorovis, I'll adress the list of prophecies you posted later ; suffice to say that from what I've seen they (those that are actually fulfilled and not only partially - and thus insufficently - fulfilled) reference in large part to the exile in babylon and are being taken out of context by someone forgetting the bible was only written down around then and perhaps (for some part) slightly earlier. Since they also present what the Israeli would have wanted to happen (ie, god promising them they would return home), that's pretty weak.

Green_Pikachu

10th April 2004, 12:24 AM

Pokemaniacbill, I don't think I quite follow you.

The Pariah, is it really necessary for you to stoop so low as to directly insult us?

Ah yes, and here's another non Christian source,

http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/2001_may_june/article_4.html

it isn't necessary, but it is fun.

i look forward to the day when scientists discover for a certainty that it is genetics. we're probably not too far off, maybe 15 years away.

The Rusted One

10th April 2004, 01:15 AM

Rusted One, I only have a couple things to say to you. If homosexuality was genetic, one would think there would be a gene or chromozone of some sort that would cause it. I would be interested in any evidence you could show of such a gene.

If you refer to my posts at any point, you'd see that I didn't say a single gene was responsible - I said it was, in my opinion, most likely genetic. This does not mean there is a single gene - and, if you know anything about genetics, you'll know that when more than one gene is involved in a particular trait, that trait can be totally missed out if the genetic combination is not the right one. A red head needs both alleles for red hair in order to have red hair - that's an example of one gene. However, you don't get pure red, pure blonde, pure brown, and pure black hair classes; you get mixes all the time. This means that there's a complex interplay between the genes coding for each hair colour, and this explains the different varieties of one "colour." This also applies to linked characteristics - for instance, blonde hair and blue eyes. Not all blonde people have blue eyes, though it is more common than not; most dark haired people have brown eyes; and the majority of red heads have green eyes. I, however, have red hair and brown eyes - and this is explained by the interactions between the genes I inherited and how each characteristic coded for behaves in relation to the other. Do you understand, then, that it may be a large amount of genes responsible for homosexuality?

Also, it's not entirely impossible to control who you like, or fall in love with. I know that I have forced myself not to like some girls because I know nothing good would ever come of it. I also know that one girl I dated for a while, I started liking because someone else put the idea in my head. Also, I can control (to a degree) how much I think about a girl. That can also have an effect. So, saying that it's impossible to control who you like or fall in love with is not entirely true.

Actually, it is true - in the first instance, you tell me that you've forced yourself not to like a girl - implying that you liked them to begin with, against your will. It's true of any human relationship that if you wait, feelings of affection tend to wane - it happens in marriage, too. This doesn't mean you can then say that a gay man or woman should deny themselves a relationship with another man or woman because they might be able to outlast the feelings they have - because nobody should be forced to deny themselves love or affection. Not only that, but if they're gay, then odds are they're going to move onto someone else of the same gender next time. The second example isn't hard to explain, either - it wasn't that someone put the idea in your head, it's that you weren't against the idea of having a relationship because of whatever reason. That's not someone else's influence; that's just biology. If you aren't against having a relationship with someone, you may very well end up having feelings for them - but you might not. Surely you've looked at other girls and thought, "wow, you know, I like the looks of them," but nothing has ever come of it - because the feelings just didn't begin asserting themselves.

You all say that the Bible is flawed because it was written by men. Yet if, as the Bible says, there is one omnipotent God that created and rules over the universe, I believe he would be able to trump the flaws of men and make sure that his word is written as it should be. Since, Sorovis disproved your Leviticus flaw, I am once again awaiting someone to find a hard-and-fast blatant flaw in the Bible. And until that happens I see no reason why the Bible shouldn't be respected as correct.

I say the Bible is flawed because it is a storybook, and it presents this "all loving" being as a vindictive psychopath who can't stand being second guessed. If you want flaws, then how about the flaw of the "double genesis"? That being, of course, the first account of the creation being one way around, and then another version with a different order of events being reported later on. This has led many Christians to cling feebly at straws, saying that the genesis of the universe was the first one, and then "god" created everything all over again for Eden. Right.

Also I need to respond to Crazy. We have said numerous times that we don't hate the homosexual, just the practice of homosexuality. There's a difference.

Except that the only difference between you and a homosexual is the fact that they're homosexual; that's what makes them what they are. If you hate what they do, then, you end up hating what makes them different, and that means you end up hating them as being different.

Muffin Man, you also said that women, non-christians, and homosexuals are looked down upon. When I have I done that. I have not dissed homosexuals except saying that homosexuality is wrong. I've never called them stupid or disgusting. I haven't dissed women, I have a lot of respect for them. I've never called them stupid. I've just said that men are supposed to be the leader more. I certainly never dissed non-christians. I have said that there is one God and he is the God that I worship, not the God of some other non-christian religion. But that's not to say I don't respect non-christians. Some of the best debaters I've ever met are atheists (like the incredible intelligent Rusted One for example) but I believe he's wrong in going against the Bible.

Of course, you do regard homosexuality as a sin, and therefore see homosexual people as sinners, right? You don't regard sinners to be as good as non-sinners - meaning that you actually do look down on them; they aren't "worthy", and that's the whole point of what you're saying.

The Rusted One, I would like to see your example of a nonbiased article. I have shown you my proof, so now I would like to see your side, so I may judge for myself whether or whether not it is unbiased. I hardly think you have the right to call my scources biased when you have given me none yourself. Until you give me scientific proof that supports what you say, I am going to conclude that you are jumping to conclusions yourself. Admittedly, my thoughts on how two twins were more likely to be gay were derived from something I thought I had posted but had not.

I'm not using sources because I don't need to refer to outside information I know for myself - I'm not a third party that needs information told to me to know what I speak of; and you know this, given that I've already said I'm attracted to men as much as women several times. Does this make me biased? No, because I'm the one who has first hand information, and I'm not listening to any source aside from my unbiased feelings. If I know for myself that I've never made a choice to be bisexual, then what's going to be most likely true - what I say, or an article that says, as your last one does, that I "must" have made a choice, but I can't remember it? I'm using as my source, in other words, personal experience - and I'm asking you about yours, in an effort to show you how that works. As I said before, did you ever have to choose to like members of the opposite gender? Did you knowingly say, "well, I could go for men, or women...I think I'll go for..."? No, unless you're bisexual but have decided to stick to one gender if at all possible. Of course, we could go back to your earlier example of a small child making an "illogical" decision; at which point, the question becomes, why would a small child choose something contrary to what they've been taught their whole life up till that point? They see a mother and a father (most likely), and see that that's a great environment to grow up in - they see the gender distinctions, and that a husband and father are male, and a wife and mother female. They see that society encourages heterosexuality; and often it isn't until their very much later childhood that they even know there's such a thing as homosexuality - so why would they choose something that makes no logical sense to them given the environment around them? They wouldn't. A child doesn't choose to eat zebra steak if he or she has no knowledge that they can.

No, this isn't jumping to conclusions. If I had no experience in the field for myself, and had no other way of knowing, then yes, it would be jumping to conclusions. But in this case, it isn't. Remember, I see the idea that homosexuality is genetic as most likely, given that animal behavioural patterns are innate also, and the only way they can be is if they were passed on by the genes; but at the base of my argument is that homosexuality is not a choice, which does not say conclusively that it must be genetic. It means it is not a choice.

To say we are not above any other animals is to be totally ignorant of our higher intelligence and free will. Why I am not saying to disrespect animals at all, it is quite obvious that we are intellectually superior to any other animal on this planet. Speaking of which, why don't you also post an article about homosexual animals. I've posted my sources and they have been rejected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

And no, we aren't necessarily intellectually superior at all - we are just able to use the faculties we have to make discoveries, and build on them. Gorillas are perfectly capable of sign language (albeit not totally fluent, but the grammatical structure of English has been emulated, and the statements made make known the emotions, thoughts, and ideas they have) - they just don't have the cultural requisites. Chimpanzees have culture, as well - behavioural patterns are not constant throughout (this doesn't mean that behaviour in animals is not innate), and differences in practice are found across separate populations.

I wasn't including your little theory on two alleles because it had as much base to it as what you are attacking of mine. How do you know it is inherited by family members? In order for me to argue your points, you must give some basis as well. If you can prove to me all the points you have been trying to get across, I promise I will leave this board and never trouble you with my presence again. But until then, I will still be here to argue with you every step of the way.

You do understand the principle of genetic inheritance, right? I'm sure you must, or you won't know a whole deal about biology. Physical and psychological characteristics are inherited from the parents - babies of any species are not just born as blobs and form in order to deal with the environment - they are born with the necessary faculties and use them to adapt themselves of their environment in a way that is conducive to survival. If homosexuality is caused by genetic patterns, then it is obviously going to be passed down to children; all genes have that possibility (of course, not all genes are passed on, given that most families don't possess enough offspring for every single gene to occur in one of the children). And I'm not trying to get you to leave, I'm merely debating with you an issue I feel strongly about.

And yes, unless that man is gay.

Then you are bigotted and not afraid to discriminate. Reminds me of the KKK, and Hitler, and other such people who can't stand difference in ways they're scared of.

Also, in that last article, there are a few points - so, if I can't stand the taste of tomato, to the point of it actually making me dry-retch, then that's purely because I've decided not to like it? No. Theories explaining why some people don't like some foods include such things as genes (the proteins coded for by the genes may not result in positive reactions when the taste buds are brought into contact with certain chemicals in the food), or the exposure an unborn child got to the nutrients and chemicals within specific foods in the womb. I've already dealt with the genetic aspect as it would apply to homosexuality - so, let's pretend for an instant that homosexuality is caused by a lack of something in the womb (which actually has also been theorised) - if a certain hormone or chemical in the womb is either overabundant or underrepresented, then the effects may be that the baby develops slightly differently than it otherwise might. What does this mean? That if the sexuality of the baby is affected, then it is still not a choice.

Could I say that if I'm allergic to banana, also, that it's because I chose to be? If not, why not?

Now, the end of that article states that the genetic argument in concern to homosexuality also seems to argue that if there were the option not to be gay, those who are proponents of the gene argument would change, because, it says, homosexuality appears to be suggested at abnormal. Thing is, though, is that that's totally false - if I was given the option of not being attracted to guys as well as girls, I'd not choose that option at all. I'm me, and I'm attracted to the people I'm attracted to. Much like a straight man feels when he's attracted to a woman, a man attracted to another man feels the same sense of "wellbeing", "euphoria", etc., etc. - so if I'm capable of such feelings for someone, why should I choose not to have those feelings if they feel good and right? I'm not choosing to have the feelings to begin with - but I would be choosing not to take the possibility for that away. In fact, the only reason I've ever heard from a gay person as to why they might choose not to be gay if given the option is because of how difficult it is just to be themselves - and again, this is down to people such as yourself. If you were able to accept them (and this is a choice, this attitude of yours), then they wouldn't have to go through the hell they do when the realise that they're gay, or lesbian - they wouldn't have to worry about what society will think of them, whether they'll be accepted, whether they will be welcome for being true to themselves. The emotional pressure placed on them is sometimes so great that they end up committing suicide - can you justify your own views in light of this? Can you positively stand by your views with the knowledge that such views causes so much emotional turmoil that it leads to thousands of deaths every year?

pokemaniacbill

10th April 2004, 04:34 AM

Were I capable of posting the verses, I would've... my apologies. It's not a bad flaw, but people are imperfect no matter how intelligent they are. And when writing THE WORD OF GOD, of all things, there are bound to be flaws: And that's really the only flaw I'd find in the Bible, which is supported in the Bible... I believe the arguement goes simply that 'With free will, we are fallable only because we have the ability to choose. Whether it is correct or not, it does not matter, it simply means that we are not capable of always choosing what is best. That does not, however, mean we are incapable of trying to choose that which is right.'

Yay for agnosticism! I apologize for not having a better preparation for my statement, but my only religious text, which is actually a companion book to the Bible, is quite old. An heirloom, in fact... 'The Beautiful New Story'. Here, if I look it up, it was printed... in 1892. It was given to my Great Aunt's Great Aunt by her teacher, and she gave it to me seven years ago. I honestly haven't looked through it... it is, after all, a very delicate and fragile book.

Pokemaster Matt

10th April 2004, 05:00 AM

I forgot to mention something else. Incest was necessary for Adam and Eve and their children to reproduce and multiply. God did not illegalize (for gross lack of a better word) incest until much later in time. There is evidence in the Bible that God changes laws to fit a situation, but there is no evidence that he changed the law on homosexuality. It's still wrong.

Doesn't work. If God 'illegalized' it, then everyone now, is breaking his law. If Adam and Eve were the first humans, and everyone must have descended from them, then aren't we all related?
(I should mention, I'm unsure of the word 'incest', but I got the gist of it. It's like...inbreeding,[?] I think the word is.)

Rambunctious Jamirus

10th April 2004, 09:37 AM

http://www.geocities.com/home60515/3.html

I'm sorry but I cannot accept that website for the fact that it is a GeoCities website. 90% of what's on the Internet on free hosting sites is fake so I cannot take that seriously.

For here's the reason why: My teacher let us do extra credit for a while to prove a point. The extra credit was to find the last words of a famous author (I believe it was Edgar Allen Poe but I'm not positive) and to give the source. He received ten papers on it, each with an Internet source and all of the phrases or quotes completely different. He prove something for us though.

And, your second source after the one above, I quote:

Most of the subjects said their religious faith was very important in their lives

There's my other point in this. Which religious faith are we talking about here?

For the third source, I'm glad that they posted the 'of all the surveys returned.' But I would like to know how many brothers responded to this as it would give a good rounded average other than the percents, almost like that other thread where one out of ten Brits thought Hitler was fake. This of course was a study of 2000 people in a population of London which is about over seven million.

I would have to say that it is extremely hard to find an unbiased source as it is a bit encouraged in research to have a preference.

Also, just because I saw Wal-Mart in it, Wal-Mart sucks. It kills the little businesses that can barely suvive nowadays. It gives only full time employees health insurance after they've worked for two years. No supporting Wal-Mart!

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/study.html

Though I would like to say that it gave a nice percentage rate and some good insights, I can't help but think that all of these people were Christian for the fact that it's part of a Christian website...

Hm...so barcodes are evil? I knew it! Though I'm sketchy on some points but I want to ask which culture believed left-handers are evil? My brother was going to be a left-hander but, after a weird year of being in pre-K at what used to be my Christian school as well, he turned into a right-hander. Problem? He can't hold a fork or pencil right. He has trouble writing and eating because of this. He does everything else leftie way but that...

I like the next source but the religion in which these people were is related to Christian and thus using the Bible which says as you guys have stated that homosexuality is immoral.

He said
one-third of his clients that consider themselves homosexuals reported being
sexually molested at an early age by older males.

I have a question here. Wouldn't abuse by men make a man heterosexual? Or are all these people women? Just a small point...

Oh, and Jeff's Christian for the next website. Click on the Jeff Lindsay link at the very bottom.

To say we are not above any other animals is to be totally ignorant of our higher intelligence and free will. Why I am not saying to disrespect animals at all, it is quite obvious that we are intellectually superior to any other animal on this planet.

Yes, we have a more developed brain. This doesn't make us any different than animals. Instead of eating raw meat when we have a fire, we build things that kill other people purposedly and wage deadly war. I have never heard of an animal doing this sort of thing because they have a balanced system in which the order is significant. If we had to survive now without the comforts of technology, few of us would actually survive because the forces of nature are more powerful than us.

Here's (http://www.lesbian.org/amy/essays/queer-choice.html) a source, quite biased against the argument that homosexuality is a choice but it does have insight on it. Please do not read if you get offended easily.

I found that website with the 50% twin thing. It has assumed beliefs in it, not hard facts, but enough of the theories to be reasonbly true. Here. (http://www.spub.ksu.edu/issues/v099b/sp/n113/opn-kevyn-03.06.95.html)

All the other sites I look at are Christian sites.

Sorovis

10th April 2004, 09:42 AM

Sorovis

10th April 2004, 09:51 AM

Rambunctious, I still have several sites up, and of the two you've shown me both are biased (both are written by homosexuals). Saying that Wal-mart sucks as a reason why one of my articles is not good is just pathetic desperation.

For your second site, its a good thing the writer doesn't pretend to be a scientific expert, because he's not. Also, I would like to note at least one of the guys in one of my articles started as being skeptical that homosexuals can change. If I am not mistaken, that makes him originally biased for the other side, and yet he found proof that homosexuals can change. Very interesting, no?

Rambunctious Jamirus

10th April 2004, 10:11 AM

Rambunctious, I still have several sites up, and of the two you've shown me both are biased (both are written by homosexuals). Saying that Wal-mart sucks as a reason why one of my articles is not good is just pathetic desperation.

And this affects me because? Your sites are biased as well. I never said they were unbiased either, I said one was very biased and made a comment that this is where the 50% twin being gay thing was.

The Wal-Mart thing wasn't directed at the sites. It was directed that either you or Checkmate (I believe it was Checkmate) said something about asking a Wal-Mart employee about the bar codes. I just wanted to point out that Wal-Mart breaks the laws but no one does anything about them. Example, employees there are not allowed to form unions. This is against the law in the U.S. yet no one does anything.

For your second site, its a good thing the writer doesn't pretend to be a scientific expert, because he's not. Also, I would like to note at least one of the guys in one of my articles started as being skeptical that homosexuals can change. If I am not mistaken, that makes him originally biased for the other side, and yet he found proof that homosexuals can change. Very interesting, no?

No, he's not. Just like most Christian ministers are not scientists. Yet, they have a large say in what goes on, now don't they?

And yes, we have covered the fact that homosexuals can change. I have agreed with you there several times. I'm trying to get to the point if the people thought they would 'burn in hell' and changed or if it was actually not because of religion.

Here's (http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~kripston/homosexuality/) a website that gathers all the data seen above, including the twin percentages. It has links to three different reasons of homosexuality.

Here's (http://www.pflagphoenix.org/education/homosexuality_cause.html) a site that has mostly what someone else posted but also a new bit near the end.

And for proof, look up causes of homosexuality and tell me what percentage of these sites are NOT Christian websites, parts of a Christain website, or linked to a Christian website. I have about 9 out of 20 are Christian based, 3 out of 20 are forums like ours, and the rest are none of the above.

Sorovis

10th April 2004, 10:19 AM

Once again I will bring up the man who once believed it was impossible for homosexuals to change when you call all my sites biased, and for the non-Christian homosexuals thing as well. Those links you gave were fairly interesting, but both were written or rewrites by homosexuals as well. Especially the first.

Obviously quite a few sites are non-Christian that are against homosexuality, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to find the few that I did in that short of time. Upon further searching tonight I will yield more thourough and better results, but for now on I will be gone for the rest of the day.

Rambunctious Jamirus

10th April 2004, 10:28 AM

That's because research is biased. You feel stronger to one point more than the other point(s). The only way to find a completely unbiased research report were if a robot wrote it. I doubt that will happen in this time and place.

I have not seen a non-Christian homosexuality link given by you or anyone in this topic going against homosexuality. These non-Christian homosexuality links would have to be not part of a Christian website or have the person who hosts the site Christian or a religion taht goes by the Bible. I have not read a story in which the people were not Christian, it either says they were or had no evidence that these people were not Christian. Or, it said they were 'religiously faithful,' which brings up the question of "What religion are they?"

shazza

10th April 2004, 10:45 AM

How the hell did this turn into YET another religious/homosexuallity debate? You do realize this topic is designed to discuss a homosexual book for first graders? I am so :mad:

Green_Pikachu

10th April 2004, 11:11 AM

The Pariah, do you have any evidence? No. Are you just restating opinions? Yes.

actually yes, i did give evidence. mind you you're the one using the bible for your opinions. lol

Checkmate

10th April 2004, 02:18 PM

[QUOTE="pokemaniacbill"]Were I capable of posting the verses, I would've... my apologies. It's not a bad flaw, but people are imperfect no matter how intelligent they are. And when writing THE WORD OF GOD, of all things, there are bound to be flaws: And that's really the only flaw I'd find in the Bible, which is supported in the Bible... I believe the arguement goes simply that 'With free will, we are fallable only because we have the ability to choose. Whether it is correct or not, it does not matter, it simply means that we are not capable of always choosing what is best. That does not, however, mean we are incapable of trying to choose that which is right.'

Pokemaniac Bill, as I posted previously if God made inspired the Bible I have 500% confidence that he would/could make sure it's done right despite human error. He would not allow human error to affect his perfect word.

Rusted One, you and one or two others call the Bible a story boo ka. That would imply that it was written by one person at one time. Assuming that that one person would have the intelligence to fake all these different writing styles (David, Solomon, John, Luke, and Paul all write very distinctively and differently from each other)

They would have to accomplish one of two impossible feats. They would either a) have to perfectly record the history of the Jews at least ever since the time of Moses. (keep in mind the Jews history was based on the Torah which is the OT w/ a couple other books added) or b) completely prophesy when Jesus Christ would come and how he would die and what the names of his apostles would be, and what the names of his brothers would be) A person who perform either one of these tasks would be working in perfect accord with the will of an omnipotent and omniscient God.

Rusted One, to address your dual genesis theory, one technically cannot know beyond the shadow of a doubt what happened then, since humans weren't there to record it. The evidence backing the big bang theory is the the idea that everything is expanding outward from a specific point which implies that it started at that specific point. That alone does not necessarily disprove what the Bible says about everything being created. (btw that's the best counter anyone on this site has yet offered as toward calling the Bible fake)

Also, evolution has a lot less proof backing it. There is constantly the flaw of missing links. I know a few fossils have been found, but they alone can be merely dismissed as freaks of nature.

I apologize for not being able to put a sou
rce on this site, but I watched on episode of a T.V. show talking about the debates between evolution and Christianity that what was once thought to be a neandarthal man was actually an old human with bad arthritus. The program was a show that used to be on PAX called Encounters with the Unexplained. While this show talked about the Arc of the Covenant they also discuss time travel, aliens creating crop circles, and ides of macro-telekinesis.

Evolution and the Big Bang are both titled as theories. Yes, I'm aware that many commonly accepted scientific concepts are labeled as theories, (such as the atomic theory which says that everything is made of atoms) but that still goes to show that scientists do not have enough information to call it fact. And the fact that what they're talking about has never been witnessed (obviously) it never will be more than a theory.

According to the Creation 'theory' (a term I use just to represent that it's being debated) God witnessed it and recorded it. He recorded in his flawless word. A word that has been proven right several times.

Rambunctious Jamirus

10th April 2004, 02:47 PM

Also, evolution has a lot less proof backing it. There is constantly the flaw of missing links. I know a few fossils have been found, but they alone can be merely dismissed as freaks of nature.

And this is true because...? A freak of nature, IMO, is classfied as a creature that is different from all other creatures of the same type. Example: A two-headed snake, a porcupine who cannot produce quills, white tigers (yes they are, this is created because of a genetic disorder in the colouring). These are freaks of nature, not several accounts of the same animal being found in different places or in the same place.

Based upon the theory that God created everything in the world in six days, how did it come to the part where dinos and humans lived together? No evidence is found that more complex mammals were around during that time or place.

Evolution and the Big Bang are both titled as theories. Yes, I'm aware that many commonly accepted scientific concepts are labeled as theories, (such as the atomic theory which says that everything is made of atoms) but that still goes to show that scientists do not have enough information to call it fact.

Yes they are. But they are hard theories as there is evidence of this. Darwin found that their were several different types of Finches, each one different in its own way. Look at dogs and domestic cats, there is at least over three hundred breeds for each sepcies. Horses as well and cows. Quite a few breeds have only popped up within the last hundred years.

And yes, they don't have a complete amount of proof but we don't have a complete amount of proof that God created the universe, no? We have a very large and heavy book that tells us this, how is this different from Darwin's book on evolution? They are both books on why the animals are as they are but each is not complete for we don't know it all.

Cferra

10th April 2004, 02:53 PM

Hello, Checkmate and Sovoris. Allow me to introduce myself. Name's Ledian_X. I'm an Italian American and Roman Catholic. While I do believe in God, I practice in my own way. I don't go to church and I often meditate as well since Buddhism has some very interesting things in it. Now then, after reading the opinions here, I have come to assist my friend, Damian Silverblade.

You see, I went to an Augustinian college in Northeastern Massachusetts. While there I took part in many, many religion courses that were required and not once did the professors, the preists and stuff say that "The Bible is law! YOU MUST FOLLOW IT!" Nope. They said that the Bible was never meant to be taken litterally. Hell, they even said that oral tradition messed things up.

Now then you can continue your radical Chrtistian beliefs which makes you no better than Al Quada in my opinion. You're pretty much as bad as the other Bible thumpers running around giving moderate Christians of all branches a bad name. In fact, a friend of mine had this to say about your radical Christian Right views:

"Realistically, the bible belt is just as bad as Al Qaeda, except they're actually numerous enough to go for democratic terrorism instead of the explosive variant."

Democratic terrorism. That's what you're guilty of. You come on here running your mouths hoping to change the world. Now you're talking about evolution. One of the philosophies we discussed in the religion classes taught by ministers and stuff was that God probably set off the Big Bang and created the universe setting things in motion for evolution. And yeah... believe in evolution too.

There is ample proof about evolution. Huamnity has evolved from apes swinging from trees to what you see looking into the mirror. We have fossils that shgow that. It takes back millions of years ago. Then we have dinosaurs. Which you call freaks of nature. I doubt these are freaks:

http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/dino/maias1.htm

http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/dino/tricera1.htm?128,40

http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/dino/diplod2.htm

Those were living, breathing creatures who became extinct millions of years ago. Humanity has only been on this planet a short time. On the whole maybe a million years. And let me just reinterate these points:

1.) Thje Bible was never meant to be taken litterally

2.) Evolution has occured. How else would you explain humanity getting taller every year. Species have changed and new ones are discivered every day.

Now, back onto the main topic of Homosexuality. I got no problems with that as one of my friends who was a mod here is Gay. He's a cool guy but see y'all seem to fall into the trap of being a radical Al Quada like Right Wing Christian extremist whose minds are very closed off.

Try to accept people as they are. That's the true meaning. Do not take the Bible literally because oral tradition is bad. Very bad. Hope I made some sense because well..Drilling all this into your heads is a hard thing to do. We can't change the world. But, you shouldn't come on here and act like you know everything.

L_X

Damian Silverblade

10th April 2004, 03:01 PM

And which has been proven wrong just as often.

I don'T see you adressing the point I raised earlier that Mathew's story about them having to journey to Betlehem (I think. I get the two towns mixed up some times) due to the cenus being bollock.

Let me explain again :

1-Historical FACT : The Romans ran census for taxation purpose. They wanted to know how many people there were in their provinces so that they could determine how much money the governor of the province should be forking over to the higher levels of government.

2-Historical FACT : The romans were thus interested in where people lived (since that is where they worked, and thus paid their taxes). Not where their families were form.

3-Historical fact : Roman census would never therefore have required the kind of ludicrous bureaucratic nightmare the bible portray.

4-Therefore there is a fallacy in the bible, which proves that it is not the flawless word of any being whatsoever.

---------------

Raising another point : The slaughter of the children.

1-Some of the Gospels claim that the king of Israel, hearing of the prophechy of Jesus' birth, ordered all children two and younger slain.

2-Historical fact : we have access to numerous historical sources from the time, including the chronicle of Josephus, which is highly critical (ie, says all the bad stuff he can find) of said king (and who documented his life in great detail as well), yet fails to even mention what would have been by far his greatest atrocity if it were true.

3-Historical fact : The romans ran Judeah et al at that time, as evidenced by the fact that they held the above-mentioned census.

4-Historical fact : the romans would not have been particularly interested in letting their puppet-king slaughter a whole generation of future tax-payer. There's a reason they were able to build an empire lasting nearly a millenium.

5-If the slaughter of the children really did happen, then why is Mathew's gospel the only source to mention it (none of the other gospel does), and moreover, why is there no source outside the bible - while we have quite worthwhile, quite well-documented and quite

----

Those are simply two questions to be raised.

Other points where the bible writers fail their history classes :

1 Chr 21:5 - claim the Israeli had an army of 1 500 000 men. For comparison the *modern* American army - the army of a state that has 300 000 000 inhabitants - is 1 300 000 men or so. It would have been *strictly impossible* in ancient time prior to the creation of all our modern means of transportations, canned food et al to maintain such a large army for any period of time.

1 chronicles 16:30 also claims the earth is stable and does not move. We have known for centuries however that earth in fact spin on its axis and around the sun.

2 chronicles 4:2 - either god was giving very approximate measurements when he set down his words (and if he was being "Yeah' that sounds about right" there, why couldn't he have been approximating and not making sure that the facts were 100% right elsewhere?), or else he changed the value of pi from 3 to 3.1415(etc) at some point since.

Job 39 13:17 - Ostrich actually care for and protect their youngs, and certainly do not leave them unatended as this verse implies.

That's without mentioning such "wonderful" creatures as the Satyr, Dragons, Unicorns and Coc-katrice (no - supposed to be there, but knowing this board it's going to sensor the word if I don't use some of the old tricks.). Beasts of which no traces off exist outisde myths and legends, either alive or fossilized. This, my friend, point to the bible being - just as every other creation myth and religious story - a *myth*.

Continuing...

Daniel 1:1 - "The third year of the reign of Jehoiakim". That would be 606 BC at which time Nebuchadnezar was not yet king of Babylon. The first fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezar occured in 597 BC, at which time a new king had risen in Israel.

Daniel 5:2-22 - The author of this book refers to Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezar and king of Babylon after him. This is false ; the son of Nebuchadnezar was Awil-Marduk (Evilmerodach in Kings), who became king after his father. The next king afterward was Nabonidus, and Belshazzar was his viceroy - not the king.

Daniel 5:31 - The author claims that Darius the Median took over the Babylonian empire. This is false - it was Cyrus of Persia who conquered Babylon in 539 BC (all extra-biblical sources agree on this). Darius of Persia (not of Medea) only came to power in 521 BC, by which time the dust of Babylon had already settled.

John 1:28 - quote the baptizing of Jesus as happening in "Betharaba" or "Bethany" beyond the Jordan (depend on the translation which of the two names you get). However Bethany is not beyond the jordan at all ; as for Betharaba no record of it whatsoever exists outside this one mention.

Just a quick list of very much debatable points.

Next on : contradiction between different parts of the bible.

Tainted

10th April 2004, 03:52 PM

2.) Evolution has occured. How else would you explain humanity getting taller every year. Species have changed and new ones are discivered every day.

L_X

Actually, evolution has occured-- that is a fact, but what you stated is false.
We are getting taller every year due to us eating more properly, as compared to the middle ages-- some also believe it's because of the steroids in our food, but I choose not to believe that.
We aren't actually getting that much taller every year, either, and we are only taller than our predecessors when compared to the people in the middle ages-- when they did not eat anywhere near nutriciously. Now, I know we aren't all green-eating people nowadays-- but we're better off now than we were then.

Evolution can be compared in terms that-- in a few generations time, our thumbs will be longer than they are now because the thumb is becoming the prominant finger and the index is becoming less used.
Also, this is not near as proven as the first, but some scientists say in five or so generations our smallest toe will slowly diminish into nothingness as it is proved as obsolete.

That's evolution, and don't get me wrong-- I'm an evolutionist and used to think the same thing as your statement, but I found it to be faulty.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

Checkmate

10th April 2004, 04:15 PM

Rambunctious, I don't understand how the several different breeds of animals justifies as proof of Darwin's evolution theory. Also, if it's true that they have found several of the same kind of animal, (say, several fossils of a fish with legs) Then couldn't it be that they are just another breed of animal that died out. If it is indeed true that they've found several (more than three or four) of one specific type of missing link to the point that it could be considered an extinct species, then I'll admit that that animal is not a freak of nature and instead a distinct species. I can be reasonable.

Also, the Bible proves itself. After countering this evolution point there will once again be zero stated flaws with the Bible. That proves its validity.

Ledian X, I'd be interested in knowing a little more about you. You see I've never understood people that hold to some of the Bible but not all of it. How can you call some of it right, and some of it wrong when it claims to be perfect. It's either wrong or it's right. It's not a book written of people's opinions over time. 2 Timoth 3:16 says that all scripture is God breathed, (emphasis on all) so you either believe it or you don't. I'm interested to understand how you can be a believer in the Bible and yet you say it is fallable.

Now Damian, finally someone brings up some points. Thank you, for at least attacking the Bible intellectually instead of ignoratantly calling it a story book.

First off, the American army is primarily of young men. The officers are much older, but the majority of the army is made of privates who are in their late teens and early twenties. Ancient armies were comprised of a much broader age range making size of the army not exactly impossible.

The Earth is not 'moved'. It moves. God was declaring his glory by saying no human could move the earth.
Also, while I have said i don't believe in evolution, I do believe in micro evolution (or 'adaptation') Humans do it. Only they do it more with inventions and innovations than their bodies. The book of Job was written in the time of Genesis. At least 5000 years ago. It is possible that ostriches could have acted in that manor then and have improved now. (after all if they didn't improve from that they'd be extinct by now)

Your beef with first Daniel first verse, could be a historical error on your part, however I accuse of no such thing, considering I have no proof, and I have faith in you that you do.

As for the rest of your points that I didn't knock down. Consider me 'checked'. I'm going to confer with some people that know a heck of a lot more than I do and come back with some more answers. However, until I do, I will make no more claims biblically based. Sound fair?

Noticed I said you 'checked' me. I most certainly do not admit checkmate until I've conferred with some others. Bye for now. Don't think I won't be back.

Crazy

10th April 2004, 04:21 PM

They said that the Bible was never meant to be taken litterally.
L_X[/QUOTE]

I agree perfectly with that.

Damian Silverblade

10th April 2004, 04:24 PM

Oh, I wouldn't want you to admite checkmate now. Where would be the fun in that?

As for the army, you still dodge the fact that it would simply have been beyond the capacity of anyone in the world in these days - and up until we had canned food and the ilk - to field that kind of humongous army.

Regarding the first Daniel verse, it could conceivably be a mistake on my part, or a misreading of teh bible. It may need to be double-checked.

EDIT : Also, regarding your point on Timothy claiming that the entire bible is god-breathed :

If someone decides to believe that only parts of the bible are true, then it doesn't matter to that person that Timothy says otherwise - he'll just believe that Timothy himself is one of the "wrong" part of the bible.

Side records note : historical studies (which is my field of study in university) show the Old Testament was written down by a pair of author, half of it during a time of religious turmoil in the 7th century or so BC, and the second half during the exile to Babylon. For the new Testament, evidence shows nearly all of it except the letters was composed around 70-100 AD, by disciples of the disciples of the people credited with the four gospels. This means they were written in many cases 40-70 years after the fact.

Cferra

10th April 2004, 04:29 PM

Ledian X, I'd be interested in knowing a little more about you. You see I've never understood people that hold to some of the Bible but not all of it. How can you call some of it right, and some of it wrong when it claims to be perfect. It's either wrong or it's right. It's not a book written of people's opinions over time. 2 Timoth 3:16 says that all scripture is God breathed, (emphasis on all) so you either believe it or you don't. I'm interested to understand how you can be a believer in the Bible and yet you say it is fallable.

Well, I'm 25. I majored in Political Science. I have a degree in that field and I have taken enough religion courses to come up with my own philosophy. Some people hold certain parts of the Bible in high regard and others not because of many things. You can call some right and wrong because of contradictions:

1.) Sometime reading the bible you get the impression some of the writers really were writing for nitwits. Like this: "And whoever does this, we shall stone him WITH STONES!" and "And her children I shall slay WITH DEATH!"

Not the exact sayings were said but come on. Some of those were a tad moronic. When you slay someone they do die. And It's obvious they were stoned with stones, I mean come on..Some of these things can't be bought.

Also, the church fathers have said time and time again that the Bibl's not to be taken litterally and it's a myth. I wouldn't be surprised if Christ comes back and ***** slaps you all. Assuminbg he wasn't a group of people as different records show.

I can be a believer and still say it's fallable due to my education and common sense. That's all there is to it. Take it or leave it.

L_X

Edit: oh and Checkmate, I do what I can because I worship in my own way. People believe some parts because most do not make sense. Hell, most of Gensis was proven wrong.

Earth was formed 4.8 Billion years ago fro molten rock. We know this throw carbon dating.

Dinosaurs first appeared 125 million years ago and died out 65 million years ago. We know that through fossil records, radio carbon dating and bones scattered all over this planet.

Our mammalian ancesters walked with the dinosaurs as small rodents and evolved over time into apes And the rest is history.

Rambunctious Jamirus

10th April 2004, 04:45 PM

Rambunctious, I don't understand how the several different breeds of animals justifies as proof of Darwin's evolution theory.

How do you explain the same animal but yet there is a difference. All tigers are related. There is only one tiger. But they have evolved to be more suited to where they live, like the Siberian Tiger who's coat is lighter and it is more bulky. The Sumatran Tiger has a longer face and much smaller body.

Dogs are the same. Wolves were at first all there was. From human interaction, they turned from the Irish Wolfhound to the Beagle for specific purposes. The Lab is popular as it is a retreiving dog, meant for swimming after ducks and ther fallen fowl. The Beagle is a fox hunting hound, small enough to slip into fox holes.
But with other canine species, foxes for example, have differences that are etremely recognizable. The Maned Wolf, a proven fox that lives in the forests of Central/South America is tall, long-legged for moving through the forest easily. The Fennec Fox has huge ears for it lives in the desert of Africa and uses it's huge ears to release heat.

Also, if it's true that they have found several of the same kind of animal, (say, several fossils of a fish with legs) Then couldn't it be that they are just another breed of animal that died out. If it is indeed true that they've found several (more than three or four) of one specific type of missing link to the point that it could be considered an extinct species, then I'll admit that that animal is not a freak of nature and instead a distinct species. I can be reasonable.

Explain the many bones of Tyrannosaurus Rex found. Sue is a nice example. There are several bones of this animal out there but only parts until Sue was found.
Crocodiles my friend? The giant animal that walks the earth? They've found a creature they've dubbed Deinosuchus, a huge 50-foot crocodile in Africa. The ancestor of our now small crocs?
Explain Coelacanth, the ancient fish that has been alive without change for over millions of years. They believed it was extinct before they found a living one by catching it.
Sharks are another example of evolution. The only fish who keep the cartilidge skeleton. They have adapted to life yet still have the bones their ancestors had.
The whale is a descendant of a creature who walked on land. We have findings of it, compared the snout of a modern dolphin with this animal and found a match. Seals and sea lions are related as well, only they choose the sea and land life instead of just the sea.

In what I get from this, I have a feeling you believe the wooly mammoth, the saber-toothed cat, Megatherium (the Giant Ground Sloth), and the moa are just science screwing with us.

Also, the Bible proves itself. After countering this evolution point there will once again be zero stated flaws with the Bible. That proves its validity.

I have nothing to say to this really. As soon as the Bible is proved to be 'The Greatest Book in all of Time Because it Says how we Came About, Not you Loser Scientists' then I'll believe every word of this. But since there isn't full complete fact that it is, it's another book in which has our origins, just like my science textbook.

Also, Ledian_X. My first response to your post was to hug you and I believe it still is.

Checkmate

10th April 2004, 06:58 PM

I'm still going to be a lot humbler temporarily because I haven't yet disproved all of Damien's points but I have made progress.

For one thing, Herod killed all the newborns in Bethlehem, a fairly small town. That pales in comparison to ordering 3000 men randomly killed after he died. So pleading pro-silence doesn't impress me.

Damien you didn't misread the Bible but it is possible for human history to have errored by six years or so. I admit that's just the best answer I have for Daniel 1:1 but it's not as desperate as some counters I'm sure you've heard of for Bible debates.

The census was also for military purposes, so they did have to go to the town of their clan in order for the Romans to make sure entire clans were enlisted.

Any able-bodied Israeli was counted as a member of the army. That's how they such a big army. It was for the most part 40-45% of their population. That isn't to say that that many troops were mobilized in times of war.

In response to Ledian, one could speculate (I'm not saying it's true) that each of the seven days were representative of pockets of millions of years, considering a 1000 years is like a day and a day is like 1000 years to God. It's just a possibility. I didn't create the universe I don't know how it was done. More on that later.

No loud boastful comments on the Bible's perfection seeing as how I haven't completely beaten Damien's claims yet, but you haven't shaken my faith. That's all for now.

Rambunctious Jamirus

10th April 2004, 07:16 PM

What boastful comment? That was pure sarcasm on my point.

It would be more than a 1000 years if the time when the Earth was formed and the time the first dinosaur appeared. And from that logic you gave, a thousand years for a day to God? Why can't there be a thousand years of rest then?

Can't we get back to the point (though this is all so fascinating) of the book as shazza says we should? Ban it or whatever, nothing good will come out of banning it anyways. The school board could get sued for it but where I am, the people suing wouldn't get much money anyways or they'd hurt our education more than it is now. Better to let it go and not let your kids check it out.

After all, it is a book, a piece of fiction based on life like most other books. Like Harry Potter which some religions were mad about. It didn't get banned so why should this book? 'OMG, there's a guy kissing a guy! Forget the witch since the Bible says that's wrong! Ban it!'

And yes, most evil is associated with witchcraft. The Devil is evil and left-handed...hmm...that must mean all left-handers are evil! Destroy my brother!

So, yes, the Bible is flawed right there. It doesn't come right out and say left-handers are evil, it implies it though. A lot.

Whoops...went off topic again. Rats...

Damian Silverblade

10th April 2004, 07:18 PM

Do you have any idea of the kind of bureaucratic nightmare you are talkign about with the census process you describe Checkmate?

Even today, if you had to go to the town of origin of your family, that would be a costly nightmare for the state and the people.

Back then, with travels taking weeks if not months, it would have been a logisticasl impossibility. You'd be paralizing large parts of society for months easily - not something Rome would have wanted.

And finally, if that was the way Romans ran census, we would have other traces of it in the records left behind by Rome.

shazza

10th April 2004, 07:19 PM

Whoops...went off topic again. Rats...

Yes, yes you did. :mad:

Damian Silverblade

10th April 2004, 07:24 PM

Oh, lay back Shaz. At least there's a lively discussion here, as opposed to total lack of activity.

Sorovis

10th April 2004, 07:29 PM

Damian, I admit my knowledge of the Bible and things related to it pale in comparison to Checkmate's, so I'm afraid I must let him deal with what you have brought up.

Rambunctious, What Checkmate is trying to give is an example. He did not literally mean that a day to God was a thousand years, he was merely speculating since there is no time to God (because he created time), the person who wrote the Bible may have had the task of defining the ages in which God worked.

Not all Christians were opposed to Harry Potter, so it is wrong to classify the people that disproved of it as 'religions'. I personally have no problem with it and have read all five books, but I can see where the opposition is coming from as I know a person who's faith in Catholocism was swayed by being too involved in the book.

Also, in defense of Checkmate, different types of the same animal does not prove evolution. All this shows is adaptation. You do realize that a raptor evolving to a bird is evolution do you not? What you say is called adaptation, not evolution.

Where does the Bible say left handed people are evil? For the sake of your debate quote some of the scripture you speak of.

The Rusted One

10th April 2004, 08:09 PM

The Rusted One, once again I ask you where is your information? As you can see, I have come up with quite a few sources supporting my point, some of them non-Christian, and yet you have avoided all those. It seems to me that you have no information to support you arguements and therefore nothing you say is valid. Sorry, but claiming yourself that you need no outside information is a terrible excuse. So as of now, your post is a waste of space. Oh yes, and about how you're bisexual, that still makes you biased because you still are to some degree homosexual. Sorry, but by all the posts you've made, that would be like me claiming to be unbiased, and I know you'de love that.

It actually makes me, what's the word...knowledgeable. If I had made a choice to be bisexual, why would I now be telling you I didn't? What reason would I have to lie to you? I might, instead, take the position that even though it was a choice, it isn't anything to regard as a sin anyway. Now, I haven't avoided a thing you've said - I've read all that you've posted, and basically most of the links, apart from the one I actually picked out aspects of in my last post, were religiously biased, or otherwise homophobic (homophobia doesn't rely only on the belief in some religious doctrine). Feel free to feel that I have because I haven't actually said, "invalid" - but with other people here first, saying it, what need for me to say it again is there? Apparently, I see now, a great deal, though to me that seems quite a waste of time.

But let's see how invalid anything I've said is - you asked for an internet site link to an unbiased source - and I didn't provide one, because I know full-well that most things on controversial issues on the internet are, indeed, biased. Instead, I relied on myself - and like I said before, if my "story" was any different, what reason would I have to fabricate something? None - because I'd be able to argue from a different point of view (such as, why is choosing to live one way, that doesn't hurt anyone, and involves two people who have the same feelings for the other that a heterosexual couple would have, a bad thing? How is it a sin, without reference to the Bible? In fact, please do answer those for me). But then, I'm not fabricating anything - I'm using personal experience, and asking for yours in order to demonstrate a point (you still haven't enlightened me as to whether or not you ever had to make a choice about who to be attracted to. And consider the point that if you did make a choice, then you could just as easily have chosen the other option). I know I never chose to be bisexual; I know I've never chosen to be attracted to a guy. I've also never chosen to be attracted to a girl, either.

Now, think of what I've been saying - that homosexuality is not a choice. I've relied on my personal experience to tell you this (whether you believe it or not is up to you, but I could equally say that nothing of what you look like is actually up to genetics, then, it's just that as the baby is forming, it chooses to develop into a human being, and it chooses what hair colour, and eye colour, and skin colour, it will have), because I know that at least I'm not personally biased to prove a point while ignoring evidence. You give me evidence about choice, and I can say that honestly, I've never chosen - so this evidence doesn't apply to me - and nor to you, I suspect. Back to the point - homosexuality is not a choice. I've used knowledge of genetics to propose how it might be genetic, have I not? Has anyone refuted my statements about the way genes work in genomes? No. Could you research what I've said to see whether the things I'm saying about the laws of heredity are accurate? Yes. Feel free to do so, too - but again, I'll reiterate the points I've been making.

Genes code for proteins that form the greater structures of our bodies, interspersed with sugars, etc., etc. - these make us look the way we are. A single genes may be responsible for a single characteristic - but attempting to disprove that something is genetic given that one gene marker has been tested (a single one, on a single chromosome) and found to have a dubious connection at best doesn't work. For one thing, homosexuality may not be the result of a gene located only on the X chromosome - so that means that the entire genome would have to be searched in order for you to tell us, as you have before, that it isn't genetic. Another thing is, the only gene marker they've selected is not representative of the rest of the genes - i.e., you can't take one and get a negative, or iffy, result, and say that whatever was being tested for is not genetic. Not only that, but homosexuality may be caused by multiple genes - that is, a complex interaction and interworking of genes found all over the place. There's a few aspects so far not considered by you, it seems.

Now we move onto behaviour - we know from observation that behavioural characteristics are a mix of genetic makeup and social conditioning. Genetic makeup makes a chimpanzee social; social conditioning makes it adopt the culture of the group it's born into. Homosexuality is not dependent on culture, as we have seen in evidence unearthed by archaeological and anthropological studies; and no matter how looked-down-upon it is in a given culture, it still occurs, despite the lack of benefit experienced by the people directly affected by it (that is, they don't get more pleasure from being gay, or lesbian, the love they feel is the same, and any variety of variables that don't actually vary). And, we know that it occurs in animals, illustrating that it appears to be part of the innate behavioural patterns in animals. Given that, it's not at all a leap of faith to say that homosexuality is a natural part of human behavioural patterns. I also proposed that it was from a lack of hormone presence in the womb, which is not necessarily genetic but a product of the environment - but either way, homosexuality is not a choice, which is supported by most, if not all, homosexual people, and disagreed on by those who actually have no personal knowledge of the subject at all.

Also, in defense of Checkmate, different types of the same animal does not prove evolution. All this shows is adaptation. You do realize that a raptor evolving to a bird is evolution do you not? What you say is called adaptation, not evolution.

It is - it isn't the crossing of a line from one species into the next, of course, but it is evolution. Evolution is change to suit given environmental constraints exercised upon a species (and human selection of good traits is an example of this) - so any change in a species is it evolving. Evolution isn't just a raptor changing into a bird (and you'll find it was actually small dinosaurs such as Compsognathus, not a raptor, per se, that is theorised to have evolved into birds) - it's all the steps along the way. Evolution doesn't start out with a goal in mind - the natural variation within a species is such that if one environmental constraint changes, the species will cease evolving one way and start another (i.e., a small bipedal dinosaur would not evolve along a single, predetermined path, no matter what the environment) - so all steps along the way are new evolutionary ones. A chicken with four forward-pointing toes and not three is a new evolutionary step in the evolution of the chicken - and it's a freak of nature at the same time. Freaks cause change, if you will - their characteristics will be passed on, if they get to breed and produce offspring. What you ask for is missing links - and if you actually stepped back and thought about it, you'd see we have them. Any variation on a theme is a missing link - you won't find a half-fish, half-lizard if you look for a "missing link" in the evolution of reptiles from fish - you'll find fish that have multiple bones in their fins that have similar structures to vertebrate limbs - and then you might find a fish with a fully jointed limb - and then you might find an amphibian, which is actually what the "midstep" between fish and reptiles were - and you'd be able to trace along like that. Like I said, you won't find a fish-lizard; you'll find what has already been found. A species is only a species because we label it so - there is no definite break, or line, that is crossed, between parent and offspring. An individual is only of a species because we say it belongs to a species, but in reality it's part of a continuous chain of change that has at some point changed so much it can't breed with its distant ancestors. There are no gradated steps, just a continuous slope - and say you were walking down a slope like it. You could only step so far, and form a link between one foot and the next - this would be one species capable of interbreeding with an ancestor of itself. You can't, however, take a step and go from the top of the slop, ten metres away, to the bottom - and nor can a species at the "top" breed with one at the "bottom". That's what evolution is.

Rambunctious Jamirus

10th April 2004, 08:18 PM

Rambunctious, What Checkmate is trying to give is an example. He did not literally mean that a day to God was a thousand years, he was merely speculating since there is no time to God (because he created time), the person who wrote the Bible may have had the task of defining the ages in which God worked.

And what is time but an illusion to give us a concrete detail to which we can grasp and explain the different zones in which creatures lived and died, cherished their mates, transformed to help themselves? The people who wrote the Bible may have a hard time getting through what the time God spent on the world is, sure. But what is a day to a human? Surely this comes into conclusion in which what is a day to us is not to God but when we write it in its form now, it is a human day.

Not all Christians were opposed to Harry Potter, so it is wrong to classify the people that disproved of it as 'religions'. I personally have no problem with it and have read all five books, but I can see where the opposition is coming from as I know a person who's faith in Catholocism was swayed by being too involved in the book.

I know but it's hard for us to define 'Christian' anymore now is it? There are separate forms of the church, Baptist, Lutheran, etc. There are adaptations of one but each is varied in its own way. In this way, each branch of churches are a different part of a whole religion, making sub-religions. And since some sub-religions found that Harry Potter was 'evil,' they fought to ban it. It wasn't passed and neither should this.

Also, in defense of Checkmate, different types of the same animal does not prove evolution. All this shows is adaptation. You do realize that a raptor evolving to a bird is evolution do you not? What you say is called adaptation, not evolution.

Then which is true according to the Bible? That evolution isn't real or is it? Yes, I did confuse just a bit of that up, it is still a question that needs to be answered. Going by science, we evolved from reptiles who started to slowly change, growing hair or feathers. Hair is a modified scale. Feathers are modified scales. Some apes or monkeys have thumbs, others don't. Some mammals (platypus and echinda) lay eggs still, a bird and reptile attribute. Explaining these to be adaptations wouldn't work too well as it is more effective most of the time to give live birth as eggs cannot protect themselves, live offpring have a chance, if not a small one, to get away.
But yes, a raptor turning into a bird, most likely a bird of prey, is evolution. What the Bible speaks of is not. It is creatures dying out and other still being there in a time they weren't supposed to be there if going by science records.
Ever wonder of the maruspials of Australia? They evolved like that because they had no natural predator most of the time.
But technically, evolution is a sudden change in genes that can be for the best or worst. An insect with three wings might not last but what of the great thumb? A change in genes in the ape line allowed the thumb to be successful.

Where does the Bible say left handed people are evil? For the sake of your debate quote some of the scripture you speak of.

Christianity is strongly based towards the right hand. It is the right had that gives the blessing and make the sign of the cross.

On one count, the bible contains over 100 favourable reference to the right-hand and 25 unfavourable references to the left-hand. E.g.: The right hand of the lord doeth valiantly, the right hand of the lord is exalted (Psalm 118 vv15,16)

Ah, the right hand is valiant.

The left hand does worst in the parable of the sheep and goats. The sheep are set on Christ's right hand and the goats on the left. Those on the right inherit the kingdom of god while those on the left depart into everlasting fire.

Quite weird that those on the left hand of God shall burn forever.

And quite weird that most words for left in other languages that had the Bible as the main source of religion. 'Gauche' in French also means 'clumsy.' In Latin, the original word for left was 'sinistra,' a term for sinister.

These were found Here (http://www.anythingleft-handed.co.uk/lefty_myths.html), Here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A625501), and Here (http://www.traceyourhand.org/cosmos/LGBTleft/left.html)

But let's get back to the second original topic which is if changing to heterosexuality is so important to people who are homosexuality, why don't they? Maybe, I don't know, they don't want to? They are happy the way they are, let them. This is like standardized tests. There are kids who pass them and kids who don't. Some who don't pass don't give a huge crap about the test and therefore don't pass because they don't want to do it. We can't do anything about that since it's their choice, we can't force all homosexuals to change if they don't want to. If all can change that is.

Sorovis

10th April 2004, 08:34 PM

Sorovis

10th April 2004, 08:51 PM

Rambunctious, I don't quite find the use of your argument against days to God. What would be so terrible if the writer of the Bible personally defined the ages of God's work as days? Days are a revolution of the Earth, and the writer may have defined a day as a new great change in the Earth: the appearence of creatures of the sea could be one day; while the appearence of creatures of the land could be another (I would also like to note animals appeared on the Earth as the Bible says: water, ground, then air).

Still, calling those opposed to Harry Potter a religion is generalizing and a terrible thing to do in an open debate. I was not opposed to Harry Potter but I am to this new book. Why not just say "those opposed to the book, generally Christian"? That would be true.

The point you raise on the left hand is interesting, but the reason this is in the Bible is because to the Arab world where the Bible is written, the left hand is used for cleansing while the other for shaking and other things. Jesus never said that the left hand is bad, and therefore it is not in our culture. But the arabs considered it to be, and that's who it was written by. In order to find a flaw, you must look into what Jesus said himself what was right and wrong. Homosexuality is wrong he says, but left handedness is not.

Homosexuality could be considered harmful in that it spreads disease. Sure, they don't have to have sex, but neither do heterosexuals. That will either be argued or simply allowed, and the increasing spread of these diseases will run out of control totally in time.

Damian Silverblade

10th April 2004, 09:00 PM

"Homosexuality could be considered a problem aside from the Bible in this way: It can spread STD's."

So can heterosexuality ; moot point.

Now, one question for you. I want an answer on it :

According to you, homosexuality is not natural (which means it is not part of our nature ; ie what our genes tell us to do).

Is heterosexuality natural then?

Sorovis

10th April 2004, 09:02 PM

Yes, heterosexuality is genetic.

Damian Silverblade

10th April 2004, 09:13 PM

Thank you for making my point Sorovis.

Yes, heterosexuality is genetic.

Evidence 1.

If homosexuality is genetic, then it should not be changeable.

Evidence 2.

According to you, heterosexuality is genetic. According to you, something that is genetic cannot be changed.

Therefore, heterosexuality exists and cannot be changed in all of us.

Yet, homosexuality most definitely exists, which means that people have changed their "genetic" heterosexuality, proving that what is genetic can in fact be changed OR that heterosexuality is NOT in fact genetic, making it just as much as a choice (and therefore not natural) as heterosexuality.

So Sorovis, which is it?

Is heterosexuality just as UNnatural as homosexuality, or is it that what is genetic can in fact be changed, meaning that the ability of people to change from homosexual to heterosexual does NOT disprove the genetic idea?

Either way, you lose and have to admit to being wrong on at least one point.

Rambunctious Jamirus

10th April 2004, 09:19 PM

You're debate for evolution is strong, and it intrigues me. Could you explain to me how a small dinosaur such as the compsagnathus could eventually evolve freak feathers? And then how it could continue to evolve these feathers further when they could at that time not aid the dinosaur? And how would it go so far as to eventually produce a completely different species, with lighter bones, different skin, that is covered in feathers and flies with an expert skill? Each of the steps of changed required would leave the dinosaur at a disadvantage: the lighter bones would make it fragile, the useless feathers would slow it down, and the evolving species would not survive the change.

Let's go through this step by step.

First. Water was there with some land. Plants or plant-like organisms lived in the ocean. Bacteria was there, feeding off the plants and plant-like organisms.

Plants began to "figure out" that there was land and slowly started to change, a spore containing a gene that was received and made the plant better and stronger. Slowly, the plant was getting stronger and it began to "crawl" onto the land, finding a better source of light there to survive better.

The plants boomed in life and soon took over the entire land. The plants that still were in the ocean began to change as well, some forming leaf-like appendages and some growing into a larger organism. Bacteria was starting to change as well, getting used to the new environment as the planet slowly formed into a hot and tropical climate.

Not positive but either bacteria with a screwed gene or plants began to evolve to eat other plants, becoming the most basic form of an animal, the jellyfish's ancestor. This creature began to thrive as the plants were thriving as well.

Millions of years of changing jellyfish-like creatures made the next step in evolution, sea stars and nautiluses and insects, crustaceans, and other hard-shelled creatures. These creatures then formed into a new creature which became armoured fish, like Coelacanth. These creatures were the most developed then.

After a while, the new insects figured out that there was more food above the ocean surface. The creatures started to crawl out of the water for short periods of time until a gene went haywire and the insects had their spiracles. The spiracles let these insects crawl over land without having to go back into the water. The insects were then the dominant species of the land.

Fish then realized that there was food above the surface as well, including insects. Their fins morphed after the creatures were catching insects from the water into digits. These let the creatures crawl out for short periods of time as the new limbs were weak.

A change in genes created lungs for the newly formed amphibians. The creatures of course had to keep going back to water for they would dry out, unlike insects with their hard shells.

Another change in genes created the dry skin which helped the amphibians stay out of water, allowing them to catch more food and eat more. The change in genes then allowed claws to form, a better way of holding their prey.

These creatures were tiny mind you but then change started happening again. The new reptiles lived on plants and became bigger as there was nothing to stop them.

Then carnivores hit the scene. The first were omnivorous and had a great advantage as the herbivores had no real protection. There were few of these carnivores and when herbivores grew bigger, carnivores had to grow bigger to take down their prey. Raptors were different as they kept the "herd" knowledge and used it to their advantage.

After a while, the sea became inviting once again as there were no predators in the sea. Some reptiles evolved once again to swimming into the oceans and another screwed gene and flippers appeared, providing better water travel.

Pteradons were another story. The air was free to whoever claimed it. The creatures took on the webbed skin after years of jumping and catching flying prey. Pteradons didn't actually fly, they glided which would make them different then the birds.

Now then, as the climate began to change as another scientist theory came about. Pangaea, the super continent in which all the land masses were all together, were splitting apart. The lands drifted to colder climates, making the creatures struggle for a way to be warm.

A gene change here and the Caudipteryx became known. The feathers on this bird were most likely colourful and parts of scales. This feathered dino ate insects which dominated the air. Years of jumping after these prey made it grow wings in which it could glide after its prey and catch it in the air. The bones became light because the creature weighed too much to actually glide.

Mammals formed from reptiles, another change in genes in the smaller variety of creatures. Fur sprouted and the brain became more developed. Being smaller meant that the larger predators couldn't hunt them very well. These tiny rodents wern't able to do anything for quite a while but evolve, mature, and stand back.

Then several theories are evident. A meteor struck the Earth which such impact that it caused the sky to cloud over with dust, effectively killing most plants. Large herbivores began to die out as the plants died and carnivores began to die of starvation. Soon, the only creatures that remained were the feathered dinos, the tiny lizards, snakes, and insects, and the tiny mammals.

The other was that the cold climate killed them off with an Ice Age. By then, mammals had grown to be warm blooded along with the new feathered dinos as this conserved energy and made it possible to hunt for long periods of time without stopping.

The next was that a weird occurence happened, causing volcanoes to explode ad earthquakes to happen. The newly birds survived along with the tiny mammals who were fast and used less energy to get away. Smaller lizards and snakes followed and since dinos were not accustomed to a huge amount of heat at one time, died of overheating and stroke.

With the large dinos gone, the mammals and birds began to take over. Tiny primates found their way into society, becoming bats while they were at it. Rodents evolved into weird creatures...like the carnivore goat.

Humans suddenly popped in after a change in genes in the primate line. These humans were hairy but lived in groups. They found that living together benfited them, like a pack of Saber-Toothed Cats.

The humans began to evolve, some reverting into chimpanzee ancestors and others becoming less hairy as the time changed. Tools were invented to help the humans, sharpened sticks and pestle and mortars.

The new humans spread out, taking different paths. Some crossed the bridge to America by the Bering Strait while others hung back.

The Ice Age hit and mammals began to struggle. Migrations to the Central and Equator started. Birds controlled the sky while huge armadillos bashed clubbed tails. A creature by the name of Megatherium lived, weighing as much as a full grown elephant. It was a powerful creature that lived off of plants and one that took several Saber-Toothed Cats to take down.

And then, as slowly as it began, the creatures began to die again. A change in climate most likely but then evolution took place again. Cats became the leopard, jagura, and tiger, the wolves that man claimed as their own turned into dogs. Primates became what they are today.

The hoatzin is a nice way to show evolution. A native of South America, this bird has a claw on the wrist of its wing, where feathered dinos had their claws. The babies retain these until fully grown or keep them all together. Other birds have a useless digit instead of the claw.

Whales are another example. These creatures have pelvic bones but no back legs. That is because the creatures before tham lived on land and returned to the ocean for the same reason dinos did. These pelvic bones became smaller and smaller along with the back legs until the back legs were useless and disappeared. The pelvic bone remains thoughs.

A better way to see this is Discovery's Walking with Prehistoric Beasts or Walking with Dinosaurs on during the late night or gaze at the book which is now in bookstores.

Sorovis

10th April 2004, 09:24 PM

Would you consider homosexuality as permanent? A person begins as heterosexual. At some point an experience changes them to homosexuality. And yet they can change back to heterosexuality as is proven. So homosexuality could be considered a mask, and beneath every homosexual is still heterosexual urges. With the will of our mind, a person's attractions may be forced to something unnatural; but beneath, percievable to some (bisexuals) but not to others (homosexuals), there is still heterosexuality in them. It could be like dying your hair, it can wear away, but if the homosexual refuses the change, they will remain; like re-dying your hair.

Damian Silverblade

10th April 2004, 09:30 PM

So it's possible for "genetically hetero" people to become homosexual, but not the reverse?

That's imbecilistic. If the genes can be changed one way by experience (ie, from hetero to homo), then there is NO - ABSOLUTELY no - basis to the statement that the other way is not possible.

Either genes can be changed (from choice, experience or whatever), or they can't. There's no one-way change to it, it's either they can, or they can't.

If they can be changed then your whole construct that homosexuality cannot be genetic because people can change is false.

If they cannot be changed, then heterosexuality is no more genetic or natural than homosexuality.

You've lost, and trying to avoid what I raised by repeating your earlier statements won't help it. Your post just above this one failed to adress what I stated earlier, so I'm stating it again, in clearer terms here.

Sorovis

10th April 2004, 09:34 PM

Damian Silverblade

10th April 2004, 09:37 PM

Show me a non-religious, modern article stating that Earth was created by a divine being with all species already there with only the capacity to adapt then.

Again, you are the one challenging the commonly accepted claim ; the burden of the proof rest on you.

Sorovis

10th April 2004, 09:38 PM

Damian, telling me I've lost neither intimidates nor disheartens me. If you listened to what I said, it was that even a homosexual was still heterosexual deep down. So no, I did not say homosexuality was a change from heterosexuality, but a mask. The mind is a powerful thing, and it can almost, but not quite, change genetics. No genetics do not change by the mind. No I have not lost.

Damian Silverblade

10th April 2004, 09:41 PM

Ah, so you claim an homosexual is still an heterosexual deep down.

Prove it.

Otherwise this is a MEANGINLESS theory of yours which has NO scientifical valididy (no study to back it, no proof, no witness, etc), NO proof, NO support and therefore NO relevance in a debate. It also does nothing to account for homosexual animals - are they still heterosexuals deep down ignoring themselves and chosing homosexuality? HOW would they do so, given that animals live only by instincts, ie genetic and very simple association of ideas?)

I could just as easily say that "all heterosexual are homosexuals who ignore themselves because of society's needs and pressure". That would not make it so, nor would it be a valid argument in a debate.

Bring forth valid proof of your above claim - that homosexuals are heterosexuals deep down (and no, the fact that they can "change back" is no proof).

You are building bridges out of thin air and offering reasonings (although I hesitate to associate your claims with reason) which have not a ounce of proof behind them, and therefore no place whatsoever in debating.

Sorovis

10th April 2004, 09:46 PM

I am going to oppose what you have said, Damian, with the burden resting on me. Back to the roots of this debate, I said I was here to defend the anti-homosexuality Christian view. This debate will not end if I bring you evidence, as you have seen. Because I have brought it, and still this debate lives; mutated to a different topic, but lives nonetheless. If you want me to continue bringing evidence to this board, you must first convince the Rusted One and others that homosexuality is not genetic and is able to be changed, or convince them to at least match my evidence instead of making excuses such as 'they need no outside source'. So you see, I have fallen into believing I can change anothers mind, and now I understand this debate will last until it is closed. Bringing evidence of what you say will result in a second challenge or a refinement of the first. At first, I had to prove there was evidence supporting non-genetic homosexuality; then it had to be unbiased; then the other side needed no evidence. It is an endless battle, and I cannot waste time here as I have many to debate with. It is not because of no support I will not bring evidence, but because it would in the end be obsolete.

Sorovis

10th April 2004, 09:53 PM

I add this in an second post to draw more attention.

Damian, I would also like to note that you think I am challenging the common view of the board. If you will once again return to the roots of the thread, I did not challenge anything. I was the one who was challenged.

Rambunctious Jamirus

10th April 2004, 10:08 PM

I assume by this, Rambunctious, that you are trying to prove evolution. While what you said is intelligent and well researched (I've heard it before), it is nonetheless a waste of time for you. Saying insects spiracles went 'haywire' and allowed them onto land is too farfetched.

Technically, Iwas trying to not repeat the word 'evolved' or 'changed.' Back then, it was a weird thing so it went haywire. And insects didn't have spiracles then, they had gills.

How many of these insects would have gone 'haywire' in order for them to successfully reproduce and create a new species?

One. For while the others were still struggling with the new found land, this one was beyond that. The strongest survive and the strongest get the mates. Basic animal instinct.

While I have said I believe in adaptation; fur color changing to adapt to an environment, a complete change in a species, scales to feathers, is too unbelievable.

So is the fact that one God created the masses of organism life we see today. And compare the genetic make-up of hair to feathers and both to scales. They are almost alike.

Mammoths have gone into present day elephants; sabertooths to tigers, but neither of these have changed their species.

Yes they did. Mammoths and elephants are different species of the same Family if you want to do this scientifically. Why are Asian Elephants and African Elephants different species? Because they are different in more ways than one. Africans are wild, Asians can be tamed.

Tigers and caracals are two different species in the same Family of Felidae. Both are different, one can roar the other can't. A small bone or tendon changes the difference in these two. Cheetahs are an entirely different species yet they are cats. They have their own Genus now because of the differences in the claws and other attributes.

Neither went from warm to cold blooded, neither evolved feathers, and neither fly. The only true changes are those of tooth length, tusk length, and the length and thickness of fur, along with other minor changes. This disproves what you (or others) may say that they evolved. They did not, they merely adapted. Show me they came from a different species (an article, please), and I will consider.

They did. It's a simple fact in life. Since we learned how to cook, our stomachs devolved to digesting raw meat. We cannot eat it without getting sick. Some carnivores changed into herbivores, some herbivores changed into carnivores.

And no, all evolution is not good. About 98% of all evolutions are useless or harm the animal. The other two percent do good for the creature.

A good link in which I must say that Caudipteryx's feathers were not used for flight or gliding but most possibly were after a while is this. (http://dinosauricon.com/genera/caudipteryx.html) A link for whale evoltuion is this. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html) And here's (http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA14/dinofeathers.html) another feathered dino.

There is also a way scientists classify dinosaurs. Some have the reptile or lizard hips and others have bird hips. All bird hipped dinos were plant eaters. Carnivores were mostly in a group with the reptile hipped dinos along with some plant eaters. The raptor was involved in another group of dinos, the dromaeosaurs. These besides the dromaeosaurs were found Here. (http://www.education.com/common/resources/lfo/dinosaurs/rtmorder.html)

To go along with your post, I know people asked for unbiased reports. I have commented on that was impossible unless a computer wrote it out without human interaction. Though I would like to ask what other side you mean here.

Sorovis

10th April 2004, 10:30 PM

But in order for this one to get a mate, their had to be two. If this insect had spiracles instead of gills, it would not have been able to return to the water.

Scales and feathers may look similar, but their is still quite a long way to go before you get feathers out of that; especially feathers that provide flight.

Thank you for correcting me on my misuse of species. By how you continued, I assume you knew I ment family.

Your information on this is very good, but I still have some doubts to it. The feathers on the dinosaurs tail must have changed very slowly, yes? But how would the tiny nubs of feathers which appeared on the creature's tail aid the creature upon their first appearence? While I will understand and to some degree go along with that the fully tail-feathered creatures could have used them for balance and mating purposes, I still do not find how just the beginnings of feathers could aid the dinosaur.

About unbiased reports, I believe it was your post that actually opened my eyes, and I thank you for that. What do you mean by 'the other side' comment? I haven't found it, but I may have just overlooked it.

Rambunctious Jamirus

10th April 2004, 10:46 PM

But in order for this one to get a mate, their had to be two. If this insect had spiracles instead of gills, it would not have been able to return to the water.

The insects could still return to water, just not as long. And the dominant gene beats out the recssive gene. One reason why in most families with light coloured hair and dark coloured, the offsrping will have a more chance of having dark coloured hair than light coloured. Since spiracles are more dominant than gills in this case, the spiracles were reproduced. Though the spiracles became what they are today after thousand of years of changing, just like our thumbs.

Scales and feathers may look similar, but their is still quite a long way to go before you get feathers out of that; especially feathers that provide flight.

Yes, but most feathers have been proven to be light besides the ground birds like ostriches which have no use of flight feathers. Feathers are a source of insulation, just like fur. And flight feathers found on the wings of birds are just feathers that are longer and designed more to create uplift. These feathers are not found on ground birds since there is no use for them, like the feathered dinos.

Thank you for correcting me on my misuse of species. By how you continued, I assume you knew I ment family.

Partially. Species and families are different when used as classification.

Your information on this is very good, but I still have some doubts to it. The feathers on the dinosaurs tail must have changed very slowly, yes?

Yes. By the timeline I created, that whole thing was over 300 million years of evolution. By the time I reached the feathered dino, that was nearing the 65 million mark.

But how would the tiny nubs of feathers which appeared on the creature's tail aid the creature upon their first appearence?

Mating purposes. Best colours got the best mates while the dull ones died without a mate. This created a large group of colour dinos in which the more impressive the feathers, the more the creature mated with females. A bird attribute with many of the tropical species (Birds of Paradise, lyrebirds, etc.)

While I will understand and to some degree go along with that the fully tail-feathered creatures could have used them for balance and mating purposes, I still do not find how just the beginnings of feathers could aid the dinosaur.

Answered above to my knowledge of evolution. Insulation to the slowly chilling climate, mating purposes, blending in a tropical rainforest.

About unbiased reports, I believe it was your post that actually opened my eyes, and I thank you for that. What do you mean by 'the other side' comment? I haven't found it, but I may have just overlooked it.

You're welcome. English actually did something for me for once. And I'll await your comment on the other side hopefully soon.

Sorovis

10th April 2004, 10:59 PM

Congratulations, you have out-debated me on Evolution, as I have no further evidence to support my beliefs against it. Unless I find something to combat what you have shown me (which is unlikely), I will leave you with the victory unless Checkmate or another challenges you. Further posting by me may result in careless mistakes, and being one of the two defenders of the Christians against homosexuality, I cannot afford careless mistakes.

Ah, I have found what you mean. There by saying the 'other side', I was referring to any opposed to my view on homosexuality.

This will be my last post for the night, as I said above I cannot afford mistakes and sleep is taking hold.

shazza

10th April 2004, 11:06 PM

Oh, lay back Shaz. At least there's a lively discussion here, as opposed to total lack of activity.

But this discussion is boring and not fun. Whatever. :mad:

pokemaniacbill

10th April 2004, 11:58 PM

Then it is quite evident that if, as you say, God would not allow his word to be corrupted, the Ten Commandments incident with the Golden Calf would not have happened.

It is also quite evident that the Bible is, in fact, NOT inspired by God, because the book is NOT perfect: Why would he want that pesky free will getting in the way of his words?

I'm dissapointed that you essentially copped out from the smallest of points that's hammered into you from the Bible itself more then I can imagine 'Humans are fallable, and you will screw up.'

Checkmate

11th April 2004, 12:11 AM

I congratulate Sorovis on his (in my opinion) excellent debating against (in my opinion) the most intimidating poster on this forum, the Rusted One. Not to offend you Jamirus. You have also proven a great intellect.

I could suggest that evolution was how God created the world, but that would be mostly contradicted by the scriptures that say he created animals of the air and sea and then the land animals. So I won't make that point, but I'd definetly be interested if someone found about a flying fish. Or a swimming bird like the penguin.

I along with Sorovis admit defeat on the evolutionary front. I quoted a scripture on page 9 or 10 from Job which you have just proven. I didn't create the universe, and I don't know why that sane possibility exists. If God shows me his home videos on how he created the universe sometime in the near future I'll debate you again. But since you doubt that possibility even more than I do.

I admit checkmate on the evolutionary front. However I will stubbornly protest that you won by your superior knowledge of the theory and not the justice of your cause. Yes, it's stubborn, but I still have too much personal proof of God and Jesus to dismiss the possibilities on mere (though admittedly well thought out) theories. You have to admit my stubborn concession is more than most will offer when defeated.

I don't quite consider this stuff as a biblical flaw, though it was also not by any means a ridiculous answer to my challenge. No history has recorded evolution and in my opinion it doesn't quite hold the ground, Damian's seem to. I'm still working on Damian's alleged biblical flaws.

But in the mean time, here's something for you to chew D. Saying heterosexuality is genetic, is like saying it's genetic to be born with skin covering all of your body (except of course the basic pores, mouth, nose, etc.) To my knowledge, there is no disease that makes holes in your skin at birth. (not to say there isn't) If I cut a person with a knife, the skin is torn, however it can be healed over time. That's a rough analogy of a person considering homosexuality. Easily healed. It's true the skin can be scarred by large wounds. That would be the act of being a homosexual. The scar will never go away. If a homosexual becomes once again a heterosexual, the fact that they were homosexual isn't completely discarded. It's still a part of their history, and they will most likely fight temptations against it for the rest of their lives.

If heterosexuality is considered genetic, I call it genetic in that manner. That's all I've got to say. I prefer to fight on the Bible front, but I currently can't. Also, I thought I'd just help out my valiantly fighting partner by at the very least throwing him a weapon.

Checkmate

11th April 2004, 12:17 AM

Pokemaniac Bill, as I recall from last hearing the story Moses went back up and got the ten commandments back. If that story proves anything, it proves that indeed God doesn't let his word be corrupted by human error. Thank you for teaching me the equivalent I might learn from a Bible Study.

Unless you're using Damian as your weapon, you haven't proven that the Bible is fallable. I have not copped out. I've only said what you accidentally proved. God is omnipotent and is well capable of overcoming human error and having a human do perfect work. Actually it proves how powerful he is which could be the reason he didn't write it perfectly.

Also a little side bar. If left hands were unholy why would God have one in the first place? Just a thought

Damian Silverblade

11th April 2004, 12:53 AM

Actually that's the whole thing on the "fragile skin" theory (or the masks). I understand your reasoning perfectly, but the thing is - it's just a guess. There's no proof whatsoever that nobody is born homosexual - that's just something the two of you came up with.

Besides which, you both admitted that it was possible to "force" oneself to be interested in the other gender (ie, from whatever our genetic makeup make us interested in normally).

At which point I rest my case - I made my point already. The whole "It's possible to go from homosexual to hetero ; therefore it can't have a genetic cause because if it was genetic it wouldn't change." argument does not hold water at this point. We all admit it is possible to force oneself (or to be made by events) to be interested in the side we're not genetically programed to be interested in.

That particular debate I started about a page ago was never meant to prove homosexuality is genetic or heterosexuality is not ; that's something I don't want to get in. It was meant to disprove the argument "Homosexuality CANNOT be genetic because it's possible to change from it."

Seeing as we all claimed that it was possible to change (although Sorovis claimed it was a "fake" change - that's irrelevant, since it's just as possible for the people who make themselves hetero after being homo to be "masking" their homosexuality with heterosexuality) from our genetic background, the point is made.

Pokemaster Matt

11th April 2004, 12:55 AM

Also a little side bar. If left hands were unholy why would God have one in the first place? Just a thought

If homosexuality was unholy why did God let it happen in the first place?

Matt, actually, we are all related, a point the Bible stresses frequently that we are all related, but that does not mean we all commit incest, because after a while, people have obviously changed, you have black, white, short, tall, etc. people now whos genes are very different. It is much different then incest because in incest the two peoples' genes would be very similar, and many diseases that one generation of a family carries would be more likely to come out in the next generation if that family committed incest (which is why it is illegal now). Now that people are so different, you don't have that problem.

So... Humans comitted incest on such a scale, originating in one place, that we ended up all over the world somehow, and we lost all knowledge and/or contact with each other? What a great loving species we are.

If you are 'knowledgeable' as you put it, then so am I.

No, you aren't. You arent, you weren't, you don't know what its like. Aren't/weren't =/= Knowledgable.

pokemaniacbill

11th April 2004, 01:47 AM

Buddy, spell my frickin' name right. That's ticking me off. And no, I think this is a moronic arguement that got me out of religion in the first place.

Second of all, any idiot can say "Well, come back up the mountain, I'll write ya a new one.". The bible has contrary verses, how is that a flawed. BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTTEN BY HUMANS, it was flawed. Even you can admit that. God could have bloody well written it itself if it wanted to have perfection. Holy crap.

The Rusted One

11th April 2004, 06:01 AM

If you are 'knowledgeable' as you put it, then so am I. And I already told you myself (and with my various sources agreeing) that you may have made the decision before your memory developed. Nobody is calling you a liar, but I accuse you of not bothering to read my pages thouroughly.

And I asked you if, when I was, say, four, why I would have made such a decision given that I knew not what homosexuality was? Why would I make such a decision if all I knew was that men and women married each other? All family units I ever knew of, personally or not, consisted of a man, a woman, and children - or, in the odd occasion, a single parent. Even when there was only one parent I knew of, however, I assumed the other parent was there, and that I didn't know them - so why (and how, given I had no knowledge that there was a possibility at the time), would I have chosen such a lifestyle if I had nothing to base such a decision on? I have read your links - and have found fault with them. Is it that I continue to find fault with them that I, apparently, must not be reading them thoroughly (i.e., wrongly)?

If you relied on yourself for you information, then why did you demand sources from me? Are you saying that you are a more intelligent and trustworthy person than I? Not to mention you attacked my theories and ideas when I did not provide information to back them up. You'd better figure out your side fast, because you are constantly contradicting yourself.

I actually don't think I did demand sources from you - I think I asked you to justify yourself without relying on the Bible, which is hardly the same thing. Demanding that you supply evidence for an opinion is one thing, but demanding someone to justify their statement that something is definitely not this or that is another (although, admittedly, if you can't supply evidence for a claim that you are 100% right in what you say, then you aren't going to get very far - and so you were left with little option). Now, I'm not saying I'm a more intelligent or trustworthy person than you at all - I'm saying that I have personal knowledge of the subject, and all you have is what someone else (or something else, given that you have come to your conclusions via reading the Bible) has told you - and given this, I ask you, which is more likely to know - someone with no knowledge of the subject but what someone else has told them (and what they have been told, as in this situation, is strongly biased and doesn't give a full picture in the least), or someone who actually has personal experience of the subject, and has had to go through realisation, etc., firsthand, regardless of what anyone else says to or of them? I actually haven't attacked any theories you've been able to purport without bias - i.e., you haven't provided any theories that don't rely on the assumption that homosexuality is a sin, and that all those who are homosexual are sinners. Any evidence you have quoted, also, has come from either biased sources, or sources that have no firsthand experience and are, really, guessing at what they say (think about this - is a behavioural psychologist, with no personal experience of personal knowledge of a certain subject, going to know more than a patient of theirs that actually does have personal knowledge of the subject? No - all they can do is look at it, from a distanced and removed standpoint, and apply whichever theory they wish to to the subject at hand - and then, still, what if the patient tells them they're wrong? It means, basically, unless the patient can be proven to be lying, or the hypothesis be proven to be true, the behavioural psychologist has not a leg to stand on).

Homosexuality could be considered a problem aside from the Bible in this way: It can spread STD's. But this obviously isn't immediate enough to illegalize it, which is why you don't see many atheists against gays. Obviously my argument comes from the Bible, and I have already 'proven' that homosexuality is neither biological or unchangeable. Therefore it is unnatural, and I have a base for my argument.

You haven't yet proven either of those - far from it. You've supplied biased "evidence" (of course, there was that one link that presented one possibility, which is just as equally insubstantial as me claiming that humans are only shaped this way because they make a decision to look like this before they're born). You're yet to prove beyond any doubt (and in fact, there is still so much doubt concerning your very evidence that you can't say you've proven anything at all beyond the, "well, according to this biased evidence...", standpoint) - and it may be best if you stopped telling me you did.

Now, you do realise that heterosexuality can spread STDs as well, right? And in fact, HIV and AIDS are principly spread by heterosexual contact in countries and continents such as Africa - so the claim that homosexuality can spread STDs is just as invalid an argument as me saying that heterosexuality can, too - and of course, I do mean that heterosexuality is only about sex, which is what you're implying about homosexuality when you state that homosexuality itself can spread STDs. Thing is, of course, the homosexual sex is not what homosexuality is in its entirety - there is love, trust, and everything else that goes with heterosexual relationships, within a homosexual relationship, too.

And you still haven't supplied a reason, an actual logical argument, as to why homosexuality is wrong - and far less why it should be illegal, as you appear to be claiming.

Considering you've said what I 'know' is wrong, I will do the same for you and say you made a choice as a baby or child to be bisexual. You could change if you wanted to, but you have decided you never will.

Could you please quote me as to when I said that I know you think something is wrong? I've just reread my post, and can't actually find that little detail.

But again, I refer back to my argument of "why?" Why would I "choose" to be something that, given social conditioning, would make no sense to me at the time you suggest I made a "decision"? Why would I "choose" to be something I had no idea existed? What would my motive have been? And I actually want a proper answer, here - tell me what my motive would have been, given that at such an early age as to not be memorable, I didn't know there was any possibility aside from a man and a woman getting married and having kids.

While I may not have control on who I am attracted to, my attractions are natural. A mentally ill person may not be able to control his illegal actions, but that does not allow them to be legal. Homosexuality is illegal in the Bible because it is unnatural and an abomination to what God has given us.

Give me a reason why homosexuality is illegal in the Bible, and don't hide behind a figure that you can't prove exists. I'm not asking you to give me whatever evidence you can scrape up to show why you think "god" exists - I'm asking you to tell me what makes homosexuality so wrong, and if you must rely on the words of something you can't demonstrate is actually out there anywhere, then tell me why this thing said that it was wrong, given that this thing makes the rules and can bend them at will, apparently without need of justification. And please, don't tell me that "god" works in mysterious ways (not implying that you have).

Also, whether you intend it or not, I'd encourage you not to compare homosexuality to a mental illness, or criminal activity, regardless of whether or not a book tells you to do so.

If homosexuality is genetic, then it should not be changeable. Yet it is. It always has been, and it always will be. You cannot simply change genetics, they are irriversable. Like you cannot change eye color or hair color. So until you explain that I still stand firm.

Actually, you can't say for sure that homosexuality is at all "reversable". I'm demonstrative of the fact that bisexuality is a reality for some people - and I actually wouldn't have known I was bisexual, really, if I hadn't experienced the kind of attraction for someone I don't even know recently - and it may be the same for many people, whether or not they were or are homosexual or heterosexual by self-identification. You've heard of Anne Heche, right? Did she momentarily lose consciousness while she was with Ellen DeGeneres, or was it that she was attracted to someone of the same gender, despite having not had such feelings beforehand? You'll find many homosexual people can't change at all - and many heterosexual people can't, either. Others, perhaps they can, but this is, most likely, in cases similar to Anne Heche's. You can't change genetics, no - but you can't always be certain from the get-go of what genetics actually code for, either. You can only be sure after the ver last breath has been taken, really; people's hair colour does change as they grow older (mine used to be orange; now it's more similar to a rust-red); people's eyes colour also changes. Very little that the genes code for is set in stone from the very beginning - and while it may be one way at birth, it might be something else at death.

You're debate for evolution is strong, and it intrigues me. Could you explain to me how a small dinosaur such as the compsagnathus could eventually evolve freak feathers? And then how it could continue to evolve these feathers further when they could at that time not aid the dinosaur? And how would it go so far as to eventually produce a completely different species, with lighter bones, different skin, that is covered in feathers and flies with an expert skill? Each of the steps of changed required would leave the dinosaur at a disadvantage: the lighter bones would make it fragile, the useless feathers would slow it down, and the evolving species would not survive the change.

How could a Comsognathus evolve feathers? Simply, really; I'm sure you're not unaware that genes can be replicated within single strands of DNA, and that these can have profoud effects in terms of phenotype of the organism carrying these genes. A scale wouldn't just become a feather over a single generation; perhaps it's more that a scale develops weak points, or small notches, that help it hold air against the skin, or help it interlock with other scales and form a smoother skin. Over time, more such mutations may happen (and undoubtedly they would, given that natural variation is, to put it bluntly, a constant) - and these would build up if they aided the survival of the carrier organism. Over a long time, a dinosaur's scales might, in its descendents, become feathers. How would this make a dinosaur vulnerable? And don't assume that just because this process led to birds, that that was the original "plan"; it's theorised that feathers evolved for insulation, display, and any other number of reasons. Not only this, but you'll also find that dinosaur bones didn't just become lighter when feathers became a common characteristic - and not all feathered dinosaurs evolved to become capable of flight. The smaller ones, those that were most likely the ancestors of birds, didn't retain the strict shape, and lose bone mass - they would have acquired different muscle groups and abilities, lost weight from other places in their bodies, and as time went by, their bones would have become lighter if it was beneficial to their survival. An animal is going to evolve as far as it can without disabling itself to escape predators - and if a lighter dinosaur was more agile and able to escape predators, then lighter descendents became more common. Those whose bones were too fragile would have died out, too - but in no way is a characteristic uniform to an entire species all the time. Red hair isn't in us. Blue eyes isn't. Skin colour isn't. Nor is bone density. Nor would it be in a species of feathered dinosaurs. Those that had light bones but whose skeletons were still strong enough to support their weight and not cripple them survived more than heavier, slower ones, and lighter, weak-boned ones - and their descendents inherited this tendency. Flight was a result of feathers, too - not the "intent", or goal. It let flight become a possibility, for those dinosaurs that were able to utilise certain properties of feathered existence - and as time went on, those who could glide from height A to height B were more likely to escape those predators that couldn't do the same. Arms, too, are naturally flexible - so the movements of the feathered appendages while the organism was fleeing a predator isn't an absurd thing to consider - and if this movement aided the organism, then those with better articulation, or more muscle power, survived more often and passed these abilities to their young - and over time, these characteristics built up into what we now see as feathered flight as demonstrated by birds.

Thing with debating against people who make statements that actually go both ways but can't see it, is that they tend to ignore that they do, in fact, go both ways - i.e., "homosexuality is not genetic, but heterosexuality is" - which is, if you wish to thing that homosexuality is not genetic, like saying, "well, I can't prove homosexuality is not genetic, and I can't prove that heterosexuality is not genetic, but I'm going to say that being gay isn't, and being straight is - and you can't question that logic." Unlike you, I've not said that heterosexuality is not genetic while saying homosexuality is - I've not suggested at all that one is, and one isn't. I'm of the opinion that both are - and if one isn't, then nor is the other. Simple as that. You can't state that one is and one isn't, given the lack of evidence to support the claims that there's any difference. Point is, Sorovis, is that you either admit that homosexuality and heterosexuality are both genetic, or you forego your claims that heterosexuality is more normal - because if one's not genetic, nor is the other. If I claim that 6 is more similar to 4 than 2 is, what basis do I have? None, because the only similarities are that 6 and 4 are multiples of 2 - as is 2 itself; or that 6 and 4 are both even - as is 2 itself; or that 6 is two digits from 4 - as is 2 - so what's my basis for the claim that 6 is more similar to 4 than 2 is to 4? None, whatsoever. I'll ask if you understand, but I'm not so sure you'll say yes, given that your view is polarised with mine anyway.

Rambunctious Jamirus

11th April 2004, 07:47 AM

Well thanks for the debate, Sorovis. It challenged my knowledge of the animals and the evolution and I learned quite a bit from it.

Though I did a bit thinking and came up with the difference between adaptation and evolution...

Horses have a bit of natural adaptation in them. Though they are different breeds, they can still breed together to form a fertile being. Cats as well (except calicos though. All calicos are either female or (rare) infertile males). This is adaptation.

Lions and tigers are a good mix. It has been proven to create an offspring with two of these animals called a liger. The only problem is that the liger is infertile for all of its life. This is evolution, when two members of the same family can breed together but form an infertile being. Mules are another example, all are infertile. This is evolution.

Not offended whatsoever. He's our history expert in this which can contradict the Bible better than I can.

However I will stubbornly protest that you won by your superior knowledge of the theory and not the justice of your cause. Yes, it's stubborn, but I still have too much personal proof of God and Jesus to dismiss the possibilities on mere (though admittedly well thought out) theories. You have to admit my stubborn concession is more than most will offer when defeated.

Glad to see more than one of us is stubborn. I'll await new debates of the evolution VS God but first...

Why not have a left hand? It would cripple us and God didn't want that. He could've gone ahead and made us all right handed and kept the future generation from being left handed. And yes, I'll agree that the left hand is considered unclean in Islam. But let's go neutral here and back to the main topic that was deprived of the main topic.

I thank TRO for his detailed paragraph on feathers. Very well written, TRO.

Sorovis

11th April 2004, 09:07 AM

Matt, because of free will, as I have said before.

What exactly was the entire point of what you posted next? Keeping track of millions to billions of people over thousands of years is impossible, and you know that.

I love your logic on the knowledgeable thing. It really makes sense.

Bill, once again, in order for me to know what conradictory statements you are talking about you must post them.

The Rusted One, I will type up my counter to your points when I return in a few hours and am better suited to answer such things. It is also likely that by then there will be many other people who have posted, and it may be a while before you see my likely detailed (and long winded) reply.

pokemaniacbill

11th April 2004, 09:30 AM

Brother. Widow.

One statement says you must marry them, the other says you can't. There was a big stink about in England when the King looked for a loophole to get a new wife so he could have a boy. I POSTED THIS ALREADY. You find a bloody King James version of the bible, I certainly don't have one. It's a simple fact, that anything done by humans, because of the fallability of humans, cannot be perfect, and is therefore flawed in some way. IT'S NOT HARD. I'm tired and pissed and holy crap.

Sorovis

11th April 2004, 12:33 PM

Bill, you do realize I am not psychic and cannot tell which verse you speak of correct? Will you please either give a better argument than this pathetic garbage? If we cannot trust to people, than we cannot trust an ounce of history except that which we ourselves have seen. You speak like an anarchist, saying the only truth is in ourselves, when without trust in people we would not have history or theories or science.

Sorovis

11th April 2004, 01:03 PM

The Rusted One, just because at four you had not heard a definition of homosexuality does not mean you may not have decided by basic logic of your age and the circumstances that men could also be attractive. You do not need a definition for that, as it is a feeling. At that early an age, people are not attracted to others because they are not sexually mature enough. That is not to say that your body knew at one point you would find girls attractive, but you had not yet reached that point.

You also find that your personal knowledge could not have limits. While I trust your experience is vast, it is limited to one person and is finite. I seek wisdom and knowledge not only from myself but others, and from one who is infinate. Saying that my sources can prove nothing because they have no foreknowledge or actual experience at what they study is an utterly pathetic point. Was it not you who suggested finding governmental statistics to get an unbiased view? You have just contradicted yourself again, saying that these unbiased sources could give no accurate view because of their limited knowledge. By this desperate logic, I do not have to believe what you say because your experience is limited to the bisexual side, and you do not see from my standpoint, which you obviously don't. With what you say is an exceptable answer, you would have to find an all powerful source who knows all. I have found that, and have gotten an answer, but you also will not accept that. When you become heterosexual, your points will be valid as you will have seen from both views. For now, you have not seen from my view and cannot give a point against it by your logic.

Why I have not proven my two points in your mind, you have done an even worse job at disproving them, giving long and wordy explanations with little sustenance to intimidate me. I refer to my paragraph above to show how you have utterly failed at disproving me. Yes I have given a good reason why homosexuality is wrong. It is a sin because it spreads STDs. Heterosexual relationships also spread this, you say? If we had listened to the Bible and never had premarital sex or adultry or commited sodomy. You see, homosexuality falls under this list of sins, as it spreads STDs as well an is unholy. That is why heterosexuality also spreads STDs, because of sin. That's also why homosexuality spreads it, because it IS as sin.

You brought up earlier I believe how you cannot control who you love. Tell me this, does that mean adultry and incest should be allowed? If you cannot control who you love, and should therefore be allowed to marry those who you love, people should be able to commit both of those sins. Then, not only would you have homosexuality, you would have brothers and sisters marrying, as well as brothers and brothers marrying. You see, we are brought up believing that these things are wrong, that is why they do not happen unless a person has not been raised up this way. It is the same way with homosexuals. With no warning not to be attracted to same sex and an experience strong enough to change their natural attractions, homosexuality will happen.

Look back to earlier in the debate, and you will see you have said I am wrong and my God is nonexistant several times. I have also already hit your next point above. Homosexuality is like incest. Read above.

While people out of nowhere may be attracted to the same sex, they can also resist it. I have never actually wanted to kill somebody, but if all the sudden I should feel the urge to do so should I act upon it? Just because you emotionally feel it does not make it right.

I have already been out-debated on the evolution front by Jamirus, who I must say is much better and much more understanding a debater.

If heterosexuality is no more normal than homosexuality, then how come we reproduce by it? Why are men designed to be with women? That's how it's more natural.

Oh, and about your topic on how animals exhibit homosexuality, I have recently found that what they do is not homosexual at all. When a male mounts another male, he is not trying to have sex, but to prove he is dominant over the mounted male. It is as simple as that.

Brain

11th April 2004, 01:44 PM

Haven't read everything thoroughly because of the tl;dr factor, but whatever.

On the topic of despising homosexuality but not homosexuals, that's perfectly possible, and I don't see how it has any relevance.

On the topic of evolution, there are many accounts of desesperate attempts of creationists to disprove it, and most of them involve failing at statistics and using the "god of the gaps" argument (such as the popular irreducible complexity argument)

Now let me list some bible flaws :)

Source: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/bibleanalysis.html

The site may be potentially biased, but it seems accurate, and it contains a lot of stuff.

I'm gonna do the reading job for you because I know most people won't bother, and I'm going to bold and underline the interesting parts.

A.

Genesis 6:19-20
"And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you, to keep them alive."

Genesis 7:2-3
“Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate; and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive upon the face of all the earth. "

In the first statement, god commands to bring two animals of every sort, whereas in the second, he commands to bring seven pairs of every clean (?) animal, and one pair of every unclean (?) animal.

B.

I Samuel 17:23, 50
the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name...David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone and struck the Philistine and killed him.

II Samuel 21:19
And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Joareoregim, the Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite.

...This inconsistency was so obvious to the translators for the King James Bible (or "The Authorized Version") that in an act of dishonest piety they actually rewrote the verse in II Samuel 21:19 to read as

Elhanan, the son of Joareoregim, the Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite

Of course, the words "the brother of" are not found in the ancient manuscripts and has been supplied by the translators from a similar verse in the Bible (I Chronicles 20:5). Whatever the case may be, the fact remains that there exists two contradictory accounts of the slaying of Goliath in the Bible.

So basically David slew Goliath... and then we are told that Elhanan did. That's in the original scriptures. And then they rewrote it.

C.

II Samuel 6:23
Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul [b]had no child unto the day of her death.

II Samuel 21:8
But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

At first we are told that Michal had no child, and then we are told she had five.

D.

Luke 3:35-36
...the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad,...

Genesis 10:24
Arphaxad became the father of Shelah...

Is Arphaxad the father or the grandfather of Shelah?

E.

Matthew 1:16
and Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23
Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli

Okay so who's Joseph father there? Jacob or Heli?

F.

Matthew 27:3-5
When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:18
Now this man [Judas] bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.

Did Judas bring back the money and hung himself or did he buy a land and fell in a precipice?

G.

II Kings 24:8
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became King and he reigned three months in Jerusalem

II Chronicles 36:9
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem.

So how old was he, 8 or 18? Not to mention that there's a ten days difference between 3 months and 3 months and ten days.

H.

II Kings 8:26
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.

II Chronicles 22:2
Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.

Self-explanatory.

I.

# The authors of Chronicler and Kings can’t agree on how many foremen Solomon used in building the temple. I Kings 5: 16 he is said to have used 3,300 of them, while in II Chronicles 2:18 he was suppossed to have used 3,600. Thus we have a contradiction of 300 people.
# They also disagree on how many stalls Solomon had for his chariot horses. I Kings 4:26 said there were 40,000 stalls while II Chronicles 9:25 said there was only 4,000.
# Finally they could not agree on the actual capacity of the tank built by Solomon. I Kings 7:26 said that its capacity was 2,000 baths while II Chronicles 4:5 contradicts this by mentioning that its capacity was 3,000 baths!

Taken from the site.

J.

II Samuel 24:9
And Joab gave the sum of the numbering of the people of the King: in Israel there were eight hundred thousand valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand.

I Chronicles 21:5
And Joab gave the sum of the numbering of the people to David. In all Israel there were one million one hundred men who drew the sword, and in Judah four hundred and seventy thousand who drew the sword.

1,300,000 or 1,570,000?

K.

II Samuel 10:18
And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the Syrians the men of seven hundred chariots, and forty thousand horsemen...

I Chronicles 19:18
And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians the men of seven thousand chariots, and forty thousand footsoldiers...

700 or 7,000? Horsemen or footsoldiers?

L.

Leviticus 11: 1-6; 20-23
“All winged insects that go upon all fours are an abomination to you. Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those who have legs on their feet, with which to leap on the earth. Of them you may eat: the locust according to it’s kind, the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind. But all other winged insects which have four feet are an abomination to you.

Insects have six feet, not four.

Also, there are downright awful mathematical errors:
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/math.html

Looks like they can't do simple sums.

M.

I Chronicles 3:22
The sons of Shemaiah: Huttush, Igal, Bariah, Neriah, and Shaphat, six.

Six? I see five.

N.

Joshua 15:33-36
And in the lowland, Eshtaol, Zorah, Ashnah, Zanoah, Engannim, Tappuah, Enam, Jarmuth, Adullam, Socoh, Azekah, Shaaraim, Adithaim, Gederah, Gederothaim: fourteen cities with their villages.

14? The real total is 15.