Homosexual Books for First Graders

[Damian Silverblade]

The illiad was brought up in the context that it's just as old a book as the bible (actually, even older), and that the two share quite a good deal of similarities in how and why they were written - and that both pretend to present historical reality (and both have been confirmed right on many points), yet people believe the one (Illiad) and not the other (Bible).

IIRC the specific reason for bringing this up was the last, to combat the point some people have tried to make "Well, the bible was right about a few things, so why can't we accept it's right about everything?" by pointing out that the Illiad is right about a few things (existence of Troy, which people didn't believe in until it was confirmed by archaeology ; war over Troy).

The same could be said of the Nihon-shoki (essentialy the Japanesse Shinto equivalent of the Hebrew pre-Christian bible) - just because we know some of what's written in there is true doesn't mean all of it is.

[The Rusted One]

The Rusted One: What I am saying is natural is the sexual intercourse between men and women. If the woman is barren, that does not make the sex unnatural: it is still between men and women who would normally have the potential to reproduce. Homosexuality is in no way natural. There are no organs in the male body designed to make it possible for sex. If there were, then it could be compared to heterosexual intercourse.

You must also, then, think anything but vaginal intercourse unnatural; but the thing is, sex is sex, regardless of what it involves. The only thing that makes sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is that babies are made that way; otherwise, it's just as natural as any other method of intercourse. A barren woman, on the other hand, cannot produce babies; she has no potential to reproduce. None. By arguing that she would if things were different, you enable me to say, "well, if things were slightly different for a gay couple, and two men could have a baby together, then they would be able to reproduce with each other." In other words, the woman is barren, and therefore unable to have children. Things are not different for her. Two men cannot have children. Things are not different for them. Neither situation can lead to children - and so arguing "potential" is invalid.

Homosexuality is natural in that it naturally occurs; just because it doesn't lead to children doesn't make it unnatural. If it did, then sex that didn't lead to children, too, would be unnatural - and, basically, a "sin". Of course, by certain sects of Christianity it was/is - showing the general state of intolerance of interpersonal intimacy. Sex between two men can happen, and does - each possesses the organs that make it possible. The only thing "missing" in the ability to have children, which, as exemplified in the barren woman example, is not basis for claiming immorality.

If no one is 'designed', then where do different genders come from exactly? In evolution you might say, but what caused the single or multicellular organisms to begin the process of two gender reproduction? What advantages would it have over being asexual?

I'm not totally clear on how sexual reproduction began - but I do know that it involved natural selection, unlike asexual reproduction. It may have begun as a similar process found in some viri - that being that a portion of DNA or RNA is injected into another organism and becomes part of the larger organism's genome. In plants it evolved from the pure fact that from one generation to the next, the meiotic division within reproductive cells changes; a flowering plant has 2n chromosomes in its nuclei - but it reproduces asexually to produce either pollen grains (microspores) with n chromosomes (i.e., half of the full amount), or megaspores (macrospores) that also have n chromosomes. These are full plants on their one, but remain limited, in the case of pollen, to three cells, or eight in the case of the megaspores (this being true for angiosperms). In some plants, though, the gametophytes, which these n-chromosomed plants are called, are larger, but they are still limited in size. Anyway, the cells that divide from them possess n chromosomes, too, and when they come into contact with each other, they form 2n organisms that grow into the larger plants we see around us. We give the label of male and female to plants, depending on whether they produce micro- or macrospores, but these are labels.

In fungi, sexual reproduction often involves no more than two differing strains of the same species coming together and, extending their hyphae so that they touch, merge their cells into each other (so producing cells each with two nuclei). There is no male or female in this example, just different strains.

Sexual reproduction may have evolved through similar means in animals. However, the important thing is that in evolutionary terms, it has very much greater advantages than does asexual reproduction. In sexual reproduction, an organism mixes its genes and characteristics with another, and forms a new individual with composite DNA - this means that, because of the variation, there is greater chance for adaptation and survival. You and your siblings, if you have any, are not exactly the same, and that aids your species because if your sister or brother is not immune to a certain disease because they are not genetically strong against it, then they may die as a result. You, on the other hand, possess a different genetic code, and so you may be resistant - and so you will survive. That means that at least one of your parents' children has survived to pass on their genes (which will, probably, mean that your children will inherit your strength against whatever it was that killed your sibling(s), meaning the gene pool is invested with strong genes). Asexual reproduction offers no such thing - if one organism spawns a thousand due to multiple generations of binary fission, and that one organism is weak to a certain disease, then odds are most, if not all, the offspring, which are, basically, clones of the "mother", are also weak to it - and so an entire population of organisms can be wiped out by one bout of sickness. However, asexual reproduction still survives in smaller organisms because it is an efficient way of reproducing for numbers, and even in the process of asexual reproduction, mutations do happen (far less commonly than in sexual reproduction).

The information you give is very good and supports your case well. However, like you said, there may only be parallels between progeria and homosexuality. The genetic cause for homosexuality has not been found. Until (and if) it is, you can only suggest ways it may be genetic (by the way, I could not get to the site you posted. If you could go ahead and post quotes in future posts, I'll take it as from the site itself).

Of course, it's a theory - but the evidence given by homosexual people themselves disagrees with the third person claims that they chose to be gay or lesbian; the parallels between many genetic conditions that may exist also support a statement that homosexuality is probably genetic, as does the fact that it is found in nature itself. Of course I can only say, "it is probably genetic, and I believe it is" - but you were claiming that it definitely wasn't, which is something you cannot do. The fact that no genes have been found is not because they aren't there, necessarily - it just means that no comprehensive search of the entire genome has been done. You provided the example of the one gene marker tested that came back inconclusive, but again, our genomes are thousands upon thousands of genes long, so trying to attribute homosexuality to that one would be fallacious, as would be claiming that it is caused by one gene alone.

And yeah, okay, I'll quote from the site next time.

Signs can be seen by things we've posted in this debate and by looking for them. Of course, you have seen no signs of the Big Bang either; you just follow what scientific evidence is provided that says it happens. Creationism has proof as well, but you must look for it or listen to it as you have done with the Big Bang theory.

There is far more scientific evidence for the Big Bang than for what the Bible says; besides which, the Bible is hardly "proven" by the interpretation of some things to be what the viewer wants them to be. A scientific is not stated as fact and then evidence found to support it, as is the case of the Bible; rather, a scientific theory is reached after observations are made and trends noted, so that you aren't starting off with something to prove, but rather with things that may help you prove something else that you theorise after observation.

I have posted many sites that have already clarified this: there is no homosexual gene. There are genes that may make a person more likely to be homosexual, but not one that outright causes homosexuality.

Nobody is saying there is one single gene that causes homosexuality; people have been saying that homosexuality is likely genetic, i.e., caused by genes. That doesn't limit it to being the result of one gene, but many - and this is supported in the fact that some people are homosexual and some heterosexual, and some bisexual. If someone is heterosexual, then their genes are likely those that cause heterosexuality; the opposite is most likely true of homosexuality. Somebody who is bisexual, though, may possess a number of "straight" genes and a number of "gay" genes - meaning that, depending on the blend of genes in the genome, the person could be more attracted to people of the opposite gender than the same one, or any other combination. Bisexuality is not that 50% of all partners are one gender, and 50% the other; it could be 95:5, 30:70, or anything.

Just as a diversion, it is known that people find others attractive based more than partially on the way they smell. Given what I've said about sexual reproduction, and the way vastly different genes in two individuals, when combined, would give the baby more range of immunity, etc., it would make sense that people are attracted to those people with vastly different genes. This has been tested, and it's the case - and the way people smell has a lot to do with this. You will find someone more attractive based on their smell if their genes are vastly different from yours (because the smell you possess is ultimately different from the next person's, and so is a characteristic of your genetic makeup, too) - and so it would not be too preposterous at all to suggest that all attraction is based at least partly on this. That being the case, it would apply to gay people, too - true, the people aren't entering into a relationship that will lead to the natural birth of offspring, but the "wiring" is the same - the person attracted to the other is smelling them based on what their genes are, and, if reproduction was possible, then the baby would be more likely to be resistant to a wider range of conditions and diseases than if the immunities in the parents were the same.

wait, who the hell brought up the Iliad? And in what context? I'm too lazy to look it up, but I don't see how that factors in at all, and I'm sure whoever brought it in misinterpreted it.

I brought it up, and no, I didn't misinterpret it. I mentioned it because the Bible was being cited as correct entirely just because it had factual accuracies within it; however, the Iliad also has accuracies within it, and so I was drawing a comparison. Nobody takes all the Iliad says literally, or to be the truth, despite the inclusion of facts and accurate information - and the Bible is the same. It has accuracies and information that is accurate, but it is not, by any means, ultimately accurate just because of this.

Also, Heald, seriously, if you have nothing to actually add to the topic, I encourage you not to post - otherwise, all you're doing is spamming up a topic that is, actually, quite fine without comments that have little to no value. Either contribute, or don't talk at all, okay? Okay.

[yeah5]

about how old the earth is. first off, the Bible seems like it could allow for time gaps, creating longer periods of time.

i've read that in the creation story the word "day" COULD (not DOES) mean a period of time because, back then there would have been very few words to choose from for a specific amount of time like that.

anway, how would scientists know soooo much about earth's history of no life? they can make educated guesses. It can be amusing how much some scientists think they know. Somehow they know that after it formed, an asteroid hit it and melted it, and then it cooled, and then stuff about asteroids, and a guess about when there was first liquid water and how there were rainstorms that then formed oceans (with a lot of stuff between adn stuff left out-that was from memory).

you can't necessarily rely on dating methods either. i won't say they are false, but there are some objections to them. i head that scientists carbon dated a LIVING mollusk and the results turned up that it was 3,000 years old. there COULD have been problems with that though.

oh, and some have made calculations determining a earth that is thousands of years old.

anyway, there isn't a serious problem with old earth theories and the Bible









wait wait wait.......how old is the Illiad?

[Checkmate]

It was me who said the Iliad was "historic", because it is true that it wasn't composed purely for the entertainment of the audience. The Homeric version of the story, which is in the Iliad, was, of course, how he earnt food, etc., but the story itself that he based it on was taken to be historic recounting of actual events during the great "Bronze Age" that was purported to be the generation(s) of heroes - Homer's own time was the "Iron Age", when men were supposedly base and degraded. However, we also know that the Iliad is a very much embellished account of the details of an invasion of Troy and the areas of Asia Minor, which happened during the Mycenaean Age of Greece, which preceded the Greek Dark Ages where all writing was lost and the palatial system of government was utterly lost.

Are you saying this to suggest that Luke did the same thing. Might you be suggesting that while his history is accurate, the miracles were fiction or embellished? I have a simple reply to that. It didn't make sense.

Homer wrote the story for a living. Luke would have lived better had he not 'written the story'. Disciples all around were being scourged, crucified, thrown into bags with scorpions and snakes and thrown into the sea. Doesn't exactly give Luke very good reason to write a story if you ask me.

Like you question we don't have proof for the intervention of Apollo in the shooting of Achilles, nor that there was anyone called Achilles - so why should we believe it? We shouldn't. The same is true of the Bible, as far as I see it - just because the Bible says Jesus walked on water doesn't mean that Jesus did anything like it, nor that Jesus actually existed and wasn't a character of invention (like Lycurgus was to the Spartans; he was supposed to have traveled to Delphi and returned with the "Great Rhetra", which was the law system of the Spartans - he was, in other words, held to be responsible for why Sparta was so great to Spartan eyes. However, there is no actual evidence that such a man existed, and it is far more likely that he was just a figure created by merging all past leaders who had a role in the formation of Sparta, because he was easier to remember than however-many-others there might have been).

Again, poor analogy. We've already established that Jesus existed. Therefore it's much more likely that the stories about him were true.

Also, could someon tell me how to quote mulitple people in one post. I'd really like to stop asking TRO to merge my posts.

And Rusted One, here's another tidbit for the "homosexuality isn't natural" point. Anal sex is much more dangerous than ******l intercourse. The buttocks is designed to absorb fluids which makes it especially to susceptible to STD's and I would imagine several other problems.

[Damian Silverblade]

Luke (or more accurately, whoever wrote the gospel commonly atributed to Luke) would NOT Have lived better had he not written it.

Preaching Christianty, in itself, was *NOT* a problem with the roman emperors (except, arguably, Nero, but recent research (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_rome/clues.html) cast doubt on wether or not he was wrong to blame the christians for the fire. ) The problem they DID have was with the fact that christians refused to show the reverence to the deities of the empire (and by extension to the emperor) required of them by law.

The author of Luke could write all the books about Jesus and his miracles he wanted without affecting his chances of being (or not being) persecuted for his faith.

The only way he coudl have done that would have been to show the proper reverence to the Roman gods, and perhaps, just perhaps, be a bit more *open* about the christian faith and what it was about (in which case, you will note the whole "write the book" aspect sort of fits in nicely). After all, it is well documented that one of the primary reason the Roman people were afraid of Christians is because they had no idea what the Christians were up to in their secret nightly gathering except a few badly mangled rumors (ie "They eat flesh and drink blood!" over the whole "This is by blood/flesh" over bread and wine).

[Checkmate]

Right, because the First Amendment isn't backed up. Hmmm, I wonder where we can find that?

You seem to be implying that I'm fighting you on the first amendment. I went to 8th grade, too. I know what the constitution says. However, if you're going to use the constitution, I would assume that you also hold the Declaration of Independence in some high regard as well, seeing that it was made by many of the same founding fathers. In one of the first few sentences of that historical document, Jefferson makes reference to all men being "endowed by their creator". Not plural. Not a big bang.

As far as the first amendment, some might want to recall that I came into this debate on page 9, not 1. Never once have I talked about the original topic. I got in when the debate was about the morality of homosexuality.

[/QUOTE=Heracross20] You have no proof that these miracles actually happened other than a 2000 year old piece of literature. It could be nothing more than a fairy tale like that of Snow White.[/QUOTE]

So you're telling me that tens of thousands of people in the first three centuries died horrific deaths for literature. A fairy tale. You're also telling me that several different people came up with almost exactly the same story as far as how Jesus died and didn't stay dead. Sorry, I just don't think your point makes a whole lot of sense.




[/QUOTE=Heracross20] A higher authority which has not been proven to exist nor does everybody believe in. Therefore, it is wrong to use this higher authority's will as justification for actions agaisnt anything. [/QUOTE]

I have a harder time figuring out how God couldn't exist, honestly. Perhaps TRO could give me some insights ont this.

The way I see it, I don't see how it could be random chance how everything turned out. After all, almost every human has two lobes in their right lung and three in their left (that medical fact might be reversed considering i'm not a med) How almost everyone has two eyes, one mouth, one two-nostriled nose, and that's just talking about humans. Plants have an order. Poison Ivy I always has three nearly symetrically positioned leaves with ridgid edges. Wouldn't be more logical to conclude that pile of spontaneously combusting mass would just produce smaller pieces of what it was. Than that order would come from chaos?

[/QUOTE=Heracross20] Really what support? All I see is constant references to people who a) believe in the Bible b) The content of the Bible or c)people who used to not believe in the Bible but now do. So what. [b][i] [/QUOTE]

And all of seen from you is... wait a minute, what have I seen?

[/QUOTE=Heracross20] Obviously you know nothing about politics since everything about the First Amendment flew right over your head. I will not take the time to explain it again since you obviously missed the content the first time (and honestly, it's not that hard to understand, try reading the post next time). [/QUOTE]

I did read your post, but I didn't find a place where you connected the first amendment with anything that would refute me.



[/QUOTE=Heracross20] The existence of God has not been proven, therefore the Bible is not an adequate source of justification for actions against homosexuality.[/QUOTE]

I don't think the big bang has been proven very well either. At least I haven't heard a great deal of convincing evidence on this thread.

[/QUOTE=Heracross20] You are forcing your Christian beliefs on a group of people by forbidding first graders to read homosexual content simply because your story doesn't agree with it. [/QUOTE]

You accuse me of not reading your post but you exhibit evidence that you haven't read mine. As I've already posted I'm not forcing anything on anyone. And I doubt you'll find a post of mine where I said that I forbade first graders to read books with homosexual content.

If writing a book helped things, than how come Matthew and Mark were executed, and the Romans tried to execute John, but the oil they tried to burn him in didn't harm him a bit. And also, a letter was written by a man not in the Bible who defended the Christians by saying what they did. As I recall (and I might need to re-check my sources) that letter got the guy killed.

You also haven't responded to my responses for your alleged biblical flaws.

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

Rambunctious: I doubt they have actually raised people and given them no ideas on whether murder was right or wrong, so that cannot be used. Animals cannot speak in human language, as you said. So how come they have not created morals on their own? If their intelligence is close to humans, certainly similar things would happen to them over generations and they would have created their own laws. They have not.

Well, then thanks for ignoring what I just pointed out. How many parents don't want their kids to know the wrongs of the world? They will stop ideas of murder because it is wrong and in their minds, must spare the kids of this wrongful sin. The kids don't learn about it and don't know if it is right or wrong when they first hear it. They will be curious and want to know what it is, why, etc.

They have, we just don't treat them as such. Their morals deal more with survival, like in no killing a member of the pack puposedly, attack the oldest or weakest creature, etc. And human morals are for our survival as well, without them we wouldn't most possibly be here now.

Laws are just the government's way of controlling us to their image. Laws hav nothing to do with this.

I imagine the fact that Moses prayed to God frequently before his miracles and the fact that the staff he had which caused a lot of these miracles was given to him by God would be a pretty good indication that he was not using supernatural powers.

And how many kids are going to pay attention to that...? Kids are interested in magic and when they hear a staff being turned into a snake, it's magic. The person behind the staff? Moses. This associates it early, making it hard for the kids to turn back to believing that God did it. In all of the stories I heard, Moses turned a staff into a snake, something about frogs, and parted the Red Sea. Nothing is mentioned that God did the miracles or that God was behind the miracles. Kids aren't going to learn it that easily when this is brought up in their older years.

It does not matter how big the sin you commit is; when Jesus died to allow us into heaven despite sin, He meant ANY sin. No matter how big or small. The consequences for sin are payed in day to day life, which is one reason why life is so miserable for people. Also, the Devil is very real and is still very much active in the world today. If you don't want to call him the Devil than fine, he has many other names. But let me ask you this: if there was no Devil, then what tempts people to sin in the first place?

It's only miserable if you see it as misery. Life can be happy if you think it as happy. Enjoy the day to the fullest and maybe have a few down days. It's not just because sin causes the misery, it's how people view it. I could break my left arm now and maybe think of it has 'Crap, now look at this. I shouldn't have hit my brother' or 'At least it wasn't my writing hand.' Misery is an image humans create when they blame how life bad is. Keeping the world in a happy perspective while staying quite sane gives it a different image, one that can be enjoyed.

The Devil is the Devil, or my cat who is the spawn of the devil.

Sin is what humans are. We cannot escape sin because we are sin. Disagreeing with this means you never sin and that's just wrong.

It has been said before that people don't have to be married by churches.

Then it's civil union if done by the state, a whole different meaning. Marriage deals with a ceremony, civil union deals with a judge saying you now pay taxes as one.

Thing is, since marriage is done by churches and other religious buildings, putting a law as 'homosexuals cannot be married' means that the religious buildings are getting involved, destroying the separation of church and state. Though yes, the religious leaders have a right to deny marriage but doing the law just defeats this purpose as then people will sue the religions for not marrying a heterosexual couple together.

We can have no idea what life would be like without violence, since we have never been alive to see it happen. So it cannot be said what a world without violence would be like, or that violence is completely necessary.

No one has, so we've screwed ourselves to put it down right. Violence is a key to our existence, without it, we might have most possibly overran the earth and exhausted the natural resources, killing ourselves and other animals off completely. I doubt God would put us back on the Earth then.

That would be called empathy, something humans have as well. The elephants could be trying to encourage the fallen elephant to travel on as a preservation of their group. I am talking about pity on your mortal enemy, what has kept people from killing others when the chance had come on, even though that enemy may have done something terrible.

Or they could have not and tried to comfort her as she passed on. Thing is, we can't judge animals by human emotions as they are that, human emotions. We create these as in respond to the "higher beings" as they don't want us to kill mercilessly. Any human emotion came from the fear and admiration of the "higher beings" that we created to explain our existence when science couldn't. But now science can and we can doubt these "higher beings" for we do not know if they exist or not, we can't go back in time to when the Earth was created.

I have posted many sites that have already clarified this: there is no homosexual gene. There are genes that may make a person more likely to be homosexual, but not one that outright causes homosexuality.

No, those sites were based on experiments done on people who had been abused in their childhood, no evidence was given of people who had never had abuse in their lives "cured" of homosexuality. I said that quite a few genes were involved and all must be turned on the "homosexual" switch for the person to be homosexual.

Thing is, some people have a bit of a female mind in a guy's body, a male mind in a girl's body, and a little of both in either. Can we "cure" this mental brainpath? No, it is implanted in there, like instincts.

Taking on Christianity only limits those things that are a sin. Meaning not to have a talk about something perverse, or becoming involved with some sort of sinful act. Becoming Christian does not at all mean that you cannot be tolerant of homosexuals. Like I said, I've had normal conversations with known homosexuals before, but I disagree with their sexual preferences. Christianity also does not forbid the eating of meat or anything like that at all (except human flesh).

Problem is that you're coming in from the 'I've always been a Christian' view. I'm technically one, but I disagree with some concepts.

Thing is that the church has influence on what is right and what is wrong. One church can be tolerant of homosexuals while another could be wanting to change them whenever they had the chance.

In my old school, the only meat we could have on Fridays was fish, something I hated. This was a Christian school and, after an incident with me and fish sticks, we never had an argument about it again.

But acting like a kid isn't sinful. What would be a better example is if for all your life you were a thief, stealing things here and there to make life easier for you or people around you. Obviously change would be difficult, as stealing is something you have grown accustomed to and the temptation to would be overwhelming in many instances.

Depends on what kind of thief. One that steals for fun or one that steals to live? One that steals for fun needs to change, the one that steals to live needs to be helped desperately if this is how he/she is living because of the way the world is. Sure, it would be hard to break the cycle and it could be done, if the person wants it. If not, then all you can do is hope someone else helps.

Also, no homosexuals are forced to change (or if they are they shouldn't be).

They aren't physically forced, they are mentally forced by society viewing them as wrong. Being wrong isn't somthing they want so society pushes them to change, sometimes creating harmful side effects (drugs, alcohol).

[Heracross20]

Checkmate and Yeah5: The point is simple, you continue to discuss the morality of homosexuality. HOW IS IT RIGHT TO SAY THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG SIMPLY BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS IT IS? Please tell me that. It is not right, you forcing your religion on people. It is that simple.


And please, when you refute ideas, know more about what your refuting (Ie. science in general, yeah5, your arguments on dating were totally stupid, learn something, you just made yourself look totally uneducated) You constantly put stuff done for reasons that aren't true or simply because your book doesn't agree with it. Know your facts, don't make stuff up.

Checkmate: Who cares if hundreds of people died over the hundreds of years. They believed it, that doesn't mean that the Bible is actually true. Quit making idiotic assumptions.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It is not wrong simply because a book and a religion says it is.

To say homosexuality is wrong because the Bible does not agree with it is simply ignorant.

[Damian Silverblade]

As for the bliblical flaws, I'll need some further research before replying to you there.

Regarding the book helping or not, I only offered that it might *possibly* have done so. Attacking that point has nothing to do with the main crux of my argument, which was that writing a book about Jesus was *NOT* likely to get anyone killed - they would have been killed for not showing proper reverence to the roman gods (as the law required of them) (and more often than not challenging the roman - either by denouncing the empire or flipping off the local authorities) either way.

Thus writing a book about Jesus would not have harmed them, as for helping them, there are many ways in which it could have given them something they desired : perhaps attracting more people to the Christian faith (which meant, more people to follow and live by their ideas, which many people tend to like) for example.

As for Matthew and Mark's death - let me remind you of one thing Checkmate. Historians tend to agree that the gospels were *not* written by the people whose name is on top of them. Based on these people's teaching, perhaps, but almost certainly not written by them, and most likely not in their lifetime.

So, how they died is quite patentedly irrelevant to the "writing a book" question, since we have absolutely no guarantee that they were, in fact, the ones who wrote the books.

[The Rusted One]

about how old the earth is. first off, the Bible seems like it could allow for time gaps, creating longer periods of time.

i've read that in the creation story the word "day" COULD (not DOES) mean a period of time because, back then there would have been very few words to choose from for a specific amount of time like that.

So...the seventh day, in which "god" rested, isn't actually a day at all? So, given that logic, has the first Sabbath actually come yet - and how long do you plan not to work for? In other words, it's grasping at straws.

anway, how would scientists know soooo much about earth's history of no life? they can make educated guesses. It can be amusing how much some scientists think they know. Somehow they know that after it formed, an asteroid hit it and melted it, and then it cooled, and then stuff about asteroids, and a guess about when there was first liquid water and how there were rainstorms that then formed oceans (with a lot of stuff between adn stuff left out-that was from memory).

Please - actually learn what you're trying to retell before actually retelling it. They don't claim that an asteroid hit the Earth and it melted - the Earth would have cooled as it formed; asteroids would have hit it during that time, of course, but we know this because of gravitational attraction between large objects; when the solar system was first forming, large pieces of debris would have been coagulating all over the place, and so they would have pulled on each other and collided. An asteroid after the Earth cooled enough would leave a mark - which they've found plenty of, as well as on the Moon, and other moons. The first water molecules wouldn't necessarily have been rained down at all; they would have at first remained in the atmosphere, but as the Earth cooled, they would have too, and so there would have been condensation of droplets of it. Like I said, don't try to retell something in mockery if you don't understand the basic principles of it.

you can't necessarily rely on dating methods either. i won't say they are false, but there are some objections to them. i head that scientists carbon dated a LIVING mollusk and the results turned up that it was 3,000 years old. there COULD have been problems with that though.

You heard? That hardly makes it true. The only source I've heard that from is a religious one - meaning that it's about as reliable as the Creationist version of the evolution of the giraffe - you know the one, where the Creationist says that between having a short neck and a long one, the giraffe would have starved, so evolution must be wrong. Of course, this is flawed absolutely, but that doesn't stop people claiming it to be true because they "heard it from someone".

oh, and some have made calculations determining a earth that is thousands of years old.

And I bet if the argument required it, you'd claim that some said the Earth was made out of licorice, too.

anyway, there isn't a serious problem with old earth theories and the Bible

Yes there are. Do you think it just takes a thousand or so years for a bone to become a fossil? Or for sediments from the seafloor to be raised up into mountain ranges and elevations that would, otherwise, not have appeared to have any association with the sea? And no, the "flood" theory does not work - because if a shell hits the side of an undersea mountain, it falls to the bottom, as it would on a mountain out of water. Shells would not congregate together at the top. Gravity basically forbids it - so unless you're prepared to claim that gravity stopped working during the flood, you're out of options.

wait wait wait.......how old is the Illiad?

The Iliad was written about...I dunno, perhaps 600-500 BCE, perhaps earlier. Why? It's not as though any of us are claiming it to be real, which is more than can be said for you.

Are you saying this to suggest that Luke did the same thing. Might you be suggesting that while his history is accurate, the miracles were fiction or embellished? I have a simple reply to that. It didn't make sense.

Homer wrote the story for a living. Luke would have lived better had he not 'written the story'. Disciples all around were being scourged, crucified, thrown into bags with scorpions and snakes and thrown into the sea. Doesn't exactly give Luke very good reason to write a story if you ask me.

Can you be sure he would've lived better? Perhaps you can say you're confident, and perhaps you'd be right. However, gay people are discriminated against today; couldn't they have a better life if they pretended to be straight? Yes, quite often. So why should they not pretend? What about Black people when they were being actively discriminated? Couldn't they just have played the subservient role, and had better lives than being rebellious and being beaten? Yep. So why did they do otherwise? Besides, if Luke somehow thought he might somehow lend weight to the beliefs he had, he might have claimed anything. In other words, one author who said, "oh, yeah, he did things that people cannot actually do, and there's no proof apart from what I'm saying now," is not proof, nor very reliable evidence.

Again, poor analogy. We've already established that Jesus existed. Therefore it's much more likely that the stories about him were true.

No, you actually haven't. There are no scientificall recognised items that prove he existed. The best you'll get is that he may have existed - and I'm not saying he didn't, because he may have, but he was just a man who people idolised as a god, so to speak. Hitler existed - it doesn't mean that him being the spawn of Satan is true. Tutankhamun existed - it doesn't mean that he was really the mortal incarnation of the falcon god Horus.

Also, could someon tell me how to quote mulitple people in one post. I'd really like to stop asking TRO to merge my posts.

Either open up a number of windows and quote a different person in each one, and then copy and paste them all into one response window, OR select and copy and paste from the reply with quote screen (there's a list of replies from other people down the page), and just add the quote tags in.

And Rusted One, here's another tidbit for the "homosexuality isn't natural" point. Anal sex is much more dangerous than ******l intercourse. The buttocks is designed to absorb fluids which makes it especially to susceptible to STD's and I would imagine several other problems.

That's such a bad argument I can't believe it was even used. You know that homosexuality is not just homosexual sex; a homosexual relationship doesn't even have to involve sex at all. There are risks to anal sex, yes - but STDs are just as easily spread through vaginal intercourse; and again, homosexuality is not defined by the act of sex; it occurs without sex itself being involved. It is not only about homosexual sex; and your argument is not particularly strong, nor particularly valid in respect to whether homosexuality is natural.

I have a harder time figuring out how God couldn't exist, honestly. Perhaps TRO could give me some insights ont this.

The way I see it, I don't see how it could be random chance how everything turned out. After all, almost every human has two lobes in their right lung and three in their left (that medical fact might be reversed considering i'm not a med) How almost everyone has two eyes, one mouth, one two-nostriled nose, and that's just talking about humans. Plants have an order. Poison Ivy I always has three nearly symetrically positioned leaves with ridgid edges. Wouldn't be more logical to conclude that pile of spontaneously combusting mass would just produce smaller pieces of what it was. Than that order would come from chaos?

Your problem is that you assume that because things are the way they are now, a plan was involved - but that also assumes that the current state of things is the only way the world can work. That's wrong. Different things are caused by different things before them - and if one factor changes, the entire developmental path something takes can change. This means that from the start, if something causes something else, it will cause other things, and then others - it is totally up to whatever happens at the time. There is no predestination; the way things are now is a function of how they were before, not of some plan that had many paths but one destination. If there was only one possibility for life, and it just happened to play out, it would seem extremely unlikely - but there is no one destination, or many - because there is no goal in evolution (in the context of achieving the perfect organism), and there is no set path. The characteristics of a plant now are caused by the genes it has, which are inherited from its parents; if having three nearly equal prongs on one leaf aids it in surviving, it will pass that characteristic on to a plant that has less or more than is beneficial to it.

As for the combusting mass - define what it is you speak of, because at the moment, I can only guess - a stellar body, I presume, is your subject, but what relevance that has to a claim about Poison Ivy escapes me; so I won't try to deal with it until you explain a bit further.

[yeah5]

hey rusted one. im telling you what was something like what my notes from biology said. maybne out of order. im not saying that it was correct either


hmm. and evolutionist and athiest sites can be biased . there have been evolutionists who have admited the bias of their partners. have you ever heard of Earnst Haekel (however you spell it)? that goes to show that your sources aren't necissarily more credible that mine

"Yes there are. Do you think it just takes a thousand or so years for a bone to become a fossil? Or for sediments from the seafloor to be raised up into mountain ranges and elevations that would, otherwise, not have appeared to have any association with the sea? And no, the "flood" theory does not work - because if a shell hits the side of an undersea mountain, it falls to the bottom, as it would on a mountain out of water. Shells would not congregate together at the top. Gravity basically forbids it - so unless you're prepared to claim that gravity stopped working during the flood, you're out of options."

fossils CAN be made in les than 100 years. there aren't necissarily problems with the Bible with old earth theories. possibly the Sabbath was based on days becuase longer times were not convenient. I dunno but natural arguments can't work on supernatural. science can't explain everything. i mean, do you think the universe was always around, or that it is infinite (physically)?

i READ about the living mollusk being dated at 3000 years old. there could have been flaws i admit.

"And I bet if the argument required it, you'd claim that some said the Earth was made out of licorice, too"

i'm talking about SCIENTIFIC calucations. something about dust on the moon


when you get into origin of life, the odds that the atoms and molecules would combine correctly..not likely. i mean, odds are way way against it. that DOESN'T make it impossible, but really really unlikey. i read that the chances of something in that (stuff) combining the right way for life is like winning the lorry 1.4 million times in a row (1. something). In miller's expiriment, the produced a HUGE......2% of the things necissary for life. other have had different results. and... there are possibly flaws with the things he used for the prebiotic conditions.

[The Rusted One]

hey rusted one. im telling you what was something like what my notes from biology said. maybne out of order. im not saying that it was correct either


hmm. and evolutionist and athiest sites can be biased . there have been evolutionists who have admited the bias of their partners. have you ever heard of Earnst Haekel (however you spell it)? that goes to show that your sources aren't necissarily more credible that mine

Of course, anyone and everyone can be biased; however, when you're given evidence, and a theory is formulated from that evidence, you are less likely to be biased than someone who formulates a theory and then looks for evidence, disregarding any that doesn't fit in with their presupposed story. A scientist can be religious, or not; it shouldn't affect what they interpret as fact from the evidence before them. If you are shown evidence of evolution in fossils, then whether or not you are religious, to give an unbiased statement should be your goal - and that statement should be, "this appears to support the theory of evolution." Your statement should not be, "this is not evolution, this is just a pile of bones that 'god' put like this and turned into stone for our interest." Scientific study is far more credible, in fact, than Biblical claims, because in science a story isn't given and then proof sought - rather, evidence and proof is found, and from the trends and information in that evidence a theory is formulated, and changed if something suggests otherwise. Religious "science" is not true science at all, as it is not theory - it is belief, with selected and sometimes quite skewed "evidence" cited to support it.

fossils CAN be made in les than 100 years. there aren't necissarily problems with the Bible with old earth theories. possibly the Sabbath was based on days becuase longer times were not convenient. I dunno but natural arguments can't work on supernatural. science can't explain everything. i mean, do you think the universe was always around, or that it is infinite (physically)?

Where is your proof that fossils can be formed within a century? There is none. Fossilisation is the process in which molecules of surrounding rock replaces, at a very slow rate, the tissue of bone (or dessicated skin, etc., that hasn't rotted and is beyond decomposition into less recognisable tissues and substances); it does not happen in years, it happens in millions of years.

The Sabbath - are you, then suggesting that "god" made the Earth, etc., in immense periods of time, called "days", and then rested for an actual period of only 24 hours? I don't think even the worst "historian" is going to have that sort of inconsistency in their work. Either you say that "god" created the Earth literally in seven days (which is contrary to scientific evidence), or you say that each period called a "day" is in fact far longer than that - meaning that the Sabbath isn't a day, it is a large number of years, and possibly hasn't even arrived for the first time yet. Shirking the responsibility of explanation onto the shoulders of "supernatural tendencies" is not the way to provide a convincing, or particularly valid, argument, because it's totally unsupported and is as bad as me claiming that the world is, actually, a giant pink elephant and we're all ticks on its skin. True, science cannot yet explain everything - but science doesn't purport to be omniscient; it changes with new evidence, etc., if it needs to. The Bible, though, states something and says that that's that, no matter what contrary evidence there is to suggest otherwise. The Bible purports to know all - so if you can't explain something because the Bible can't, then you've got a problem on your hands.

Based on scientific evidence, I belief that the Universe has been around ever since time has - but time is a function of the Universe itself, so "before" the Universe there was no "before". Time didn't exist, and so it is not valid to ask what came before it. Of course, this does not mean that the Universe isn't oscillating (i.e., exploding and then retracting and then exploding again), but if it isn't, then, even though it's hard for us to comprehend, the Universe has "always been", purely because before the Universe there was no before.

i READ about the living mollusk being dated at 3000 years old. there could have been flaws i admit.

I'd like to see a reliable and irrefutable source for this information. Not only that, but I'd like to hear what your take on the fact that after death, an organism ceases to accumulate carbon isotopes from outside itself - so carbon dating, while there can be errors (as there can in everything), is accurate to such a degree that it gives a picture that fairly represents the truth of things.

"And I bet if the argument required it, you'd claim that some said the Earth was made out of licorice, too"

i'm talking about SCIENTIFIC calucations. something about dust on the moon

Vague reference to so called scientific calculations with faults in them is not basis for argument. Provide proof, do not allude to it by saying, "something about..."

when you get into origin of life, the odds that the atoms and molecules would combine correctly..not likely. i mean, odds are way way against it. that DOESN'T make it impossible, but really really unlikey. i read that the chances of something in that (stuff) combining the right way for life is like winning the lorry 1.4 million times in a row (1. something). In miller's expiriment, the produced a HUGE......2% of the things necissary for life. other have had different results. and... there are possibly flaws with the things he used for the prebiotic conditions.

Actually, no, odds are not way way against it. Organic molecules (i.e., those with carbon in them) abound in nature just as molecules - but molecules are not only molecules and that's it. They are constantly bonding, breaking - and some reproduce themselves by making replicants, or by creating contrasting strands of themselves (as does DNA). Laboratory experiments have shown that electrical charges in solution, as well as exposure to UV light and other naturally occuring mutagens and forms of radiation, causes the formation of both simple and complex organic compounds - including a number of amino acids, which are formed by the bonding of three bases (Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, Cytosine, and Uracil), and form the basis for complex life. Some molecules also express a simple hydrophobic protein coat, which is similar to the membrane that bounds cells and viri. The experiments show that, given the simple things emulated in laboratories, the basics for life are readily available in nature itself. Evolution is not strictly limited to what we recognise as living organisms - as I said, some molecules possess the ability to replicate themselves, and as with any process, errors can occur - giving the molecules differing characteristics. This is evolution; and, as time progresses, mutations in these molecules can, and would, build up, giving more a more difference between the recent generations and the predecessors - and ultimately giving rise to life. Besides which, we're talking of life as we know it, too - that isn't to say that had conditions been slightly different, a different form of life would have arisen, not based on the same molecules as us. Life itself may not have the odds stacked against it - one particular form may be quite rare, of course, but that doesn't mean that life itself, in whatever form it comes in, is equally rare or has the odds as stacked against it.

[Damian Silverblade]

Ah, TRO - I believe he meant "The Sabbath was 24 hours" in that, "The Sabbath celebration is 24 hours to be on a reasonable scale".

IE, God worked 6 "Days" of unspecified length, then took a "day" off of the same length as the others. Since humans casn't take a 2 billions years long day off to honor this, they go around taking a 24 hours day off every seven days.

Just trying to bring some clarity to the debate.

[Sorovis]

The Rusted One: I believe to some degree Checkmate answered what you asked. vagi nal sex is the only natural form; it does not have to be for reproductive purposes at all. Anal sex, as I've said before as well, also damages the body, something that the natural form does not do (or if it does it is designed to withstand).

For the natural part, here's a site for you:

http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

Rambunctious: Do you have any evidence to support that idea?

Those are not morals; wolves only hunting specific animals (the weakest and oldest for example) is not a moral. Humans do this too, and their is a noticable difference in that and how people do not kill others. Wolves not attacking members of their pack is not an example of morals; it is seen by them that harming a member of their pack would not be beneficial to the pack and ultimately them. This does not relate to the simple law of humans not killing humans. The people in question may have nothing to do with eachother and affect eachother in no way; that does not allow for murder.

Laws are something to keep the worlds humans in an organised fashion so that chaos does not run rampant; simply telling some people murder is wrong is not enough to restrain them from it, especially when they are overtaken by blind emotion. That is why consequences for these actions are set and enforced.

It says very specifically in the Bible that God told Moses to do these miracles. God also says He will cause these plagues or He instructs Moses to do certain things with his staff for these miracles. Sounds like it was pretty clear God was behind all those things.

No one person can live a life without some misery at some point. If your closest friend or family member was murdered, I garauntee that there will be a point where you are absolutely miserable and in anguish.

Yes, but there is something behind that sin that causes us to do it. We are susceptable to sin because we do not have the will to resist it in every way shape and form. Sin is not something that humans just started doing out of nowhere; there is a force for good and for bad, with God and the Devil on their respective sides.

Ceremonies can be arranged without the church.

Churches not marrying homosexuals does not break the seperation of church and state. If the government says homosexual marriage was okay, then they cannot force the church to accept that. It's freedom of will, not the failing to seperate church and state. Those religous buildings are filled with people. They are the ones influencing the government, not the church itself.

Originally there were only two people as well. When they sinned, they lost their place in paradise and had to reproduce like all other living creatures to insure survival.

You just said that was mercy, and that is a human trait. You also said that you cannot classify animal emotions as human ones. Comforting the elephant as she passed on could be classified as human emotion very easily (although they may not be doing that). Animals and humans do not have completely different emotions. Science can explain anything it wants to. That does not necessarily make it right. Perhaps if we could go back in time and observe the earth coming into existance that may be different, but we cannot, we can only guess.

No set of genes, no matter how they are arranged, can cause homosexuality absolutely. If they can, I would like to see evidence of that as well.

Are you sure that femenine men and masculine girls are simply stuck that way? I believe that gender roles come into play when it is taught that men are to act like men and girls like girls. There are no genetic traits that make a male particularly femenine. Upon further research I withdraw saying certain genetics make it more likely for someone to become homosexual.

Of course churches are different, just like humans are different. That's why the Bible is to be followed from the Bible and not from another. You must base the Christian faith on the source; not on the people who follow it.

Show the thief who steals for living a better way to live and they will change if they realize the advantages. The strengthened temptation to sin will always be there though.

I have actually seen more Christians discriminated against for being against homosexuality than homosexuals being discriminated against for being homosexual.

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

Rambunctious: Do you have any evidence to support that idea?

The idea that parents can be overprotective of their kids? It's everywhere. Some kids I babysit for, their mother wouldn't let them even know about 9/11. They most possibly had to learn about it at school in which the teacher talked about it, not the parents. The kids had no idea if 9/11 was wrong or not, because they didn't know about.

The murder thing was an example as parents believe that violence is wrong and refuse to show their kids anything besides PBS, Disney, and G-rated movies (like the kids above). Before school, would the kids know this is wrong when confronted with it by another? Not likely until the first punch is thrown.

Those are not morals; wolves only hunting specific animals (the weakest and oldest for example) is not a moral. Humans do this too, and their is a noticable difference in that and how people do not kill others. Wolves not attacking members of their pack is not an example of morals; it is seen by them that harming a member of their pack would not be beneficial to the pack and ultimately them. This does not relate to the simple law of humans not killing humans. The people in question may have nothing to do with eachother and affect eachother in no way; that does not allow for murder.

Morals are survival tools that help us keep the population up, reasons why the "original morals" were based on not hurting or killing each other. It is unbeneficial to us, like it would be to any species of animal. The line in bold is the same with us, people are important to our survival and in the old times when our population wasn't as large as it is now, it would be very unbeneficial to us. Now, with our population of over six billion, it would be beneficial if we cut the population down to keep the Earth's resources fresh and long lasting.

Laws are something to keep the worlds humans in an organised fashion so that chaos does not run rampant; simply telling some people murder is wrong is not enough to restrain them from it, especially when they are overtaken by blind emotion. That is why consequences for these actions are set and enforced.

Laws are modified morals in which we get punished by other people if we get caught. We were talking about regular morals though as humans created those first and laws are just redone ones to keep society in line.

It says very specifically in the Bible that God told Moses to do these miracles. God also says He will cause these plagues or He instructs Moses to do certain things with his staff for these miracles. Sounds like it was pretty clear God was behind all those things.

Not when a kid learns about it. Kids hear staff turning into a snake and find magic great in which then the Bible says it's wrong. Teachings are what people misinterpret, not always the Bible (in which these kids wouldn't have the determination to sit and read). But the Bible is misinterpretted as well, quite a lot actually.

No one person can live a life without some misery at some point. If your closest friend or family member was murdered, I garauntee that there will be a point where you are absolutely miserable and in anguish.

Yes, for one point of time that happened. But the happiness will return because you can't dwell on grief forever (like in Snow White Disney version...). But if that just completely changes you to the miserable all the time, then you've got some problems.

Life is how you view it. See the positive of things when you can, maybe not all the time but when you can counts enough.

Yes, but there is something behind that sin that causes us to do it. We are susceptable to sin because we do not have the will to resist it in every way shape and form. Sin is not something that humans just started doing out of nowhere; there is a force for good and for bad, with God and the Devil on their respective sides.

We can resist sinning, it's just that we do it sometimes without even knowing we were sinning. Resisting not to eat the cookie before dinner is hard but can be done. "The Devil" can tell us to do it but it's not God who tells us not to or the angel on the shoulder. Willpower decides what happens. If have have a weak will, then down the hatch the cookie goes. Have a strong one and the cookie might stay in the jar.

Humans do sin when they are young and when they reach the age when sin is taught to them, though it might not be called sin.

Ceremonies can be arranged without the church.

Yes they can, but most marriages deal with a certain religious building and the help of the leader in charge of the religious building. I suggested a ceremony done in your own backyard and laughing at the government's face. But then it wouldn't be marriage as, if the law is passed, leaders wouldn't be able to actually marry them.

Churches not marrying homosexuals does not break the seperation of church and state. If the government says homosexual marriage was okay, then they cannot force the church to accept that. It's freedom of will, not the failing to seperate church and state. Those religous buildings are filled with people. They are the ones influencing the government, not the church itself.

I never said that churches not marrying homosexuals doesn't break the separartion of church and state. I said by the government getting involved in this debate and considering a law to ban this is breaking the separation of church and state. Even if the people get involved with this, the government cannot get involved with banning marriages, usually done by a religious leader in sometimes a religious building, is getting rid of this separation. If it is not done by a religious leader, then it is done by a judge who follows the laws.

Originally there were only two people as well. When they sinned, they lost their place in paradise and had to reproduce like all other living creatures to insure survival.

Originally there was one from what I remember. Then another was made for Adam. Thing is, if they were "kicked out of paradise" then why are there animals out of paradise if they couldn't sin and thusly would still be living in paradise. This paradise could be an oasis in the middle of the desert for all we know that ran out of water.

You just said that was mercy, and that is a human trait. You also said that you cannot classify animal emotions as human ones. Comforting the elephant as she passed on could be classified as human emotion very easily (although they may not be doing that). Animals and humans do not have completely different emotions. Science can explain anything it wants to. That does not necessarily make it right. Perhaps if we could go back in time and observe the earth coming into existance that may be different, but we cannot, we can only guess.

Human emotions are ones we have, like hate, that can be done without but we have them anyways. Animals do not have this because they don't need it at all. Some animals can feel that they need to stop the other's suffering with a quick death. This can be classified as mercy or an animal emotion we don't know about.

The Bible can explain anything it wants to but doesn't necessarily make it right as well.

No set of genes, no matter how they are arranged, can cause homosexuality absolutely. If they can, I would like to see evidence of that as well.

Homosexuality is a list of genes that help with behaviours at times, and some that promote the release of hormones. Naturally speaking, a guy with a high release of estrogen will more likely seek guys as partners than a guy with a low level release of the same hormone. Same with a girl with a high release of testosterone than one with a low level release.

Behaviours can be implanted into the brain, one that makes agressive people, well, agressive. Sexual behaviours are in the brain as well, in a small part that controls other parts of life. Unless someone can just change the size of this part of the brain (it is bigger in males than in females, and in homosexual males, about the size of the female one).

I'd have to find the researchers first and ask for their cited page. Until Monday or Tuesday, I found the homosexual rams study Here.

Are you sure that femenine men and masculine girls are simply stuck that way? I believe that gender roles come into play when it is taught that men are to act like men and girls like girls. There are no genetic traits that make a male particularly femenine. Upon further research I withdraw saying certain genetics make it more likely for someone to become homosexual.

I wore dresses and liked to dress up when I was young. Now I wear t-shirts and jeans and maybe something that a girl would wear, very rarely. What probably changed this is the fact that I find girl shirts uncomfortable because of the sleeves. I cannot change the fact that its uncomfortable because to me it is and to most girls it isn't. Genes can account for this as well as other things.

If all girls were to act like girls, then hell would break loose. Preps would be everywhere. Football guys would be showing off in the hall...Teachers would all be females...no individuality whatsoever. I can the teachers in my younger years were female, my mom was usually the one to pick me up from school, my dad had to commute to work, and that I played with the guys more often than the girls. What does gender roles deal with what I like to do. Most of my gende roles were female yet I hang out with guys.

Of course churches are different, just like humans are different. That's why the Bible is to be followed from the Bible and not from another. You must base the Christian faith on the source; not on the people who follow it.

The people who follow it are the base because they decide what needs to be done, whether it is against the Bible or not. Without the people who follow it, it would be a dead religion like Egyptian. The Bible might be what they follow but they interpret it differently than what it could mean and pass it onto their kids, making them believe it as well. The Bible is a book but people are what keep it alive. Things could've been changed as people viewed some things in the Bible as wrong that said it was right. We can't know exactly, and we can't change them but some people who read haven't read the Bible can say that they don't like Christians because of what has become of them in some areas...

Reminds me of the guy that handed out Bibles in front of the school...

Show the thief who steals for living a better way to live and they will change if they realize the advantages. The strengthened temptation to sin will always be there though.

Problem is that these people who steal to live don't trust humans as well. Humans is what created them, society creates these people who steal for food to live. They sin because they must live and stealing food is the only way they can. These people most possibly have never had great human interaction or never went to school because they cannot pay for the school and society just doesn't care. They "do" things to help but some don't want help because of what other humans have done. This has nothing to do with temptation, this is survival.

I have actually seen more Christians discriminated against for being against homosexuality than homosexuals being discriminated against for being homosexual.

Because Christians believe that the fact the Bible says it is wrong, then it is wrong. The others who believe it as wrong or some Christians who believe it as wrong are homophobic. Some of the homosexuals aren't Christians which makes society believe the Christians are discriminating the homosexuals just "because a book tells them to."

Ain't society today just great?

[Sorovis]

Rambunctious: You must find out what the supposedly oblivious children thought of the matter before assuming they do not know. I'm not exactly sure right out asking them would be wise though (if you babysit them) so you might want to ask their parents.

But why exactly do people get terrible feelings when they kill others (the not mentally disturbed)? The idea of another's screams and anguish as they come to their last moments is obviously very unsettling, especially if the person listening to them was causing them. What would that feeling come from? Animals do not seem susceptable to it if the dying creature in question is not in their pack or pride.

Not all teachings of the Bible are the right teachings, but generally the young children are read passages directly from the Bible and then have it explained to them. And yes, the Bible is frequently misinterpreted.

Of course people sin all the time, and of course the choices ultimately are made by free will, but God will try to make clear what is the right choice while the Devil will try to make the bad choice look like it is not that at all, but actually a good choice.

Children sinning is simply because they are too young, like you said at some point, to understand right from wrong. So obviously if they see no immediate consequences to their actions and they want to do it, they will. Mature people cannot afford to think in that specific matter; just because there are no perceptable consequences and we want to do something does not mean we should, because these things generally in some way influence things frequently overlooked.

Yes, but what about those who are atheist and get married? I don't imagine they consider a marriage without a religous leader anything bad.

Because when God put man on Earth, he was put to care for all animals amongst other things. They suffered from man's decision, just like they do now.

How do you know what the animal is actually feeling though? I think it was Re Zero who said you could not know what animals felt, only guess, which in this case applies to both of us. Let me put it like this: if animals were indeed as intelligent or nearly so as humans, then it would be evident. Such as animals, like I said, creating morals. You say they do not necessarily need them? It could easily be argued the same way with humans, but we have them nonetheless. Animals also are ignorant of any possibility of higher being, or the need to understand things as we have.

That's why in order to find it right you must buy into the idea of a Creator and his creation. Since science was not there, it is no more credible than the Bible no matter how people would like to make it out to be.

I'm going to have to do further research my self on this area, so until then keep it up so that it is not forgotten.

I'm not so sure the idea of finding girls' shirts uncomfortable is attributed to genetics as so far as your mind itself.

I never said changes in the original gender roles was a bad thing at all.

I still say the Bible is the base of the Christian faith. How various people interpret it is another matter, but to base your beliefs on the religion without seeing what it's from yourself is not sound, because the person you are learning these things from may interpret them differently than you. In order to maintain clarity on it, it is necessary that each person's interpretation is taken from the Bible directly, something many people in the Middle Ages could not do.

This has to do with sin as well, ie. what put them in this situation in the first place. A person's leading mistrust in humans (I generally do not rely on people myself) should at least be corrected so they know that all humans are not evil. Past that it's their choice (they should also be removed from an environement that forces thievery for a living, but as of now not all people can do that).

Sorry about missing some of the smaller points, but I have only a short amount of time to type this.

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

Rambunctious: You must find out what the supposedly oblivious children thought of the matter before assuming they do not know. I'm not exactly sure right out asking them would be wise though (if you babysit them) so you might want to ask their parents.

If the kids do not know what it is, they do not know that the word "murder" deals with killing another human. Outright asking a kid if murder is wrong would result in either a really long speech on why it is wrong which will turn into a story about something the parents said, a small answer of either 'yes,' 'no,' or 'what?', or a confused look.

The kids I babysit for, and even the dog, do everything their mom said is wrong when the parents aren't there. I'm not sure what category this would fall under though.

Example, we were sitting around and watching the small amount of TV they get. Cartoon Network came on, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy to be exact. The oldest, the girl, immediately said they really shouldn't watch this. But we watched the entire 11 minute episode. At the end, she begged me not to tell her mom that they had done it.

I'm not sure, but this could be she testing me as I'll give them the freedom as long as someone doesn't get hurt. The epidsode wasn't even that bad as some of them were. I can't wait to introduce them to the other shows.

But why exactly do people get terrible feelings when they kill others (the not mentally disturbed)? The idea of another's screams and anguish as they come to their last moments is obviously very unsettling, especially if the person listening to them was causing them. What would that feeling come from? Animals do not seem susceptable to it if the dying creature in question is not in their pack or pride.

Hmm...not all killers who enjoy killing are mentally disturbed. Most just enjoy the superiorty, the feeling of it, the way it gives them strength. Maybe the first time isn't that great as doubts go through the mind but after the first, confidence begins to grow. They believe that if they don't get caught, they can keep doing this deed. Jack the Ripper, a man that could be viewed as a wonderful man from the outside. He was not mentally disturbed but killed many women in his life. He most possibly enjoyed it or maybe he did it out of cold blood. I don't believe we will know.

Animals will have a reason to kill the creature, out of the way it was suffering, in self-defense, for food. Though one animal, a mother gazelle I mentioned a few times, killed two hyenas after witnessing the death of her baby to hyenas. Heated passion killing, maybe. We might not know.

Not all teachings of the Bible are the right teachings, but generally the young children are read passages directly from the Bible and then have it explained to them. And yes, the Bible is frequently misinterpreted.

Explained in the sense that the people tell what they have been taught about it. Misinterpretation is quite evident then.

Of course people sin all the time, and of course the choices ultimately are made by free will, but God will try to make clear what is the right choice while the Devil will try to make the bad choice look like it is not that at all, but actually a good choice.

We cannot say that the reason a person, who may or may not be of the Christian faith, was influenced by the Devil to do a sin. The person's inner thoughts are controlled by themselves and they may be controlled by peer pressure. What they do is their choice, listening to the pumped up feeling of doing it, or the good feeling that they don't do it, if it is a good feeling. Sometimes it is not. Consequences, not ones dealt by God but by society, may also change their minds.

Children sinning is simply because they are too young, like you said at some point, to understand right from wrong. So obviously if they see no immediate consequences to their actions and they want to do it, they will. Mature people cannot afford to think in that specific matter; just because there are no perceptable consequences and we want to do something does not mean we should, because these things generally in some way influence things frequently overlooked.

One reason why some children refuse to listen to adults. Because there is no consequence by the parents, we can't say that God influences them not to do wrong because it is what the parents teach that makes the child know what is right from wrong.

I understood the last line up to the point in bold...

Yes, but what about those who are atheist and get married? I don't imagine they consider a marriage without a religous leader anything bad.

Marriage usually helps the idea of the two being together now and not separate. And judges can marry people, not just religious leaders. Don't know how we got on this anyways. It's their choice if they want to get married by a religious leader and it's the leader's choice if he wants to marry them.

Because when God put man on Earth, he was put to care for all animals amongst other things. They suffered from man's decision, just like they do now.

Some people care for them, others abuse or kill. They suffer from loss land, pollution, and other things but yet we aren't punished for this almost irreversible sin. One reason why people keep doing it, especially since Bush passed the law that some factories can keep polluting.

How do you know what the animal is actually feeling though? I think it was Re Zero who said you could not know what animals felt, only guess, which in this case applies to both of us. Let me put it like this: if animals were indeed as intelligent or nearly so as humans, then it would be evident. Such as animals, like I said, creating morals. You say they do not necessarily need them? It could easily be argued the same way with humans, but we have them nonetheless. Animals also are ignorant of any possibility of higher being, or the need to understand things as we have.

I said we do not necessarily need the emotions we have, such as hate, that we created. We can guess what they feel, be it pity or love for their own who will pass into the next world, but not exactly know.

How do we know animals are ignorant of higher beings or if there is any at all? If they were created by this being then wouldn't they know? One reason why there is so many different religions. If the original people were Adam and Eve, wouldn't the children, who most possibly split up, carry on the Christian faith to their people and not create these other religions that differ quite a bit?

That's why in order to find it right you must buy into the idea of a Creator and his creation. Since science was not there, it is no more credible than the Bible no matter how people would like to make it out to be.

No, I can be Christian and find that maybe science has a point. I don't necessarily need to follow the Bible to the bone because we have as much proof that it is real as we have of any other religion. Just because the Bible could be right, it could be wrong too, a book created to rule over people and be the first government established.

I'm going to have to do further research my self on this area, so until then keep it up so that it is not forgotten.

I'm not so sure the idea of finding girls' shirts uncomfortable is attributed to genetics as so far as your mind itself.

Genetics goes a long way, including to what allergies or what just bothers you encounter. People can say that they don't like having sand between their toes because it feels weird. This isn't a choice on how they feel about it as it can make their hair stand on end the first time they feel it.

I never said changes in the original gender roles was a bad thing at all.

I don't quite get what this means.

I still say the Bible is the base of the Christian faith. How various people interpret it is another matter, but to base your beliefs on the religion without seeing what it's from yourself is not sound, because the person you are learning these things from may interpret them differently than you. In order to maintain clarity on it, it is necessary that each person's interpretation is taken from the Bible directly, something many people in the Middle Ages could not do.

The people make what it is in the eyes of others. A group of Buddhists can go out and suddenly destroy everything. Does this mean the Buddhist faith is violent? No. But people overreact and suddenly see them as wrong. A group of Christians could go out and destroy everything and then the Christians would be the ones that people don't like. A never ending cycle of things one would say.

This has to do with sin as well, ie. what put them in this situation in the first place. A person's leading mistrust in humans (I generally do not rely on people myself) should at least be corrected so they know that all humans are not evil. Past that it's their choice (they should also be removed from an environement that forces thievery for a living, but as of now not all people can do that).

People sometimes can see only the evil of humans and maybe trusting them is not on their agenda. Maybe kids grow up like this, mistrusting people who made them who they are today. The goodness of people can sometimes only be seen as well so when something bad happens to those people, they can change completely to be scared of life or just view it as a "freak happening."

We should do something about this, yes, but sometimes we can't find these people because they are "street smart," knowing everything they can about the streets and their hiding places. And then, if we do help these kids, they end up in an orphanage or foster home which can cause more pain than before.

Sorry about missing some of the smaller points, but I have only a short amount of time to type this.

S'all right, I'm always here.

[Rei_Zero]

Sorovis, you twisted my arguement out of context --;
Just because our own feelings is apparent to ourselves doesn't mean that it is apparent to animals, therefore, to animals, we could look just as stupid, because they may not understand us as we don't understand them.

[Checkmate]

Can you be sure he would've lived better? Perhaps you can say you're confident, and perhaps you'd be right. However, gay people are discriminated against today; couldn't they have a better life if they pretended to be straight? Yes, quite often. So why should they not pretend? What about Black people when they were being actively discriminated? Couldn't they just have played the subservient role, and had better lives than being rebellious and being beaten? Yep. So why did they do otherwise? Besides, if Luke somehow thought he might somehow lend weight to the beliefs he had, he might have claimed anything. In other words, one author who said, "oh, yeah, he did things that people cannot actually do, and there's no proof apart from what I'm saying now," is not proof, nor very reliable evidence.

Rusted One, please. I haven't heard of the government crucfying any homosexuals as far as I know. Your analogies don't fit anything. Luke wasn't enslaved by any means. He wasn't being beaten by the Roman government and therefore decided to rebel. So I don't get what you're talking about there.

By the way, I found out the Luke was also martyred for his faith. He was hanged on an olive tree. I'm not sure whether that refers to crucifixion or a noose-hanging. Had he not written the books and been so vocal about his faith he wouldn't have been killed.

And Damien, his books preached not to worship other Gods. As Pariah/Green Pikachu said himself, Jesus claimed to be the son of God. Not the son of Jupiter. Not the son of a god. He claimed to be the son of ('the') God. I don't think he'd write that for entertainment and stand behind it to his death.

Also, you almost seem to be implying that I'm right. Your argument said that Luke embellished all of this stuff. Now your analogies imply that what he wrote was true. Like you're saying that homosexuals stand up for what they believe in, so by that same token Luke would be standing up for what he believed in, not something he fabricated.

Also, Luke was not his own testimony. Others had the exact same beliefs. Like Peter and the other gospel writers. To my limited knowledge the writers of the individual gospels didn't have any knowledge of the other three gospels being written, and yet many of the miracles match up. Paul, in his epistles, agreed with many things Luke wrote in the Acts and I'm not sure Paul actually read the book which was originally written to Theophilus.

One more thing, I've read that the gospels and epistles may have been written more closely to the life-time of Jesus than some think.

Also, (and I'm speaking more specifically to TRO) there's more proof Jesus existed than that Abe Lincoln did. Josephus wrote about him as did several others. It is also historically recorded that some claimed he did miracles, though outside of the Bible I don't know of any writings saying he did. Course one might venture to say that if Josephus wrote about the miracles and stated them as fact, his writings might be a part of the Bible. Just a little thought.

As far as the anal sex thing, Rusted One, I just kinda through that in there, because I picked up the fact. I'm not debating that point with the determination of Sorovis.

Heracross20, I'll let Yeah5 stand on his own two feet, but in my own defense:

You didn't reply to any of my post. All you did was pick one little thing I said and act like that was my sole basis. Thousands of people are dying for Allah, but I still don't think they're right. That was merely an afterthought that you made seem like my entire point. Perhaps I should stop adding in afterthoughts, considering my after thoughts are attacked more than my main points lately.

Also, again I stress, I'm not forcing my religion on anyone. The Catholic Church of the Middle Ages forced their religion. The Conquistadors forced their religion. I'm not! I testify that I have not held a gun to anyone on this forum's head trying to force them to become a Christian. Why do you keep using the word force. By your logic, you're forcing on me the theory of the Big Bang.

[Damian Silverblade]

If he was not written the book, would he still have refused to bow down before the romans gods?

Hmmm, yep. Therefore, he still would have been executed. Logical conclusion : writing the book did not in any way endanger his life more than just believing in that faith (unless he signed the book, and there is a total lack of evidence to support that claim).

That's of course if you take the version that Luke *did* write the gospel which bear his name. Which most serious historians do not these days, meaning Luke's overall fate is patentedly irrelevant to the discussion on the gospel writers.

Finally Checkmate, there is enough historical evidence to believe a man named Jesus did exist (since we have no evidence such a man did not exist), I'll give you that. But frankly to claim that we have more historical evidence of him than of Abraham Lincoln - or any other American president (or heck, any other western world leader since the end of the middle ages - we have archives all over the place bursting with evidence on those people man!)?!?

Especially considering that as far as we've been able to ascertain (we meaning historians, not theologian - you don't ask an historian why god allow suffering, and you don't ask a theologian who did what in which year), we have no written evidence of the existence of Jesus whatsoever until 30, 40 years after he reportedly died.

On the quality scale, that's far below most of what you've tried so far.

[The Rusted One]

The Rusted One: I believe to some degree Checkmate answered what you asked. ******l sex is the only natural form; it does not have to be for reproductive purposes at all. Anal sex, as I've said before as well, also damages the body, something that the natural form does not do (or if it does it is designed to withstand).

Sure, damage can be done - but it doesn't make it unnatural at all. Humans are animals that have sex for pleasure; reproduction is secondary in most, if not all, sexual relationships in our species. Vaginal sex, while it is the only one that brings about pregnancy, isn't any more natural in application than any other sexual activities, due to the fact that all sexual activities are performed for pleasure before reproduction, and the pleasure derived from one act can be greater, lesser, or equal to the pleasure derived from another, depending on the person. Seeking pleasure from sexual contact is natural, and so any sexual act that induces pleasure is as natural as the next in terms of the seeking of pleasure.

For the natural part, here's a site for you:

http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

Another religious site. Surprise! What makes me laugh is that it uses the argument (the same you used - although don't think I'm laughing at you) that because in some animals cannibalism is natural, we should, by the logic behind the homosexuality-is-natural-because-it-occurs-in-nature, also cannibalise ourselves. The major flaw in that reasoning is that while in some animals cannibalism is natural, in others it's not - in us it's not. In some animals, homosexuality is natural, while in others it's not - but in us, it is. This isn't a matter of imitation of animals, it's being free to do what is naturally a part of our species. Aside from that, the article attempts to tell the viewer that homosexuality isn't normal animal behaviour, which is a blatant lie as it occurs amongst many primate species as a source of inter-individual bonding, as it does in some cetaceans. It's part of their natural behaviour - attempting to dismiss it as abnormal would also mean dismissing other animal behaviours that aren't constant throughout every individual of the species, which is not something any naturalist would do if they were serious about what they were doing.

The article, again, is flawed beyond belief not only by the religious assumptions everything it says is based on, but also in the skewed and false statements it makes about animal behavioural patterns.

Churches not marrying homosexuals does not break the seperation of church and state. If the government says homosexual marriage was okay, then they cannot force the church to accept that. It's freedom of will, not the failing to seperate church and state. Those religous buildings are filled with people. They are the ones influencing the government, not the church itself.

No, it's a failure to separate church and state - i.e., a religious person inforcing their religious will and view on the entire country through governmental power. However, I agree that while a governmental statement may say that homosexual marriage legal, it should not make it compulsory of all church bodies. A church should have the right, as they all do now, to refuse marriage based on whatever (opposing religion, etc., may be causes) - however, it should be on a case to case basis, not just a flat-out "no gay marriage" policy, because that is discrimination. I believe homosexual marriage should be made legal, and be a recognised institution, but just because it's legal shouldn't mean a church must perform it - however, there should be more justification than, "they're gay" - nobody would accept it if a Black couple were refused marriage just because they were Black, and so nobody should accept that a gay couple is refused marriage just because they're gay. Like I said, it should be case to case, not general "no, you're gay".

I have actually seen more Christians discriminated against for being against homosexuality than homosexuals being discriminated against for being homosexual.

If you wish to discriminate against homosexuality, then you have no right to complain if you're discriminated against because of it. Discrimination is a choice - you choose to discriminate; and if you're prepared to discriminate to begin with, then you must bear the brunt of hostility for it.

Rusted One, please. I haven't heard of the government crucfying any homosexuals as far as I know. Your analogies don't fit anything. Luke wasn't enslaved by any means. He wasn't being beaten by the Roman government and therefore decided to rebel. So I don't get what you're talking about there.

Society, especially that filled with people who have the same thoughts as you, tends to make life for gay people quite hellish, actually - and even in general society, the stigma surrounding homosexuality means that homosexuality is not openly spoken of, and, when depicted on TV, receives warnings for "viewer discretion" - while, on the other hand, heterosexuality in more graphic forms receives none.

Now, your statement that my analogies don't fit anything is actually false, given that you misinterpreted them totally. I wasn't say that Luke was enslaved; I was saying that while he may have been persecuted, he still wrote what he did, just as a Black man may not have been submissive to his White oppressors because he didn't think it was the right thing to do. That's what I meant.

By the way, I found out the Luke was also martyred for his faith. He was hanged on an olive tree. I'm not sure whether that refers to crucifixion or a noose-hanging. Had he not written the books and been so vocal about his faith he wouldn't have been killed.

And this means that he must have been right? No, it just means that he believed something and wasn't scared to show it, and ended up suffering for it. It doesn't add weight to his story that he was a martyr - it just means he believed what he believed and didn't hide it.

Also, you almost seem to be implying that I'm right. Your argument said that Luke embellished all of this stuff. Now your analogies imply that what he wrote was true. Like you're saying that homosexuals stand up for what they believe in, so by that same token Luke would be standing up for what he believed in, not something he fabricated.

No, you've decided to read that into my words. I haven't implied anything. My point was that homosexuals stand up for the freedom to be who and what they are, as straight people are able to do; and in the same way, Luke stood up for his beliefs. But being gay or straight is not the same as choosing to believe in something; being gay or straight is the way you are, not a psychological choice, unlike whether or not you subscribe to a certain religion. A belief about something else is a choice, and he may have believed something, and therefore stood up for that belief - but that doesn't mean he was automatically right. He may have embellished the story he recorded in order to add weight to it, in order to make it seem as though his beliefs had more substance than they did, and perhaps save himself from harm through doing so. Belief in something outside of oneself is not the same as knowing something of oneself - just because you believe something to be true it doesn't mean it is, but knowing something of yourself does. I probably haven't managed to clear much up there, but the point is that Luke was writing about what he believed, not what he knew of himself, so just because he still wrote it in the face of persecution doesn't mean what he wrote was true - it just means he believed in it.

Also, Luke was not his own testimony. Others had the exact same beliefs. Like Peter and the other gospel writers. To my limited knowledge the writers of the individual gospels didn't have any knowledge of the other three gospels being written, and yet many of the miracles match up. Paul, in his epistles, agreed with many things Luke wrote in the Acts and I'm not sure Paul actually read the book which was originally written to Theophilus.

Except that, in the process of them being collected and grouped together, details may have been changed in some to fit others, or to fit better known accounts, to add weight to whatever was being said. And again, as I said before, most "historians" tend to go with the most-heard story - Herodotus was one of the few ancient historians who gave several accounts of single events, rather than choosing which was more likely to have happened - so, if each of the "gospel writers" each heard a number of accounts, and some were more common than others, they may have included those over the lesser known accounts that differed more in detail. It also depends on the area in which the stories were collected, too - one story may be more commonly heard in one place than another, for instance - and there's also the issue of the target audience. You won't be writing a story that conflicts with the story known by the majority of the audience because you're going to lose that large portion of the audience if you do.

Also, (and I'm speaking more specifically to TRO) there's more proof Jesus existed than that Abe Lincoln did. Josephus wrote about him as did several others. It is also historically recorded that some claimed he did miracles, though outside of the Bible I don't know of any writings saying he did. Course one might venture to say that if Josephus wrote about the miracles and stated them as fact, his writings might be a part of the Bible. Just a little thought.

Where is this proof? Photos? No, just stories - which can be written by anyone of anyone, real or not. A celebrated mythological figure may have many stories - does this mean there is any proof at all that this figure existed? No. Many people have heard the stories of Herakles, both present and in the many centuries since the story was first told - does that mean that there is proof he existed? No. Plutarch wrote of the Spartans, but does that mean all he wrote was true? No, because he wrote it for a Roman audience - he was issuing to a particular group the information that was most appealing to them.

As far as the anal sex thing, Rusted One, I just kinda through that in there, because I picked up the fact. I'm not debating that point with the determination of Sorovis.

I think it would have served you better not to have mentioned it at all, to be honest.

[Green_Pikachu]

i just find it appauling that people actually believe people choose to be gay, and that it is a sin.

i also find it funny these people try to use the bible to defend their position. let's just end this debate by saying, "being gay rules"

[Sorovis]

Rambunctious: Then ask if it's okay to kill another person. Obviously if they do not even know basic terms like that, then they are overly sheltered and it will drastically affect them later in life (depending on age).

Well, I imagine to some degree they have seen how protected they are to other kids, and they wish to have a little more freedom. I suppose they may see you as a less strict authority figure and someone closer to them who may understand them better.

I would consider Jack the Ripper mentally disturbed, no matter how normal a life he may have lead. The murder of other people has extreme psychological effects on the killer.

Generally when people mature they investigate things for themselves, and most Sunday School teachers would have their own interpretation. Keep in mind when I say interpretation, I do not mean a completely opposite idea of what it means. Usually it is only something small.

God and Satan work through people and society. God works through His creations while Satan takes advantage of their free will. Animals cannot sin because they do not have the same free will as man (morals and complicated decisions/ knowledge of sin).

Actually I meant humans cannot do what they wish because even though negative consequences may not be immediatly seen, they can still be there.

Like I said above, punishment for sin may not be immediatly perceptable. Just because as of now we see no consequences for out abuse of animals does not mean that they will not happen and are not already happening. Pollution affects us too, and there is only so much space on the Earth.

As I've argued before, animals do not know of higher creator because they are not intelligent enough. If they did it would be immediatly noticable, along with many other signs of intelligence.

The reason beliefs in God are so seperated and different now is due to several reasons: at some point, languages other than the first were made by different groups of people, and through isolation from those who were Jewish they could have easily forgotten of a higher being or misinterpreted what they heard of this being (back then Bibles were very rare, as they could not be mass produced). Another is that when Abraham had the child God instructed to have who would rule God's people, he also sinned and had another with his servent; from their the Muslim religion came about, and possibly others in similar ways (also, the Christian faith did not arise until the arrival of the Christ. The Jewish people did not believe he was the Messiah, the past and present day Christians do).

The Bible has actually more historical basis to it than any other religion, as has been stressed at some point during the debate.

How can you be sure such small things such as people despising sand between their toes is genetic? It could just as easily have come from past experiences or combonations of past experiences.

What I meant by that is I thought you may have figured that gender roles should be inforced, and I do not.

The Rusted One: Yes, but my point is there is one form of sex which is completely natural because it is used in reproduction. That type of sex is designed to be used, whether for reproduction or pleasure. Other forms, like I said, are not natural in that the areas used are not designed for sexual intercourse and can sustain damage from it.

We've already been over the biased thing. For all we know those who studied and enforced homosexuality in animals were biased and changed the results themselves, although I'm not saying they did.

What skewed and false statements would these be, exactly?

Seperation of church and state is that there is no defined and enforced religion in a country or state. Saying a religous official cannot use his religous beliefs is basically outlawing all relious decisons period, because the next step is not allowing religous beliefs to affect one's vote. Also, the comparison of african americans and homosexuals is not accurate, because one is the native of a different country while the other is not. Another thing, homosexuality is against the Christian faith, so there should be no decisions on which ones to marry.

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

Rambunctious: Then ask if it's okay to kill another person. Obviously if they do not even know basic terms like that, then they are overly sheltered and it will drastically affect them later in life (depending on age).

Well, I imagine to some degree they have seen how protected they are to other kids, and they wish to have a little more freedom. I suppose they may see you as a less strict authority figure and someone closer to them who may understand them better.

Yeah, that's what my mom said.

I would consider Jack the Ripper mentally disturbed, no matter how normal a life he may have lead. The murder of other people has extreme psychological effects on the killer.

Murdering someone can have psychological effects on some people but to others it doesn't effect them. Quite a few murderers are ordinary people who wouldn't be suspected at all because they have a sound mind and raise no concerns around people. Jack the Ripper most possibly was like this, even though there was a few copycats.

Generally when people mature they investigate things for themselves, and most Sunday School teachers would have their own interpretation. Keep in mind when I say interpretation, I do not mean a completely opposite idea of what it means. Usually it is only something small.

Yes they would and would pass it onto the students, in their way. No one is wrong but many can interpret what the teacher interpretted to be completely different.

God and Satan work through people and society. God works through His creations while Satan takes advantage of their free will. Animals cannot sin because they do not have the same free will as man (morals and complicated decisions/ knowledge of sin).

Problem with this is that we cannot prove that God exists so who's to say that voice in your ear is God or that it's the Devil. The voices inside our head could be the past memories coming back up to tell us not to.

Tell me what the explanation of the mother gazelle then that killed two hyenas in hot blood? This is heated murder, a condemning act in court and in "God's terms." She didn't have to kill them, she didn't even have to get near them. But she did, because of the fact she most possibly felt lost without her offspring. She may not know that killing the hyenas was "not right" but who's to say?

Actually I meant humans cannot do what they wish because even though negative consequences may not be immediatly seen, they can still be there.

Like I said above, punishment for sin may not be immediatly perceptable. Just because as of now we see no consequences for out abuse of animals does not mean that they will not happen and are not already happening. Pollution affects us too, and there is only so much space on the Earth.

We can't but we do it anyways at times. Negative consequences may not be immediately seen but they can never appear either. Someone might have a rough year but I highly doubt the first thought that crosses their mind will be 'This is all because of the pencil I took.'

Some people receive no consequences for what they have done, by karma or by the law. Or, like above, they don't believe it is karma acting. We can't say.

Then again, this would say that people bring the terrible things, such as robbery, rape, etc, on themselves because they have been bad...or do we go through a good time, if there is a good time after some of the?

As I've argued before, animals do not know of higher creator because they are not intelligent enough. If they did it would be immediatly noticable, along with many other signs of intelligence.

How would it be noticable? We don't have to worship to be noticed. We could do simple, helpful things w/out ever going to church and still be admitted into heaven, if there is one. Believing in God if God does exist is enough.

The reason beliefs in God are so seperated and different now is due to several reasons: at some point, languages other than the first were made by different groups of people, and through isolation from those who were Jewish they could have easily forgotten of a higher being or misinterpreted what they heard of this being (back then Bibles were very rare, as they could not be mass produced). Another is that when Abraham had the child God instructed to have who would rule God's people, he also sinned and had another with his servent; from their the Muslim religion came about, and possibly others in similar ways (also, the Christian faith did not arise until the arrival of the Christ. The Jewish people did not believe he was the Messiah, the past and present day Christians do).

I still do not see how the Aztec religion could come from Christianity or from the fact that there would be one God and one God only. Or the fact that more religions are polytheistic than are monotheistic and worship either animals or humans with animal heads.

Other would be that how could people forget the higher being that created their parents/grandparents/etc. Almost like forgetting that you had grandparents.

The Bible has actually more historical basis to it than any other religion, as has been stressed at some point during the debate.

Buddhism has plenty of historical data. Buddha was a real person who was written about after he died and is now the "God" of the Buddhist religion. Can we say that this is not true when we have historical data on it?

Thing is, I don't see why historical data makes a religion anymore right to worship it. It's not all about history but more of what it should teach people as a whole in the stress of helping the community.

How can you be sure such small things such as people despising sand between their toes is genetic? It could just as easily have come from past experiences or combonations of past experiences.

How can we not say it is either? Past experiences can be the problem but sometimes people have never felt sand and can say that they don't like it. Taste differs between people, some can say that they honestly don't like seafood because of its taste after only one taste. This cannot be associated with past experiences and must be part of what the brain has.

What I meant by that is I thought you may have figured that gender roles should be inforced, and I do not.

Gender roles are enforced at times whether we like it or not because we can't help it when we're younger. I just pointed out that most of my "gender roles" were female yet I'm comfortable around guys more.

[Green_Pikachu]

Sorovis, you advocate separation of church and state, but we don't have it. if we had separation of church and state, gays would be able to marry each other. i'm not talking about in a stupid catholic church either. i'm talking a non-religious affiliated marriage. they aren't allowed either. why? because there isn't a separation of church and state. i'm not arguing about the sanctity of marriage, i'm simply arguing about rights. by not having a separation of church and state, you don't allow non-religious affiliated same sex marriages. and by not allowing same sex marriages, you are restricting these same sex couples over 1,000 rights that opposite sex couples are allotted when they get married.

[Sorovis]

Rambunctious: Murder has a psychological on everybody, not just some. Leading a n apparently normal life does not mean that the killer was not psychologically affected.

The proof for God's existance has been exhibited here already; there is some historical basis to it, but a lot of it has to do with your faith (wait until tomorrow and I might type up several paragraphs supporting creation).

Could you link me to a site that tells of this gazelle so I can investigate it further?

What I'm saying with this is just because the negative consequences of an action may not immediatly appear, they are still there and cannot be dismissed.

You mean good things happen to bad people? Who can say that's how it really is. The bad effects may just be in their minds, tormenting them with greed or guilt. God never said life would be easier if you were good, just look at Paul, or half the apostles. They ended up dead for what they believed was right and living what was good.

For one, a certain awareness of life around them would be noticable. For instance, where humans are perfectly aware of life half way across the globe, while animals are not nor do they care. All they care about is what is immediatly around them and what immediatly affects them. They have no idea that a thousand miles away a war may be raging.

Humans now and then were very influencial. Much like now people question the existence of God, it is likely they did so back then. And likely how now people create their own 'religions' based on what they think is right, so it was back then.

Because experiencing something first hand has a lot more effect on a person than hearing it told to them.

Buddha was a philosopher, onr eho believed that through peace and meditation one could reach a state of heavon on earth, provided they abandoned all lust, anger, and other such emotions. So technically, his is not the god, and that is moreso a way of life than a religion.

The historical accuracy of a religion gives it more basis and makes it more believable (then again, there are some people who will deny any of it their entire lives) to the people who study it. Humans crave evidence, you see, and those without enough faith to be content with it seek evidence to see if it truly happened.

The mind is a complicated thing, and we cannot yet completely understand it. We cannot study a person event for event and understand exactly how it affected them, so we cannot say how exactly it affected their personality.

[Green_Pikachu]

"Buddha was a philosopher, onr eho believed that through peace and meditation one could reach a state of heavon on earth, provided they abandoned all lust, anger, and other such emotions. So technically, his is not the god, and that is moreso a way of life than a religion."

define religion then, if you don't think buddhism is a religion. and, i also like how you conveniently blew over my point entirely. nice job.

[Sorovis]

Green Pikachu, have you listened to what I said? The reason their are no homosexual marriages is because PEOPLE believe in Christianity, not because of Christianity's direct power over the nation. Before insulting me it would be wise to comprehend what I am saying. Christianity is a belief in a higher force and faith in it as well as following what this higher force says. We have free will in the US, that means people can say what they want.

By religion, I mean that the people following it believe in some greater being beyond all man. So Buddhism would not be a religion.

[Green_Pikachu]

sure, we have free will, but does everyone have equal rights? no. gays are persecuted, and the over 1,000 rights that a heterosexual couple is allotted JUST BECAUSE THE HAVE DIFFERENT GENITALIA, are not allotted to couples who DO have the same genitalia. that's what it all boils down to. i don't care about the bible. it's garbage. i still believe in God. I still live a moral life. the bible is crap. I don't care WHAT it says about homosexuality, because I know that homosexuality is natural, and not a sin. I challenge the bible.

Websters defines religion as a belief in and worship of God/gods or a specific system f belief, worship, etc., often invoking a code of ethics.

so, yeah. Buddhism IS a religion. just because you don't want it to be, and because you think you're better than it doesn't make it not to be a religion. please, try to learn how to think outside the box.

[Sorovis]

If you have been paying attention to any of the debate before coming here and announcing what you think, we have been arguing for quite some time as to WHY homosexuality is unnatural and WHY they should not get the same marriage rights. Your opinion has no specific authority here, you are just one of those supporting homosexuality. I also noticed you challenged the Bible. Care to follow up with that.

Please, stop being so arrogant, it is seriously ridiculous. Just because I was wrong does not mean I'm an ignorant close-minded fool as you would like to think.

[Green_Pikachu]

i'm not the one being arrogant. i'm a christian. but i also recognize that their are other religions, unlike yourself. and, i've read this entire thread. i don't like any of your arguments. it's all crap. and why DO homosexual couples not deserve the same rights? tell me. i'm interested in knowing why. i bet you can't answer me without bringing the bible into it.

[The Decapitated Mole]

Your opinion has no specific authority here, you are just one of those supporting homosexuality.

And I could say that your opinion has no specific authority here; you are just one of the two supporting homophobia.


o_0
jimm

[Sorovis]

Decapitated Mole: How do I say this...okay, how about this: If I said my opinion held specific authority in this thread, I would get mad and have a fit every time someone disagreed with what I said. And for the last time, I am not homophobic. Got it?]

Green Pikachu: Tell me this: if you don't believe in the Bible, how can you claim to be Christian?

[Green_Pikachu]

because the bible isn't important to christianity. i'm not gonna hate someone because the bible tells me to. it's contradictory to my moral and ethical makeup.

[The Rusted One]

The Rusted One: Yes, but my point is there is one form of sex which is completely natural because it is used in reproduction. That type of sex is designed to be used, whether for reproduction or pleasure. Other forms, like I said, are not natural in that the areas used are not designed for sexual intercourse and can sustain damage from it.

Which again is a false statement, because you seem to think that because vaginal intercourse involves reproduction it must be the only natural form. However, we also know that, unlike most other species of animals, sex is not purely for reproduction - and so it severs itself from an entirely reproductive purpose. It's about pleasure - and, given that vaginal sex is on the whole probably about as pleasurable as most, if not all, other kinds of sex (depending on the people involved, of course), then not one of those becomes more natural or less natural when divorced from the reproductive function of sexual intercourse. Pleasure is derived from all sexual acts; the risk of transmitting or contracting STDs is also associated; the emotional effects sexual intercourse has (in terms of intimacy, etc.) are also relatively constant - so what exactly makes vaginal sex more natural (when separated from reproductive function)?

We've already been over the biased thing. For all we know those who studied and enforced homosexuality in animals were biased and changed the results themselves, although I'm not saying they did.

"Enforced"? Are you now feeling it necessary to suggest homosexuality is forced on animals by the naturalists studying them, or that the acts are not actually something the animals do for themselves? Surely not, but given the standard of many of the "arguments" seen here I wouldn't discount the possibility entirely. Besides which, do you really think that one naturalist claiming that Bonobos, for instance, do not engage in homosexual acts with one another, would be supported by others if it wasn't independently observed? Please. I could suggest that elephants fly, then, and if nobody sees it ever again, my suggestion could (and perhaps should, given your attempt to explain things) be taken as fact and become part of mainstream knowledge about elephants. After all, you're suggesting it of homosexuality in animals, so I'm doing it in relation to avian tendencies in pachyderms.

What skewed and false statements would these be, exactly?

We've already been through that - the very fact that the article states that homosexuality is not "normal behaviour in any species" is a prime example of how it makes a skewed and false statement. We now that homosexuality has a prominent role in Bonobo life - and many species of dolphin, too, often exhibit it in day-to-day interaction.

Seperation of church and state is that there is no defined and enforced religion in a country or state. Saying a religous official cannot use his religous beliefs is basically outlawing all relious decisons period, because the next step is not allowing religous beliefs to affect one's vote.

So you'd be fine and dandy to find that all Christians were to be treated as second class citizens because of the religious beliefs of some official? No, you wouldn't; to suggest so would be absolutely preposterous, and you know so - and yet, there you are, advocating the use of Christian beliefs in government to impose foreign and hostil will on other minority groups. A religious official is not something that should crop up in government; an official who is religious, however, is a different matter, because obviously they will put their duty to serve all citizens first and his own personal beliefs second, as it should be. George W. Bush should not be able to enforce one religious belief or doctrine just because he is religious and is bigotted because of what he believes - because he is serving himself and the people most similar to him, rather than the wider population which he is in office to do. Trying, too, to extend this to disallowing votes based on religion is a fallacious statement to make - because expecting an official not to be bigotted due to religious belief is something that all people should be able to do, but that does not have anything to do with whether or not certain people are only voting based on religion. A person can be foolish enough to hate the candidate's opinions and disagree with the campaign promises but still waste their vote on them because they have the common religious background - but there is no way one religious doctrine should be pushed ahead of another in any supposedly secular state that proclaims that all people are equal.

Also, the comparison of african americans and homosexuals is not accurate, because one is the native of a different country while the other is not.

Tell me, where did I compare these two? I didn't. At all. Not only that, but regardless of place of origin, if someone is discriminated against, then someone is discriminated against. If the only thing you can bring up is to question the place of origin, then it may be better not to bring it up at all - the point is irrelevant, as is any argument based on it.

If you go back and look at why I mentioned Black people and homosexual people, you will see that I actually compared the fact that in the past, and the present, they've been discriminated against, and yet they're still proud of who and what they are, as they should be - and I compared this to the fact that Luke, according to Checkmate, was discriminated against, too, and yet he stood up for his beliefs as was his right. It didn't mean that the beliefs he purported to be the truth were right, of course, because he had not the ability to know for a fact that they were and could never be questioned (i.e., they were not a part of him, or rather, what the beliefs told him weren't) - but the message is the same in that people who are discriminated against don't just roll over and die, they stand up for themselves.

Another thing, homosexuality is against the Christian faith, so there should be no decisions on which ones to marry.

Yet you often see Christians supporting homosexual rights, despite this apparent sinful nature you think it has. By the way, is discrimination and prejudice leading to hostility against your faith, too, or are those perfectly acceptable? It seems a little strange, really - after all, you don't think twice about proclaiming homosexuality a sin and homosexuals sinners, despite the fact that nobody is hurt or harmed, or affected to their detriment, but, if I'm right - and it appears I am - you don't have a problem denying them the rights that you have, and otherwise causing them harm in such ways. Saying that there should be no decisions in need of being made is you attempting to force your will on all people who could marry another couple, and on all people who aren't of your religion, too - which you should have no right to do. Marriage for all people, all couples, should be legal, and it should be left up to the individual priests or Justices of the Peace, or whoever else it may be that weds the couple, to make the decision as to whether the ceremony takes place accompanied with their consent or not.

By the way, although this is in the past, you actually did "throw a fit" when I disagreed with you - you even took to ignoring me for a few days there. Also, when you say you're not homophobic, how else do you, then, state that you'd rather see gay people as second class (or worse) citizens without the same rights you enjoy purely because they're gay? Sounds rather odd for a lack of homophobia.

[Sorovis]

The Rusted One: One thing that makes it so unnatural is the fact that the areas that these types of sex are performed in are not built to sustain it and can cause damage, as well as contract STDs much easier, as Checkmate pointed out.

Are you in a bad mood or something? I said nothing about 'enforcing' meaning these practices were forced upon the animals, only that these 'enforcers' supported the idea of natural homosexuality in animals, such as you. You greatly overreacted to what I said.

These day-to-day interactions could be easily misinterpreted, just like anything else. While you have more power on your side based on the overwhelming evidence towards it, I am going to research the matter further.

Comparing Christians and other religious people to homosexuals is once again inaccurate. First of all we are debating here why or why not homosexuality is wrong; we still have several points up to support our case of homosexuality being unnatural and reversable. A Christian being called biggoted because of their beliefs could be applied to any living person in the world; atheist, religous, whatever.

Yes you did compare the two in your previous post on marriage; and yes, it is relevant if you choose to read it further. You must know by now that I say homosexuality is unnatural and reversable. Being african american is not. There, the point IS relevant.

You see, once again discrimination against african americans is different than what is happening to homosexuals. Read what I posted above. Also, Luke did see Jesus himself, as well as many of the miracles He performed and when he ascended into Heaven. I imagine what he believed had quite a bit of basis to it; especially since he saw it first hand.

Once again, I have stated along with Checkmate that homosexuality is harmful; not only physically through sexual intercourse, but the mental effects it has on the mind (I recently read this). Christians supporting homosexual rights are not following the Bible, which clearly states it is wrong.

That 'fit' I threw was saying I wasn't going to respond to your posts until you had palpable evidence supporting your point, instead of claiming yourself as a reliable source over us. An example of a fit would be if I sat there and said something along the lines of 'you should believe me I am right and I am better than anyone else I don't even know why I am here this is pathetic your opinion sucks'.

How do I put this: I am not homophobic. Did I ever say homosexuals should be second class citizens? No, this is what you THOUGHT I said, and I did not say it at all. I have stated I am not homophobic many more times than necessary already and explained why almost as many times.

[The Decapitated Mole]

How do I put this: I am not homophobic. Did I ever say homosexuals should be second class citizens? No, this is what you THOUGHT I said, and I did not say it at all. I have stated I am not homophobic many more times than necessary already and explained why almost as many times.

By denying homosexuals the same marraige rights that heterosexuals have, you are indeed saying that they should be treated as lower class citizens. And THAT, my friend/enemy, is homophobia.

o_0
jimm

[Green_Pikachu]

The Rusted One: One thing that makes it so unnatural is the fact that the areas that these types of sex are performed in are not built to sustain it and can cause damage, as well as contract STDs much easier, as Checkmate pointed out.

what does that have to do with whether its unnatural or not? a lot of natural occuring things hurt. teeth growing in for babies. that hurts like hell. breaking bones is a part of life. you can't tell me that doesn't hurt. whether it causes damage or not is not a criteria for being natural/unnatural. this entire point is worthless.

Once again, I have stated along with Checkmate that homosexuality is harmful; not only physically through sexual intercourse, but the mental effects it has on the mind (I recently read this). Christians supporting homosexual rights are not following the Bible, which clearly states it is wrong.

uh..."heterosexual" sex can hurt too. of course, you wouldn't know. you're probably like 14. and, if you actually let homosexuality bother you mentally, that's not the only thing wrong with you. christians supporting homosexual rights are REAL christians, who actually care for other people. Let's not forget Jesus' golden rules. I don't give a **** about all the little rules throughout the bible- they're worthless.

How do I put this: I am not homophobic. Did I ever say homosexuals should be second class citizens? No, this is what you THOUGHT I said, and I did not say it at all. I have stated I am not homophobic many more times than necessary already and explained why almost as many times.

actually, by saying that they don't deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples, you ARE saying they should be second class citizens, indirectly. Saying that homosexual couples do not deserve the same rights as a heterosexual couple is a form of homophobia. Get over it. I MIGHT forgive you, if you repent your sins now rather than later.

[Razola]

Is there really a good enough argument against homosexuality to warrant 700+ replies of debate?

Wow.

[Green_Pikachu]

actually, no there isn't. Sorovis hasn't even brought up a good point yet. he keeps talking about the bible or something, and is in complete self-denial as to why he is a homophobe. i already told him why he is a few posts ago. hopefully this "debate" ends soon.