Homosexual Books for First Graders

[Green_Pikachu]

my bad. i messd up copying and pasting. look at the post again. there are 5 differnt quotes.

yes, and in none of them does Jesus say that he is the son of god. good job.

[Sorovis]

pariah, you are simply wasting space. Face it. You lost. So as opposed to posting something to actually defend your point or admitting defeat, you stoop to this?

Can we please move on? I believe it was Damian who commented on the noise caused by useless posts (talking about the Pariah).

[yeah5]

ok dude, they ask him if he is the CHrist and he says " i told oyu and you did not beleive" is that lcear? yes.

and, "I and the Father are one" Jesus is not only the Son of God, He is God. It's not understandable, but that is what the Bible says.

[yeah5]

HE DIDN"T SAY "if you think so " he said something like "I told you and you did not beleive". that is TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

what about "I and the Father are one"?

[yeah5]

woah ash, "prone to misinterperetations"? so I guess a handful of disciples misinterpereted Him? who were with him day and night and could ask him specifically? especially when some people specifically asked him if he was the Christ (in the Gospel of John), and he said something like "I told you and you did not beleive"?

[Checkmate]

Rusted One, I still don't think most of your argument holds water. While I understand what you're saying about personalities and stuff, there's still some problems with it.

For one thing, the basic debate here the morality of homosexuality. Your homosexuality is not part of your personality. Personality is devided into four types. Choleric, Sanguin, Phlegmatic, and Melancholy.

Phlegmatic is easy going, sometimes shy, trying to make peace. Sanguin is fun loving relaxed sometimes irresponsible and doesn't take things seriously. Choleric is forceful leader. Melancholy is organized often stressed out and emotional.

Homosexuality is not any more a personality trait than your hair color (assuming it's genetic which I disagree with) God is not a part of my personality. Christianity is a significant (possibly the most significant) part of my lifestyle. Homosexuality is a part of your life style. They are not personality traits.

Also, the argument that we cannot say something about you that you disagree with is not completely founded. My doctor knows more about than I do. I have a condition called tics. It's a minor neurological disorder. My doctor who has gone to medical school knows about parts of my anatomy I've never heard of, being a neurological specialist knows more about my ticks.

No, I am not a doctor and I doubt Yeah5 and Sorovis are either, but the point stands that science (which is one base of their argument) makes it possible to know more about a person than they know about themselves.

And I am saying that you feel homosexuality is right. There is no doubt in the mind of that. I feel God is existent. It's not entirely based on other people, but a lot on my own personal experiences. You have told us how you feel.

I know that last paragraph was repetitive, but I don't exactly understand how you couuntered it in your last post, so I repeated it.

Note: this post was made immediately after my reading of the Rusted One's second recent post. I've decided to stop trying to reply to everyone in one post, because I always forget points as a result.

[Damian Silverblade]

Errr, could I have a source for your division of personalities there Checkmate?

It seems to me to be the kind of idea that are prone to being discarded somewhere in the dark closets of science and history along with such gems as alchemy and the ilk.

Or in other words, it sounds like something that they would cook up in the XIXth century or so, and have abandoned since then.

[Checkmate]

Again this is strictly a response to Ash 300 for reasons I stated in my post to the Rusted One.

Okay, first of all, I'm not sure if you read Romans 1:26-27 or not. If you haven't here is the NIV verson "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Now about interpretation, it is clear that God calls homosexual relations unnatural, and sinful. What is open to interpretation is the last clause after the comma. In my personal interpretation that clause that includes the words "receive" and "penalty" could be referring to HIV. However, that could be wrong. That is a case that is open to a right and wrong interpretation. I don't believe you intellectually interpret something in this passage that says God thinks Homosexuality is ok.
I know it says that God gave them over, but the fact that they're called shameful relations and perversion pretty much makes black and white God's standing on the matter. And keep in mind God is wiser than us.

[Checkmate]

Daniel 5:21 does not necessarily call Belshazzar Nebby's son. The word is translated 'son' in the NIV version. Alternative translations include successor and descendent. I believe you said that Belshazzar was Nebby's grandson? That fits the word descendent well. Another example of this kind of happening is when the Bible refers to the 'sons of Israel"

Also, I'd like a more detailed flaw posted on Quirinius. If you say he wasn't the governor at that time, I'd like to know who you say was.

Also, I don't know how to enter websites in, but if you don't mind going through the trouble I'll tell you find a site I found. If you google "Darius the Mede" in quotes the top website you get might interest you.

It does not quite concur with my saying Darious was a title, but it could explain away your original statement of a flaw in the Bible. It talks about Darius the Mede and Cyrene together. Reply what you thought if you find the site. If you can't find the site, tell me how to enter in websites and I'll get if for you. (in fact do that even if you do find the site I'm talking about)

[Checkmate]

Actually I got that information from two sources. The first was my sixth grade teacher. A ver intelligent woman, but you might not call that reliable source.

The same was reinforced by a guy who wrote a book on marriage. That source is slightly more credible in my opinion.

And Pariah, as if you need another Christian fighting you, assuming that John didn't call himself the son of God (which is a false assumption) that still does not discredit the other three gospels. Also, each man reported different things. Not contradictory things. I don't believe (I could be wrong) that any one event aside from the crucifixion and resurrection are in all four gospels. If all the gospels were identical there'd be no point in having four.

[Checkmate]

Now, on behalf of myself (and most likely Yeah5 and Sorovis based on similar reactions on the topic I'm about to discuss) I have this to say:

I reserve the right to no longer reply to any post (no matter how intelligent) that calls me, Yeah5, Sorovis or any combination of the three of us as well as any other Christian for that matter a 'gay basher', 'homo-phobe', 'homosexual hater', or any other similar term that basically calls us discriminatory and/or prejudiced against homosexuals.
We have said that we are debating the fact that homosexuality is a sin. We do not hate homosexuals. Yes they are sinners. As are Sorovis, Yeah5, myself, and every other person (exempting Jesus) that lived and has lived on this planet.

So if you want me (and this probably applies to them, too) to reply to your post do not call me anything that calls me unrightfully prejudiced against gays. This is probably the last time I will state this. After this message I will probably just ignore people that do this.

[Checkmate]

Ash 300 I'm not drawing parallels. The main point I'm arguing against the Rusted One is that I, Checkmate, have personal experiences that in my opinion (at least) are the equivalent of his.

Btw, I'm sry for the quadriple (or however many) posts here, but each post addresses a different person.

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

Rambunctious: Yes, the Bible did. And yes, to sin and have morals is to be human. There is not an animal to date to understand morals or sin, just what they are told. Alex did not know of sin, although he could communicate to some degree with humans. Also, it is God who created the morals; not humans.

Then why not make us all equal on a certain level of degree? Are animals here for our service, when we are done with them we toss them aside and say 'Hey, thanks for the ride.'

But, since it was created by humans, we could do without it, just like we could do without computers. We might not be as "civilized" or as "intelligent" as we are today, but we could have done without them to begin with.

The Bible says man was created in the image of God. And yes, intelligence does come into play because in order to sin you have to make choices that could include sin; Alex could not do this because he/she (I forget which, sorry) did not make choices that could be sinful. Making wrong choices for Alex was not a sin, but a mistake. Had he chosen to take a gun to shoot someone and known what he was doing and that it was wrong, now THAT would be a sin.

But some believe that taking that gun and shooting another's brains out is right, not from mental disorder. Some just feel like killing because they like the feel of it. We can say that these people aren't fully religious because of this but some are. Some just take "an eye for an eye" too literally. Some are thinking it was in the name of God that this person must suffer because he did something wrong, like got drunk and killed a friend or relative accidentally.

But yeah, there was the mother gazelle I mentioned earlier who killed two hyenas out of a passion filled rage because the hyenas had killed her baby. Does she know this was wrong? I don't know, I'm not an animal mind reader...

And as a matter of fact, none one here is. Do we know what these animals are actually thinking? Body language isn't all that communication of the animal kingdom is based on. We can assume but we cannot be sure of until a real animal telekinetic or an invention can actually give us the grand scheme of the animal world.

I'm going to have to leave your last two points to yeah5.

Thank you. I'm waiting yeah5.

And please, even if it is a small bit, edit your posts people. It's not like we're going to pass it up completely if you edit it.

[Sorovis]

God sent us here dominant over all other animals. This is not to say that He expects us to abuse and exploit them; they are here for reasons never explained in the Bible (as far as I know). What is clear is that they are frequently used to carry out His will: plague of frogs, gnats, ravens feeding people, etc..

Whether or whether not we could live without morals is up for speculation. Obviously the only way to find out is to actually live without them; good luck on that. My theory on it is that humans are social. We must socialize or not survive at all. In order to effictively socialize, we need morals to get along with eachother. Otherwise we would be in anarchy.

Once again, people saying they do something in 'the name of God' does not make it right. The Bible is very clear on what is right and wrong, and it leaves no interpretation on these things. I don't care what people say their reason is for killing someone, even in self defense is a sin. That does not mean sinning will keep you from Heaven (it used to, doesn't now), but it's still not a good thing to do. Sinning, after all, harms other people than yourself.

While we can not read animal minds, we have a pretty good indication of how they think and how well. Assuming animals did think like people: wouldn't they leave their niches and attempt to do something else, realizing their was an easier life? Free thought and will in animals would be immediately noticable.

In yeah5s defense, we do have quite a few people to counter. Just keep your points up and keep them from being buried under the mounds of garbage that occasionally comes along, and they'll probably be answered (I'm not yeah5, I don't know for sure).

See you tomorrow.

[The Rusted One]

The Rusted One: Your whole first paragraph was completely pointless. Are you so desperate now as to go to that drastic of measures? The intelligence of dolphins HAS been measured, and, even worse for you, I've watched and read up on it. Once again I bring up that some animals are also cannibalistic and murderous in some instances. So obviously both of these must be natural for humans as well. You can't use animals to justify homosexuality, so save yourself the humiliation and give it up.

This coming from the person who's trying to tell me about me, as if I have no idea and he has the qualification to do so. Hmmm.

What do you think I said? That the intelligence of a dolphin has never, ever been measured? No - I said that it can't be measured absolutely - it can only be compared to us. We like to think ourselves more intelligent than other animals, and yet this is only based on what we call intelligence. Our definition is not absolute, and when we compare something to ourselves, we do so by our standards - not theirs, and not anyone else's. We can't say we're more intelligent, really - all we can say is that we possess a certain kind of intelligence, and when we try to compare that to other species, our studies and investigations show us things (whether or not these investigations are flawed, however, nobody asks.

Once again, you bring up animal characteristics ina weak attempt to prove something I say wrong - and once again you fail. So what if an animal is cannibalistic? Some aren't - so what? Nobody ever said we should copy animals in what they do - you've just decided that that's the only way you can attack the argument, it seems. People have said that homosexuality is natural - and we can see that it is, given that it occurs in nature. Does this mean that we're copying animals if we admit it as a natural part of humanity? No. It means that we see it as natural. Cannibalism in some animals is natural. It isn't in people. Homosexuality is natural in some animals. It is in people. Stop trying to tell me to give up when it's your arguments that are flawed, i.e., "no, I won't listen to you, because you don't know yourself, I know you better than you do - and given that, I'll tell you that you chose to be bisexual, rather than listen to you when you say you didn't. I mean, how stupid to suppose that a person would know themselves better than I know them!" It is a flawed argument. It may be time for you to give up.

So each individual living the way they want to is the right way to live (individual freedom)? Well then I'll just kill my neighbor for the heck of it. Hey, it's what I want to do. I'm a killer and that's just how I want to live, I can't help it, it's just the way I am. I mean, if you think about it, everyone's just going to die anyways, so the world's not going to miss one person. Right?

Oh, please. This is such a desperate measure taken by you that it's laughable. Killing hurts other people. Don't take illogical thoughts and try to twist my argument with them. Perhaps I just assumed you were smart enough to know that I said that within the constraints of not hurting another being, or doing something to them against their will - but I won't assume you have such faculties in the future, as you obviously don't understand. Of course, maybe you are - but then, you'd be equating homosexuality with murder, which is just as fallacious as saying heterosexuality is the same. Is it? Or are you again going to say one thing of homosexuality and another of heterosexuality, and try to categorise them differently without evidence to support your actions (re: you had no evidence that homosexuality was genetic, and so claimed it wasn't - and then turned around and said that heterosexuality was genetic, despite the blatant lack of evidence).

Good, so war is a human characteristic. Another thing that seperates us from animals. Thanks for clearing that up.

Did I say it wasn't a human characteristic? You're trying to show me up, but instead are succeeding in showing yourself up - I never purported that war was an animal tendency. You tried to argue it was, though, in your desperate attempts at arguing. Thing is, the person who did bring up war in the first place also said that it makes us no better than animals, so where you get the notion that it does is beyond me.

Are you getting desperate or something? Are you even taking yourself seriously any more? That paragraph was utterly ludicrous.

You know what may help you? Actually quoting a paragraph, if it's not too difficult, of your statements become irrelevant. What is this in reference to?

Heterosexuals becoming homosexual means that they're not born like that. Of course, you'll probobly come up with something completely groundless to attack that.

Groundless of the sort like your claims that, because there was no evidence, homosexuality couldn't be genetic, but that heterosexuality was, just by default, genetic, even though you also know there's no evidence for this? Or the claims that I must've chosen to be bisexual, and your refusal to listen when I say it wasn't, despite the fact that I am the one to know, and you are not? The choices, the choices.

Heterosexuals becoming homosexuals doesn't at all mean they weren't born like that - you obviously can't remember the part of this argument when I mentioned that I wouldn't really have known that I was bisexual unless I was attracted to a specific guy; if he hadn't been around, I wouldn't have known in any certainty. In that case, I would've been "heterosexual becoming homosexual" if the situation ever arose again - but I never chose to be, as I've said. Could the same not be true for someone else? I'd say it could, given that I'm only one person in the 6 billion (US) people on this planet, and nobody is the only person to be a certain way in any aspect of life.

What you seem to have forgotten is that I did not start this debate. I stated my opinion and was attacked. Please use actual facts.

Again, a seemingly irrelevant paragraph given that I don't know what you say this to. However, what you seem to have forgotten is that the actual topic was about homosexuality in books for young children - and that had you not stated your opinion on homosexuality being a choice or not, then nobody would be arguing like this. You can blame it on someone else, someone else can blame it on you. And the solution is...?

Already countered that.

Irrelevant. Quote.

What kind of evidence are you looking for? And while you didn't directly say he was wrong, you tried to justify what his experience came from without actually being there yourself. God does leave proof, it's just that people refuse to acknowledge it as that. I tried to justify why you don't remember making the choice; the same thing you did to Checkmate.

Not at all, actually - when did I say he made a choice? I didn't. You're grasping at straws here, Sorovis - how does being called up on something only you would know, i.e., what you know about yourself, compare to thinking something about someone else, something you don't know? It doesn't. Checkmate can claim that he saw "god". I can't tell him that his knowledge of seeing something is wrong; I can only say, "I think it was something else, maybe that caused you to perceive something that you have interpreted as 'god'" - but I can't tell him he didn't see anything. I wasn't in his mind at the time. Someone else might claim to have seen the same thing but may interpret it differently - because it isn't themselves they are seeing. It is someone or something else, not constrained by their minds, and wholly separate. Interpretation of something outside yourself is not the same as knowledge of something within yourself. You know you believe in "god"; you know you dislike a certain food; you know that you are attracted to girls. You don't know, as you do of yourself, what someone else believes; you don't know what someone else finds gross about a certain food, or what exactly they're tasting when they try to eat it; you don't know what someone else find attractive. Your mind is yours alone - not someone else's. Nobody is privy to the knowledge of yourself that you are - and nobody is qualified to tell you that you do like a food you actually don't, or that you don't believe in "god", or that you aren't attracted to girls. You'll note I've not said once any of these things to anyone, or anything like them. The only thing I have done in relation to Checkmate is question his interpretation of something outside himself - i.e., something that is outside his mind, something that isn't part of him, something that he is not the only person to know. I never said he didn't see something, or hear something, or experience something - because I can't. If I'm happy, you can't tell me I'm sad. What I did question was whether his interpretation of events, given his experience, which is unquestionable, was right. You may see something you interpret as a sign from above; nobody can say you didn't see it. People can question what it actually was you saw, but not that you saw it. You can't tell me that I chose to be bisexual - because you don't know. Only I can, and only I do. I can tell you what I know for myself, and it's your choice to ignore me because it challenges what you think you know of other people, but you can't tell me I'm wrong. All you can ever know is that which only you know of yourself, because you are yourself, regardless of outside forces. Your thoughts are yours - your knowledge of yourself is yours. Your thoughts of other people, however, is not absolute - because that's what you perceive of other people; you don't know them absolutely, and never can. You never will. You can't tell them that when their dog died, they were happy, and not sad, as they claim to be - because your feelings are not their feelings. Your thoughts and perception of them is not their knowledge of them. That's why you're unqualified to tell me I chose to be bisexual; you can choose to disbelieve me because your other beliefs are being challenged, but you can't actually claim to know me better than I know me.

Yes, you DID try to classify what Checkmate saw. Go back and read that post.

Keywords - "what Checkmate saw" - not "that Checkmate saw something." This demonstrates my point - I can guess at what he really did see, because we will both interpret the same things different ways - but I can't tell him he didn't see whatever it was that he is now claiming to be whatever he believes it was.

You see, I don't like unnecessarily long posts. If Rambunctious or Damian or Scythemantis want to come up here and tell me to stop double posting, then I will, because I'm doing it for their benefit. Until then, I will continue.

And you'll run risk of me editting your double posts into one post, then. I can do so, and I will. It's the way these forums work; if you don't like it, then feel free to go somewhere that does, okay? This is totally unrelated to the actual argument, note - and I will not delete parts of your posts that I "don't like"; but I will edit your posts into one if you continue to multiple post.

Rusted One, I still don't think most of your argument holds water. While I understand what you're saying about personalities and stuff, there's still some problems with it.

For one thing, the basic debate here the morality of homosexuality. Your homosexuality is not part of your personality. Personality is devided into four types. Choleric, Sanguin, Phlegmatic, and Melancholy.

So, you think that personality is purely the way you act? You obviously regard your consciousness, i.e., you, the thing that makes decisions, has thoughts, etc., as something different. Again there is only semantical confusion. When I say personality, I mean consciousness. I mean your being that makes decisions, has thoughts, etc., etc. Not merely, "I'm easy going."

Sexuality is part of your consciousness; it is part of you - you like girls. You can't help it. It's part of your consciousness, part of your mind, as are the particular foods you like or dislike. This is what I mean when I say personality - I mean the individual person you are, the being you are, not the generic qualities of "impatient" or "stressed out". I mean you.

Phlegmatic is easy going, sometimes shy, trying to make peace. Sanguin is fun loving relaxed sometimes irresponsible and doesn't take things seriously. Choleric is forceful leader. Melancholy is organized often stressed out and emotional.

Homosexuality is not any more a personality trait than your hair color (assuming it's genetic which I disagree with) God is not a part of my personality. Christianity is a significant (possibly the most significant) part of my lifestyle. Homosexuality is a part of your life style. They are not personality traits.

I've cleared this up - personality is not, as I used it, about how easy going you are. I used it in the context of individual consciousness; and sexuality, no matter what it is, is part of that consciousness.

Also, the argument that we cannot say something about you that you disagree with is not completely founded. My doctor knows more about than I do. I have a condition called tics. It's a minor neurological disorder. My doctor who has gone to medical school knows about parts of my anatomy I've never heard of, being a neurological specialist knows more about my ticks.

My brother suffers the same condition - and it's totally irrelevant. What you suffer from is a physical condition, one that can be measured, and perceived by someone on the outside, much like if you have a moment of inspiration and apply ten colours of lipstick to yourself. Someone can tell you that you've done something, or something of the sort - because it's physically perceivable. People can see it. Parts of your anatomy are physical parts of you, too, up for people to see or talk about because they can test what they claim, or say, or what you claim, or say. The doctor, however, can only surmise from what you say that you have this condition; he cannot tell you that you don't actually have these tics at all. I cannot tell my brother he doesn't, or that he doesn't worry about them. He claims he does - and he does, if I believe him. I have no right to disbelieve him or tell him that what he claims of himself in terms of his consciousness is wrong, because I can't know that. Only he can. The doctor can only guess when it's a neurological condition; he can't actually feel what you feel, and then say, "yes, I know for a fact what that is." He's not you; he's another person. He's a doctor, but that doesn't mean he can tell what you feel, what you sense, what you perceive with your senses. Only you can. He can't tell you what you think. Only you can. He can tell you you have a condition, based on the investigations he does - but he can't know for a fact what it feels like, or anything. A doctor can be sure that I have diabetes, though - because that is totally physical, and not part of my consciousness, nor a neurological condition (and the two are not one in the same, but have the same limit of only being experienced by the sufferer for certain). The doctor who is sure I have diabetes, however, cannot tell me how I feel about having diabetes beyond what I tell him or her. He or she cannot tell me that, even though I claim to just get on with things and not really even notice that I have to deal with this condition for the rest of my life, that I'm actually really stressed about it and think how unfair it is. He or she cannot do that at all. Mine is not their mind to state that for. Only I can tell them what I feel, and only I can know what I feel.

No, I am not a doctor and I doubt Yeah5 and Sorovis are either, but the point stands that science (which is one base of their argument) makes it possible to know more about a person than they know about themselves.

Physically. Someone can know that you have a defective liver, which you may not have known before - but your mind is not your physical self. Your mind is open only to you, because it is you. Not someone else. Science cannot tell you what you know of yourself, because science is physical; it theorises as to how things are, how they came to be, why (if there is a why) - but it cannot touch you in terms of your personal consciousness. That's not physically testable. There is no test to say that you get up in the morning and are happy - only you know this, and only you can communicate this. Even a lie detector can only judge whether you tell the truth by your physical reaction - and it is far from perfect. It can tell that you're stressed, either because you are lying, or because you think it will find you are lying, or some similar cause - but it cannot tell you how stressed you are, why you are stressed, what you find most stressful, what thoughts are in your mind. Nobody can, only you.

And I am saying that you feel homosexuality is right. There is no doubt in the mind of that. I feel God is existent. It's not entirely based on other people, but a lot on my own personal experiences. You have told us how you feel.

By stating that I feel homosexuality is right, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean, I feel it is right in some aspects of my life, or that I feel it is morally right? Because you cannot tell me the first one for a fact if I do not tell you (which we've hopefully established by now) - and the second is actually false. I don't see anything as "right", because that, to me, implies that I find all other alternatives "wrong" - rather, I find homosexuality as being as "right" as heterosexuality, in that neither of them are wrong. I don't go by what's "right", necessarily - I go by what's "not wrong". Heterosexuality is not wrong. Homosexuality is not wrong. "Not wrong" is not the same as "right", because things can be "not wrong" alongside other things that are "not wrong" - but if something is "right", it tends to imply that this excludes other alternatives as being "not right" - which, as stated before, I don't think of either heterosexuality or homosexuality.

Now, as for your feeling that "god" is existent - I can't tell you that you don't feel that way. I can say, "I don't feel the same way, and I am equally able to say so because it is belief, which nobody is born with" - but this is not the same as you and Sorovis claiming that I decided to be bisexual, because unless you chose to be heterosexual, then you can't be sure there was any choice for me, either. If you did choose, then that may change this whole thing in terms of my ability to argue - but it would not change the fact that I can, and will, and would, still claim that I didn't choose to be bisexual. Did you choose to be straight? From Sorovis' replies, I gather he didn't - he purports that heterosexuality is genetic, which would mean he thinks it innate and not a choice (though why there is a dichotomous attitude towards sexuality, I don't know, given that there is equal evidence to support the statement that either both or neither are genetic). If he says he didn't, I can't say he did choose. He can't say that I chose, even though he seems to think he is able to do such a thing. I can't tell you that you don't believe in "god", whatever you reasons - but I can question whether or not "god" does or doesn't exist. Your belief is not testable - only the subject is (possibly); I can't test whether you do or don't believe in "god", but I can test whether or not "god" exists (in theory at least). Why? Because "god" is not something that is part of you, or me - it either exists or not, regardless of us as individual consciousnesses. It is another being, and therefore, its existence should be as testable as mine, or yours, or an elephant's. What goes on in your mind, however, is totally within you - what goes on in my mind is totally within me. What goes on in an elephant's mind is totally within the elephant - and none of us three can tell any of the others that what is going on in each other's minds isn't actually going on. Consciousnesses are separate and untestable - beings and whether they exist are not.

I know that last paragraph was repetitive, but I don't exactly understand how you couuntered it in your last post, so I repeated it.

Is it countered now? My point is that you can't claim to know that I either did or didn't choose to be bisexual - because that's my knowledge, and cannot be contested. Your belief is your belief - I cannot tell you that you don't believe in "god"; I can only doubt whether the subject of that belief, i.e., "god", actually does or does not exist.

Now, if either of you actually do try to tell me something about myself (my consciousness) that only I can ever know for certain, then I will begin to do the same to you. Perhaps if I claim that you both harbour desired to make your parents divorce (or guardians separate, or whatever), and then marry you mother and have children by her, it would make my point. How? Because I can claim it, given the logic I have seen in the past 30 pages of this thread, that I know something of you - I can tell you that you feel this way, and that you're refusal to admit it isn't because it isn't true - it's just that you don't want to listen to me. I can say that I know you better than you know you, and given, again, the logic I have seen exercised here, you can't tell me that I don't. I can make accusations as I wish, and whether or not you deny them is irrelevant - because you wouldn't know, apparently, while I would. So, there it is - I can claim that you want to have children by your mothers, and you can't tell me otherwise.

[Ash_300]

So basically what you are trying to say that homosexuality is wrong because God says so? In the case that certain passages cannot be misinterpreted, what about the errors in the translations? Back to my first point, are you saying that homosexuality is wrong becuase God apparently says so? All of your evidence seems to rely on religous beliefs which you should know, not everyone agrees with. So how can you use religion to support an argument? Also you were drawing parallels between your experiences and others since you used their experiences and tried to related them to your one in an attempt to support your argument.

[Chris]

Chris: That was totally uncalled for. Unless you have an argument that could be used on this board, you are just spamming.

No, it wasn't totally uncalled for. I've seen 7 or 8 double posts, 3 or 4 triple posts, and even one quadruple post in this topic alone over the last 12 hours (and some of them are also from you). Telling people not to do this is my job. My post was not "totally uncalled for", and neither was it "spam".

I'd appreciate it if (a) the consecutive posting could be kept to a minimum, and (b) this could be the last off-topic post in this thread. Thanks.

Of course, whether they actually listen is totally up to them, apparently - because they can do what they want, they think. I've already made comment on their consecutive/multiple posting, but they don't seem to think that it's really any of my concern, given that I'm not always the person one of the posts is directed to.

In other words, don't expect them to listen - if they do, I'll be surprised, as they've already ignored me countless times.

- TRO

[Green_Pikachu]

pariah, you are simply wasting space. Face it. You lost. So as opposed to posting something to actually defend your point or admitting defeat, you stoop to this?

Can we please move on? I believe it was Damian who commented on the noise caused by useless posts (talking about the Pariah).

lol. do you know how to debate? it's all about refuting. which I am doing. it's not all about posting worthless site after worthless site filled with anti-gay propaganda. I posed a question, and am now refuting his testimony. that's how you debate. how old are you, like 14? "Face it. You lost." there is no losing in this. You're not gonna sway my opinions, and I'm not gonna sway yours. Just because you read a bible, and go to church, doesn't mean you're a good person. I don't hate gays, you do. Live with that.

[Green_Pikachu]

Rusted One, I still don't think most of your argument holds water. While I understand what you're saying about personalities and stuff, there's still some problems with it.

For one thing, the basic debate here the morality of homosexuality. Your homosexuality is not part of your personality. Personality is devided into four types. Choleric, Sanguin, Phlegmatic, and Melancholy.

Phlegmatic is easy going, sometimes shy, trying to make peace. Sanguin is fun loving relaxed sometimes irresponsible and doesn't take things seriously. Choleric is forceful leader. Melancholy is organized often stressed out and emotional.

Homosexuality is not any more a personality trait than your hair color (assuming it's genetic which I disagree with) God is not a part of my personality. Christianity is a significant (possibly the most significant) part of my lifestyle. Homosexuality is a part of your life style. They are not personality traits.

Also, the argument that we cannot say something about you that you disagree with is not completely founded. My doctor knows more about than I do. I have a condition called tics. It's a minor neurological disorder. My doctor who has gone to medical school knows about parts of my anatomy I've never heard of, being a neurological specialist knows more about my ticks.

No, I am not a doctor and I doubt Yeah5 and Sorovis are either, but the point stands that science (which is one base of their argument) makes it possible to know more about a person than they know about themselves.

And I am saying that you feel homosexuality is right. There is no doubt in the mind of that. I feel God is existent. It's not entirely based on other people, but a lot on my own personal experiences. You have told us how you feel.

I know that last paragraph was repetitive, but I don't exactly understand how you couuntered it in your last post, so I repeated it.

Note: this post was made immediately after my reading of the Rusted One's second recent post. I've decided to stop trying to reply to everyone in one post, because I always forget points as a result.

first off, that 4 divivions things is crap. secondly, just because something isn't a part of someone's personality doesn't mean it still can't be genetics. Plus, I heard Jesus was gay anyway. That's why he had 12 MALE apostles.

[Green_Pikachu]

Now, on behalf of myself (and most likely Yeah5 and Sorovis based on similar reactions on the topic I'm about to discuss) I have this to say:

I reserve the right to no longer reply to any post (no matter how intelligent) that calls me, Yeah5, Sorovis or any combination of the three of us as well as any other Christian for that matter a 'gay basher', 'homo-phobe', 'homosexual hater', or any other similar term that basically calls us discriminatory and/or prejudiced against homosexuals.
We have said that we are debating the fact that homosexuality is a sin. We do not hate homosexuals. Yes they are sinners. As are Sorovis, Yeah5, myself, and every other person (exempting Jesus) that lived and has lived on this planet.

So if you want me (and this probably applies to them, too) to reply to your post do not call me anything that calls me unrightfully prejudiced against gays. This is probably the last time I will state this. After this message I will probably just ignore people that do this.

you can't deny it though. you say you "hate the sin, not the sinner," but what about murderers who slaughter a bunch of people? what about bank robbers? Do you hate the sin, and not the sinner there? You may say that on the surface, but deep down you know you hold some resentment for that sinner, think less of him, maybe even detest him, but just don't say it out loud. there's no way you can't have some sort of prejudice towards gays considering how big of bible-thumpers you are.


edit: i apologize for a "triple post" but I was just going through what I missed, and kept hitting the quote button. i don't know how to group it all into one post like TRO.

[Chris]

Just copy/paste all the quotes into a text editor, add in your comments and paste the whole thing into a new reply window... I'm assuming that's what TRO does anyway...

I'd also like to point out that there is no "winning" and/or "losing" in a debate. Each person is entitled to his or her own opinion, and the point of a debate is not to try to "beat" someone else, or to try to force them to change their opinions on something, but to discuss your point of view with other people, and hopefully understand other peoples' points of view. Sorovis, please bear that in mind.

[yeah5]

about misinterperetations and translations,

the Bible is not a game of telephone. it's more like 2 people tell 2 people each (actually more), each person tells two others, and so on. therefore if the message was distorted over time, the end result would be hundreds of different stories. BUT, all of the scripture we have today is the same except for a few misspellings. otherwise they are exactly the same. This shows that they were not distorted over time in writing.

my next point, translators of the bible do not make bibles by transating from other modern translations or Bibles. Bibles are transated from the original Greek. We ahve ancient manuscripts of the New Testament that say the same thing as todays Bibles

[Green_Pikachu]

yes, but the original ancient greek is extremely hard to translate, mainly because it was never recorded with spaces. and i take ancient greek. it's hard enough WITH spaces. i can't imagine it not having spaces, and not only having to know what the words mean, but also having to make sure you put in the right spaces.

anyway, i don't know what the significance of this is. just a little tidbit of info.

[yeah5]

but say...a greek person translates it to english? and also, no spaces doesn't necissarily change meaning.
like if i said

heythepariah,itsfridayandtomorrowissaturday

you know what that says, or can figure it out.

can you tell me how you know they had no spaces? im not saying it's wrong, just give me a source

they STILL have ancient greek manuscripts

[Green_Pikachu]

well, that's what every professor i've ever had has said (and it is a fact). and, yes, it can change the meaning, because in greek with no spaces it would be VERY difficult to figure out the ending of one word and the beginning of the other. and if you mess up, it could drastically change the meaning of the sentence. and thats another thing. no punctuation. you'd have to arbitrarily decide where to put in punctuation.

[Sorovis]

The Rusted One: This coming from the person who is doing the exact same thing. Hmm...

Then what exactly is your definition of intelligence? This is pointless, pathetic, degrading. There is a definition for intelligence: the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. You are grasping at straws. Can you not see you have lost? Give it up and save yourself some humilitation (repeating this). I'm not going to even consider this anymore until you come up with a good basis.

Have you bothered to even listen to my points before replying with your uselessly long post? homosexuality is in animals. So is caniballism. Guess what? Some human cultures practice cannibalism. Does that make it right? Does that make it genetic? Anything animals do helps them in their survival, we do not need to use them as an example for what is right because we live completely differently. What animals do DOES NOT APPLY to people, I don't know how to say it so you understand.

Hey guess what? There are some homosexuals who have become heterosexual. You try and tell them that it's genetic and they can't do that.

Actually I'm not desperate. Homosexuality IS harmful to other people. In order to have sex, they must use unnatural ways, and these ways harm people. If you even try to tell me that this is okay because both people agree, then I'll tell you it's okay to kill my neighbor because he wants to die anyways. What evidence do you want heterosexuality is genetic? Men and women go together. They can reproduce. It is ment to create offspring. Of course, this is all some huge coincidence, right? YOU my friend have a blatant lack of evidence.

War is just a modified and intellectual version of fighting. If animals were that intelligent, they would have war. See, thing is, they're NOT. I know Rambunctious or Scythemantis will bring up ants have war (and they actually present evidence for their cases). Ants do not have war, their battles over food have no strategic elements to them, it is simply gang fighting for food. Humans are too different to use animals as an example of what and what not to do.

You know what may help you? Actually rereading your posts to see what I'm saying. I'm in the middle of a debate now and I have no time to learn how, or havn't you noticed you aren't the only one here with me?

In order for heterosexuals becoming homosexuals to happen, they have to first stop being attracted to the opposite sex. If they were born like that, why would that have happened? Wouldn't they have been homosexual from the start?

Yah, I said I thought homosexuality was wrong and that the children shouldn't be given the books. I didn't realise I had to explain why it was wrong as well. After all, I had hoped people would respect my opinion. Of course the few that didn't have brought this debate to what it is. Do you honestly expect me to believe by justifying my point at the start I would have been left alone? I've already justified it, and I'm still here because you won't except my justifying it. Instead of accepting this as what I believe, you seem to think you must cleanse my mind of such filth and show me I am wrong. Instead you have done nothing but agitate me.

Irrelivant. Go back and read what you said.

Actually it is the same thing. Do you even remember what you are arguing about? Checkmate said he had a certain feeling, and you tried to justify that.

Tell me, can you give me a detailed description of your mind and exactly how it works to the finest point?

Not what I meant to say. I meant what Checkmate felt.

Then feel free to do so. It does not affect me; it simply makes it more difficult for Rambunctious or Scythemantis or Damian to know I am addressing them.

I simply can't sit here and defend Checkmate now. But I will say this. Unless you say something of importance and basis from now on, I am simply going to ignore your posts. Debating with you is pointless, as you simply won't admit you are beaten. Either Checkmate or yeah5 can deal with them. This will also give me more time to reply to deserving posts.

[Sorovis]

Ash 300, I've explained why homosexuality is wrong, and I've given plenty of reasons to support this aside from the Bible.

Chris, your point on double posting is well taken. I attacked it because it seemed so offensive. The Rusted One, stick to your own posts.

Chris, I understand your point, but when the pariah has said that Jesus never claimed to be the Christ in John and he was disproved five times, that's pretty much a loss.

[Green_Pikachu]

Ash 300, I've explained why homosexuality is wrong, and I've given plenty of reasons to support this aside from the Bible.

Chris, your point on double posting is well taken. I attacked it because it seemed so offensive. The Rusted One, stick to your own posts.

Chris, I understand your point, but when the pariah has said that Jesus never claimed to be the Christ in John and he was disproved five times, that's pretty much a loss.

um, i wasn't disproved 5 times. lol. none of the quotes that yeah5 provided said the words, "I am the son of god," spoken by Jesus.

edit: and in case u didn't know, that means yeah5 basically made an ass of himself by posting quotes that didn't help him at all.

[yeah5]

look at it this way

if someone asked you "did the rams win the superbowl?"

you would say "yes" (34)

say he doesn't beleive you because he hasn't found out yet. You told him but he doesn't beleive you.

He asks you later again, "did the rams win the superbowl?"

you might say "I told you already", not "The rams won the superbowl"

Theres a parallel there between that story and one of my 5 points where people ask him if he is the Christ.

second, if he did not claim to be the Son of God, why did the Jews accuse him of it, and ask for him to be crucified?-if you are arguing with what oyu consider support from the Bible, i can argue back with what i consider support from it

[Green_Pikachu]

i'm not saying figuratively, or metaphorically, i'm saying literally. and jesus never said it. the other 3 gospels DID have him say those specific words though. that's all i'm saying. lighten up people.

[yeah5]

haha. us lighten up?
andway..we do know that John beleived that Jesus was the Son of God. You can check it out yourself in John 20: 30-31. John, the writer of that Gospel, must have beleived that Jesus' words summed it up.

[yeah5]

hey pariah, i have an idea. let's both argue respectfully from now on. deal?

[Green_Pikachu]

haha. us lighten up?
andway..we do know that John beleived that Jesus was the Son of God. You can check it out yourself in John 20: 30-31. John, the writer of that Gospel, must have beleived that Jesus' words summed it up.

i never said that John didn't believe Jesus was the son of god. Learn how to read.

and, stop double-posting, or i'll have to report you. CHRIS TOLD ME TO! AHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sorovis]

Listen you two, these posts need to be long and productive or not be posted at all. As much as I want to see the end of this debate, stuffing it full of these short and pointless posts that cause confusion is not the way. Unless the individual posts are long, try to hit all your points in a single post instead of many.

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

God sent us here dominant over all other animals. This is not to say that He expects us to abuse and exploit them; they are here for reasons never explained in the Bible (as far as I know). What is clear is that they are frequently used to carry out His will: plague of frogs, gnats, ravens feeding people, etc..

An unkindness of ravens feeding on people is a new one to me. I thought it was locusts though they always swarm and eat crops...

Even if animals are here for us to dominate them, why do they refuse us sometimes? Camels have been known to just stop and attack their trainers if they don't like them. The humans can't do anything because camels have really sharp teeth and can attack with them. This is not instinct. This is their choice if they want to do it.

Whether or whether not we could live without morals is up for speculation. Obviously the only way to find out is to actually live without them; good luck on that. My theory on it is that humans are social. We must socialize or not survive at all. In order to effictively socialize, we need morals to get along with eachother. Otherwise we would be in anarchy.

Some people do better alone actually. I do better by myself instead of groups since I know I can depend on myself. Though we may need to talk to a human once in a while, some can live without them really.

Once again, people saying they do something in 'the name of God' does not make it right. The Bible is very clear on what is right and wrong, and it leaves no interpretation on these things. I don't care what people say their reason is for killing someone, even in self defense is a sin. That does not mean sinning will keep you from Heaven (it used to, doesn't now), but it's still not a good thing to do. Sinning, after all, harms other people than yourself.

You know what. Morals are different for all people. I can walk up to someone and ask them if eating meat was wrong. They could say yes or no and explain why. I can walk up to someone and ask if they think testing on animals is right. They can say yes or no and give reasons. The murderer I mentioned believed he was doing right, no matter what the Bible says.

A homosexual can say that homosexuality is right for reasons and a heterosexual can say that homosexuality is wrong. Though these people might be of the same religion, they set their own morals, ones they can follow completely.

While we can not read animal minds, we have a pretty good indication of how they think and how well. Assuming animals did think like people: wouldn't they leave their niches and attempt to do something else, realizing their was an easier life? Free thought and will in animals would be immediately noticable.

It's noticeable in camels as mentioned above. Though I supposed animals learned from us that making things "easier" can make it harder as well.

In yeah5s defense, we do have quite a few people to counter. Just keep your points up and keep them from being buried under the mounds of garbage that occasionally comes along, and they'll probably be answered (I'm not yeah5, I don't know for sure).

See you tomorrow.

Yeah, still haven't gotten my answer though. And anyone can answer the whale question, please. Go digging as I've posted it twice and will not again.

[yeah5]

Rambunctious

the whale's pelvis actually serves an important reproductive funtion, although that was a pretty good point. therefore it doesn't have to be counted as a vestigial structure. interesting eh?

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

If it is so important as the reproductive factor, then why let it get smaller to point it becomes not even there? Moving the tail up and down puts pressure on the pelvis, making it smaller or can damage it. Whales may be able to "take it" but their pelvis has been getting smaller for the years it has been around. If this is God's will to kill off the whale slowly, making the pelvis almost impossibly small, then please, speak now and forever hold your peace.

And here for all you people who are complaining about the transitional link between birds and reptiles, here. It has nearly every link possible.

[Checkmate]

Rusted One,

You say that not all things natural to animals are natural to humans, but homosexuality is natural to humans. Well, other than homosexual animals, you've given no proof (other than yourself) that it is natural.

You say that murder should not be equated with homosexuality because murder hurts people and homosexuality doesn't. That seems to hold with, what I'm told, is the main philosophy of the religion, Wicca. "If it harm none, do as you please." The thing is that since you are human and have a finite brain, you cannot dictate with 100% certainty what does and does not hurt people.

I could say, okay I will to a friend's house today. In the mean time my little brother, plays with matches in my absence and sets our house on fire. My little brother could be 10 or 11 and perfectly trustworthy to be left alone. So I really have not been irresponsible in leaving him. I didn't think it would harm anyone if I went to my friend's house, but indirectly it harmed a lot of people.

I could also argue this case biblically, but see no point considering you would just disregard any biblical references.

I was the one that said animals have war. I said so just to defend human intelligence. Actually that small point was not worth all it's turned into. I wouldn't mind seeing that point die out.

My doctor analogy was a bit crude. I should have used the analogy of a psychologist. And they don't have to talk with you to tell you things about you. Freud wouldl tell you no matter who you are that you have an idd, ego, and super ego. That has to do with your brain and is not physical like the more crude analogy I made earlier. I remember that when I was in eighth grade, my Health teach said that he knew more about us (addressing the class) than we did because we were teenagers and he knew about teenagers. He told us about clicks having leaders, and how we would react to our leaders.

Also, Sorovis is not saying that you're lying to us. From my interpretation of Sorovis' point, he's saying you made some sort of choice before you could remember. My parents and grand parents tell me I did stuff I don't recall doing just because I didn't remember things at that age. Yes, they were there unlike Sorovis (unless of course Sorovis is your parent) but this is just to say that people with authority like doctors and genetic scientists (who Sorovis has brought writings of) can tell you something about you that you disagree with.
Despite the fact you weren't affectionate with either gender at that age, you still could have done something to make yourself more likely to become bisexual later in life.
When I said you think homosexuality is right, I meant you think there is nothing wrong with it. (just to clear up the semantical confusion)
I've already stated in this debate that Sorovis' saying heterosexuality is genetic could be like one saying it's genetic to be born with skin covering your entire body. (minus the natural holes for ears, mouth, tear ducts, etc.) This is to say that it's genetic in the case that it is the same with all humans. What I'm saying is a suggestion because I have no proof to back it up. However, you have no proof to back up you're claim of it being natural. The only difference is you state it as fact (which it's not) and not a suggestion.

[yeah5]

hey, the pelvis still serves function. the site i saw it from, i think called it an "important" reproductive funtion. can you show me pic's about the transitional forms? so i don't have to search for them

http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/engl...evidences.html

go to that site....lots of evidence against evolution

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

Until it becomes too small to use right.

Well, the question would be more of what do you want? Fossil pictures, moldings, what the dino would've looked like according to scientists, etc.

Also, when copying and pasting some names, no pictures came up. Most possibly because the "non-scientist" name isn't on the site.

EDIT: I saw that site. I claim thee site, too ego-centric for it's own good. Nessie is just a link, we don't know if she/he exists, we have pictures but no negatives. Yes, I think she/he could be alive, maybe in another part of the world though like Loch Morag, Lake Ontario, Lake Champlain, the Chinese lake, a few in Africa, five in Utah, some in California, etc., etc. Then there's the yeti and bigfoot, the dino in Africa, need I go on about all these sightings? Too late! There's Trunko, the weird white fuzzy marine creature that turned up on land in Africa about 1920's. No scientist went by to examine it and it washed away. Then there's the giant octopus thing in the Bermudas, the cockatrice, etc.

Dragons were present in Chinese mythology as well, just not resembling any dinos found today. The long, snake-like body with four legs has not been found as it would be quite easy to find a creature of that size. The dragons had arms as well, the Basilisk being one of them. No dino was ever found with wings and arms, actually no dino was found to breathe fire either because heck, that would've been a nice evolutionary aspect.

I'm kinda scared that the "scientists" did that kind of research on a fetus. Question would be on why we sometimes keep the tail if we don't need it after the time they suppose it was made.