Homosexual Books for First Graders

[Sorovis]

Real nice excuse, Pariah.

[Green_Pikachu]

You say one thing about the Bible and deem it correct. You see another and deem it incorrect. Is that to say that you have authority over the Bible. You say you believe in God. Is this to say that you call the shots. You're wiser than God? You know more than he does about homosexuality?

Also, you claim it's ok because it's natural. Sin itself is natural. Therefore, if homosexuality is natural (not to say it's genetic) then it fits one of the criteria of sin. It's natural for a person to lie about what they did to avoid punishment. It's natural for a person to steal something they want rather than buy or work for it. Are these things still sin? According to the Ten commandments they are. Yet they are perfectly natural and normal things for a person to do. They're wrong. But they're natural.

how are you people this obtuse? the bible is up to interpretation. that means i can interpret some of it to be correct, and some of it to be incorrect. We all have our different opinions on God. God acts in different ways in all our lives.

and, ok, ill revise. sexuality is natural, but not a sin. happy?

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

Okay, I read through these posts and am confused on what is going on. I'll start from what I've read before and work my way through.

Could you refer me to something about the African Grey and its understanding of human words (moreso out of curiosity)?

Here's the entire research paper on it.

Um, YES. I ask you again, if your worst enemy was being attacked (life threatening), would you help him, or let him die? He is your enemy after all, so anything bad to him must not affect or be good for you...right?

It would depend on the situation. If there was a chance to intervene, then yes unless I'm panicking. If not, call the cops and hope they get there in time. Maybe the distract the killer a bit. For heck, why get us both killed and have no police there to determine whether I tried to save him/her. Though yes, I'd do a corageous thing but it most possibly wouldn't do any good for both of us if the killer walks now does it? One of us stays alive and we at least have the killer in jail if the court system sees it through.

How would you know that every other religion has the same facts and historical support? It seems to me you just don't even consider the historical basis supporting Christianity, but choose to ignore the facts. I would like to see some historical evidence supporting the Hindu religion, or the Wiccan one. Please, by all means, find me some evidence to support them.

I ignore some facts because they get repetitive constantly. It's always the same thing, over and over again, just tweaked a bit. Wiccan can be a run off of Christianity, another floor in the tower. They like the magic ways, Christians saw them wrong. Why stay in a religion that views your choices wrong? Go ahead, make your own. It's just that simple when there's a nice cluster of people who share the same feelings. Probably became nomadic like gypsies and ended up in Asia. With the strong sense of animal Gods, the eastern cultures started to flourish.

oh oh oh. ii'm not saying evolution is completely wrong. micro-evolution, or evolution within species exists, yes. but where is proof of species evolving in things totally different? the archaeopterix (if i spelled that write) has been seen as an intermediate form between lizards and birds. but how? it had as many as 1,000,000 hair (things) on each feather. that is not intermediate.

I'm not following you. From what I'm getting, you're saying that the archaeopteryx is not the intermediate form between lizard and bird? Now, hmm, how to back this up I wonder...

Ever heard of earthquakes? Earthquakes damage and ruin bones of dinos, making it hard for us to study them. They ruin everything under ground and turn it into dust. There are a lot of earthquakes happening in China, a spot where the feathered dinos flourished. You do the math.

darwin's finches are one example of what people use to say evolution is true. yes, the average beak size of finches increases during droughts, but oyu know what, the average beak size returns to normal when rain comes back!

That wasn't his research at all. His research was based on the different way the beak was formed. One was hard a tough, a parrot beak if you will, for cracking open nuts. One was tiny to fit in holes and one, I believe, could hold cactus needles to pick grub out of holes. There is nothing in relation to beak size. Compare the beaks of a parrot which uses its beak to open nuts and a songbird which eats insects. That is all in one species of bird.

did anyone know that there are 60 major prophecies about the Messiah in the Old Testament. All came true. Many of them were not under Jesus control. Som are, his place of birth, the way people cast lots for his clothes, and get this, the way he died (even though crucifiction hadn't been invented yet).

i can provide verses if anyone wants them.

is anyone going to TRY to explain the Cambrian explosion?

Do we actually know when the Bible was written? Carbon dating provides us with a approximate answer, yes. After viewing a site, it says that the Bible you have right now is different than the original. (Here)

About that explosion, do you know how many earthquakes happened during that time when Pangaea was separating into Laurentia and (forgot name)Land, the two semi-super continents? How many volcanoes swept away with the fossils? How hard it is to research fossils at the bottom of the ocean? As I said before, earthquakes ruin bones, volcanoes can swallow them up. The bottom of the ocean should be explanatory enough. The fact is that because of the amount of earthquakes happening, the bones of the creatures that could help evolution were damaged beyond belief, turning to dust.

And there is proof that Pangaea existed. The Mesosaurus, a small reptilian creature was found on both South America and Africa, at the point in which the two continents would have been together. The Applachian Mountains of North America are the Atlas Mountains of Africa brothers. They were formed at the same time, when Africa kept ramming into North America.

[Sorovis]

To the Pariah, no I did not find any evidence from your side, but instead the same of what you are doing now. I did however find that you said the Bible is 'a piece of literature, nothing more', and then said it again. So which is it? Do you believe in some of the Bible or none of the Bible?

[The Muffin Man]

You say one thing about the Bible and deem it correct. You see another and deem it incorrect. Is that to say that you have authority over the Bible. You say you believe in God. Is this to say that you call the shots. You're wiser than God? You know more than he does about homosexuality?

You are one step away from being a religious extremist. "You're not right. God is. Our God is the only God. The Bible is absolutely right. You do not agree with the bible, you cannot be right". THIS is why Christianity has such a bad name.

Also, you claim it's ok because it's natural. Sin itself is natural. Therefore, if homosexuality is natural (not to say it's genetic) then it fits one of the criteria of sin. It's natural for a person to lie about what they did to avoid punishment. It's natural for a person to steal something they want rather than buy or work for it. Are these things still sin? According to the Ten commandments they are. Yet they are perfectly natural and normal things for a person to do. They're wrong. But they're natural.

Actually...alot of the sins are unnatural reactions to a natural thing. I.e Gluttony. Humans naturally only eat the bare minimum to live/work/etc. We overeat by free will.

And Sorovis - How is that an excuse? He thinks some things the bible says is wrong and some are right. How is it fair for you to call THAT an excuse, but if anyone claims you're using 'Because God wrote the Bible' as an excuse you'll be offended?

[Green_Pikachu]

To the Pariah, no I did not find any evidence from your side, but instead the same of what you are doing now. I did however find that you said the Bible is 'a piece of literature, nothing more', and then said it again. So which is it? Do you believe in some of the Bible or none of the Bible?

it is a piece of literature. and i take some of it to heart. and other parts i disagree with based on my own set of morality that i formed through life experiences. what is wrong with that?

[Sorovis]

Thanks for the link, Rambunctious.

See what I mean? An animal could not think out all the possible outcomes of that scenario, while a human easily could (and would).

That's not what I meant; I meant evidence that supported their gods.

Do not use earthquakes in one area as an excuse to explain why their are not specific fossils. Though it's a good reason, it just doesn't help.

That's interesting, that the Bible has been altered like that, and I'm going to look further into that myself.

[Sorovis]

The fact that you disagree with some things in it and do not accept them. Like I said, it's all or nothing; you can't just rehash something based on what you want to believe. You also said it's on your own life experiences. So they are above anything the Bible says, then?

[Green_Pikachu]

The fact that you disagree with some things in it and do not accept them. Like I said, it's all or nothing; you can't just rehash something based on what you want to believe. You also said it's on your own life experiences. So they are above anything the Bible says, then?

why is it all or nothing? because YOU say so? and yes, I'm pretty sure I trust my own self before some book. But, for the most part, my life experiences parallel the laws that are listed in the Bible.

[Sorovis]

The Muffin Man, actually Checkmate brings up a good point. It would be like if I rehashed your post to say what I wanted to say and went with that.

Sin is natural, because it is in human nature to sin. No, animals do not sin, but humans do and always will. I just explained why it was an excuse.

[yeah5]

Pariah, you contradict yourself. Christianity says it is the only way to God (that is a HUGE point in Christianity). By saying that it is wrong...you are calling a religion wrong, while saying that you can't call a religion wrong. see?

Religions contradict each other. So how can more than one be true? it can't be so. in that case i can say that i am myself, jamie kennedy, bob marley, and ThePariah...all at the same time.

[Sorovis]

The Pariah, so if your life experiences are better than some book, why bother to believe any of it? Where is your proof? Why are you still posting?

[Green_Pikachu]

Pariah, you contradict yourself. Christianity says it is the only way to God (that is a HUGE point in Christianity). By saying that it is wrong...you are calling a religion wrong, while saying that you can't call a religion wrong. see?

Religions contradict each other. So how can more than one be true? it can't be so. in that case i can say that i am myself, jamie kennedy, bob marley, and ThePariah...all at the same time.

i'm not contradicting anything. all religions have something in common, and that is setting guidelines on how to live a "pious" or "moral" life. and many of these guidelines are the same. And, the only way religions contradict each other is in who is the higher power, and what the afterlife is back, two things which aren't of importance. What is important is that we all get along on earth, and live a moral life based on all the religions, and leave the afterlife up to whoever is the higher power(in Christianity's sake, God). And, your last comment made no sense at all. good job.

[Scythemantis]

While I don't have the evidence to combat the evolution theory, evolution can only explain some of the way we think. Instinct is not all we use.

I just think that animals have a bit more than that as well. My point's been that anything could be defined as instinct if we got absolutely technical.

Could you refer me to something about the African Grey and its understanding of human words (moreso out of curiosity)?

This page is by a parrot owner and mainly an extensive "argument" for their intelligence but it provides many interesting examples and attempts to explain why some parrots do not appear to think about what they're saying when others nearly always do.

Here is just a quick little news article on the more "famous" example, Alex.

If people learn remorse from others around them, where did THEY get it from?

I don't mean that it's "taught", just that common sense and basic human traits are developed around your environment, and aren't just "there". I think a person born and raised on ZERO outside contact (human or animal) wouldn't have a concept of right, wrong, or death to begin with. They wouldn't even know what they've done, much less feel bad about it.

You just said you don't know what it feels like to kill somebody. So how do you know some people never look back on it?

Many people kill out of hate, anger, or vengefulness. It just stands to reason that a good number of them feel no worse than many people would feel swatting a gnat.

What a coincidence. Insects are also my passion. An ants perception is completely different from ours. Where as we have individual minds, beliefs, and experiences, they have very few; much like a simple computer program. Their minor changes could be argued as simple adaptation.

I've always believed that insects have far more awareness than an inanimate, man-made device, and probably a lot more than even many biologists credit them with. The hardcore entomologists seem to think so. Some arachnids, esspecially jumping spiders, seem to have "mammal-like" brains and are credited with at least the measurable intelligence of a mole or shrew.

I judge by my personal experience raising insects as pets, I try to interact a lot with them however I'm able to. Course, there's a difference between a single ant (or termite, or bee) and most other arthropods, as eusocial insects are built more like the cells of a single powerful "brain" than as individuals.

Um, YES. I ask you again, if your worst enemy was being attacked (life threatening), would you help him, or let him die? He is your enemy after all, so anything bad to him must not affect or be good for you...right?

Depends on how bad an enemy he is. If I had been trying to kill him myself for whatever reason, or vice-versa, I think I would feel indifferent.

It seems to me you just don't even consider the historical basis supporting Christianity, but choose to ignore the facts.

No, I just live by the idea that there are multiple possible explanations for everything, all equally valid. I merely choose to believe whatever personally feels right to me, which is really what everyone is doing.

[Green_Pikachu]

The Pariah, so if your life experiences are better than some book, why bother to believe any of it? Where is your proof? Why are you still posting?

i never said anything is better than anything else. and I believe in some of it, because I want to believe in it. I like to believe that there is some good in this world, not gay-bashers like yourselves. And I am still posting because I love reading your ignorant, obtuse posts. It's a blast.

[Sorovis]

Thank you Samwise Gamgee (some good in this world). So my posts are ignorant and obtuse? So you just re-entered the debate and already you have resorted to direct insults. Very pathetic.

[Sorovis]

Scythemantis, not everything could be proved as instinct; but your point is well taken.

Thank you also for referring me to those pages.

A person with no human contact would not know these things simply because after being seperated for all his/her life, would not understand other people. I do not mean that these feelings are just there; I mean that they come when a person comes to some understanding of the world around them; animals cannot do that.

These people who kill without remorse are mentally disturbed.

I have also raised insects and come to what I believe is a good idea of how they work. After raising mantids in particular for years, I see that they have a few simple reactions: blend in, escape, defend, capture, eat, and mate. Almost anything can be put under those categories. I used to think that insects had deeper minds as well, but after closely watching many insects and arachnids, I have come to the conclusion they do not; although they are very good at what they do and are still very interesting.

Still my point.

I also believe that there are many good possibilities; but I also believe in some cases there are not many, simply right and wrong. I do not do what feels right to me, I consider it first and then consult my Bible and see what it says (about important things, of course, not every little thing).

[Scythemantis]

I have many opinions the extreme opposite of sorovis but I do not think he is ignorant or obtuse. He makes an effort to back up his reasons for believing what he does, as everyone should.

Personally, I think any amount of the bible could be true or false. I see it more as an elaborate and poetic historical document, but that's just me.

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

Thanks for the link, Rambunctious.

You're welcome.

See what I mean? An animal could not think out all the possible outcomes of that scenario, while a human easily could (and would).

Neither could I at a young age. I asked for what I knew about, not what I didn't know about, just like Alex. If I had asked for a dictionary without knowing what it looked like or if I had never seen one, then that would be thinking out of the possible outcomes because I don't know what it is but I want it. Alex could only ask for something he knew because he knew what it was. We only ask for things we know about, and only want things we don't know with either a sense of bravery or curiousity.

That's not what I meant; I meant evidence that supported their gods.

"Indian philosopher and the founder of Buddhism, born in Kapilavastu, India, just inside present-day Nepal. He was the son of the head of the Sakya warrior caste, with the private name of Siddhartha; in later life he was known also as Sakyamuni (Sage of the Sakyas). The name Gautama Buddha is a combination of the family name Gautama and the appellation Buddha, meaning "Enlightened One." All the surviving accounts of Buddha's life were written many years after his death by idealizing followers rather than by objective historians. Consequently, it is difficult to separate facts from the great mass of myth and legend in which they are embedded. From the available evidence, Buddha apparently showed an early inclination to meditation and reflection, displeasing his father, who wanted him to be a warrior and ruler rather than a religious philosopher. Temple of Buddha)

Hmm...this is almost the same way the Bible was written, by followers of the faith.

Hinduism cannot trace its origins to one time or person. The people were nomadic most possibly, getting away from the European countries and settling near the Hindu Kush Mountains. But, because of this, we can compare their Gods to Greek ones, finding similarities in them from the King of Gods to the Secondary King.

"A prevailing thought is that Egyptian gods, like all gods and religious belief systems, developed as a result of mankind attempting to explain the physical world. Another thought is that all humans are born with the innate understanding of the existence of a sovereign Creator, and that many ancient religions sprouted as a result of this universal truth." ( Egyptian Gods)

Do not use earthquakes in one area as an excuse to explain why their are not specific fossils. Though it's a good reason, it just doesn't help.

Did I say specifically they happened in one area? No. They happen at fault lines (San Andreas Fault) and at plates. That's how Mt. Everest came about.

"It's bad enough that fossils, buried deep in layers of rock for thousands or millions of years, may be damaged or missing pieces, but what really challenges paleontologists, according to University at Buffalo researchers, is the amount of deformation that most fossils exhibit. That's why a researcher and her colleagues are working on a computational method to morph fossils back to their original shapes by calculating and excising the deformation." (EurekAlert!)

Deformation is a nice word to use. It's another reason why all of the human skeletons we dig up have pieces missing, parts warped, and other miscellaneous problems.

I also found a nice religious site that claims the Colorado River did not create the Grand Canyon, earthquakes and volcanoes did. The problem with this? We have no evidence that volcanoes existed there, there is no "hot spot" for a volcano to be. This area is not close enough to a plate boundary for volcanoes to form or for an earthquake to happen. The edge of the plate is too far away to make nothing more than a small shake which would loosen rocks at most.

[Green_Pikachu]

Thank you Samwise Gamgee (some good in this world). So my posts are ignorant and obtuse? So you just re-entered the debate and already you have resorted to direct insults. Very pathetic.

yes, im the one who doesn't hate gays, and has common sense, but im pathetic, even though i've defended my point through all your ridicule, and you've yet to make a point that doesn't require everyone believing fully in the bible.

[Scythemantis]

I consider it first and then consult my Bible and see what it says (about important things, of course, not every little thing).

Well, what I mean is, this is what feels right to you.

I have come to the conclusion they do not; although they are very good at what they do and are still very interesting.

And I actually used to agree they were more along the lines of organic robots doesn't matter much either way, I don't think we're even beginning to understand our own minds.

I also found a nice religious site that claims the Colorado River did not create the Grand Canyon, earthquakes and volcanoes did. The problem with this? We have no evidence that volcanoes existed there, there is no "hot spot" for a volcano to be. This area is not close enough to a plate boundary for volcanoes to form or for an earthquake to happen. The edge of the plate is too far away to make nothing more than a small shake which would loosen rocks at most.

Not only that, but both would mean a drastically different-looking canyon altogether. The life of stone is plainly imprinted in its surface. We can just see that it was slowly carved by water. The rate and type of erosion affects different materials in specific, consistent ways. It's an open book to an experienced geologist.

[Sorovis]

The Pariah first, so I can get you out of the way and reply to the deserving posts: will you please either post something useful or shut up.

[Green_Pikachu]

The Pariah first, so I can get you out of the way and reply to the deserving posts: will you please either post something useful or shut up.

i have been posting useful stuff. you're just so brainwashed by your little bible that you don't know what is useful and what isn't.

[Sorovis]

Scythemantis: On your first point I must mostly agree, but note that what I mean is I try to consult a higher force on what should be done.

Agreed.

I also agree with your last point.

[yeah5]

oooh pariah. "brainwashed by our little bible"? sounds like your are insulting christians and....their religion.....



christian basher.

[abunaidesu]

We can't d0 anything about it. End of story.

[Sorovis]

Rambunctious: Yes, but what about personal judgement? Could Alex differentiate between right and wrong? Memorizing and learning shapes, colors, numbers, and specific objects is nonetheless impressive (and previously unheard of by me), but Alex could not judge on such things as the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do, only on objects, shapes, and colors.

Yes, but the Bible is also frequently backed up by other accounts of the past by historians who were in no way affected. Plus, to refine what I mean even further, I mean evidence that supports that the religion's god could have existed.

Your point on the damage caused by earthquakes and other forces of nature is noted as well, but have they found any surviving skeletons of the middle form of the half-dinosaur half-bird?

I never said everything done by religous followers was right; look at the Crusade, or the conquistadors from Spain. They were religous, but I doubt God told them to go to war with unbelievers or use their religion as an excuse for murder and thievery.

(note: just ignore Pariah unless he comes up with something respectable instead of petty insults and the like)

[yeah5]

oh. and what does the grand canyon have to do with anything? it's not in the Bible. i don't know if you did, but don't even try to relate it to Christianity. i'm fine with the explation you gave that there are no faults near enough to the canyon

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

Rambunctious: Yes, but what about personal judgement? Could Alex differentiate between right and wrong? Memorizing and learning shapes, colors, numbers, and specific objects is nonetheless impressive (and previously unheard of by me), but Alex could not judge on such things as the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do, only on objects, shapes, and colors.

Tell me then, what is right? What is the meaning of the word right if it has several meanings for different people. I may think that feeding table scraps to my dog is right because she's so darn adorable even if it makes her a bit overweight. Someone else might think it's wrong because of the fact that too much can cause strain on the heart. We understand the value of a "wrong" thing by the Bible, it's something the government based the rules on.

And for that animals cannot sin, mothers can. A report was made of a mother gazelle who saw her child, a young one, attacked and killed by hyenas. In a passion filled crazed, she killed two hyenas before dashing away.

This was not done in self-defense nor for food. This was a heated passion that sends a person to jail if convicted.

Yes, but the Bible is also frequently backed up by other accounts of the past by historians who were in no way affected. Plus, to refine what I mean even further, I mean evidence that supports that the religion's god could have existed.

How can we prove that something abstract exists? Air is concrete, we can feel a breeze. Gods are abstract so there is no way to prove that they exist without actually talking to someone who was sent to "heaven" or "limbo." We can "feel" the power but we cannot prove that it is fact.

Your point on the damage caused by earthquakes and other forces of nature is noted as well, but have they found any surviving skeletons of the middle form of the half-dinosaur half-bird?

USAToday has interesting news in the same country that Caudipteryx appeared from.

I never said everything done by religous followers was right; look at the Crusade, or the conquistadors from Spain. They were religous, but I doubt God told them to go to war with unbelievers or use their religion as an excuse for murder and thievery.

Yes we've gone over that. Just seemed weird how someone could make an assumption of that without looking at evidence we have today.

I also thought of something interesting. If whales were first "put on Earth in the oceans" then why in the world do they have pelvic bones? There isn't any use for them in the ocean, they do not have any form of back legs. This helps explain the land mammal going back to sea theory.

[The Rusted One]

What Checkmate means, Rusted One, is that we are different from animals in quite a few different ways. Our intelligence is beyond that of any animal, and walking on hind legs is almost unique as well. But we are too advanced to take after animals. We are not in their habitats, we do not suffer their pains, and we deal with things differently. So it would not be wise nor necessary to follow in their example.

No, our intelligence is measure through how we use it - just because we utilise it doesn't mean we have more to use at all. Can you honestly tell me exactly how intelligent a dolphin is? No. You assume you're more intelligent because it's nice for you to think humans are better than animals, that's all. You state that we're more intelligent, and yet there is no evidence we are - we look at ourselves and use what we do and have as a measure - but who's to say that's right? Besides which, who says we're following any example set by animals? We're not - we're saying that something is natural and this can be seen in the behaviour of animals - but that is not to say that we should behave exactly as a different species does.

If love is merely a strong feeling to increase companionship between an animal and its mate, then why is homosexuality not wrong? Love, according to you, is used to reproduce; homosexuality cannot reproduce, so therefore, it must be wrong. Love is this, but it can last for much more than five years; the attachment it brings is not what it leaves, but love itself. It does not wear away over time.

You assume that reproducing until you can't anymore is "right", of course - but given the fact that our population is over the US mark of 6 billion, it's actually worse for us to keep reproducing this way. You also assume that I think that reproduction is the absolute right, which I don't. I regard freedom to be one's self is the absolute right - and whether that involves reproduction or not is irrelevant. Just because homosexuality does not result in pregnancy does not mean it's wrong - so stop assuming that that's what I'm saying.

And sorry, but love itself does wane and disappear over time. It's scientifically supported, given the brain chemistry involved and the studies done, as well as the resultant behaviours.

So chimps battling over territory is not war? Then what is war?

Please; what you're trying to do here is merely get wrapped up in the semantics of this debate - you're trying to back up a statement with, "well, you explain it then", which is not an argument. It's a sad attempt at making a point - and it relies on people sharing your views, as did the previous paragraph. I don't think a fight between two troupes of chimps is war; the same as I don't think the fighting of two families of people as war. Nobody does. War is a human characteristic, because it victimises people who have no part in the fighting and involves aggression on an extreme scale. But you, obviously, have decided that to prove your point you won't see it that way. If so, then you must also believe that two bull elephants fighting are actually at war, as with two partners fighting in a relationship.

People are much different than other animals. Bring me a monkey that can have a debate, and I'll believe you. Our intelligence is what seperates us from animals. Our genes, build, and characteristics may be similar, but there is not an animal in the world who can measure up to our intelligence.

Says you, again. Thing is, you can't be positive; all you can do is use yourself as a yardstick and look for similar characteristics. Who says your, or our, definition of intelligence is the right one? Who says that the ability to debate marks intelligence. It doesn't. It marks intelligence by our standards, but only by ours. We aren't the paragon of evolution, at all, and we may not be the most intelligent animal at all - we are by our own standards, but who says that those are absolute?

The Rusted One, you seem to be ignoring the facts on my side; not the other way around. I have shown you to sites that show homosexuals can change. I'd assume they know what it's like to be homosexual, and they've changed.

And I could give you examples of straight people who have become involved with a member of the same gender - does the fact that you haven't attempted to tackle this mean that you're ignoring that? It seems so. I don't doubt for a second that some people are gay and become involved in heterosexual relationships at some stage - but it goes the other way too. Your point, then, is null, because it demonstrates one side of things, not both.

Once again, who are you to judge his personal experiences? He alone knows what he went through, you do not. Who are you going to listen to, someone who actually went through it or someone who thinks they know what the other ment. The rest of your post on that topic was pointless. As I've said before, homosexuals have become heterosexual, and I'm sure they know what they went through. Besides, if Checkmate had literally seen or heard from God, you would say he was hallucinating or something like that, even though you weren't there.

I'm not judging his personal experiences - not that you can accuse me of it, given that this whole argument was caused by you doing it to every gay person out there. Or did you just forget that?

And no, the rest is not pointless - because again, despite the fact that there are gay people who "turned" straight, there are also straight people who "turned" gay - so what was the point behind that? I'd say that was pointless. Strange that you can't recognise that.

Besides, if Checkmate had seen or heard from "god", then there would be proof, as there is proof that my mother is in existence, and your father. I could say I literally saw Bart Simpson, but that doesn't mean I did unless I can prove I did. However, I can say that I feel sad, and I don't need to prove that, because it isn't something to be proven. It can't be proven, but it can't be disproven. I can't say that what Checkmate may have felt was wrong, because that can't be disproven - he felt whatever it was, so he knows he did. I can't tell him he didn't. I never would, and never have. I might question him on what caused him to feel that way - i.e., he may claim it was "god", and I could question that until he brought me proof - because "god" isn't part of him, it's another being, if it exists, and other beings require proof, and leave it, and through this can be proven to exist - like you. You leave proof. Bart Simpson would not; he is also not real. "God" did not - so why would I believe he exists? Things that go on in someone's head, or happen to someone, though, are not the same; the leave no proof, and yet they happen. Someone who didn't experience them can't profess to know that they did or didn't happen - you can't tell me that I'm wrong when I say I never chose to be bisexual. I can't tell you that you didn't feel angry when you were bullied at school. Can you see the problem with trying to compare a thing I know about myself with a thing that someone else claims to have seen? If you can't, then that's your problem, not mine.

Yes, The Rusted One, you can only percieve to the effects. You don't know what Checkmate experienced, and cannot classify this.

Am I trying? No. Are you trying to classify what I've been through or not? Yes. Thanks for being a hypocrite and proving my point.

Also, we double post so it does not become confusing, and the people we are addressing can tell right off without having to search.

And don't - because it's not standard practice and is annoying. If someone else posts after you and you wish to address them, then fine - but post once with edits, not twice just because.

[Green_Pikachu]

oooh pariah. "brainwashed by our little bible"? sounds like your are insulting christians and....their religion.....



christian basher.

actually, no. im not a christian basher. im a bible-thumper basher. because im a christian, but im not a gay-hater.

[Scythemantis]

Yeah, pariah, you're arguing points I support but I don't support your arguing methods. I think you could stand to be a little more open-minded, and yes that means even towards those you consider "closed-minded".

I'ma step outta this thread, it's been interesting but I've gotten all my thoughts out in the open on our oodles of topics. On the subject of evolution, though, I thought this was a good read. One christian's account of how and why he came to accept evolution in his attempts to dismiss it:

Did we Evolve?

[Green_Pikachu]

Yeah, pariah, you're arguing points I support but I don't support your arguing methods. I think you could stand to be a little more open-minded, and yes that means even towards those you consider "closed-minded".

eh...im very open-minded. i just don't buy into that whole "hate the sin, not the sinner." it's a load of crap.

[Rei_Zero]

They call it Archaeoptyrex, Caudityrex, and countless other species. Don't believe me? Take off all the feathers on Archaeopteryx and you've got something that looks very much like a theropod dinosaur. One actually had faint feather marks around it that weren't seen for years, and was mislabeled as another species of dinosaur. Add them on and you've got a crow sized bird (with feathers, I might add) with teeth tails, and claws/hands. Honestly, if one believes in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution it just proves at how ignorant some people are. Have you ever heard of the snowball effect? It's when little changes causes an overall greater change. For example, take a look at Darwin's finches, which went through many changes through the stress the environment put on the population all in a few years. X 10000000 and you've got millions of years of small changes accumulating into a new species with many different traits.

The historical insight of the bible doesn't prove anything about the actual existance of God or Jesus. I could easily say Confucius helped build a stable society by setting a respected philosophy that people listened to. Therefore, he is a god for helping society in such a historical way. Is there historical record of a man named Confucius who helped society? Yes. Does that mean that because he helped society and was popular for it he was declared a God? No. Jesus was a man who helped society, and that was recorded in history. That doesn't automatically make him a god's son.

The bible lists historical events. Big deal. So do any other scripture from the past. Is everything in history recorded by the bible accurate? No. People will write what they want to write. The Chinese claim that they won the Korean War. The Americans claim that they won the Korean War. Those are opinionated facts. The only known fact is that both countries signed a truce. Likewise, some Jews claimed Jesus to be the Messiah, and changed religions to Christianity. Others didn't think so and stayed as Jews. Then Mohammad (I used to know how to spell it) came and some reverted to Muslim faith. Others stayed the way they were. What is known is the in history these people did exist. They influenced entire empires. Does that mean that they were gods/holy beings? That's up to the writers of the Bible/Quoran(sp?)/Torah to decide. They wrote it, therefore they get to express what they thought were facts, whether it be truth or lie. Just keep in mind that anything written in any historical scripture, no matter how many actual historical facts they reveal about the current situations of their time, will always have facts warped by opinionated beliefs. Last example...in the Revolutionary War US history makes out the British to be like tyrants. The British, on the other hand, probably made out the Americans to be like whining ungrateful brats.

P.S. Bringing up the Simpsons, here's my most favorite quote.
"God told me to lead the French to Victory"-lisa
"err...yes I did"-God
"Hey!!Wait a minute!! You told me to lead the English to victory!!"-Willy "I never thought you two would be in the same room^^;...well good bye now"-God

[pokeruler1]

hfdghgfhdfghgfhfgh

[pokeruler1]

hgfhdfghfdhfghgf

[pokeruler1]

gjkghjdjdhjdhjd

[pokeruler1]

jhdghjdjhdjhdjdhhgd

[pokeruler1]

jghjfhjdghjdjdhjd

[pokeruler1]

ffffgfgfgfgfffgfgfhgfhgf