Homosexual Books for First Graders

[Checkmate]

[QUOTE="Damian Silverblade"]Ok, glad to see it was more of a misunderstanding.[/QUOUTE]

Me too. I'd hate for you to lose what little respect you have left for me.

The truth of the matter (re : WTC) is that there's no way to know how things will turn over the next few hundred years. Certainly conspiracy theorists have only grown in strength and number over the years over the Moon Landing (1969), the Kennedy Assassination (196? - don't rightly remember which ATM), The Pearl Harbor attack (1941) and so forth. In fact the "fringe conspiracy theory" for the last has since then come to be nearly as accepted (if not even more so accepted) than the "official" version - it's split half and half or so.

The problem with those analogies is the same problem I've been stating for the past while. They didn't thrive under the intense persecution the Christians braved. I have some questions about the theories you present. What proof have the supporters offered. Yeah5 and I have offered corraborative evidence to support the Bible. (specifically Luke) Also, who's to assume that those theories are wrong? You yourself admit that the minority is not always incorrect, as stated below

Of course, I'll note here that a "fringe group" theory is not by default wrong (the relevance of the WTC example is simply "do you realize how quickly alternate histories begin to show up?". After all, if they were then virtually all political, economical, religious and social theories the world has ever known would be wrong by virtue of having been a fringe theory at some point in time. Communism was a fringe theory, so was capitalism. Catholicism, Christianism and Atheism were all fringe groups at some point in time. Darwinism the same, and so forth.

We agree on something.

(NOTE : the reverse statement is true also : just because a theory was dominant and we therefore have many more copies of their text left doesn't mean the text themselves are worth more than other, less dominant texts. READ : just because we have more manuscrips of the Bible than of, say, Caesar's commentary is patentedly irrelevant to how trustworthy each is.)

Now here's something we disagree on. I don't think it's patentedly irrelevant. Many things have passed the test of time that are false. What those things are is up for debate. However, the test of time is still a very relevant test. As a pharisee said in the Bible (in the Acts) one guy (I think he might have named him) had hundreds of followers, but when he died, so did his cause. Quite wise considering he was a pharisee. The test of time is a very relevant test. Just not a final exam of any sorts.

As to the point you and Green Pikachu make, I'll beg your pardon but this is not quite true. The bible and Illiad started out as the same thing : the national epics of the Greeks and Hebrews - the tale of how they had come to be were they were, who their ancestors were, what they had done. The Illiad (and the story of the Trojan War on which it is based) were NOT originally epic poetry meant to amuse or any such : they were what the then-Greeks believed to be history.

Are you absolutely sure the parts of divine intervention were actually reported history that was told by the people the gods allegedly interracted with. If not, that's a crucial difference between the two.

The difference in how they developed lies probably in the fact that the Hebrews had far stronger religious feelings than the Greeks. They wove a very jealous, wrathful God in their history, to the point that actually challenging their national epic would have been to challenge God.

Actually, as far as I know, it's never been considered sin to question or challenge God. That's the Christianity I know. Christianity never forbids looking into other religions. One can obey God while still questioning his existence. I know from plenty of personal experience.

By comparison the Greeks had a more complex relation with religion (they prayed to the god, offered sacrifices, etc - but their relation with the gods was grounded in the present. Wether or not god X had done Y or Z in antiquity was patentedly irrelevant to his existence and what he would do now (incidentally, I agree with the Greeks where most gods are concerned). Therefore, questioning the national epic was not challenging the very basis of society.

I could give you a truckload of cases in which God has been evident in present-day society. Two hour's worth of research would certainly give me a least a dozen incredible life changes and miracles. I could name a few off the top of my head. God is certainly not a god of merely two-thousand years ago.

The other relevance of the Illiad to the points is as was already illustrated : it demonstrate that it's possible for a historical text (which was MEANT to represent what the then-greeks thought was history - again, just because it was WRITTEN in poetry form doesn't make it somehow "less historical") to have *some* facts rights without having *ALL* facts right.

The Illiad is written fictitiously. It's never been shown as anything other than fiction. I've already demonstrated (in my opinion) beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bible is not intentional fiction. I think to more effectively argue your point you would need something like the Illiad only without the fictitious element. I think it would be a better analogy if you mentioned a historical test that was at least purported to be true.

[Damian Silverblade]

You are not wanted here, leave.

[The Rusted One]

The Rusted One: And I never said that you said that vagi nal sex was unnatural. What's your point? Like I've been saying since this started; the human reproductive organs are meant to be used in a male female manner; they are designed for sex, to withstand it, reproduce from it, and it is the one natural form of sex. I hate to have to use these types of analogies, but putting one object in a place where it fits but is not meant to fit does not make it natural.

My point? That you said that only vaginal sex was natural, and all other forms weren't, which I disagreed with. It isn't that hard to understand. As for your analogy, why not go the whole hog and say that putting one object in a place where it fits and is "meant" to fit but not doing so for the reason it was "meant" is also not natural. But you don't say that, do you? No, because sex, even though it's purpose is to bring about reproduction, also causes pleasure, and so is engaged in without reproduction in mind. Why is this natural, though? It's not what it's "meant" for - but I hear no complaints about it from you.

Back in my debate with Rambunctious, she did not complain at all with my lack of quotations. If it troubles you so much, then feel free to stop using them in your replies to me and I will gladly answer without complaint. What you assumed I said is something that I've already cleared up once with you. No I did not say that everything scientific is biased.

But I am not Rambunctious, I am The Rusted One. As The Rusted One, I have asked you to modify your behaviour, which you have decided not to do - which actually ends up with you being either misinterpreted, or your points utterly missed, if there are any to begin with. I don't care that another member didn't complain. I did. I still do. And no, I use quotations because it makes things easier for all concerned, and does not take any extra effort, either - it isn't difficult, and it doesn't make things difficult, either.

As for what I assumed - then what was your point with the paragraph I was left to assume about?

On the NARTH issue, I would also like to refer you to my most recent site,

http://www.newdirection.ca/a_biol.htm

which I have posted once already and you seem to have missed. On a side note, you have provided no evidence that the evidence against homosexuality can be disproven, so I have no idea if you're just making this up or not.

Actually, I did refer to this site - it is a Christian site dedicated to "re-educating" homosexual people. Did you not search around for the "mission" page? Besides which, the article itself makes the same weak attempts to justify its claims with claims about how the study was somehoe erroneous - e.g., "he didn't actually know what the sexual orientation of some of the men was, so he could have been looking at gay men and not realised!" Which is true, except for the probability of it. What is the probability of there being gay men in any population? Approximately 0.1 (i.e., 10% of the population of males, though it's very possibly less) - meaning that the same odds apply for the sample of dead people. Attempting to discount a study on such bases is in itself more fallacious than assuming that studies of areas that would bear evidence of such things as anal sex having happened during the lifetime of the bodies weren't conducted to be sure.

Wow. If you actually considered what I said then you wouldn't have posted that last one. (children being taught homosexuality because it's just a lifestyle)

Which last one? I can't actually remember mentioning children in that last post of mine, but then, I suppose if you bothered to quote me you'd be able to show me. I have been back to read my post, which is actually possibly the most annoying thing to do with your lack of quotes (i.e., I provide you with your post so you know what I'm refering to, and yet you expect me to go back and read my own post, then yours, and then respond to yours with reference to mine at the same time), and I still can't find what you may be refering to - so if you don't mind, it would be nice if you actually provided me with proper quotes.

What you seem to lack when dissecting my posts is the ability to read them thoroughly. I never at one point said homosexuals were against marriage.

I didn't say you said it was constant throughout the population of homosexual people in the world, but you did, indeed, say that most gay people were against marriage in general -

Actually, the only thing Christians are attempting to 'deny' homosexuals of is marriage, and they generally disagree with the practice in general (which you cannot argue against).

Now, if I'm mistaken and you actually mean that they disagree with gay people being denied the right to marry, then yes, that was never questioned by myself because this confiscation of the ability to marry is obviously a problem to them. However, what I am interpreting is that you think that most homosexual people are against marriage, which is fallacious to claim, and could be just as easily said of straight people given the amount of evidence.

Once again, I and Checkmate have made it clear that we are all sinners, and that by that we all sin. Saying homosexuality is wrong is like saying thievery is wrong. Hate the sin, not the sinner, something I have already said very clearly.

No, you have said that we're all sinners, but they're worse. That's what you've said. Saying homosexuality is wrong is not like saying thievery is wrong - it's like saying being Black is wrong, or being female is wrong. Thievery creates a victim, it attacks someone against their will - how does homosexuality do this? It doesn't, unless you wish to make a flawed claim that people who engage in homosexual relationships are actually being forced by someone else to do so. Now, you also repeat, over and over, this, "hate the sin, not the sinner" line - which is actually not what you're doing, because you hate the "sinner" enough to deny them the same rights and abilities given to people who aren't similarly "sinners". Not only this, but your own "god" is prepared to hate them for it - by your own admission (not that you need say it), "god" punishes sinners, by sending them to "Hell" for all eternity - i.e., "you're a sinner, and you're so much a sinner that you deserve to be tortured forevermore". There is no middle ground. There is no, "'god' loves you enough to subject you to horrible punishment and pain for the rest of eternity" - because that's psychopathic, like, "I love you so much I can't stand to see you happy". That's not unconditional love, and it's not "hate the sin, not the sinner".

Sadly, that little speech you gave applies to you as well. You say that I am close-minded to any argument against what I believe. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me any and all evidence I give against the genetic occurances of homosexuality you have ignored or dismissed as biased.

Protip - because all you've cited as references are Christian sites either committed to saying homosexuality is wrong, or to changing homosexual people for their "betterment" (which is, in effect, the same message). You've also cited the Bible. Now, I wonder why none of these have been taken seriously? Perhaps because they ignore the evidence in nature, or make up fallacious arguments that 'just because it appears in nature doesn't mean we should imitate them', which was never suggested? Yeah, I think so.

And would Luke lie about seeing Jesus? Then why accuse him of it?

Yes, he very well could have. You obviously assumed my answer would be "no", or the second question wouldn't have been asked - as if, deep down, you think I'm just pretending not to share your beliefs. Thing is, I do think that Luke, if he existed, could have lied - Christians were being persecuted, so he embellished a story in order to add weight to the religion itself, and through this, hopefully quell the persecution.

How about this: I decided to be heterosexual the day that males and females began reproducing by means of sexual intercourse. Heterosexuality is genetic, like I've said.

Major flaw - you weren't alive then. It'd be like me claiming that I set my parents up on a date and so I'm responsible for them getting married. I can't. I wasn't alive then. It's a fallacious claim, and is no argument. In fact, it's not even a weak attempt at one.

And yes, you have said that heterosexuality is genetic - but you offer no evidence for it. Gender is genetic - I can point at my Y chromosome and say, "look, I'm genetically male" - but being a certain gender doesn't determine sexuality. Being you does that. You mental self is not the same as your physical self, and sometimes they don't match together all that well (as is shown in transgender people, too, who don't feel that their body is actually theirs at all because it's not the same gender as what they mentally are).

The organs that each gender has compliments the other for sexual reproduction; and that is what sexual attraction is for. It no longer matters if this sexual intercourse is meant for reproduction, but that sexual intercourse stays as it was meant to be.

It does matter, actually; because you can't claim that vaginal sex is more natural than anal, or oral, unless you refer back to the reproduction argument. If you remove reproduction from the equation, as most people do when they talk/think/engage in sex, then there is no need for the organs to be penis and vagina at all. Neither are serving a reproductive purpose - so they are no longer required to function as their structure dictates.

Does this motive you gave have any support? It was just a guess, and you have no idea what Luke thought when he wrote in the Bible. I was simply pointing out how ridiculous it was to speculate Luke may have been lying; to do so is to question all of history.

Actually, yes, it does have support; people react in predictable ways. Luke knew Christians were being persecuted, so he claimed there were miracles being performed by a guy called Jesus. There are no sources of evidence for these miracles aside from the Bible, which is hardly a historic account of the truth, and so it is likely that they never happened. Given that, what reason would Luke have to claim they were being performed? If he could garner support for his religion, he could quash the persecution; if he could convince other people that his beliefs weren't something to frown upon, he could limit or eliminate the amount he and other Christians suffered...so how could he get support? By making up something that normal people can't do, and saying that it was proof of his claims - and normal people can't perform miracles, can they? No. So, who cuold he say could...maybe Jesus, the guy being spoken of as more than normal! So, he takes something that only the "divine" could perhaps do, and saying it happened. Motive. To question Luke is not to question history, because the Bible is not history. If it was, then so is Snow White, so is the Lion King, so is Book 5 of C.S.Lewis' Narnia series.

I believe the accusation of no evidence lies on you; not me. "Anal sex does carry some risks to health and comfort even in the absence of a risk of sexually transmitted disease. "The vag ina is well adapted to sex, being strengthened for this activity and secreting its own lubrication, whereas the anus and rectum are not." (thanks to Wikipedia).

I've never said that this isn't true - what I have said is that it isn't any less natural than vaginal sex if the reproductive function is removed, as it almost always is. Besides this, why are you trying to win based on something that applies equally to heterosexual couples? Gay men have anal sex; so do straight couples. Lesbians don't at all - so what you're arguing for is sexual conservatism, not against homosexuality. Like I've said before, homosexuality need not involve anal sex - but obviously you're someone who immediately assumes that homosexuality is about anal sex and that's it.

Well, I have seen no scientific evidence that was not biased supporting homosexuality; yet I have seen and posted evidence against it. Nice how that works, huh?

If you read any article on bonobos, or homosexuality in animals, you'll actually find that most, if not all, are saying that in some species homosexuality occurs, and that it does so naturally. That doesn't automatically mean the reference is biased towards homosexuality - it is saying, homosexuality occurs in nature. Otherwise, you could claim that any reference to a species that engages in heterosexual activities is biased towards heterosexuality, which it isn't.

If you want, you can look at a totally-animal based survey of incidence of homosexuality, that says nothing about what it means for humans, in "Biological Exhuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity", Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D., , St. Martin's Press, 2000, page 35.

Figures given -

species percent percent percent
homosexual bisexual heterosexual
silver gulls (females) 10 11 79
black headed gulls (both sexes) 22 15 63
Japanese macaques (both sexes) 9 56 35
bonobo chimpanzees (both sexes) 0 100 0
galahs (both sexes) 44 11 44

Tell me, how does this say that homosexuality is either right or wrong in humans? It doesn't. It can't, either, because it is concerned with homosexuality in nature. You may, from this, draw conclusions that it occurs in these species naturally, and so would perhaps in humans, but the data themselves do not. It says it occurs naturally in these species, which is what I've said when I've made any reference to outside evidence for the naturality of homosexuality.

How about what I just posted? That one person who changed his ideas on homosexuality started unbiased, something you have stressed easily. The fact he changed his mind due to evidence should be enough.

So, if someone was Christian but then becomes Atheist, that's enough for you to cast off your own religious convictions and become Atheist, too? I mean, someone you don't know investigated something probably with negative bias, and yet still changed! And, in fact, if we listen to your claims that our species was created by "god" and then given the choice to believe in "him", your logic would state that you're wrong, because most of our species was Christian but then stopped believing in "god"!

There are examples of people doing this all the time - it doesn't mean they're right. This type of argument is about as noteworthy as the, "well, what about the gay people that become straight?" one - i.e., not at all noteworthy, because it doesn't happen only one way. It doesn't show anything.

Or how about that homosexuality is something of the mind, not genetic at all but something that occurs due to mental stress from a physical experience.

Tell me what my mental stress caused by physicaly experience is, then - no doubt you'll make some claim that I was molested as a child, and that I just can't remember it, right? Maybe it was when I was a giant polka-dot hippo, and I tripped over a stone, and that caused such stress that I forgot all about it and became bisexual in the process! If homosexuality is something of the mind, then so is heterosexuality, and all kinds of sexuality. But they're not. I've never claimed that sexuality isn't genetic - because no matter what the sexuality is, I think it is genetic. You're the only one saying the one sexuality is and one isn't, despite the lack of evidence you have to make the differentiation.

Once again, Checkmate, yeah5, and I have posted facts that the Bible is indeed supported by other documents. Along with archeology. Such as that civilization the Bible spoke of that no one knew anything about. That was regarded as a flaw for a long time, until they discovered that the Bible was right.

What civilisation? You mean, the Canaanites? Well, then, you must also believe that the Iliad is a historically accurate document, because up till Hans Schliemann followed the directions in it and found Troy, Troy was thought never to have existed, too. That whole thing was regarded as a flaw for a long time, until they discovered that the accounts were right - so where's your faithful belief in the events of the Iliad?

I said that I looked for evidence to see whether or whether not homosexuality is wrong; I indeed found quite a bit, even though you seem unable to actually read it with the open mind you accuse me of lacking. And about the sodomy issue not being created or exclusively used by homosexuals; the Bible says clearly as well that any type of unnatural sex is wrong. Meaning the heterosexuals who preform it sin as well.

So, you're not against homosexuality, then, you're against sexual freedom. At least you have your arguments sorted out...except you don't, because you tried to use that as evidence that homosexuality was wrong. How odd that you did that, despite that fact that lesbians, who are homosexual, don't engage in anal sex at all, and that many heterosexual couples do. And, just in reference to your claims that I can't read something with an open mind - I read things with an open mind all the time, unless they try to tell me that the Bible says it's wrong, and therefore it must be wrong - or if they make false, skewed claims that aren't supported by anything but pseudoscience, and then turn around and question scientific studies that disagree with their own claims and try to make them seem like they're ultimately flawed because they have something else to say.

For a long time I disliked mentally retarded people, and I was naturally annoyed by them. Finding that it was not their fault at all and they could not help it changed my outlook drastically, and I no longer hold the dislike for them. Now I do not 'dislike' homosexuals in general, but I disagree with their practices, and I have seen no solid evidence telling me that they cannot help it.

Except that it occurs in nature, and that you didn't choose to be the sexuality you are and homosexual people make exactly the same claims, and that it's known that although we are individuals and think for ourselves, our bodies aren't under our direct control in every response they have to every stimulus. No, nothing to make you rethink your willingness to be bigotted.

Are you absolutely sure the parts of divine intervention were actually reported history that was told by the people the gods allegedly interracted with. If not, that's a crucial difference between the two.

Anything can be reported as history; people went to the Delphic Oracle all the time in Ancient Greece and received advice from Apollo, the Sun God. Just because an Oracular message is recorded, and is historically reported to have actually come from Apollo, it doesn't mean it is. Trusting the Bible to be historically accurate but disregarding other things is just folly, given the fact that nobody who isn't Christian stands by the Bible as a real account of history.

Actually, as far as I know, it's never been considered sin to question or challenge God. That's the Christianity I know. Christianity never forbids looking into other religions. One can obey God while still questioning his existence. I know from plenty of personal experience.

But you've stuck by the words of the Bible in here so completely that you make it seem that you've never questioned at all. You've been involved in this debate, and yet the biggest reference you continually make against homosexuality is that it is morally wrong according to the Bible and according to "god"; so it makes me wonder whether you're actually questioning or not.

The Illiad is written fictitiously. It's never been shown as anything other than fiction.

The accounts of Mycenaean tradition and practice represented in the Iliad are not fiction. Troy isn't fiction. Just because it was recited by Homer as entertainment doesn't mean it's not just as historically accurate as the Bible.

I've already demonstrated (in my opinion) beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bible is not intentional fiction. I think to more effectively argue your point you would need something like the Illiad only without the fictitious element. I think it would be a better analogy if you mentioned a historical test that was at least purported to be true.

But how can you be sure what is and isn't fiction? If you tell us we cannot question the existence of Luke or Jesus, you can't question the existence of Achilles or Agamemnon, or Helen or Andromache - or Athene, Ares, Aphrodite, or Zeus. Given that you, then, can't say that these are fiction, you can't make the claim that it has any fiction in it at all, unless you're willing to say that the Bible is also likely fictitious.

[Tala]

Americans are trying to defend themselves though a cruel reality, these issues like homosexuality and war they are keeping away from the child. So now you are talking "Oh, my child knows what's homos right now... damnit, i don't want him/her to be gay/lesbian." OR "I don't want my child to know the violence in the world, they should be playing with dump trucks and toys."

Let me start by tell YOU america, the world is cruel, cruel and cruel, I've been kept under my mother's arms for at least until i am grade 9 (that's when she lets me walk home by myself) and when that happened, things like bullying got out of hand, they even try to KILL me. That is the point i am getting to, the more care you give to your child, the harder they fall when you let go. I found that out in a hard way. there is no use to keep children in america from all these events, don't turn off the TV when you hear about these issues come on.

I have had it with America trying to hide events like these to children. The longer you hold your innosence, the harder they fall.

[Sorovis]

The Rusted One: Sexual intercourse used for the purpose of pleasure is nearly exlusive to the human race. My point is that vag inal intercourse is, like I've said again and again, designed to withstand sex. Any other form is not, and can cause damage to the body.

Yes but your posts with me are generally exclusive to me, unless someone else feels like looking into them. At some point I may decide to use quotations; but as of now, I would rather get on this board, make my replies, and move on to something else.

As for the paragraph you assumed on, I said that results from scientific experiments could be misinterpreted or biased; not saying they always are, or they usually are; but as you know, things in science tend to change over time.

Accusing the studies of not being sure of the heterosexual men's actual orientations is major scientific flaw; studies such as these are not supposed to rely on chance at all. No matter how small the chance, it may have affected the experiment in one way or another, and all factors in such things must be clearly known. Aside from that, the article did bring up quite a few good points that you haven't brought up, ie. the identical twins and the likelyhood that both will be gay, and brain sizes can change during the course of one's life.

You did mention children in your last post however, saying that they have a right to be educated so as to not discriminate. Once again, I say that until I start quoting you are free to stop quoting me. It would make my work harder and yours much easier; maybe give me a taste of my own medicine?

I said that most Christians were against the practice of homosexuality in general.

Had you bothered to listen to what I said, you would know I never said homosexuals were worse than any other sinners in any other way. If homosexuality is a sin in general, then why would the sinner be simply allowed to carry on with it? Much like one who views pornography is sinning; nobody can stop them (and the same will be for homosexual marriage), but they still harm themselves by submitting to the urge. And another thing, where in all of this debate did I or Checkmate say homosexuals were sent to Hell? Where, I ask you? If anything, we've tried to clear that up; but you won't see that at all.

And I'm supposed to take your arguments serious then? Yours, as I have said again and again, are biased as well.

But saying why Luke 'could' have lied about seeing Jesus is just guessing. The same thing you have attacked me for when I would make a guess as to how something happened without providing evidence. The thing is, Luke lived and died in the past, so you can only speculate as to why he might have lied, even though there is no evidence he did so.

Actually, saying I made my decision not to be gay at the beginning of time is like saying Luke lied about seeing Jesus. If I am not mistaken, you were not there.

By this statement above, are you saying that homosexuality is not genetic then?

To question Luke is to speculate, as I have said in the previous few posts or so. So once again, you have provided no evidence whatsoever to prove how the Bible is not history.

And obviously you've assumed that because heterosexual couples perform anal sex it's okay, when I have already clarified it. Now when exactly did I say that homosexuality is about anal sex and that's it? Someone's assuming again.

Oh yes, I could infer from the fact that homosexuality occurs in animals naturally that it is genetic period. Of course none of that is ever mentioned, and animals behave quite differently than people.

You see, the Christian religion relies greatly on faith. There is evidence supporting it, but Jesus is not here today. This is very much different from one who started with ideas about homosexuality and then by evidence he found discovered that it was unnatural.

Hey, I never said you weren't a polka-dotted hippo at one point, so let's not get started there. Perhaps the fact that one sexuality can reproduce is not enough to prove it is genetic? Like I've said, if there were specific reproductive organs for homosexuals, then I would reconsider.

Tell me, what all events does the Iliad include the make it so unbelievable? I've never read it, so I have no way of knowing what exactly you refer to.

That last post just explained how you do not read things with an open mind. Let's all assume that all claims with evidence against homosexuality are skewed and useless. It just seems like that kind of day.

You know, at some point when I was on this board as mewy2y whether you were there or not, I supported homosexuality despite the Bible. So I guess I all the sudden decided to abandon all of my preconceptions of matters and follow the Bible blindly without evidence.

[Checkmate]

Ah, but then the Bible is the only thing that supports the Bible wholly. Many different accounts by many different authors, as well as archaeology, support Alexander's existence. Nobody's saying that Jesus didn't exist, either - just that he may not have as he is portrayed. There is no evidence for his miracles except for the Bible itself. There is also no evidence for Alexander performing miracles, but then, no claims were made that he performed them - so, which is more likely? That Alexander performed miracles, like Jesus, despite the lack of historical evidence, or that neither did, which is supported by the lack of historical evidence?

Gee I wonder why there'd be a bit more history written for an earthly kind than an earthly carpenter. Is it really any wonder that the only people that said he performed miracles were his followers? The fact that people said he supposedly performed miracles is otherwise recorded.

You have no proof it's not genetic.

Are you kidding me? Sorovis has presented more sites on the topic than everyone else combined has to the contrary. You call them biased, but it would seem that even biased evidence is better than you come up with.

Of course Homer did it to entertain - but he was using what was regarded as history in order to do it. He didn't invent the story of either the Iliad or the Odyssey, but of course it was embellished by him and others. It has aspects of historical accuracy, and yet is not historically ultimately accurate. Luke believed what he wrote - so what? It just means he believed it enough to write about it; that doesn't mean he was right. Otherwise, for all the Muslim people who have martyred themselves for their beliefs, we really should all be Muslim right now, right? No. Martyrdom doesn't equate to historical accuracy or ultimate truth.

Islam is based on a book by Muhammed which he wrote out of an alleged revelation. Course the book of 'revelation' is the same, but it's only one of 66 books of the Bible. Muhammed also didn't have something tangible to investigate. Luke was around to ask eye witnesses and several others about what happened. He states that he investigated the matters in his book. He believed what he wrote because he was around at the time of the miracles and could talk to people who saw them. Paul talked of some 500 people seeing Christ after he died. And, of course, there's always the matter of the empty tomb.

Homer couldn't afford to be a perfectionist, due to the fact that he had to memorise the poems he recited and couldn't just change them. He didn't write them down. He knew them by heart, and taught them to pupils by heart. Now, if the Iliad is written to entertain, does that mean that story itself is any less valid than your Bible? No. Entertainment doesn't make something invalid as historic - or you'd watch any war movie and automatically think the whole war was made up because the story line of the specific characters involved entertains you.

Not quite. I didn't say the Trojan War was made up, but I did call the Illiad fiction. In a war movie, the specific characters and specific events are made up. Heck, even in The Great Escape (excellent film) where the story line was real and the numbers were historically accurate, the characters were still fiction. It was still dramatized and fictitious.

Just because the Bible is not written as entertainment doesn't mean that it is any more valid than the Iliad, or the Odyssey, especially since all three are supposed to be accounts of history. It all depends on societal tendencies in the recording of different things, too. No doubt at some point somebody would have retold Bible stories for entertainment - it's not uncommon today to have religious beliefs retold in entertaining forms. Does that make them less valid? No. It doesn't make them right, either, but it doesn't make one ancient story less believable than another.

Actually, I don't call fact the movies that are made about the Bible to entertain. Every last one of them is flawed. Even the Passion which I consider to be the greatest Bible film of all time. Or at least there's unbiblical stuff in there.

I'll reply to the most of the points later when I have more time.

[Green_Pikachu]

Regarding the point you and Green Pikachu make, I'll beg your pardon but this is not quite true. The bible and Illiad started out as the same thing : the national epics of the Greeks and Hebrews - the tale of how they had come to be were they were, who their ancestors were, what they had done. The Illiad (and the story of the Trojan War on which it is based) were NOT originally epic poetry meant to amuse or any such : they were what the then-Greeks believed to be history.
Posted By: Damian Silverblade

uh...the iliad started out as entertainment. the bards would walk around with their lyres and entertain the masses by playing the lyre and singing about the trojan war. you're dead wrong here.

[Green_Pikachu]

"I said that most Christians were against the practice of homosexuality in general."
-Sorovis

actually, you're wrong. unless you have some sort of stat about that. you can't just assume that i'm an idiot. i'm a christian, but i'm not an idiot. i don't hate people for no reason. nor do i want to take away their rights for no reason. does that make me unchristian?

[Damian Silverblade]

Regarding the point you and Green Pikachu make, I'll beg your pardon but this is not quite true. The bible and Illiad started out as the same thing : the national epics of the Greeks and Hebrews - the tale of how they had come to be were they were, who their ancestors were, what they had done. The Illiad (and the story of the Trojan War on which it is based) were NOT originally epic poetry meant to amuse or any such : they were what the then-Greeks believed to be history.
Posted By: Damian Silverblade

uh...the iliad started out as entertainment. the bards would walk around with their lyres and entertain the masses by playing the lyre and singing about the trojan war. you're dead wrong here.

Are you a historian GP?

What I'm telling here is what they teach in historiography (ie, history of how people recorded history) at Uni level. It is, as far as I know - and as far as I know is probably further than most since I am presently working on a degree in history - an accurate representation of how most *historians* (ie, people who actually have a clue on the topic) treat the Homeric epics.

It may have been used for entertainment, but the story of Achilles and so forth (and thus the basic story of the Illiad) was something average greeks believed in, and was pretty much the core part of the "national epic" of the greeks with most greeks trying to trace their families line back to the Illiad characters.

One note : the distinction between fact and entertainment the pair of you (checkmate and GP) insist on making is, historically, a *quite* modern one. Easily up to the Renaissance and even further, entertainment often *was* facts - that is, travelers passing by villages and telling about the news and events of the vast world behind (and stories of the past), on which they had very little information. Sailors who had been on the first ships to America were very popular entertainers for a time -because they were able to reveal a whole new world.

The notion that because something was used to entertain it was not meant to be taken seriously is something that spring from a far more informed, modern society, such as the urban, city-based society which developed in the wake of the late middle ages and the renaissance, far better informed about the rest of the world.

[Green_Pikachu]

i'm a classics major. i know this stuff. you can't compare the iliad to the bible. it's as simple as that.

[Damian Silverblade]

*Shrugs*

Then it appears that litterature and history have very divergent view on the Illiad. Perhaps in lit it's presented as purely entertainment, but that's certainly not how historians consider it - to historians it is one of the early example of oral tradition being given a set form and written down.

Amusingly, the other commonly used example of the same is the very bible we speak of - oral tradition given written form.

Evidence we have (on the historical aspect) is that virtually all the greek royalty of the era drew links back to the heroes of the Illiad saga, saying "we are descended from X who fought in the Trojan War and accomplished these acts...". IE, they believed that the character depicted in the Illiad were real and had really done the things attributed to them.

Homer (or whoever actually wrote down the book) didn't *invent* the plot of the Illiad (he may have added certain events, but the core plots and sets of events predated him). He put the definitive wording to a common oral tradition that had been around since forever (much like the folktale recorders of the post-renaissance Europe didn't invent the tales they recorded - they put the definitive wordings down on common folktales and gave them literary form), and which people believed in.

On the literature aspect, I'll easily grant you there's definitely no comparison between Illiad and the Bible - one was written down in the form of epic poetry to carry a focused part of oral tradition, while the other is simply a hodge-podge of oral tradition written down simply as a record of it. There's no doubt that this result in an Illiad presented more as a continuous story and a bible presented more as a collection of events. From a lit perspective I wouldn't expect comparison to be a possibility.

BUT, on the historical aspect, both of them represent the conceptions of their past and the events in that past held by the 7th-6th-5th century hebrews and the Greeks of circa the same era (mostly 7th-6th IIRC), as they are among the early examples of the writing down of oral tradition. They are, therefore, interesting to compare because they represent similar steps in the developement of historical tradition. It wouldn't matter if one was simply a prayer listing alleged events in the history of a people while the other was a full blown-out epic poetry fifty books in length : they would still be perfectly comparable on the historical level.

At least that's how we on the history side of the field view things.

[The Rusted One]

The Rusted One: Sexual intercourse used for the purpose of pleasure is nearly exlusive to the human race. My point is that vag inal intercourse is, like I've said again and again, designed to withstand sex. Any other form is not, and can cause damage to the body.

Nearly, but not entirely. In Bonobos it's not purely reproductive. In some species it's associated less with reproduction than with social status, too - chimpanzees, for instance. And in dolphins it's very rarely performed with the intent to beget offspring. And again, vaginal sex is not without its risks; trying to say it's more natural because the vagina has thicker epithelial tissue is right to a point - because if that's the only thing you have to fall back on, then sex with someone's skin would be even more natural.

Yes but your posts with me are generally exclusive to me, unless someone else feels like looking into them. At some point I may decide to use quotations; but as of now, I would rather get on this board, make my replies, and move on to something else.

And in general please yourself, yes, I noticed. So what if I'm replying to you most of the time (which is actually false, given that I'm also debating with Checkmate - unless you and he are the same person, which seems unlikely given the differing ISPs, but isn't impossible)? For my benefit, regardless of whether or not I'm talking only to you, quoting is preferable because it allows me to know what part of my post you are currently making reference to.

As for the paragraph you assumed on, I said that results from scientific experiments could be misinterpreted or biased; not saying they always are, or they usually are; but as you know, things in science tend to change over time.

When new evidence comes to light, not when someone decides to say something and only present the relevant evidence and discard the rest. Science is far less biased than Christian "science" (not that there really is such a thing), because it does not start with preconceptions but rather starts with evidence, and puts forth theories that the evidence supports, without ignoring evidence; the Christian way is to start with a story, claim it to be a theory, which it is not, and then look at only some of the evidence (i.e., that which "supports" the claims) while disregarding the rest.

Accusing the studies of not being sure of the heterosexual men's actual orientations is major scientific flaw; studies such as these are not supposed to rely on chance at all. No matter how small the chance, it may have affected the experiment in one way or another, and all factors in such things must be clearly known. Aside from that, the article did bring up quite a few good points that you haven't brought up, ie. the identical twins and the likelyhood that both will be gay, and brain sizes can change during the course of one's life.

It may have, yes - but what you're trying to do is rely on a site that, rather than looks at the probablilities in the case of a supposed lack of definite information, assumes that all of the test subjects with undefined sexual orientation are homosexual. Sure, it is possible - but the odds of one man being gay is 0.1 - so 1 out of 10 men are probably gay, right? Two out of ten men, however, does not follow 0.1 + 0.1 - the rules of statistics state that it is 0.1 x 0.1, meaning that the odds of two men in ten being gay is 0.01. So, what are the odds of enough men for the study to be inconclusive being gay? Incredibly slim - though, still, there is a chance. However, this is hardly any basis for claiming the study is flawed; if there was sufficient reason to doubt, then fine, but there isn't - there is only a lack of wanting to acknowledge what the study is saying.

Now, brain sizes can change, yes - but specific regions often don't. Your hypothalamus doesn't once your reach maturity. In fact, your brain doesn't after maturity unless it swells and causes brain damage, which can affect memory, or something similar. The developmental patterns in brains follow definite paths, unless brain damage occurs - this means that if a brain in a male body is developing along a "feminine" path, it will continue to do so until it reaches the mature form of the form it is developing similar to.

You did mention children in your last post however, saying that they have a right to be educated so as to not discriminate. Once again, I say that until I start quoting you are free to stop quoting me. It would make my work harder and yours much easier; maybe give me a taste of my own medicine?

But it's not the way I work, and it actually doesn't make my job easier because I would continually have to refer to what you wrote somewhere else on the page; I make it easier for you and myself when I quote. Surely you can do the same; all it takes is for you to press the "quote" button.

Now, I remember writing that about children - and what is the problem with saying they should be educated in order not to discriminate due to ignorance?

I said that most Christians were against the practice of homosexuality in general.

And the reason is...? Oh, the Bible. Not reason enough.

Had you bothered to listen to what I said, you would know I never said homosexuals were worse than any other sinners in any other way. If homosexuality is a sin in general, then why would the sinner be simply allowed to carry on with it?

Actually, by saying that they are sinners on top of them being human (which apparently makes them sinners anyway), you're doubling the amount that they sin by. In other words, you're saying that they're worse. And, since when is it a sin? Since you decided. Why don't you think prejudice is a sin? Because you are guilty of it? Must be. They're not hurting anyone, and they're not forcing something on someone unwilling - so how is a man loving a man, or a woman loving a woman, a sin?

Much like one who views pornography is sinning; nobody can stop them (and the same will be for homosexual marriage), but they still harm themselves by submitting to the urge.

How do they harm themselves? Because you said so. That's not good enough, I'm afraid, or I can claim that you harm yourself by being Christian, and it's immoral to be so. How does that feel? There is nothing immoral about being true to one's self if you don't hurt anyone, or inflict something on someone against their will.

And another thing, where in all of this debate did I or Checkmate say homosexuals were sent to Hell? Where, I ask you? If anything, we've tried to clear that up; but you won't see that at all.

So now you're going to claim that they don't go to Hell, and so they don't actually "hurt themselves"? Why, then, should you be attempting to prove that they're doing wrong if they don't actually come out any worse than you do in the end, if what you say is to be believed?

And I'm supposed to take your arguments serious then? Yours, as I have said again and again, are biased as well.

Except for the whole citation of material that says nothing about the morality of homosexuality, but only says that it occurs in some species naturally.

But saying why Luke 'could' have lied about seeing Jesus is just guessing. The same thing you have attacked me for when I would make a guess as to how something happened without providing evidence. The thing is, Luke lived and died in the past, so you can only speculate as to why he might have lied, even though there is no evidence he did so.

Except that the two are different - because when I say you're guessing at something you don't know firsthand for sure, and someone else does know, and says something to the contrary, you can't really continue to seriously tell them otherwise. However, you don't know for a fact that Luke existed; you believe he did. You believe Jesus existed - but again, you cannot prove it. You can certainly not prove, or even provide evidence beyond the Bible, of any miracles - but I can cite human nature in general when I say that he could have been lying, or fabricating, or have been tricked, or whatever the reason. Human beings act in such ways all the time - it isn't wrong to do so, but it can be relied on when there are questions about the integrity of someone claiming that something with no proof, no evidence, and that is wholly impossible no matter what is done to attempt to duplicate the same events, happened. I ask you - which are you more likely to believe - that, because there is no reason to believe there are giant pink elephants, they don't exist, or that because there is no proof, they likely do?

Actually, saying I made my decision not to be gay at the beginning of time is like saying Luke lied about seeing Jesus. If I am not mistaken, you were not there.

But nor were you. You can't claim you did something before you existed - or I could claim that I was there, and you did no such thing. See where that gets you? Nowhere. Thing is, if I was there, though, then I'd believe, likely the same thing you did - but I wasn't there. You weren't there, either. And if we both were, then, at that point, I'd not be able to say that you didn't choose to be straight. I would also not be able to say that you did choose, either, because I can't see into your head. But this whole thing, too, is utterly ridiculous, because neither of us were there. If we bring it back to this lifetime (not that there were/are any others, as I see it), did you choose to be straight? From what you've said, no - because you try to argue that heterosexuality is genetic (which actually argues against your little hypothetical situation about before you were born, anyway), which means that you didn't choose it. I know I didn't choose to be bisexual - so where does that leave me? With exactly the same ability to say that homosexuality and bisexuality are, actually, as genetic as heterosexuality.

By this statement above, are you saying that homosexuality is not genetic then?

Um...what statement? And no, at no point have I said that I thought homosexuality to be anything but genetic. In other words, I think it genetic - why would I suggest otherwise, when it goes against what I think?

To question Luke is to speculate, as I have said in the previous few posts or so. So once again, you have provided no evidence whatsoever to prove how the Bible is not history.

And you have provided none to show that the Iliad is not history. Go on, do it, or you're stuck believing both the Bible and the Iliad are fully factual and accurate accounts.

And obviously you've assumed that because heterosexual couples perform anal sex it's okay, when I have already clarified it. Now when exactly did I say that homosexuality is about anal sex and that's it? Someone's assuming again.

Actually, I assume nothing - you are the one attempting to tell me that homosexuality is wrong based on the fact that anal sex can cause harm - which means that you're arguing against homosexuality with the use of something is done by straight couples and gay men, but not gay women. Straight people do it - so is being straight wrong? Lesbians don't do it - so gay women mustn't fall under the same categorisation as gay men and straight people, then. By your logic, straight couples and gay men are wrong, but lesbian women aren't - so how, exactly, does this come into an argument against homosexuality? It doesn't - all it does it show that you don't like people being free to engage in any kind of sex aside from vaginal. That's an entirely different debate, Sorovis.

Oh yes, I could infer from the fact that homosexuality occurs in animals naturally that it is genetic period. Of course none of that is ever mentioned, and animals behave quite differently than people.

Except that we are also animals; but regardless, that is not biased evidence stating that homosexuality is natural. It's fact.

You see, the Christian religion relies greatly on faith. There is evidence supporting it, but Jesus is not here today. This is very much different from one who started with ideas about homosexuality and then by evidence he found discovered that it was unnatural.

Please; what you're now doing is saying that Christianity is abandoned by some because it requires faith, and so it's different from someone becoming Christian based on evidence. All this does, however, is show that there really isn't enough evidence to convince the masses that Christianity is "right", and that in reality, the belief system is rather weak. But then, you've claimed the opposite on other occassions...so which is it?

Hey, I never said you weren't a polka-dotted hippo at one point, so let's not get started there. Perhaps the fact that one sexuality can reproduce is not enough to prove it is genetic? Like I've said, if there were specific reproductive organs for homosexuals, then I would reconsider.

You've totally ignored my presentation about Progeria, then. That's genetic, but it IS NOT PASSED ON FROM PARENT TO CHILD. Get it? It is genetic, but it is not inherited in the form of genes. It's a genetic mutation that doesn't affect the parent, just the child - i.e., the parent has no mutated gene, but the child affected does. Progeria children generally cannot reproduce, either, because they don't live long enough for their bodies to develop far enough (although, no doubt, there are cases of sufferers going through puberty extremely early, such as 5 or 6, as there are in populations of people unaffected by Progeria) - does that mean that their condition is not genetic? No, of course it doesn't. The claim is fallacious - and if you continue to push it, then you prove yourself lacking in knowledge about that which you speak.

And again, physical gender is determined by either an additional X chromosome, or a Y; psychological gender is not caused by these genes. Just because someone is physically a female doesn't mean they are mentally, nor a male a male - either could be the opposite gender mentally, or neuter, or hermaphroditic.

Tell me, what all events does the Iliad include the make it so unbelievable? I've never read it, so I have no way of knowing what exactly you refer to.

The appearance of the gods, for one thing. The fact that Achilles is the child of a Sea Goddess. The fact that it was a quarrel between three goddesses (Aphrodite, Athene, and Hera), caused by Eris, the goddess of Spite. The fact that the war is over Helen, the most beautiful woman in the whole world, and the daughter of Zeus and a mortal woman, Leda, to whom Zeus appeared as a swan and got her pregnant. If you believe the Bible, then you must believe these - could THEY not be miracles?!? I think perhaps they might be.

That last post just explained how you do not read things with an open mind. Let's all assume that all claims with evidence against homosexuality are skewed and useless. It just seems like that kind of day.

No, it seems like the only sites you can provide to say homosexuality is wrong are religious ones. In that case, they're already skewed and flawed because they are made by fundamentalists who believe it is wrong to begin with, which is bias.

You know, at some point when I was on this board as mewy2y whether you were there or not, I supported homosexuality despite the Bible. So I guess I all the sudden decided to abandon all of my preconceptions of matters and follow the Bible blindly without evidence.

And yet, strangely, your primary fallback is that the Bible says it's wrong - so when did you go from being against the Bible to a firm believer that all it says is true? And yes, I think you did do it blindly without evidence; otherwise, you'd be able to view homosexuality as you did being of a specific race, or Progeria, or something like that. But you can't - so I'm tempted to think, perhaps, that rather than looking at evidence without preconception, you looked at it with bias towards the Bible being correct. If you went from being so "against" the Bible, in your own current view, to believing that the Bible is infallible, then you wouldn't have arrived at that conclusion without thinking that the Bible is probably right to begin with.

Gee I wonder why there'd be a bit more history written for an earthly kind than an earthly carpenter. Is it really any wonder that the only people that said he performed miracles were his followers? The fact that people said he supposedly performed miracles is otherwise recorded.

So, really, the evidence is, again, biased. There is no actual proper evidence of any miracles, and the only ones saying there were any were those who wanted to add weight to their beliefs - otherwise, there is nothing to say they happened. No physical evidence, nothing. In that case, I'm going to say I can fly, and those who believe me will say I could fly, and even though there's no proof I can (I have no wings, you see, nor are there any photos), people all over the world should believe me, because, hey, they believed that Jesus could do things nobody else could, without the need for evidence, or anything! Cool.

Are you kidding me? Sorovis has presented more sites on the topic than everyone else combined has to the contrary. You call them biased, but it would seem that even biased evidence is better than you come up with.

Biased evidence is far worse, actually, because rather than say, "it might be this," it says, "look, we have SOME evidence, we've ignored other stuff, but we have SOME evidence, and it supports what we want it to!" I've given evidence about genetic inheritance, and how conditions don't have to be inherited from the parent, and how it could be genetic, and why they haven't found the genes, how it occurs in nature and is therefore natural - but what has Sorovis given? The Bible, which is not evidence more than it is a story; he's given nothing but Christian sites about why homosexuality is either wrong (which select which evidence to show), or should be discouraged (which starts off with the assumption that it is a choice and a wrong one at that) - so these don't count anyway.

Islam is based on a book by Muhammed which he wrote out of an alleged revelation. Course the book of 'revelation' is the same, but it's only one of 66 books of the Bible. Muhammed also didn't have something tangible to investigate. Luke was around to ask eye witnesses and several others about what happened. He states that he investigated the matters in his book. He believed what he wrote because he was around at the time of the miracles and could talk to people who saw them. Paul talked of some 500 people seeing Christ after he died. And, of course, there's always the matter of the empty tomb.

Eye witnesses who, like most people, would say what they would want someone else to hear. Luke was no authority; he had no power to say, "tell me the truth or go to jail," and he, like all "historians", would have selected which was and wasn't likely to have happened upon receiving such accounts. Herodotus was the only historian, really, who gave all of the stories - nobody else collected and gave all possibilities, but rather selected what they would have liked to have happened. You cannot say that Luke didn't do this - and it is highly likely he did. Now, there is also the reason why Luke may have chosen what he wrote - the best stories were more "awe-inspiring", right? Right; so they'd get more support if they could impress more people. It's called propaganda. Paul is the same - and the "empty tomb" thing is, again, only spoken of in the Bible, which is not a history, but a story.

Not quite. I didn't say the Trojan War was made up, but I did call the Illiad fiction. In a war movie, the specific characters and specific events are made up. Heck, even in The Great Escape (excellent film) where the story line was real and the numbers were historically accurate, the characters were still fiction. It was still dramatized and fictitious.

And I don't claim that the Canaanites are made up - but I do call the Bible fiction. See how unreliable claiming the Bible to be true while discounting something with as much evidence in it as false is? Sure, in a war movie the characters are made up; so too might be every specific person in the Bible. So too might the specific events in the Bible. The story line may have aspects of reality (i.e., Canaan), but the story itself might not be real. The characters are still viction. It is still dramatised and fictitious.

Actually, I don't call fact the movies that are made about the Bible to entertain. Every last one of them is flawed. Even the Passion which I consider to be the greatest Bible film of all time. Or at least there's unbiblical stuff in there.

So you see the problem - you think they contain "fact", but you don't think they are fact. The Bible contains fact, but is not in itself factual. Nor is the Iliad, though it contains fact, too. See the point?

i'm a classics major. i know this stuff. you can't compare the iliad to the bible. it's as simple as that.

Wow, so am I. You can compare the Iliad to the Bible in terms of how fictional they are, given the evidence. The only thing that stands in some people's way is that nobody believes in the Iliad as being true anymore, but many do the Bible - so they automatically think that you can't just dismiss the Bible as fiction, but you can the Iliad. However, looking at both in the light that they're just stories, they are indeed comparable - both have aspects of "divine beings", both have "miracles", both have proponents (in the relevant eras), both have historical accuracy - the list goes on. Regarding one as fiction and one as not is what happens when you believe in one, and not the other, rather than seeing them both as mere mythology.

uh...the iliad started out as entertainment. the bards would walk around with their lyres and entertain the masses by playing the lyre and singing about the trojan war. you're dead wrong here.

No, the Iliad began as an account of an event believed to have happened by the Greeks; Homer was the one attributed to composing the version we have today, and this was used as entertainment - but it was entertainment after it was history to the Greeks.

[Pokemaster Matt]

Sorovis has presented more sites on the topic than everyone else combined has to the contrary.

And which one was it that proved that homosexuality wasn't genetic?
Oh..Wait...

[Green_Pikachu]

Damian, it IS oral tradition, but oral tradition passed down as a story. it's not like people would tell each other the story, and then one person would be like, "no, no, this is how it happened." the stories got altered as they were passed down over the yeras. bards would perform, and then the people would recollect what they remembered, and try to perform it later on. it was never purely for history's sake. it was ALWAYS for the intent of having fun.

[Green_Pikachu]

Wow, so am I. You can compare the Iliad to the Bible in terms of how fictional they are, given the evidence. The only thing that stands in some people's way is that nobody believes in the Iliad as being true anymore, but many do the Bible - so they automatically think that you can't just dismiss the Bible as fiction, but you can the Iliad. However, looking at both in the light that they're just stories, they are indeed comparable - both have aspects of "divine beings", both have "miracles", both have proponents (in the relevant eras), both have historical accuracy - the list goes on. Regarding one as fiction and one as not is what happens when you believe in one, and not the other, rather than seeing them both as mere mythology.

No, the Iliad began as an account of an event believed to have happened by the Greeks; Homer was the one attributed to composing the version we have today, and this was used as entertainment - but it was entertainment after it was history to the Greeks.

nope. you can't compare them. one was solely started for means of a religious text. the iliad was never intended to be a religious text. i agree they are both fiction, but the point i was arguing was whoever the hell said you can compare them because they are both religious texts, which they are not. I don't know why you're arguing against me, considering i'm on your side, but if you want to waste your breath arguing the wrong thing, by all means, go for it.

yes, the people believed it happened. that doesn't make it's sole purpose to be history. when you tell your friends a really cool story that happened to you like a week ago, like a run-in with the cops or something, or how you got in a fight and beat some kid up, you're not telling it to preserve every single historical detail; instead you're telling them for the sheer enjoyment of the story. the Iliad was NEVER meant to be a religious text. it was oral tradition. the Bible, even though I think it's a big piece of crap, IS a religious text. You CAN compare the bible to such things as the Koran, or the Bhagvad Gita, or whatever the hell else religiousn texts there are. The Iliad is epic poetry. you can compare that type of thing to Beowulf, Gilgamesh, etc. Sure, it and the bible are both fiction, but i'm looking from the standpoint of religious text. vs. non-religious text, and just because some of the Greek gods appear in the story doesn't make it a religious text.

[Damian Silverblade]

And you seriously think the hebrew oral tradition was much better?

The fact that it didn't have history as its *sole* purpose is a smoke screen thrown up in an attempt to creat artificial divides between the two. Very little had history as its sole purpose back in the last millenium BC, at least up until the Chinesse and Greek historians (5th bc) began showing up and recording recent events based on eyewitness reports and official (written) archives.

The thing with the Bible which you don't seem to grasp is that it's a *lot* of things at once, *not* just a religious text. It not only explains the myths of the Hebrew people, but it also details their history (at least the history they believed in) from top to bottom.

Looking at it from the standpoint of traditional history vs traditional history (even if it wasn't their whole purpose, THEY STILL REPRESENT THE HISTORY THE GREEKS AND HEBREWS BELIEVED IN BY ORAL TRADITION), it's a perfectly valid comparison.

I don't know why you can't seem to get that one book may be considered from more than one, narrow angle.

[Green_Pikachu]

oh dear lord. i don't understand how you can be so dumb. you're not even arguing anything relevant. the Iliad is not a religious text. it doesn't teach us how to live our lives. It's an epic poem about achilles wrath. the bible is a religious text. it has stupid, pointless prophecies and crap. it has some guy named jesus, who tells us how to live our lives, and yeah, i think the bible is worthless, but it is a RELIGIOUS TEXT. the iliad is NOT A RELIGIOUS TEXT. therefore, you cannot compare the two. yes, they are fictitious, but so are a lot of things. that doesn't mean they are comparable.

[Damian Silverblade]

AND THAT'S COMPLETELY BESIDES THE ****ING POINT.

The point is that while one of them is epic poetry and the other religious, they BOTH represent how the oral tradition of the jews and greek viewed their past, ie their history.

NO ONE's claiming the Illiad is religious OR that the Bible isn't. The claim being made here - which is FULLY subtantiated - is that BOTH of them are representative of the local historical traditions ; ie what the people of Greece and Israel believed had happened in their past. That said historical tradition was preserved for entertainment or religious purpose is patentedly irrelevant ; they still both represent what people believed in history-wise.

Given that history for history's sake only began to show up around the 5-4th centuries BC in Greece and around the same time in China, written down oral tradition (REGARDLESS of the primary purpose of its recording) is ALL we have for historical traditions before that (and after that for many parts of the world) in most of the world (Mesopotamia, Egypt had recorded decrees and such which we can still refer back to).

If we start disregarding their value on the historical level "because that's not what they were written for", then we're left with NOTHING as far as records of historical text go. Of course this does not mean they should be taken at face value for history when they make doubtful claims, EITHER of them - they had openly avowed agenda which were not historical - but it does mean that to reject them entirely leave us with no history to write outside Egypt and Mesopotamia (and there based almost solely on royal decrees and such) prior to the 5th century BC or so.

[Green_Pikachu]

well, i never said that wasn't true. we've been debating two totally different things the entire time.

[Damian Silverblade]

Yeah, that's what it seems like to me too.

So, to recap for agreement's sake.

-The Illiad is NOT a religious text.
-The Illiad WAS meant for entertainment.
-The Illiad DOES represent the common historical tradition the early greeks believed in).

-The Bible IS a religious text.
-The Bible WAS NOT meant for entertainment.
-The Bible DOES represent the common historical tradition the hebrews believed in.

Meaning that while they cannot be compared on point 1 and 2, their value in regard to history and historical tradition can be compared.

Incidentally, when I say Illiad I mean Illiad, not the Illiad and Odyssey taken together. Odyssey is a work of far less historical interest because it is focused on one man, mostly alone whereas the Illiad, while it is focused on Achilles, also tell the tale of the Greeks' war on Troy.

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

Point : Acts and 2 Corinthian evidence that Paul was sent to Damascus to "arrest christians" under the authority of the jewish high priests.

Problem : Damascus was a non-Jewish town in Syria, a province well outside the authority both of the Jewish high priests and the governor of Judaea. The high priest's authority in matters of arresting people here was virtually inexistant. To suggest that he was able to send a bunch of thugs there to arrest citizens and haul them back to a completely different province for judgement is simply ludicrous.

Question : How does the story add up, then?

[Crazy]

Why are there so many replies? I mean sure this is a "issue" but there are bigger. All these people are doing now is repeating themselves. Hmmmm this topic is now boring wish someone would close it.

[Green_Pikachu]

hmm...sure wish you would not spam and make yourself look like a moron.

and yes, damian silverblade, and i agree with everyone in your post.

[The Rusted One]

Green_Pikachu - we aren't comparing the Bible to the Iliad in terms of literary substance, no - and in this aspect they are not comparable because one was entertainment and one wasn't. However, I've never said that one was comparable to the other in this fashion; I said that both are religious beliefs, which were believed to be true - and each had accuracies, flaws, and each told some kind of story. One, however, is not believed in anymore - but it is not because it is entertainment - it is rather based on what it actually says...but then, what it says bears striking resemblence in terms of substance to what the Bible says, and yet the Bible is believed to be utter fact. That's where the comparison lies - there is no reason to believe the Bible over what the Iliad says (or, the story that the Iliad is based on says).

Sure, it and the bible are both fiction, but i'm looking from the standpoint of religious text. vs. non-religious text, and just because some of the Greek gods appear in the story doesn't make it a religious text.

But we aren't comparing it in terms of what form it comes in - we are comparing what it says. Whether or not it is a religious text or epic poetry, it still reflects the beliefs and communicates the religious traditions of the people concerned. Both are based on religion. Just because one is purposely religious and the other is based on religion doesn't change the fact that both are comparable on subject matter.

Now, yes, Crazy, it is true that most people are just repeating themselves (in fact, I think we all are), and that I am personally tired of doing so, but that doesn't mean you are entitled to come in here and spam without actually adding to the thread itself.

On a related note, who wants me just to close this and be done with it rather than continue restating in slightly different words the same messages?

[Pokemaster Matt]

Do it. We're so far off the damn topic anyway.

[Damian Silverblade]

I'd vote against it because I don't think the historical part of the debate is over.

Or at least split it off to another topic (the historical debate on the bible).

[GupLoaf]

I'd like to get my two cents in before it's closed... since I've just come across this for the first time.

I didn't get a chance to read everyone's replies as I don't really have the time & energy to read all 47 pages of posts, so if I'm completely off where this topic has gone I apologize.

I am actually "gay." I've never been promiscuous in the greatest sense of the word nor do I have any desire to have what was previously refered to as "butt-sex." I believe in monogamy & I have a great distaste for those who need to make a huge statement about their sexuality.

Too many gay people think that being gay is who they are & that they need to have parades, & "pride," & rainbow bumper stickers, & go to all these gay events. Gay people as a whole complain that they don't have equal rights, yet they've become their own worst enemies by seperating themselves from the rest of society. Yeah, I'm gay, but I refuse to participate in any parades or other segrated gatherings. For example, someone here made reference to gay mardi gras. Why must there be a seperate mardi gras for gay people in the first place, straight people don't ban us from the regular mardi gras, I mean it's mardi gras... not "straight mardi gras."

I mean, If I were a straight couple who's only exposure to gay people was watching the gay pride parade, where men dance in leather thongs & have circle jerks on the damn street side, or watching shows like Queer As Folk, where the general past time is to throw monogamy & love to the wind & have wild orgies & anonymous sex in the backroom of a club, then I would be outraged as well to have my child come home with a book about gay relationships. I wouldn't understand how that is normal.

I can't stand those gays that refer to straight people as "breeders" or use the term "family" when refering to those that are gay. My family consists of straight people who love me & have seen me through tough times... they're more than "breeders" & they are my family, you can't take such an important word & staple it to me because I'm a fellow homosexual.

It's the small percentage of gays who don't flaunt their sexuality that I can respect. The ones that realize as I did that being gay is not who you are it's simply a small part of you that you have to accept about yourself. I'm simply a man who can fall in love with another man. It was not a choice I was given, it's not a "preference" that I decided I wanted to partake in... it's a part of me that I had to accept that I couldn't change, but it doesn't make up who or what I am.

Regardless, many strong religious views can make even the most normal of us be seen as horrible. This applies to straight & gay people. No one can ever be as perfect as religious text would lead us to believe we need to be. If God exists, then he made me the way I am for a reason & if he's so loving & merciful than he wouldn't have made me this way just so I could be treated like I'm less of a human being than anyone else. I learned an amazing thing from my grandfather who passed on three years ago. He made me promise... straight, gay, or anything else I could be... that I would never apologize for truly loving someone because there's nothing more wrong than regretting caring about someone.

Anyway... I'm aware that I just rambled on, but like I said... I can understand why parents could react that way even though there's nothing wrong with being gay.

As far as the book being available at school, I don't see anything necessarily wrong with that. As a first grader I shared a library with kids all the way up to 4th grade & I was allowed to choose any book I wanted to check out & take home. If the girl wanted to take this book home & read it, then she should be able to read it... no one forced her to check the book out & hearing about two people fall in love & share a simple kiss is no more traumatizing if it were two males, two females, or a male & female.

If the parents see this as something they don't want their child exposed to then they have every right to pull their child out of the school & go somewhere else, but they have no right to change or decide what's acceptable for every other child in that school to be exposed to.

Thanks for letting me chime in my ridiculously lengthy thoughts... it's much appreciated!

[Kris]

Jumploaf I just wanted to comment on one of your points you made.

I agree with the parades and such forth, why do they ahve gay parades? Its not like we have straight parades (we dont do we??).

Cant gay people be treated like the rest of us?

[GupLoaf]

Exactly!

As far as I know there aren't any straight parades, which is exactly why there shouldn't be a gay one. Equality would mean that there'd need to be a straight flag, a straight parade, etc.

The only way I'm ever going to a gay parade is if there's a suddenly a straight one & even then I'd probably go the straight one to support my straight friends. It's funny too... I don't really have any gay friends since they think I'm "too straight" or that I'm working against "the cause."

Truth is, we probably wouldn't have half the trouble we do being accepted if we just acted like a part of society instead of always making a scene (which is why I think there's a gay parade to begin with... to make some sort of scene about it so that we're up in people's faces. I just wanna tell all of these people to chill out).

[achooxp]

Disclaimer: from a liberal Christian standpoint

Okay, firstly let me get this out: I am not anti-homosexual. No, I don't think you're going to hell if you're homosexual. I will stand up for the homosexual, not the basher. The second most important commandment is love thy neighbor as thyself, after all. However, I do not think that homosexuality is something to be encouraged in the child. If it happens, it happens, and hey! we're all still human!

But I do not think homosexuality is God's design, though you could make the argument that rats in tight populations develop homosexual tendencies and perhaps homosexuality is a nature's attempt to curb overpopulation. However, I personally believe that homosexuality is more a matter of nurture than of nature.

At a young age, kids are very impressionable. Given that I do place great value in the nuclear family, ideally all people would eventually create their own nuclear family. Homosexuality does not create a nuclear family. Therefore I do not personally approve of the book.

However, in the American context, there exists freedom of speech and of the press. That book has every right to be there and the parents have every right to complain.

So in conclusion, I guess I would side with the school legally but with the parents morally. And then again, I think the parents are a bit WAY too conservative. I'm torn.

[Sorovis]

The Rusted One: And once again I bring to point out that damage can occur anywhere on the body; like that hammer to the head. One place is designed for intercourse, the others are not.

Fine, then continue to quote. It doesn't hurt me.

So what unbiased evidence are you referring to now? The stuff you haven't posted?

So how do you know, exactly, what regions of the brain change in mass and which do not?

That logic you used on homosexuals being double the sinners, now that does not make sense. Look at it like this: a sinner is a sinner, a non-sinner is not. There's the difference; there is no in between. So why is homosexuality a sin? Because it is harmful to both people, psychologically and physically.

You would not be the one to accuse me of saying something is true because I 'say so'. After all, of the few credible debators here, you have posted the least evidence towards your case, instead trusting me to rely on what you say.

Here, let me give you the shortened version: Humans sin, sin seperates us from God, Jesus came and payed for our sins with his death, now even though we sin we can enter Heaven and reach God through Jesus. Sins yield earthly consequences, so that is why murder, for example is bad.

So homosexuality occurs in some animals naturally, and that is all you need. Unless you want to sit here and resume the argument of why animals are different than humans, than that does not help you at all.

Looking below, I see Checkmate has answered what needs to be answered. If I missed something you posted, than repost it please (I'll try and quote it).

[GupLoaf]

This is not a post to bash anyone here, I just want to state some more thoughts that came to my head after reading the past 2 posts. I need to make it clear that I do respect others' opinions & no person has to agree with homosexuality on any level if that person so chooses & it does not make them a horrible person or ignorant... it's simply their opinion on the matter.

The only people worth changing are the ones that would hurt the others or disrupt their lives for existing (the so called "bashers"). I have someone in my life I love greatly & have a very happy relationship with. We do not have anal sex (not that I think it's wrong as I have plenty of friends in straight relationships that love to do that, I just have no interest in it) nor do we force our views on anyone else. If someone doesn't like that I love another man they don't have to, & they don't have to associate with me, but I just don't need anyone making derogatory comments or trying to hurt me & my loved ones because it's unnecessary & I would not do that to someone else no matter what the issue.

Many assume that gays are pedophiles or obsessed with sodomy or complete sluts... & yes, while there are those types out there (gay & straight alike), a good chunk of us just want to live a normal life that doesn't put ourselves in someone's face or any sort of limelight. I just think respect for others is key whether it's their race or religion or sexuality or any other issue. So those that disagree with homosexuality shouldn't be told to change just as those that do have to deal with it shouldn't be either.

If I'm happy & my b/f is happy & the people that choose to be in my life love me & respect me, then I am not hurting anyone & I just want to do all the things in life that I would if I were straight except I want the partner I share these things with to be a man.

I used to pray to God that he would change me or that it would all just go away & I could be "normal" & I attempted suicide over it because I couldn't deal anymore. Well, he/ she/ it answered my prayers in the form of someone who said to me something that I will carry with me forever... "Whatever the reason, you're gay whether you like it or not. You can keep trying to change yourself & eventually let it destroy you or you can stand up, be a man, & accept that this is something you're strong enough to handle."

Anyway... I believe I've rambled yet again... I just wanted to make it clear that all the people out there whether they agree with homosexuality or not are entitiled to their opinions & I have respect for them even if their views clash with my own.

[Checkmate]

Actually, by saying that they are sinners on top of them being human (which apparently makes them sinners anyway), you're doubling the amount that they sin by. In other words, you're saying that they're worse. And, since when is it a sin? Since you decided. Why don't you think prejudice is a sin? Because you are guilty of it? Must be. They're not hurting anyone, and they're not forcing something on someone unwilling - so how is a man loving a man, or a woman loving a woman, a sin?

I hope that made more sense in your head than it does on your post. I'm a human sinner, too. What I'm debating here is that homosexuality is a sin. Now, as I posted at least 10 pages ago I wasn't going to respond to any posts that called Sorovis and I prejudice or anything else like that. In your case, I'm making an exception. Where have I once downed on homosexuals? It's like a good acquaintance I have. He's an atheist. I'm a strong Christian. We each believe the other is wrong yet we still talk and work together quite well. His atheism is part of who he is, but that doesn't mean I can't be his friend.

So now you're going to claim that they don't go to Hell, and so they don't actually "hurt themselves"? Why, then, should you be attempting to prove that they're doing wrong if they don't actually come out any worse than you do in the end, if what you say is to be believed?

Oh dear. This is getting annoying. All unrepenting sinners go to hell. If you weren't a homosexual (or more specifically in TRO's case bisexual) you'd still go to hell for all of your other sins.

Here's Christianity in a nutshell.

God created us in the beginning to be with him. My personal outlook on this is that God wanted to have kids. But he gave us free will and choice because he loved us. He didn't want us to be like the angels he created. (heavenly robots) He wante us to follow him out of his own free will. Eventhough, he knew we wouldn't. Which leads me to the second point.

Our sins seperated us from God. As soon as the apple was eaten there was sin. A void between man and God.

The BIble says numerous times that we are saved by grace and not good deeds. Good deeds are like icing on a burnt cake. They don't change the fact that they cake is burnt.

(skipping the OT) Jesus came to save us from our sins. He asks us to a) admit we're sinners b) believe in him for salvation and c) repent or turn from our sins. It's called the sinner's prayer. Does this mean Christians will never agian sin? No, it goes back to the robot thing. The whole thing is faith based. So he still doesn't infinitely open our knowledge. And human faith still fails, but we have the power throught Jesus Christ to overcome sin.

Any one who trusts in Christ (sincerely says the sinner's prayer) is guarnteed life in heaven. Here's why. The blood of Jesus on the cross covers up our sins. He's the ultimate sacrificial lamb to cover up all the sins of all time for any who ask. This basically makes you perfect before God and perfection is the standard for entering into eternal heaven.

Anyone feel more than happy to PM me on this topic.

Please; what you're now doing is saying that Christianity is abandoned by some because it requires faith, and so it's different from someone becoming Christian based on evidence. All this does, however, is show that there really isn't enough evidence to convince the masses that Christianity is "right", and that in reality, the belief system is rather weak. But then, you've claimed the opposite on other occassions...so which is it?

You make it seem that faith and evidence are contradictory terms. They certainly are not. (faith, btw is not to be misconstrued as being synonomous w/ blind faith)

In couples ice-skating men and women do many stunts that involve the man holding the woman in several dangerous positions. Should he stumble and drop her she could sometimes get a blade to the face. However, she trusts him that he will not drop her. This is because they've skated together for years and the man has not once messed up. That's faith, but it's not the same as the woman picking the first guy she sees to skate with. To a certain degree Christianity requires faith, but it certainly offers evidence and a whole lot of other things to give it distinction over other religions.

So, really, the evidence is, again, biased. There is no actual proper evidence of any miracles, and the only ones saying there were any were those who wanted to add weight to their beliefs - otherwise, there is nothing to say they happened. No physical evidence, nothing. In that case, I'm going to say I can fly, and those who believe me will say I could fly, and even though there's no proof I can (I have no wings, you see, nor are there any photos), people all over the world should believe me, because, hey, they believed that Jesus could do things nobody else could, without the need for evidence, or anything! Cool.

If you're going to tell me you can fly I will believe you when you either fly, or at least when you display evidence of having wings that could mathematically state that you have flying capabilities.
Here's what I call sound evidence. Four men, wrote about Jesus. To my knowledge (I could be mistaken) they did not write their books in collaboration with each other. Yet they wrote about a lot of the same things in almost exact agreement. While it's possible that each one of them could have believed they were the only one writing a book about it. That I find interesting.
I also find it logical that a person who has everything to gain and a lot to lose by writing something has little reason to write anything but the truth. Most jurors would agree with me. I find these things to be common sense. If I were to say 'I'm going to go to New Zealand kill any flying humans with torturous methods' you'd be much less likely to claim you can fly. Even less likely would be three of your friends claiming that you can fly and getting tortured to death for said statement.
It's possible that you could be insane and not truely understand the consequences of your actions. However, it's unlikely that you and your friends are all insane.

Eye witnesses who, like most people, would say what they would want someone else to hear. Luke was no authority; he had no power to say, "tell me the truth or go to jail," and he, like all "historians", would have selected which was and wasn't likely to have happened upon receiving such accounts. Herodotus was the only historian, really, who gave all of the stories - nobody else collected and gave all possibilities, but rather selected what they would have liked to have happened. You cannot say that Luke didn't do this

Actually, I can. The only way Luke could have done this amid all the persections were if he were crazy or determined to tell the truth. He certainly wouldn't die for a lie. And I think the idea of the other twelve disciples (including Paul excluding Judas) and Mark having the same insanity are not reasonable odds for consideration.

Now, there is also the reason why Luke may have chosen what he wrote - the best stories were more "awe-inspiring", right? Right; so they'd get more support if they could impress more people. [/QUOTE]

They also got him killed.

Paul is the same

something we agree on.

and the "empty tomb" thing is, again, only spoken of in the Bible, which is not a history, but a story.

Actually a person can visit the empty tomb. Believe me it's empty. This only leads to the question of how it got that way.

And I don't claim that the Canaanites are made up - but I do call the Bible fiction. See how unreliable claiming the Bible to be true while discounting something with as much evidence in it as false is? Sure, in a war movie the characters are made up; so too might be every specific person in the Bible. So too might the specific events in the Bible. The story line may have aspects of reality (i.e., Canaan), but the story itself might not be real. The characters are still viction. It is still dramatised and fictitious.

As either you yourself or Damian said, there are outside records of King David. I heard from my fourth grade (public school) teacher that Moses is in Egyptian history. Jesus certainly existed, based on outside sources such as (but not limited to) Josephus.

You can compare the Iliad to the Bible in terms of how fictional they are, given the evidence. The only thing that stands in some people's way is that nobody believes in the Iliad as being true anymore, but many do the Bible - so they automatically think that you can't just dismiss the Bible as fiction, but you can the Iliad. However, looking at both in the light that they're just stories, they are indeed comparable - both have aspects of "divine beings", both have "miracles", both have proponents (in the relevant eras), both have historical accuracy - the list goes on. Regarding one as fiction and one as not is what happens when you believe in one, and not the other, rather than seeing them both as mere mythology.

I'm fairly confident that if the Iliad was a religious base I'd have an easier time finding flaws in it than you all have of the Bible. They're not just stories. That statement, to me, seems ignorant of my debate with Damian even he admitted that the Bible was at the very least, not intentional fiction.

Btw this is one of those cases where I replied without reading any further. I won't be on much because I need to keep my phoneline clear. Sorry I can't talk to you Damian. I'll continue when possible, but we both know you were winning anyway.

[Sorovis]

Jumploaf: This is my first time using quotes so bear with me here

This is not a post to bash anyone here, I just want to state some more thoughts that came to my head after reading the past 2 posts. I need to make it clear that I do respect others' opinions & no person has to agree with homosexuality on any level if that person so chooses & it does not make them a horrible person or ignorant... it's simply their opinion on the matter.

No problem, I'm just now reading this so if you thought I might have said something about you in one of my posts, I did not.

The only people worth changing are the ones that would hurt the others or disrupt their lives for existing (the so called "bashers"). I have someone in my life I love greatly & have a very happy relationship with. We do not have anal sex (not that I think it's wrong as I have plenty of friends in straight relationships that love to do that, I just have no interest in it) nor do we force our views on anyone else. If someone doesn't like that I love another man they don't have to, & they don't have to associate with me, but I just don't need anyone making derogatory comments or trying to hurt me & my loved ones because it's unnecessary & I would not do that to someone else no matter what the issue.

I'll make sure to say it again so you see it: I'm not going to tell you to change, I'm just saying I think homosexuality is wrong, and obviously you don't have to heed what I say.

Many assume that gays are pedophiles or obsessed with sodomy or complete sluts... & yes, while there are those types out there (gay & straight alike), a good chunk of us just want to live a normal life that doesn't put ourselves in someone's face or any sort of limelight. I just think respect for others is key whether it's their race or religion or sexuality or any other issue. So those that disagree with homosexuality shouldn't be told to change just as those that do have to deal with it shouldn't be either.

If I'm happy & my b/f is happy & the people that choose to be in my life love me & respect me, then I am not hurting anyone & I just want to do all the things in life that I would if I were straight except I want the partner I share these things with to be a man.

I used to pray to God that he would change me or that it would all just go away & I could be "normal" & I attempted suicide over it because I couldn't deal anymore. Well, he/ she/ it answered my prayers in the form of someone who said to me something that I will carry with me forever... "Whatever the reason, you're gay whether you like it or not. You can keep trying to change yourself & eventually let it destroy you or you can stand up, be a man, & accept that this is something you're strong enough to handle."

Anyway... I believe I've rambled yet again... I just wanted to make it clear that all the people out there whether they agree with homosexuality or not are entitiled to their opinions & I have respect for them even if their views clash with my own.

That's alright with me although we disagree on these issues.

[GupLoaf]

I appreciate the responses, Sorovis... you understand the point of it all... doesn't really matter who's "right" or "wrong" it's all about respecting each other's opinions. I was sure none of the original post above was directed at me, you just made me think about even more things I just wanted to spill outta my head. It's nice (& educational) to talk to people who's viewpoints differ from my own & seriously think about what they have to say.

[The Rusted One]

Disclaimer: from a liberal Christian standpoint

Okay, firstly let me get this out: I am not anti-homosexual. No, I don't think you're going to hell if you're homosexual. I will stand up for the homosexual, not the basher. The second most important commandment is love thy neighbor as thyself, after all. However, I do not think that homosexuality is something to be encouraged in the child. If it happens, it happens, and hey! we're all still human!

Homosexuality shouldn't be "encouraged", no - but nor should heterosexuality, or bisexuality, because the child is the one who will suffer from such expectations to fulfil the encouraged mould if they don't quite fit it. No sexual orientation should be encouraged above another.

At a young age, kids are very impressionable. Given that I do place great value in the nuclear family, ideally all people would eventually create their own nuclear family. Homosexuality does not create a nuclear family. Therefore I do not personally approve of the book.

How, exactly, is a child so impressionable that they will be gay when nobody they know will be? How is a child so impressionable that a book will affect sexual orientation? True, some kids get it into their heads that they can fly after being convinced they can by outside media - but that doesn't actually mean they can fly. The same is true of being gay (it's a bad analogy) - a child won't be "turned" gay because there's a book that has gay people in it - I was never turned "straight" despite the under-representation of homosexuality in the media I ws exposed to as a child, and a friend of mine who is "strictly" gay is the same.

Besides which, there can, indeed, be a nuclear family with both parents being of the same gender; there is no need for a male and a female "authority" figure, and it is only people who can think of no other argument that say that there is.

The Rusted One: And once again I bring to point out that damage can occur anywhere on the body; like that hammer to the head. One place is designed for intercourse, the others are not.

No, one place is "designed" for sexual reproduction. Vaginal intercourse is a part of sexual reproduction, in a biological sense - it is not, on its own, purely for that, though. The only reason why vaginal intercourse happens outside the "bounds" of reproduction is because it feels good - but so does, for those who wish to engage in it, anal sex, or oral sex, and the list goes on. There is no more natural place than any other in terms of sexual gratification; otherwise, you could argue that, because water is the least damaging of most liquids we consume, it's more "natural" for us to ingest it, and it is what we are "meant" to do. All other beverages are "unnatural" because we aren't adapted to dealing with the chemicals within them as well as we can with water. Such a comment, though, is stupid, because we aren't "designed" to drink water anymore than we are "designed" to drink coffee, or tea, or Diet Coke (and note I don't think we're "designed" at all).

Fine, then continue to quote. It doesn't hurt me.

No, but it does mean that I deal with all your points...

So what unbiased evidence are you referring to now? The stuff you haven't posted?

You read the one concerning Progeria, right - I wasn't using it to say homosexuality was "right", but that it was likely natural, and could be caused by the same things. The table concerning the instances of homosexual behaviour in animals, too. If you have supplied websites divorced from claims that one particular study that concluded that there was no homosexual gene at Site A on Chromosome 21, for instance, meant that homosexuality wasn't natural and was therefore a sin, or immoral, then perhaps you, too, would be able to say that you haven't given biased material. But you can't, because all of the sites you've linked to have started out under the assumption that homosexuality was wrong (and, I note, at least 99.9% of those sites were Christian, with a 0.1% margin of error) and immoral, and have attempted to twist any evidence that they did have (which was almost, if not wholly, nil anyway) around to support their claims. That's biased.

So how do you know, exactly, what regions of the brain change in mass and which do not?

I don't for sure; my knowledge of the brain, however, is that unless all regions maintain approximately the same size until adulthood is reached, then some will either be smaller than usual, due to lack of space, while others are larger, or the size and shape of the skull would have to change. Something like the Hypothalamus, for instance, will not grow larger, because its function is to do with hormone production, and it is large enough already for sufficient amounts of hormones to be produced. Something like that lymbic system, which the hypothalamus is attached to, also, would not grow, because there is no emotional state that causes brain growth or shrinkage (and the lymbic system is to do with emotion). If one did grow larger than normal, and then shrink again, you'd see its effects - that being, one part of the brain would be squashed or degenerate due to lack of space and excess of pressure, and this would lead to it being underdeveloped (we see this in brain tumour patients - the cancer places pressure and stress on other parts of the brain, and they must either shrink, or the pressure causes the loss of bodily function or mental capacity, etc., etc.) - and after this, that area of the brain would not just "spring" back into its usual state of being. There are no foldaway parts of the brain; that's why when the brain swells, it causes brain damage, leading to things such as memory loss (severe in some cases, with the memory being limited to only a few seconds in relation to certain things not done through routine) because portions of the brain have been damaged.

That logic you used on homosexuals being double the sinners, now that does not make sense. Look at it like this: a sinner is a sinner, a non-sinner is not. There's the difference; there is no in between. So why is homosexuality a sin? Because it is harmful to both people, psychologically and physically.

So, really, you don't really stand by your argument that homosexuality is a "sin" anyway - because no matter what, the person is a "sinner", and nothing can make them more or less one. You shoot yourself in the foot with that. Why argue against homosexuality and proclaim it a sin when it is no more a sin than heterosexuality and has no effect whatsoever on the person themselves?

And also, for the third time you've claimed that homosexuality causes psychological damage, but have provided no evidence. Do so, or stop making the claim, or else I will begin claiming that your particular brand of Christianity causes mental retardation. Not only this, but no, homosexuality does not cause physical harm anymore than heterosexuality - the only way you could possibly say this is if you were somehow under the impression that anal sex was gay sex, which it is not.

You would not be the one to accuse me of saying something is true because I 'say so'. After all, of the few credible debators here, you have posted the least evidence towards your case, instead trusting me to rely on what you say.

I trust you to rely on what I say of myself, because I'm the only one who knows. You, on the other hand, have taken it upon yourself to tell me that you know me better - and have attempted to justify that claim by formulating all you can from debunked and unsupported theories - such as the, "all homosexual people choose to be gay", and, "all homosexual people were abused as children" (both of which rely, strangely enough, on the claim that it's just that the person affected can't remember any of it - what a way to argue).

Aside from that, I have posted evidence on how homosexual may be genetic, how your claims that it isn't aren't actually anymore than opinion (and unsupported opinion), how homosexuality occurs naturally in the wild and is possibly so in our species, too, how it has occured throughout history...no, I've posted so little evidence, haven't I? Thing is, also, all of the evidence that you believe to support your claims that homosexuality is wrong don't actually do so - at best all they do is say, "well, it may not be naturally occuring" (which is, it seems, the least likely of all the possibilities anyway), which is not, "it doesn't occur naturally and is therefore wrong." You have to rely on the Bible for that one, don't you? Do you also listen to St. Paul, I think it is, who said that it's immoral for a man to dress in women's clothing, and vice-versa?

Here, let me give you the shortened version: Humans sin, sin seperates us from God, Jesus came and payed for our sins with his death, now even though we sin we can enter Heaven and reach God through Jesus. Sins yield earthly consequences, so that is why murder, for example is bad.

But again you take your religion to be right above all others. It's true that I believe myself to be right, but I'm not pushing my own set of morals and saying that they're absolute, as you are - all I'm doing is saying that morals are subjective, and a human invention, and the only constant moral there is is that it is bad to cause harm to another person against their will (physically, mentally, etc.). I don't share your religious beliefs, and I don't share your belief-born prejudices; so trying to use the Bible to argue for you is about as useless as using the story in a Dr. Seuss book to explain how gravity works.

So homosexuality occurs in some animals naturally, and that is all you need. Unless you want to sit here and resume the argument of why animals are different than humans, than that does not help you at all.

Wrong. Homosexuality occurs naturally in animals. So does heterosexuality. If you don't want to admit there's a possibility that homosexuality occurs naturally in humans, given the evidence we have from other species, then you can't purport that heterosexuality does, either.

The only reason it doesn't help is because you like to have your cake and eat it, too, rather than realise that once you've eaten your cake, you don't have it anymore.

And if the analogy's too obscure, I'll explain it.

However, for all this debating we've done, I do understand that it's your opinion that homosexuality is wrong; and while I don't think you've justified that, it is your opinion, and I respect that you have one different from mine. Now, like I've said, you can't claim to be qualified to tell me what I'm like, what I know about myself, and everything, and so you shouldn't try - but I can't stop you thinking what you want to think, even if I know that you don't actually have the right idea. I suppose it would be difficult for you to understand something you have no personal knowledge of, but I don't regard that as reason for you to claim the ability to tell me what is and what isn't about me and who and what I am or am not - and I certainly don't see your claims that homosexuality should be illegal as justified in anyway.

Now, given that, would it be worth the effort for either of us to continue, of should we just leave it? I won't decide, I'll leave that up to you; if you can't be bothered, then nor can I (because, as I've said, it does take a lot of effort to rephrase the same message over and over again) - and in that case, the above paragraph will be my closing statement. However, if you wish to continue, then I don't have a huge problem with doing so, either. So, what say you?

I hope that made more sense in your head than it does on your post. I'm a human sinner, too. What I'm debating here is that homosexuality is a sin. Now, as I posted at least 10 pages ago I wasn't going to respond to any posts that called Sorovis and I prejudice or anything else like that. In your case, I'm making an exception. Where have I once downed on homosexuals? It's like a good acquaintance I have. He's an atheist. I'm a strong Christian. We each believe the other is wrong yet we still talk and work together quite well. His atheism is part of who he is, but that doesn't mean I can't be his friend.

No, and it shouldn't mean you can't be his friend - but it's also belief. Belief is choice, so neither can be more right than the other so far as both are based on belief. However, homosexuality is not a choice - and you, someone who wouldn't know if it was or wasn't apart from what those who would know told you, have decided to ignore them, and proclaim them to be acting immorally and sinning, which is fallacious, and not your right. It is, whether or not you want to admit it, or whether or not you want to ignore it, or me, homophobia.

And yes, it does make sense - if humans are "all sinners", but you, a human, are taking it upon yourself to call someone else a sinner beyond that, then obviously you think that they're more "sinful" than you.

Oh dear. This is getting annoying. All unrepenting sinners go to hell. If you weren't a homosexual (or more specifically in TRO's case bisexual) you'd still go to hell for all of your other sins.

But, say, if I was Christian, and "repented" for all but being in homosexual relationships (which shouldn't be "repented" for anyway), then I'd go to hell. That means, basically, that if I'm not a good little Christian (I know that sounds condescending, but I mean it in more or a literal way), then I'm more of a sinner and unworthy of going to "Heaven." So, at what point is "god" unconditional in "his" love?

Here's Christianity in a nutshell.

God created us in the beginning to be with him. My personal outlook on this is that God wanted to have kids. But he gave us free will and choice because he loved us. He didn't want us to be like the angels he created. (heavenly robots) He wante us to follow him out of his own free will. Eventhough, he knew we wouldn't. Which leads me to the second point.

"I'll make some kids for my entertainment and personal gratification, and I'll threaten them with eternal punishment if they don't worship me...I know they won't worship me, too, so basically I'm making them, then making a set of rules I know they won't abide by, and making a place of torture, and all because I don't have to and all because I love them so very, very, 'un'conditionally!"

Sorry if it sounds as if I'm mocking your beliefs, but it's for the very reasons I state in that paragraph, I find the story fallacious.

Our sins seperated us from God. As soon as the apple was eaten there was sin. A void between man and God.

The BIble says numerous times that we are saved by grace and not good deeds. Good deeds are like icing on a burnt cake. They don't change the fact that they cake is burnt.

(skipping the OT) Jesus came to save us from our sins. He asks us to a) admit we're sinners b) believe in him for salvation and c) repent or turn from our sins. It's called the sinner's prayer. Does this mean Christians will never agian sin? No, it goes back to the robot thing. The whole thing is faith based. So he still doesn't infinitely open our knowledge. And human faith still fails, but we have the power throught Jesus Christ to overcome sin.

So, basically, you say that something's a sin (i.e., being true to yourself), and that if someone is a certain they'll burn in hell even though it isn't their fault - and then expect people to believe that it's "justice" on a "divine" scale? Right.

Any one who trusts in Christ (sincerely says the sinner's prayer) is guarnteed life in heaven. Here's why. The blood of Jesus on the cross covers up our sins. He's the ultimate sacrificial lamb to cover up all the sins of all time for any who ask. This basically makes you perfect before God and perfection is the standard for entering into eternal heaven.

Which actually means, because humans are "sinners" from even before they've been conceived, that all Jesus has done is give you a new paintjob. Like you said, icing on a burnt cake doesn't make the cake unburnt - so, really, what you're doing is lying to "god". Surely that's a "sin", right. You're purposely deceiving "him." Might I add, too, that Christianity seems to be based on the concept of elitism? It does - you're either one of the "in-crowd", who shares the same beliefs and does certain things, or you aren't allowed in "Heaven"; it's apparent in the predominantly Christian belief, too, that humans have "souls" but animals do not - it's elitism.

You make it seem that faith and evidence are contradictory terms. They certainly are not. (faith, btw is not to be misconstrued as being synonomous w/ blind faith)

No, I didn't say that "faith" and "evidence" were contrary at all; what I am saying is that the example Sorovis used is fallacious, as he is at once saying that Christianity has evidence to support it, which is why the person he speaks of converted, and that Christianity is based on faith and that's why many people lose their belief in it.

In couples ice-skating men and women do many stunts that involve the man holding the woman in several dangerous positions. Should he stumble and drop her she could sometimes get a blade to the face. However, she trusts him that he will not drop her. This is because they've skated together for years and the man has not once messed up. That's faith, but it's not the same as the woman picking the first guy she sees to skate with. To a certain degree Christianity requires faith, but it certainly offers evidence and a whole lot of other things to give it distinction over other religions.

Trust and faith are different things. You can trust someone to listen to you when you need to be listened to, but that's based on a building up of judgements from the past. You don't trust someone you've just met to know your deepest secret, because you don't know them. Faith, however, is someone making a decision to think one way and remaining with that decision whether or not they have evidence to support it. It doesn't make their belief right, or give any more weight to it (as many people wish to tell you it does) - trust, on the other hand, is based totally on evidence. You can be confident in your trust of someone (unless you are given contrary evidence, at which point you tend to lose trust), but you cannot have "faith" in someone. Faith is not based on evidence. Faith is, like I said, just a decision that stays current (though not necessarily true) with or without evidence at all.

And no, claiming that Christianity has more evidence than other religions is false, because all you're doing is saying that your interpretation of what you see is more right than someone else's, which you cannot do. Science removes the necessity of religion from the equation; gravity, for instance, is caused not by some unearthly being that has the power to make everything fall downwards - but if someone who was religious wanted to think this, they could, perhaps by saying, "well, science knows why gravity is 'around', but at the beginning the 'creator' made it that way" - but one religious interpretation of something is not more right than any other, given that religion frequently places its own interpretations in many ways on the same thing, with no evidence to support any religious element to it at all.

If you're going to tell me you can fly I will believe you when you either fly, or at least when you display evidence of having wings that could mathematically state that you have flying capabilities.

But there's no mathematical proof that Jesus did anything "miraculous". There is nothing apart from some stories, which, as I've said, there would be in my hypothetical situation.

Here's what I call sound evidence. Four men, wrote about Jesus. To my knowledge (I could be mistaken) they did not write their books in collaboration with each other. Yet they wrote about a lot of the same things in almost exact agreement. While it's possible that each one of them could have believed they were the only one writing a book about it. That I find interesting.

The had the same references to write from, did they not? So, if I asked my Mum to tell me a great story, and recorded it, and then went away and someone else asked her to repeat the story as best as she could, would we not, upon comparison, share similar accounts? Yes, we would. Whether or not they each believed themselves to be the only one writing means nothing, really. I know I've not been entirely supportive of the concept of Jesus actually existing, what the current theories are is that he was born to Mary and Joseph, who had not yet married when she became pregnant. He married her before the birth to legitimise the baby, and the baby was raised normally. Being a peasant, the child, Jesus, would have been awestruck at the riches and wealth he saw in the Jewish temples, and would eventually have come to see it as rather unfair and ill-thought out to reward the rich while punishing the poor, and yet still expecting more from those with least to give - so he would have stood up against the Jewish officials, and the Jewish people, expecting to see their Messiah at some point in the future, would have flocked about him and proclaimed him to be the "Annointed One". His reputation would have grown, and he would have had people writing of him in order to justify the praise and worship and devotion he was receiving, particularly in times after when those who believed in him were suffering for their beliefs.

Is it really that hard to think that perhaps that was why people were writing about him, and writing the same sorts of things that they would have heard from people around them? No, I don't think so. It doesn't mean their beliefs were anymore right, it just gives reason as to why such things would have been recorded.

I also find it logical that a person who has everything to gain and a lot to lose by writing something has little reason to write anything but the truth. Most jurors would agree with me. I find these things to be common sense. If I were to say 'I'm going to go to New Zealand kill any flying humans with torturous methods' you'd be much less likely to claim you can fly. Even less likely would be three of your friends claiming that you can fly and getting tortured to death for said statement.

I've already explained why such a thing would be written. And yes, in the hypothetical situation you speak of, I might be less willing to claim that I can fly - but then, I might not. If it somehow meant something important to me and my friends, however, and I didn't think I should have to be punished for being who and what I was, then I might not hide - and so might not my friends. Same situation, in fact, with homosexual people today - people such as yourself are telling them they're immoral, and wrong, and rather than having you rule their lives and make them scared to stand up for themselves, they don't hide.

It's possible that you could be insane and not truely understand the consequences of your actions. However, it's unlikely that you and your friends are all insane.

I've given you reason why Jesus and his friends might make those claims, or have claims made about them, without resorting to saying, "well, they were crazy!" You're the only one who's mentioned mental instability here.

Actually, I can. The only way Luke could have done this amid all the persections were if he were crazy or determined to tell the truth. He certainly wouldn't die for a lie. And I think the idea of the other twelve disciples (including Paul excluding Judas) and Mark having the same insanity are not reasonable odds for consideration.

You're the only one mentioning craziness. I've already stated that people do things because they think they should, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily any more right than the person who doesn't do something. If Luke was in a minority that was being persecuted, would be have wanted to have sat back and let it continue? No. he would have thought, surely there's something I can do that can add weight to my beliefs and stop the persecution - and maybe even garner support." And that's what he did. He would have collected stories and wrote of them in order to give some kind of "justice" to his beliefs, and, so he would have hoped, halt the suffering of the people who shared the same views.

They also got him killed.

After the fact. He didn't start out expecting to die. He was hoping to change the lives of those people who suffered for their beliefs as he did; that doesn't make him right. It makes him a martyr, but an intentional one? Probably not. But then, even if he knew he would die, look at people in the Middle East today; they know that, if they blow themselves up for what they believe in, they'll die, too - but they don't know that it will get them anywhere. They believe it will, but I don't see you thinking that they're going to Muslim "Heaven" to be with Allah. I doubt you do, either, because Allah is not your "god".

something we agree on.

Yes, but my story about Paul is different from yours, which actually doesn't depend a lot on logic, but merely the assumption that you're right, rather than knowledge of human behaviour and how one person's actions repeated don't make them more right.

Actually a person can visit the empty tomb. Believe me it's empty. This only leads to the question of how it got that way.

Now a "tomb" is empty. Just because it's empty now doesn't mean it wasn't empty back then; and you can't say that just because something isn't there it verifies the whole story. I could claim that a giant invisible lion ate all of the giant, but visible, zebra, that used to live in New Zealand. The bones of these zebra were invisible, though, and the lion is still alive, out there, somewhere...but you can't see it. You can't see it? Then my story must be right! It's fallacious.

Besides which, as far as I know there's not yet been any final decision on where Jesus was supposedly buried, anyway.

As either you yourself or Damian said, there are outside records of King David. I heard from my fourth grade (public school) teacher that Moses is in Egyptian history. Jesus certainly existed, based on outside sources such as (but not limited to) Josephus.

As far as I know, no, Moses is not in Egyptian history. I've not yet seen any record of King David, either (besides which, do you really think that embellished accounts of some stories are devoid of all historical fact? No, of course not. If a particular figure is well-known at a certain time, inclusion of them could A) be a form of 'hey, isn't he great/isn't he bad?', and B) add weight to an otherwise scanty story that has no proper ties with reality. It's the same as mentioning actual places in stories - the places exist, so it's a lot easier to believe the story actually has more truth to it than it properly does, because it has elements of reality in it. And no, like I said, there is no absolute proof that Jesus existed; I'm not saying he necessarily didn't, although I haven't been a proponent of it at all, really - but there is no conclusive evidence that he did exist.

I'm fairly confident that if the Iliad was a religious base I'd have an easier time finding flaws in it than you all have of the Bible. They're not just stories. That statement, to me, seems ignorant of my debate with Damian even he admitted that the Bible was at the very least, not intentional fiction.

You obviously haven't listened this entire time. When did I say that the Bible was intentional fiction? I didn't. It doesn't change the facts as to whether it is or not actual fact, which I don't think it is. The Iliad, too, while it was entertaining, was also not intentional fiction; but that, too, does not mean it is actual fact. Besides which, from a historical point of view, one could be very interested in the Bible; it could be entertaining if the listener found it to be. It all depends on the society, really; sometimes what we might deem boring may have been entertaining to the society it was originally told in (many people nowadays can't stand the Iliad because of the lists of things in it, the prolonged events, etc., etc.) - so trying to make a distinction based on whether or not something is or is not entertainment to "support" your point is highly irrelevant. It also depends on the target audience; many people would have enjoyed a large account of the creation of the world, of a man who was supposedly great - but some might not. And what of Plutarch - his Lives are not exactly fun to read, but does this make them any less trustworthy?

[Damian Silverblade]

TRO - A stone table or such commemorating a victory was found some time back which lists (among a list of defeated rulers) a king of Israel, "Of the line of David". It's not an Israeli table either - was written by the winners.

It's not 100% conclusive, but seeing as the existence of one "David, king of Israel" is not, in itself, impossible or even particularly doubtful, it's more than enough (on the other hand, it's extremely doubtful that he ever slew a giant).

I'd have to check up on the details, but this information come from secular sources, ie not biased pro-bible (seeing as they also denounced the smashing of Jericho's wall myth within the same article).

Moses records in Egypt, sorry but I haven't heard of those. There are record of the Hebrews *I THINK* (or at least we believe they are records of the Hebrews) being there, but of Moses in particular? That seems the kind of exxageration some apologist tend to draw out of their hats. (IE "We have a stone tablet seeing someone held two governor jobs during his life, at least once in Syria. That proves Quirinius was governor of Syria twice!").

Checkmate, care to quote your evidence on Moses?

[yeah5]

hey. i haven't been on this site in a while. i would like somone to explain the Cambrian explosion by evolution...if they can

[Rei_Zero]

Simple. Before the Cambrian period, there weren't many hard parts to be fossilized. Therefore, few fossils could form, because if there are no hard parts the chances of getting fossilized (and the number of ways) decrease dramatically. Because of this, few fossils are found before the Cambrian. Therefore, the Cambrian explosion is in a way, mislabeled, because before Cambrian rocks, not many fossils were found. What may seem like a sudden diversity of life may have been (probably was) just a result of hard parts first evolving. Indeed, there is increasing evidence from Precambrian fossils that life diversified much earlier than the Cambrian. As for the evolution part...

Once hard parts proved to be an effective means of surviving all that was left was survival of the fittest. Having hard parts not only made it easier to gain protection and obtain food, but it also opened up a whole bunch of new niches due to the things animals could do with hard parts. Most soft bodied animals simply could not compete.

These events itself happened in many millions of years. The different diversities didn't just all appear there at once. What we call the Cambrian explosion happens over the entire time span of the Cambrian era. The different diversities of life happen during different times over the 30 million year span. Many fossils were intermediates between many other fossils.

[Sorovis]

No, one place is "designed" for sexual reproduction. Vaginal intercourse is a part of sexual reproduction, in a biological sense - it is not, on its own, purely for that, though. The only reason why vaginal intercourse happens outside the "bounds" of reproduction is because it feels good - but so does, for those who wish to engage in it, anal sex, or oral sex, and the list goes on. There is no more natural place than any other in terms of sexual gratification; otherwise, you could argue that, because water is the least damaging of most liquids we consume, it's more "natural" for us to ingest it, and it is what we are "meant" to do. All other beverages are "unnatural" because we aren't adapted to dealing with the chemicals within them as well as we can with water. Such a comment, though, is stupid, because we aren't "designed" to drink water anymore than we are "designed" to drink coffee, or tea, or Diet Coke (and note I don't think we're "designed" at all).

Oh yes, you have made it quite clear in the past four weeks that you do not believe in design at all, there is no need to point it out further. So once again I bring up that the vagina is designed to withstand sex, and once again I bring up that all other forms of sexual intercourse are harmful to the body, ie. damage to the rectum during anal sex, increased risk of STD's, etc.. If diet coke caused 'damage' to the body for ingesting it and was proven, it would be removed from the shelves.

No, but it does mean that I deal with all your points...

I believe the fact that I am now quoting renders this pointless.

You read the one concerning Progeria, right - I wasn't using it to say homosexuality was "right", but that it was likely natural, and could be caused by the same things. The table concerning the instances of homosexual behaviour in animals, too. If you have supplied websites divorced from claims that one particular study that concluded that there was no homosexual gene at Site A on Chromosome 21, for instance, meant that homosexuality wasn't natural and was therefore a sin, or immoral, then perhaps you, too, would be able to say that you haven't given biased material. But you can't, because all of the sites you've linked to have started out under the assumption that homosexuality was wrong (and, I note, at least 99.9% of those sites were Christian, with a 0.1% margin of error) and immoral, and have attempted to twist any evidence that they did have (which was almost, if not wholly, nil anyway) around to support their claims. That's biased.

So you assume that just because they are Christian and had preconceptions of the outcome they twisted the evidence to support their case. I'm very sorry to tell you this, but you have no evidence that they did this, and everyone begins with preconceptions of the outcome; scientists, or everyday people. And another thing, had you payed attention to what I have said in the past few days, you would know that one of the people on one of the sites I posted started the study of homosexualy with the preconception that it was genetic and irreversable. Needless to say, he changed his mind after a while. So it seems your saying that 99.9% of the writers of these sites were Christian seems very subject to error (or could it be that you're just biased as well and decided to twist the facts yourself?).

I don't for sure; my knowledge of the brain, however, is that unless all regions maintain approximately the same size until adulthood is reached, then some will either be smaller than usual, due to lack of space, while others are larger, or the size and shape of the skull would have to change. Something like the Hypothalamus, for instance, will not grow larger, because its function is to do with hormone production, and it is large enough already for sufficient amounts of hormones to be produced. Something like that lymbic system, which the hypothalamus is attached to, also, would not grow, because there is no emotional state that causes brain growth or shrinkage (and the lymbic system is to do with emotion). If one did grow larger than normal, and then shrink again, you'd see its effects - that being, one part of the brain would be squashed or degenerate due to lack of space and excess of pressure, and this would lead to it being underdeveloped (we see this in brain tumour patients - the cancer places pressure and stress on other parts of the brain, and they must either shrink, or the pressure causes the loss of bodily function or mental capacity, etc., etc.) - and after this, that area of the brain would not just "spring" back into its usual state of being. There are no foldaway parts of the brain; that's why when the brain swells, it causes brain damage, leading to things such as memory loss (severe in some cases, with the memory being limited to only a few seconds in relation to certain things not done through routine) because portions of the brain have been damaged.

So how does this leave any part of the brain subject to change in size then? Obviously due to cause and effect other areas in the brain would be affected by the change in mass, but that does not mean it would cause damage due to the change in size. Perhaps other areas around the expanded or shrunken area would expand or shrink themselves, possibly explaining various other altered characteristics in people exhibiting these different behaviors due to the altered size of a specific area.

So, really, you don't really stand by your argument that homosexuality is a "sin" anyway - because no matter what, the person is a "sinner", and nothing can make them more or less one. You shoot yourself in the foot with that. Why argue against homosexuality and proclaim it a sin when it is no more a sin than heterosexuality and has no effect whatsoever on the person themselves?

So obviously by this logic, since we already sin, we should not even attempt to avoid it, thus releasing murderous urges and sexual urges when by all means they should be restrained. Just because sin is inevitable does not mean we should still atempt to avoid it; should we and we would be subject to much worse conditions than we suffer from now.

And also, for the third time you've claimed that homosexuality causes psychological damage, but have provided no evidence. Do so, or stop making the claim, or else I will begin claiming that your particular brand of Christianity causes mental retardation. Not only this, but no, homosexuality does not cause physical harm anymore than heterosexuality - the only way you could possibly say this is if you were somehow under the impression that anal sex was gay sex, which it is not.

You can go ahead and claim that my particular brand of Christianity causes mental retardation. If you want evidence for psychological damage, go to what I believe was the first site I ever posted here. I have already cleared I do not think anal sex is gay sex, but I do know that I have listed various damages from anal sex that is not a problem during the 'natural' form.

I trust you to rely on what I say of myself, because I'm the only one who knows. You, on the other hand, have taken it upon yourself to tell me that you know me better - and have attempted to justify that claim by formulating all you can from debunked and unsupported theories - such as the, "all homosexual people choose to be gay", and, "all homosexual people were abused as children" (both of which rely, strangely enough, on the claim that it's just that the person affected can't remember any of it - what a way to argue).

Once again you rely on yourself as sufficiant evidence over anything I have provided, saying it is debunked and unsupported. On the contrary though, it is very supported indeed; if you bothered to look at the sources many of my sites get their information from, you would see this. Oh and by the way, give some outside evidence, please.

Aside from that, I have posted evidence on how homosexual may be genetic, how your claims that it isn't aren't actually anymore than opinion (and unsupported opinion), how homosexuality occurs naturally in the wild and is possibly so in our species, too, how it has occured throughout history...no, I've posted so little evidence, haven't I? Thing is, also, all of the evidence that you believe to support your claims that homosexuality is wrong don't actually do so - at best all they do is say, "well, it may not be naturally occuring" (which is, it seems, the least likely of all the possibilities anyway), which is not, "it doesn't occur naturally and is therefore wrong." You have to rely on the Bible for that one, don't you? Do you also listen to St. Paul, I think it is, who said that it's immoral for a man to dress in women's clothing, and vice-versa?

I love that may you threw in there. Despite the fact that I have given evidence which is supported, you continue to claim that it is opinions, not supported, etc.. I saw this coming, and from this I can infer that I am psychic (of course by what you're saying).

But again you take your religion to be right above all others. It's true that I believe myself to be right, but I'm not pushing my own set of morals and saying that they're absolute, as you are - all I'm doing is saying that morals are subjective, and a human invention, and the only constant moral there is is that it is bad to cause harm to another person against their will (physically, mentally, etc.). I don't share your religious beliefs, and I don't share your belief-born prejudices; so trying to use the Bible to argue for you is about as useless as using the story in a Dr. Seuss book to explain how gravity works.

So of course telling me again and again why homosexuality isn't forcing anything upon me. You're doing the same thing to me as I am to you; except that I'm actually providing evidence aside from my base beliefs, something you have failed at.

Wrong. Homosexuality occurs naturally in animals. So does heterosexuality. If you don't want to admit there's a possibility that homosexuality occurs naturally in humans, given the evidence we have from other species, then you can't purport that heterosexuality does, either.

Of course, we're assuming everything animals do is programmed genetically, yes? And this is saying humans are indeed different than animals, yes? Above them to say. So how then does that explain the fact that many homosexuals have become heterosexual once again?

The only reason it doesn't help is because you like to have your cake and eat it, too, rather than realise that once you've eaten your cake, you don't have it anymore.

And if the analogy's too obscure, I'll explain it.

You see though, homosexuality in animals would be genetically impossible because it is a brick wall; it does not insure the species' survival in any way, it does not reproduce. Due to natural selection, if animals were 'born' homosexual, they would quickly die off, not being able to reproduce at all. Yet it still remains.

However, for all this debating we've done, I do understand that it's your opinion that homosexuality is wrong; and while I don't think you've justified that, it is your opinion, and I respect that you have one different from mine. Now, like I've said, you can't claim to be qualified to tell me what I'm like, what I know about myself, and everything, and so you shouldn't try - but I can't stop you thinking what you want to think, even if I know that you don't actually have the right idea. I suppose it would be difficult for you to understand something you have no personal knowledge of, but I don't regard that as reason for you to claim the ability to tell me what is and what isn't about me and who and what I am or am not - and I certainly don't see your claims that homosexuality should be illegal as justified in anyway.

And of course here you are refusing to admit there may be things you do not remember or blocked out; refusing to admit there may be things you don't understand about yourself.

Now, given that, would it be worth the effort for either of us to continue, of should we just leave it? I won't decide, I'll leave that up to you; if you can't be bothered, then nor can I (because, as I've said, it does take a lot of effort to rephrase the same message over and over again) - and in that case, the above paragraph will be my closing statement. However, if you wish to continue, then I don't have a huge problem with doing so, either. So, what say you?

By this response, you see I will not quit this debate no matter how pointless it may be. If you choose to end here, so be it. I will be here for quite some time, however.

[The Rusted One]

Oh yes, you have made it quite clear in the past four weeks that you do not believe in design at all, there is no need to point it out further. So once again I bring up that the vagina is designed to withstand sex, and once again I bring up that all other forms of sexual intercourse are harmful to the body, ie. damage to the rectum during anal sex, increased risk of STD's, etc.. If diet coke caused 'damage' to the body for ingesting it and was proven, it would be removed from the shelves.

Vaginal sex is harmful to the body also. Not a difficult concept, and, whether you want to see it or not, the facts are that no form of sexual contact that involves intercourse is not harmful in some way to the body. The penis can suffer friction burns and lacerations, the vulva can be made overly tender (in vaginal intercourse), etc., etc. If you want to propose that one type of sex is wrong because it causes miniscule damage (that does heal) to the body, then you must also wish to remain a virgin until your death.

If Diet Coke caused damage, yes, it might be removed; or it might be given warning labels, like some sugar-free gums are (i.e., "excessive consumption may have laxative effect") - but something like Diet Coke has chemicals in it that can cause all sorts of things (the same with Coke, the same with almost everything). What chemicals does sperm have that could possibly cause harm in one body and not the other? And again, I find you totally ignoring the fact that homosexuality is not just about anal sex; and, while you've said you don't think it is, you obviously can't see past it, either. If you were able to, then you would realise that lesbians don't have anal sex at all - and straight couples have anal sex, too. I've said all of this before - and I will say what I said then again, too - you aren't arguing for anything but sexual conservatism, which is not about homosexuality and therefore has little to no place in this argument.

I believe the fact that I am now quoting renders this pointless.

Yes, it does, finally.

So you assume that just because they are Christian and had preconceptions of the outcome they twisted the evidence to support their case. I'm very sorry to tell you this, but you have no evidence that they did this, and everyone begins with preconceptions of the outcome; scientists, or everyday people. And another thing, had you payed attention to what I have said in the past few days, you would know that one of the people on one of the sites I posted started the study of homosexualy with the preconception that it was genetic and irreversable. Needless to say, he changed his mind after a while. So it seems your saying that 99.9% of the writers of these sites were Christian seems very subject to error (or could it be that you're just biased as well and decided to twist the facts yourself?).

Actually, when you start off with a preconception, and believe you're right about it, then yes, you will look for that which supports you and will tend to ignore that which states otherwise. That's the way people work. I'm not saying I don't, because everybody does - but at least some people are prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to people they know nothing of, rather than deciding something of them before they have the right to do so. Sound familiar? I'm talking about someone you know quite well, I think.

Now, I've paid attention to your example of someone who became a proponent of homosexuality not being genetic; but that's one person. I've never said he or she didn't exist; what I have said is that, as one person, he or she is far from everyone, and he or she does not represent anyone but him- or herself. You also have not actually cited your example - all you have done is tell me of some vague individual, which I can do in the reverse situation; it reminds me of your argument that some gay people become straight, which, apparently, you thought "proved" homosexuality not to be genetic, and to be "wrong" - but I explained how it could easily be genetic, and how even if you were right, it would still not prove homosexuality to be wrong. It's a huge leap to go from, "it's not genetic," to, "it's not genetic, therefore it is a sin!" And, no, I don't think I am biased in terms of the religious alignment of the sources you cite; it's a very prominent trend that they're FRC, or IRC, or Christian groups trying to "save" gay people, etc., etc. It's not my fault if those are your sites of choice to reference; it's yours.

So how does this leave any part of the brain subject to change in size then? Obviously due to cause and effect other areas in the brain would be affected by the change in mass, but that does not mean it would cause damage due to the change in size. Perhaps other areas around the expanded or shrunken area would expand or shrink themselves, possibly explaining various other altered characteristics in people exhibiting these different behaviors due to the altered size of a specific area.

Our brains are not naturally expanding and contracting, give-take organs. For them to work properly, there have to be billions of pathways, and with every loss of size, some pathways are lost along with the neurons lying along them. If your Cerebellum were to swell, do you really think that the parts around it would shrink to accomodate that? No, unless your brain was somehow prone to reshaping itself without loss of ability. It isn't, though, as it would be like removing a part of your brain and so removing whatever it was that made certain abilities possible. That's why when the brain swells, parts die and pathways are lost, causing, as I said, memory loss, paralysis, and sometimes irreversible brain damage. In an adult brain, the obstructions caused by even a small swelling or shrinkage would be enough to drastically change the behaviour, and it would not be from one normal to the next; it would be, perhaps, dementia, hallucinations, loss of speech, etc., etc.

So obviously by this logic, since we already sin, we should not even attempt to avoid it, thus releasing murderous urges and sexual urges when by all means they should be restrained. Just because sin is inevitable does not mean we should still atempt to avoid it; should we and we would be subject to much worse conditions than we suffer from now.

How, exactly, are sexual urges comparable to murder? Why should an urge that two people both have in relation to one another be supressed? What harm is coming from it? None. Murder, however, is never voluntary on the behalf of the victim; it is a violent taking of life, and causes immense trauma and pain before death for the victim, and afterwards for those left having to deal with the fact that someone has just killed their loved one. How is this similar to a man and a man being in a reciprocal relationship, in which both love each other, both are happy, both are content? How is it similar to two women finding companionship with each other, feeling safe, feeling like they can trust the other with anything and everything? It's no more similar to that then it is to a man and a woman sharing the exact same feelings.

Besides which, like I said, and have been saying all along, sin is subjective. It is not absolute. I don't think homosexuality is a sin. That doesn't mean I'm just ignorant, it means that I don't think it's a sin while you do. That's all. You cannot claim that something is a sin just because you think it's bad. It's not hurting anyone. It's not hurting you. It's not immoral, because morals are, as is sin, subjective, and up to each person to decide upon. The worst argument someone can make is to say, "no, it's a sin because I said so." Well, some people thought it was a sin for a White man and a Black woman, or vice-versa, to have a relationship; what makes that any less valid than what you're saying? Catholics think it sinful and immoral to divorce; what makes that any more correct than what you think (if you think differently)? I'm not saying you should convert to their views, necessarily, but I am saying that you shouldn't claim something to be absolute when it's not, just because you think it's more right. It holds no weight.

You can go ahead and claim that my particular brand of Christianity causes mental retardation. If you want evidence for psychological damage, go to what I believe was the first site I ever posted here. I have already cleared I do not think anal sex is gay sex, but I do know that I have listed various damages from anal sex that is not a problem during the 'natural' form.

No, you are the one making the claim - it is your job to support it, not someone else's. Besides that, I'm fairly sure that your first quoted site was a religious one, too...meaning that any claims will be made in order to justify the prejudice apparent on the page, because it's "wrong" to be whatever they say is wrong, and there has to be some kind of evidence, right? Right?

And yes, I know you've said that you don't equate anal sex with gay sex, but then, if you didn't, why does your argument hinge upon it so much? I've already told you that this is a debate about homosexuality, not the "merits" of sexual conservatism - so why do you keep making reference to the "evils" of anal sex if it has no relevance to homosexuality? And while you may think you've listed various forms of damage that only happen in anal sex and not vaginal, you're actually yet to do so. Epithelial tearing? Happens in both. STD infection? Happens in both. Tenderness of the penetrated orifice? Happens in both.

Once again you rely on yourself as sufficiant evidence over anything I have provided, saying it is debunked and unsupported. On the contrary though, it is very supported indeed; if you bothered to look at the sources many of my sites get their information from, you would see this. Oh and by the way, give some outside evidence, please.

Why should I give you outside evidence of myself when that's what I'm referring to when I mention myself? You made claims that I must have been through something traumatic and it "turned" me bisexual; you also told me that I "must" have chosen to be bisexual. You made those claims. I refuted them. You cannot tell me I'm wrong - because I am the only one who knows, and you are not qualified to tell me about myself, no matter how much you might like to think you can. I asked you to parallel the situation you try to tell me is true of me by supplying me with the version that applies to you, which only you will know (i.e., did you choose to be straight?) - and I am yet to hear back from you what your answer is. I'm not asking you to say, "well, this professor says this", because that has no relevance to you. That's what you seem to be missing - when I say something of myself, I'm the only one who can make the claim or refute it later, if I end up doing so. You cannot do this for me. You are the only one who can make a claim of yourself and later refute it, if you end up doing so - because you are the only one who knows. I cannot do this for you. But I'm not trying - and there's the crucial difference; I'm not trying to teach you about you as if you don't know and I do, but you are trying to teach me about me as if you know and I don't. It's fallacious - and perhaps you find the prospect of confronting that fearful. I don't know. You do, though - and something else you know is whether or not you chose to be straight. So, did you? All you've said has told me that you don't think you did. So, what does that say for your argument that I must have? It has no weight, because you wouldn't know and you can't parallel it for yourself.

I love that may you threw in there. Despite the fact that I have given evidence which is supported, you continue to claim that it is opinions, not supported, etc.. I saw this coming, and from this I can infer that I am psychic (of course by what you're saying).

I never said there was conclusive evidence that it was genetic, did I? No. So, what's your problem? You're the only one making "is-isn't" statements beyond your ability here. Can you not remember? Apparently not. All you've said is just an opinion; you have no conclusive evidence, and you can't rely on personal knowledge, as I can - so you're left with only the ability to listn to what other people say, and try to make out as if it's the absolute among absolutes. A little like your "my concept of sin is absolute, you're just not aware of it", stance, too. In other words, it's folly. Would you trust a woman, called A for the sake of things, to be able to say, rightly, that her labour as she was giving birth to child a, was more painful than woman B's labour as she gave birth to child b? No, because one person's experience is theirs alone, not someone else's. One person's knowledge of themselves is theirs alone, not someone else's - so woman A can't say that he labour was more painful than woman B's, because she doesn't know what woman B's labour was like. But, your logic tells me that you think that woman A could say it; are you prepared to stand by that, or not? If so, then you really have problems with logic and illogic; if not, then my point is made.

So of course telling me again and again why homosexuality isn't forcing anything upon me. You're doing the same thing to me as I am to you; except that I'm actually providing evidence aside from my base beliefs, something you have failed at.

What does this even mean? I'm saying that homosexuality isn't forcing anything upon you, so...you're telling me that homosexuality isn't forcing anything upon anyone? Well done. I'm sure, however, that you mean something like, "you say this, but I say that" - and yet, you claim to have evidence that you actually don't have. Are you being forced to be in a homosexual relationship? No. Are you being forced to accept it? No. What I am trying to show you, though, is that one person being gay with another, and in no way harming you, is not comparable to you standing on the streetcorner on your soapbox, proclaiming them immoral and sinful, and otherwise attempting to belittle them for being who they are. They're not telling you that being straight is wrong; but you're telling them that being gay is wrong. They have a problem with you discriminating - but you're the one discriminating in the first place, not them. Trying to claim that they're harming you somehow is illogical, because they're not, anymore than a straight person or couple would be - and you're not complaining about that, are you?

Of course, we're assuming everything animals do is programmed genetically, yes? And this is saying humans are indeed different than animals, yes? Above them to say. So how then does that explain the fact that many homosexuals have become heterosexual once again?

No, some things animals do are cultural. We've been through this; if you want to clasp, as well as your white-knuckled fists let you, on dead arguments you've attempted and failed to utilise, then you're the one making yourself look stupid. I've already stated the ways in which one chimp troupe may do things differently than another, and this is what anthropologists regard as culture - changeable actions that are only apparent because of teaching, like using a rock rather than a stick to smash nuts open and scoop out the kernels. However, things such as sexual contact are not cultural, and are not taught; trying to suggest that people don't know how to have sex unless they're taught at some point is stupid, because if that was so then it would be true of all animals, too. But it isn't, is it? Because it's not cultural, it's natural behaviour, as is the fact that one individual from a certain species is going to seek from within its own population to mate with. Or do you wish to purport this as taught, too? I don't think you will, though you may. If you don't, however, then you must think it genetic - which opens up the very real possibility that homosexuality is part and parcel of the attraction between members of one species (particularly because, despite societal disapproval, and a lack of instruction, it has occured all throughout human history). As I've explained, sexuality can, and probably is, and in my opinion definitely is, genetic, which is why there are varying degrees of attraction to one gender over another across all human individuals in all populations. Abive animals? Only if you're willing to see yourself as better than animals, and that is a very Christian, elitist approach to life - one you appear to be quite familiar with, in respect both to animals themselves and to people you don't quite understand.

You see though, homosexuality in animals would be genetically impossible because it is a brick wall; it does not insure the species' survival in any way, it does not reproduce. Due to natural selection, if animals were 'born' homosexual, they would quickly die off, not being able to reproduce at all. Yet it still remains.

You must be blind. If I type like this, will you be able to take on board something I've said a number of time? I hope so. You remember that thing called Progeria? You remember how it is genetic? You also remember how it is not inherited from the parents? This, then, disproves your ignorant statements about how homosexuality cannot be genetic - because you rely on genetic conditions to be inherited, which is not any sort of absolute (you appear to have trouble with absolutes and telling others what is and isn't, I note). Progeria is not a choice. It IS a genetic condition. Is it inherited? No. So why does it keep happening, if it's a brick wall, as you say homosexuality would be?

Besides this, don't try to play the, "all societies are modelled on ours, and vice-versa", card - you know, as all people do, that not all difference has always been accepted in all societies across the world. Black people were once thought to be evolutionary dead-ends, too, with White people the pinnacle of human life (and, indeed, of all life). The same with homosexuality. It was stigmatised, and so most people who were homosexual were not free by the bounds of society to love whom they loved. Rather, they were expected to live out life with someone of the opposite gender, produce children, or risk disenfranchisement (as was the case in Ancient Greece - a man was measured in many ways, one of these being in his production of male heirs to his property; a woman was measured in few ways, one of these being the production for the husband suitable heirs to inherit his property) - so, if it is a condition that depends on the inheritance of genes (which is entirely possible, given that a predominantly heterosexual man is far more likely to have children than not, given that most relationships will be with women), then it could be passed on by the societal pressure on all people to have kids, which all capable of producing children did. Along with their genes, the "gay" genes would be passed on, too. In today's society, we know that there are varying degrees of heterosexuality and homosexuality; gay and straight are not mutually exclusive, and the middle-ground, bisexuality, is not constant. It changes from one individual to the next, which may be indicative of varying amounts of the relevant "gay" genes being present in the genomes of those individuals - and that means that there is a great chance of it being passed on from parent to child, especially if both parents possess a number of the genes.

And of course here you are refusing to admit there may be things you do not remember or blocked out; refusing to admit there may be things you don't understand about yourself.

Again, you try to tell me that I must be mistaken about myself, and that I can't be right, even though you have no qualification to do so and I'm the only one who will know. I know there are somethings everyone does not know about even themselves - but are you prepared to say, in all honesty, that you don't know whether you chose to be straight or not? If you're not, then you obviously think you didn't choose, and that it's genetic, which you have no support for, and you're guilty of exactly what you're accusing me of. Alternatively, you could say that you do know, but that you did choose - meaning that your claims that heterosexuality is genetic and homosexuality not are automatically false. Then again, you could say that you aren't sure at all - which means that you have just admitted that you don't know that homosexuality is not genetic, and that heterosexuality is or not - bringing all of your arguments back down to zilch.

By this response, you see I will not quit this debate no matter how pointless it may be. If you choose to end here, so be it. I will be here for quite some time, however.

At some point in the near future I think I will take my leave of this debate, as both of us are merely repeating ourselves, over, and over, and also because I am going to have to begin both studying for upcoming exams for university, and write several essays for various lectures which I need to put more effort into than I have so far. For the time being, however, I will remain also.