For year's the gay community has led us to believe that homosexuality was not a choice but rather God created them that way, however, with the advance research of DNA there is no proof linking a gene to homesexuality. So here is the question, how should schools, parents, or pastors explain homosexuality, exspecially, to the youth?

So here is the question, how should schools, parents, or pastors explain homosexuality, exspecially, to the youth?

Well, they could send all the cute, of-age lesbian teens over to my place next saturday..... ;)

What do you mean by teach them about homosexuality?


"Billy, there's some people who have sexual and romantic feelings for members of their own sex. There is currently debate over whether this is related to upbringing and nurture or genes."

"Billy, there's some people who have sexual and romantic feelings for members of their own sex. There is currently debate over whether this is related to upbringing and nurture or genes."

Wow! It's good I'm not having kids, I can imagine that conversation:

"Now Friedrich, when a man loves another man very much and a researcher writes a paper on how this happened, it is called a "mad race for research grants". But beyond academic catfighting, we learn about these things to decipher social modes of control. Could you open up "Deconstructionism for Kids" and turn to the section on Queer theory? "

:cool:

I do not understand: what is there to tell?
and what is this doing in ethics? :confused:
I thouht ethics was about moral judgement and conduct.

You are correct in that assumptions about homosexuality being biological were all wrong. Generally those assumpiton revolved around a certain tiny part of the brain, but this idea turned out to be complete bollocks, as that portion of the brain only really gets different in size toward the end of adolescence, and sexual identity and gender preference are mostly sorted out in early adolescence, or so I hear. There is nothing biological about gender preference as far as I know, except for the obvious biological urge to mate and produce offspring, which is in all of us regardless of gender or preferences.

So yes, it is all a choice. I honestly have no idea what, if anything, is taught in Australian school about this these days. However, I think they should be teaching that people should be able to do just about anything they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, and all parties involved are willing.

Originally posted by Merlijn
I do not understand: what is there to tell?
and what is this doing in ethics? :confused:
I thouht ethics was about moral judgement and conduct.



I did ask how pastors should explain homosexuality(moral issue) a local pastor was forced to step down for quoting scripture that spoke against homosexuality.

How is homosexuality a moral issue? I mean, it's just sex. I don't see how morality enters into it at all, as long as both partners are consenting.

Adam: Actually, that's not strictly true. The jury is currently out.

Well, the last I heard on this was an article in New Scientist magazine about a year ago I think. Some day I'll go find the issue and the article and type it in or find a link for it.

Adam:

Okay. Want to see if morality enters into the equation at all, as long as both partners consent? :p

Pfft! Morality is for sissies. People should just shag and stop complaining.

Pfft! Morality is for sissies. People should just shag and stop complaining.

Sounds Nietzschean!

"And he who would be a creator in good and evil must first be a destroyer, and break values into peices"

"All creators are hard"

"And even the little God may he find, who is dearest to maidens: beside the well lieth he quietly, with closed eyes. Verily, in broad daylight did he fall asleep, the sluggard! Had he perhaps chased butterflies too much?"

" Upbraid me not, ye beautiful dancers, when I chasten the little God somewhat! He will cry, certainly, and weep- but he is laughable even when weeping!"

"Give me, woman, thy little truth!" said I. And thus spake the old woman: "Thou goest to women? Do not forget thy whip!"-"

"LO, THIS is the tarantula's den! Would'st thou see the tarantula itself? Here hangeth its web: touch this, so that it may tremble."

(Note: This post was actually a explanation of the eternal recurrence. It's not like I got carried away posting Friedrich's double entendres. :p "

i have a question, aint everybody bisexual?? why waste half of humanity as potential sex partners? why wait until you're sent to boarding school or jail to find out you can swing the other way. free your mind dammit!

rotfl

Yes, everybody is bisexual to begin with. Some are comfortable with that and some feel the need to chose side, or just prefer one over the other.

No man could be bisexual around you Bebelina. :D

For year's the gay community has led us to believe that homosexuality was not a choice but rather God created them that way, however, with the advance research of DNA there is no proof linking a gene to homesexuality. So here is the question, how should schools, parents, or pastors explain homosexuality, exspecially, to the youth?Well, are you stating that there is no proof, or that DNA research proves there is no connection? What you do from there depends on the resolution.

However, think of chromosomes. XX = girl, XY = boy. Right? Right?

Wrong.

Turns out that an anatomical female may be XY. Hormonal factors can alter human development quite radically. Without the proper testosterone balance, an XY zygote can still develop into an anatomical female.

I have never heard the final proof issued that there is no connection between homosexuality and genetics, but if you say so, sure. Nonetheless, there are other biological factors--creative factors--lending toward gender identification, anatomical identification, and other processes.

The answers are fairly simple:

• Pastors: according to the prejudices of religion
• Schools: according to necessity and relevance
• Parents: according to the priority of principles versus the priority of function

On the one hand, it's real easy for me. I don't even go so far as "tolerance" since, in my opinion, there's nothing that needs tolerating. But for others, especially in terms of parents, I would recommend that parents stop to consider which is more important: that a child should be able to function in a diverse world, or that a child should see others as inferior.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by Adam
No man could be bisexual around you Bebelina. :D

True, they go gay right away. :D

Piffle!

On the one hand, it's real easy for me. I don't even go so far as "tolerance" since, in my opinion, there's nothing that needs tolerating. But for others, especially in terms of parents, I would recommend that parents stop to consider which is more important: that a child should be able to function in a diverse world, or that a child should see others as inferior.

Well said Tiassa.
Cheers
Teri

Originally posted by tiassa
However, think of chromosomes. XX = girl, XY = boy. Right? Right?

Wrong.

Turns out that an anatomical female may be XY. Hormonal factors can alter human development quite radically. Without the proper testosterone balance, an XY zygote can still develop into an anatomical female.

I have never heard the final proof issued that there is no connection between homosexuality and genetics, but if you say so, sure. Nonetheless, there are other biological factors--creative factors--lending toward gender identification, anatomical identification, and other processes.

The answers are fairly simple:

• Pastors: according to the prejudices of religion
• Schools: according to necessity and relevance
• Parents: according to the priority of principles versus the priority of function

On the one hand, it's real easy for me. I don't even go so far as "tolerance" since, in my opinion, there's nothing that needs tolerating. But for others, especially in terms of parents, I would recommend that parents stop to consider which is more important: that a child should be able to function in a diverse world, or that a child should see others as inferior.





thanx,
Tiassa :cool: [/B]




Tiassa,


[B]Well, are you stating that there is no proof, or that DNA research proves there is no connection? What you do from there depends on the resolution.



Given that DNA reasearch is fairly new, at this point, there has been no link between gene's and homosexuality. And I don't believe proof will ever be found. I say this from my own beliefs, not to offend anyone ...to accept that God would create a behavior he identifies as an abomination...calls for questioning of God's character. I'm beginning to believe that homosexuality is a temptation like any other...... you either do it or you don't..given we are under Free Moral Agency....





Tiassa

"What indications are there that behavior has a biological basis? [text provided by Joseph McInerney]

Behavior often is species specific. A chickadee, for example, carries one sunflower seed at a time from a feeder to a nearby branch, secures the seed to the branch between its feet, pecks it open, eats the contents, and repeats the process. Finches, in contrast, stay at the feeder for long periods, opening large numbers of seeds with their thick beaks. Some mating behaviors also are species specfic. Prairie chickens, native to the upper Midwest, conduct an elaborate mating ritual, a sort of line dance for birds, with spread wings and synchronized group movements. Some behaviors are so characteristic that biologists use them to help differentiate between closely related species.

Behaviors often breed true, that is, we can reproduce them in successive generations of organisms. Consider the instinctive retrieval behavior of a yellow Labrador or the herding posture of a border collie.

Behaviors change in response to alterations in biological structures or processes. For example, a brain injury can turn a polite, mild-mannered person into a foul-mouthed, aggressive boor, and we routinely modify the behavioral manifestations of mental illnesses with drugs that alter brain chemistry. More recently, geneticists have created or extinguished specific mouse behaviors—ranging from nurturing of pups to continuous circling in a strain called "twirler"— by inserting or disabling specific genes.

In humans, some behaviors run in families. For example, there is a clear familial aggregation of mental illness.
Behavior has an evolutionary history, as demonstrated by the persistence of some behaviors across related species. Chimpanzees are our closest relatives, separated from us by a mere 2 percent difference in DNA sequence. We and they share behaviors that are characteristic of highly social primates, including nurturing, cooperation, altruism, and even some facial expressions. Genes are evolutionary glue, binding all of life in a single history that dates back some 3.5 billion years. Conserved behaviors are part of that history, which is written in the language of nature's universal information molecule—DNA"


"Much current research on genes and behavior also engenders very strong feelings because of the potential social and political consequences of accepting these supposed truths. Thus, more than any other aspect of genetics, discoveries in behavioral genetics should not be viewed as irrefutable until there has been substantial scientific corroboration"

http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/elsi/behavior.html#2



http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5507/1232

http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/publicat/judicature/article4.html

For year's the gay community has led us to believe that homosexuality was not a choice but rather God created them that way, however, with the advance research of DNA there is no proof linking a gene to homesexuality. So here is the question, how should schools, parents, or pastors explain homosexuality, exspecially, to the youth?

That would be a false dichotomy. Just because something is not genetically determined it doesn't mean it must be a "choice". There could be a causal factor that is non-genetic. eg Pre-natal conditions, or a whacky theory like over dominant mothers.
There is something going on behind the scenes: twin studies have shown a concordance of 50ish% in identical twins. It is only 10ish% between adopted siblings.


You are correct in that assumptions about homosexuality being biological were all wrong. Generally those assumpiton revolved around a certain tiny part of the brain, but this idea turned out to be complete bollocks, as that portion of the brain only really gets different in size toward the end of adolescence, and sexual identity and gender preference are mostly sorted out in early adolescence, or so I hear.


That particular theory was regarding the observation that a certain area of the Hypothalamus was smaller in homosexual men. Those findings were confounded by the fact that many of the homosexual men had AIDS. That is not to say there is not a bio cause, just that this particular one didn't pan out.

Why this would be a moral issue escapes me. It seems to be mutually enjoyable, non-harmful fun that does not impinge upon anyone else's rights.

Homosexuality is an extremely moral subject, though not in the way we 'teach our children about it'


Its moral in the way that we act towads homosexuals in our society, and how we treat them. So we should cut all this shit about it not being a moral situation, because it is.

Actually, Unregistered, you're not entirely correct.

See, to most half-intelligent folk homosexuals are every bit as human as anyone else. And as such, I see no way to treat them, their sexuality or stereotypes of them any differently than those of other people.

I guess people have to become friends personally with more homos too realize that besides their sexual preferences they are just regular folks. :)

Given that DNA reasearch is fairly new, at this point, there has been no link between gene's and homosexuality. And I don't believe proof will ever be found. I say this from my own beliefs, not to offend anyoneFair enough. I just wanted to make sure because, And I don't believe proof will ever be found seems to be a vital consideration.
to accept that God would create a behavior he identifies as an abomination...calls for questioning of God's characterI agree entirely. As a side note, many in history have agreed as well. While I'm not up on the Islamic debate, it is worth noting that in Christian history such a problem as God creating a condition God finds unsatisfactory has caused much discussion. (And to be fair: I've known gay Jews, but I haven't closely watched the rhetoric that leads to their acceptance in communities, and in all my pagan wanderings I haven't found any objections to homosexuality, but they may be there.)
I'm beginning to believe that homosexuality is a temptation like any other...... you either do it or you don't..given we are under Free Moral Agency....Seems reasonable. "Temptation" lends a bit of a shadow to things we do, but I won't actually quibble that beyond pointing it out. But I must admit that I don't see what Free Moral Agency has to do with it. Perhaps I'm being too political.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

Its moral in the way that we act towads homosexuals in our society, and how we treat them. So we should cut all this shit about it not being a moral situation, because it is.

True, it does have indirect moral ramifications, but so do cars and email. Email may be used maliciously and cars may be used to maim, but most would not consider them moral issues. Lying is a moral issue because that exists as a moral issue without reference to extrinsic things.

Originally posted by spookz
"What indications are there that behavior has a biological basis? [text provided by Joseph McInerney]

Behavior often is species specific. A chickadee, for example, carries one sunflower seed at a time from a feeder to a nearby branch, secures the seed to the branch between its feet, pecks it open, eats the contents, and repeats the process. Finches, in contrast, stay at the feeder for long periods, opening large numbers of seeds with their thick beaks. Some mating behaviors also are species specfic. Prairie chickens, native to the upper Midwest, conduct an elaborate mating ritual, a sort of line dance for birds, with spread wings and synchronized group movements. Some behaviors are so characteristic that biologists use them to help differentiate between closely related species.

Behaviors often breed true, that is, we can reproduce them in successive generations of organisms. Consider the instinctive retrieval behavior of a yellow Labrador or the herding posture of a border collie.

Behaviors change in response to alterations in biological structures or processes. For example, a brain injury can turn a polite, mild-mannered
person into a foul-mouthed, aggressive boor, and we routinely modify the behavioral manifestations of mental illnesses with drugs that alter brain chemistry. More recently, geneticists have created or extinguished specific mouse behaviors—ranging from nurturing of pups to continuous circling in a strain called "twirler"— by inserting or disabling specific genes.

In humans, some behaviors run in families. For example, there is a clear familial aggregation of mental illness.
Behavior has an evolutionary history, as demonstrated by the persistence of some behaviors across related species. Chimpanzees are our closest relatives, separated from us by a mere 2 percent difference in DNA sequence. We and they share behaviors that are characteristic of highly social primates, including nurturing, cooperation, altruism, and even some facial expressions. Genes are evolutionary glue, binding all of life in a single history that dates back some 3.5 billion years. Conserved behaviors are part of that history, which is written in the language of nature's universal information molecule—DNA"


"Much current research on genes and behavior also engenders very strong feelings because of the potential social and political consequences of accepting these supposed truths. Thus, more than any other aspect of genetics, discoveries in behavioral genetics should not be viewed as irrefutable until there has been substantial scientific corroboration"

http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/elsi/behavior.html#2



http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5507/1232

http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/publicat/judicature/article4.html


spookz



I don't believe we evolved from monkeys but rather a serpent. Perhaps scientist should investigate Gensis and do some research. I have a question and I know this isn't about homosexuality... If scientist believe we evolved from monkeys why didn't the rest change over to humans? Futhermore, I don't know of any animals that are homosexual.....do you? Perhaps scientist can take gene's from a homosexual and put it in an animal and watch to see if the animal becomes gay. (hehe)

voodoo,





Why couldn't choice be one of the options? Homosexuals themselves claim it to be genetic. I don't see how the lack of prenatal care would cause homosexuality....birth defects,retardation.....O.K.

Tissa,



Free Moral Agency....... We could do what we want ......we are given choices to do either what is consider right or wrong. Basically we can live our lives the way we want..

ha

lady
the days when i preached the word of science to the infidels are long gone.
however i'll give it a shot!

all the monkeys didnt change over cos we needed something to entertain us when visiting the zoo or going on safaris.
my dog is quite happy doing another dogs butt (i'll have you know!)
the thing is he wasnt always gay. i suspect some evil scientist
manipulated the mutt's genes.

ps: i like to think i am descendant from a serpent
much sexier than a monkey, wouldnt you say?

In fact, he is not gay now. Mounting another dog is a display of dominance in the canine world. Even an alpha bitch will mount subordinates, male AND female, to show who's boss. The little pug dog humpin' your leg at a friend's house? He's saying, "who's your daddy" all right, but it has no sexual meaning whatsoever.

Peace.

__________________
Youth is the first victim of war - the first fruit of peace.
It takes 20 years or more of peace to make a man;
it takes only 20 seconds of war to destroy him.-- King Boudewijn I, King of Belgium (1934-1993)

Lady: the prenatal conditions I refer to are things like exposure to testosterone and estrogen. Whether these are genetically determined, who the hell knows?
Choice could well be a component, but it is extremely likely that the determination of sexual orientation is not solely choice: if I were gay and separated from birth from my identical twin* there would be a 50% chance that he were gay. 20% chance for a non-identical twin and a 10% chance for my adoptive brother. Why is it 5 times more likely that my identical twin will like musical theatre and have excellent interior design skills?

----------------------
* how blessed the world would be.

Monkeys

We didn't evolve from them, but we had a common anscestor.
Pretending we did, why should they disappear or evolve into us? If you have a kid, you still exist in your form rather than changing into rugrat form. Monkeys occupy a different niche, one that we can not.
Say we have two populations of monkeys that are geographically isolated. One can now change independently of the other one. One can evolve along the human path and the other can evolve along the monkey path. Why different paths? Chance, different conditions(eg predators, food, environment).

goofy
i dont have a dog
one of my ex's complained that sex with me was all about dominance and aggression. she is a lesbian now while i am on meds

anyway sex can be a multifaceted thing. doggie can dominate while getting his rocks off as well. yes? no?

:D
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FABULOUS kingdom of GAY animals
A BIOLOGIST OFFERS THE FIRST VISION OF A TANTALIZINGLY DIVERSE NATURAL WORLD: NOT ALL ANIMALS ARE STRAIGHT ARROWS.

BY SUSAN McCARTHY | The scientist gasps and drops the binoculars. A notebook falls from astonished hands. Graduate students mutter in alarm. Nobody wants to be the one to tell the granting agency what they're seeing.

A female ape wraps her legs around another female, "rubbing her own clitoris against her partner's while emitting screams of enjoyment." The researcher explains: It's a form of greeting behavior. Or reconciliation. Possibly food-exchange behavior. It's certainly not sex. Not lesbian sex. Not hot lesbian sex.

Six bighorn rams cluster, rubbing, nuzzling and mounting each other. "Aggressosexual behavior," the biologist explains. A way of establishing dominance.

A zoo penguin approaches another, bowing winsomely. The birds look identical and a zoogoer asks how to tell males and females apart. "We can tell by their behavior," a researcher explains. "Eric is courting Dora." A keeper arrives with news: Eric has laid an egg.

They've been keeping it from us: There are homosexual and bisexual animals, ranging from charismatic megafauna like mountain gorillas to cats, dogs and guinea pigs. There are transgendered animals, transvestite animals (who adopt the behavior of the other gender but don't have sex with their own), and animals who live in bisexual triads and quartets.

Bruce Bagemihl spent 10 years scouring the biological literature for data on alternative sexuality in animals to write "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity," 768 pages about exactly what goes on at "South Park's" Big Gay Al's Big Gay Animal Sanctuary. The first section discusses animal sexuality in its many forms and the ways biologists have tried to explain it away. The second section, "A Wondrous Bestiary," describes unconventional sexuality in nearly 200 mammals and birds -- orangutans, whales, warthogs, fruit bats, chaffinches.

Bagemihl's dry style is obedient to the precepts of scientific writing. He explains why animals can be called homosexual or bisexual, but not gay, lesbian or queer, and he follows the rules -- though "homosexual" frightens some who prefer terms like male-only social interactions, multifemale associations, unisexuality, isosexuality or intrasexuality. (Fortunately, as a book reviewer, I am not bound by this rule. We're talking gay animals!) Yet the book is thrillingly dense with new ideas, and with scandalous animal anecdotes. In other words, an ideal bedside read.

t's not just about hot sex. Bagemihl includes nonsexual bonds. Friendships. Female grizzlies sometimes form partnerships, traveling together, defending each other, raising cubs together and putting off hibernation in what seems to be an attempt to stay together longer.

Nor is it all cuddling and consensuality. Bagemihl chronicles homosexual incest (foxes), rape (albatrosses) and homophobia (white-tailed deer).

His favorites are beasts with "a special courtship pattern found only in homosexual interactions." Two percent of male ostriches ignore females and court males with a lively dance that involves running toward your chosen partner at 30 mph, skidding to a stop in front of him, pirouetting madly, then "kantling," which includes crouching, rocking, fluffing your feathers, puffing your throat in and out and twisting your neck like a corkscrew. A male ostrich courting a female omits the speedy approach, shortens the display, adds a booming song and may include symbolic feeding displays. Male ostriches have not been seen actually having sex, unlike male flamingo pairs, who mate, build nests and sometimes rear foster chicks.

Some homosexual animals have one-night stands and some have long marriages. Gay and lesbian geese stay together year after year. Bottlenose dolphins don't form male-female couples, but males often form lifelong pairs with other males. Some are interested only in males, but others are bisexual and happily indulge in beak-genital propulsion and more with male or female alike.

Male black swans court and form stable pairs. With two males, they are able to defend huge territories from other swan couples, which sounds like a double-income-no-kids situation except that they often manage to wangle some eggs from somewhere -- all right, they steal them -- and become model parents, twice as successful as straight parents.

There's a certain temptation to leaf through the book shouting "Caribou? Gay! Red-necked Wallaby? Gay! Golden Plover? GAY GAY GAY!" But of course it's not that simple.

All bonobos and 1 percent of ostriches participate in homosexual activities -- so within the animal kingdom there is tremendous diversity of sexualities. Moreover, the world is full of animals who are straight. But we know so little about the sex lives of most animals that we must be cautious in our assumptions. Many creatures have never been seen having sex of any kind. The black-rumped flameback has been observed in male-male mating, but never male-female mating. Yet presumably they don't buy baby flamebacks at the corner store.

As for why some animals are bisexual or homosexual, Bagemihl gives the subject brief, annoyed discussion: Obviously it involves both nature and nurture, both environment and biology. He notes that different groups of Japanese macaques have different levels and kinds of homosexual behavior -- which he interprets as a cultural difference.

Besides showing the prevalence of alternative sexuality, Bagemihl tells a fascinating story of the suppression of this vast body of information. "Zoology is a very conservative profession," and focusing on animal homosexuality is not the road to success. One researcher documented homosexuality in sheep, but didn't publish until she got tenure.

Surprisingly often, observers don't know what they're seeing. If males and females look alike, researchers assume that when they see animals mating, they are seeing a male and a female, and the one on top is the male. Thus, the penguin Eric, later renamed Erica. If they switch positions, no doubt it's just confusion.

Often, it's plain that animals are engaging in homosexual behavior -- short of wearing gay pride T-shirts, there's no way those walruses could be clearer -- but the observer can't fathom it.

One unusually candid biologist wrestled with the realization that the bighorn rams he studied frequently had sex with each other, and weren't just showing nice wholesome aggression. "To state that the males had evolved a homosexual society was emotionally beyond me. To conceive of those magnificent beasts as 'queers' -- Oh God!"

Bagemihl ridicules ingenious explanations researchers have given for why animals might appear not to be straight arrows. It's dominance. It's a contest of stamina. It's barter for food. It's aggression. It's appeasement. They're confused and don't realize that they're both the same sex. It's a way of reducing tension. They're just playing! And my favorite: It's a greeting.

Dominance is the most popular excuse, with animals portrayed as jockeying for status with the ferocity of assistant professors, when they're only fooling around. "At times, the very word dominance itself becomes simply code for 'homosexual mounting,' repeated mantralike until it finally loses what little meaning it had to begin with," Bagemihl writes.

Captive animals are subjected to the prison comparison: They're like prisoners in an unnatural situation, so that's not real homosexual activity in that cage. While some captive animals adopt an "if you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with" philosophy, others decline to have sex with animals they don't care for. When it comes to animals in the wild freely choosing to pirouette, or give the Really Big Greeting, this explanation collapses.

The idea that animals can't tell each other's gender and accidentally have sex or form homosexual pairs has the age-old appeal of making animals look really, really dumb, but doesn't hold up in the face of evidence that animals know quite well who they're hitting on.

Sometimes it just seems better not to bring it up. One researcher discovered homosexual mounting in white-tailed deer, yet when an 800-page book on white-tails was published, the researcher co-wrote the chapter on behavior with no mention of it.

A report on killer whale behavior that described homosexuality in male orcas was reissued as a government document for the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission with those passages -- and only those passages -- deleted.

Popular books by scientists often include material that doesn't make it into journals. The authors relax, drop the jargon, tell anecdotes, speculate. But, seeking sympathy for the animals they love, most scientists balk at describing bisexuality and homosexuality in the animals. Will people be less likely to save the gorilla if the gorilla has a gay lifestyle?

Bonobos are a partial exception. Recently a fair amount of information about bonobo sex lives has come out. Bonobos are new, bonobos are smart -- and it's hard to keep a camera on bonobos for longer than a minute without recording a sexual act of some kind. Yet popular books about the language capacities of bonobos, like Sue Savage-Rumbaugh's excellent "Kanzi: The Ape at the Brink of the Human Mind," leave the impression of a pure-minded primate egghead.

The lexigrams Kanzi and others are taught to use are not about sex. Yet see Page 67 for a thought-provoking diagram of hand gestures used during bonobo sex, ranging from "come here" to "move your genitals around." These signs, used by captive bonobos, were discovered by Savage-Rumbaugh and her colleagues. It's one of the classic errors in teaching animals language -- not letting them talk about what interests them. "Let's not discuss what you want to do with Panbanisha and Sherman. Let's talk about using the key to open the box and get some candy. No, actual candy."

As for the perennial issue of tool use, an entire category of tools has gone unmentioned -- tools animals make and use to masturbate. Dolphins and porcupines masturbate with objects, and primates regularly modify objects into suitable sex toys. A female orangutan bit pieces of liana to the right size, a male orangutan made an orifice in a large leaf, and a female macaque had five methods of making toys out of leaves and twigs. If an ape discovered electricity, but used it to power a vibrator, we'd be unlikely to hear about it.

Zoology adheres to a "folk model" of homosexuality as perverse, unnatural and bad, Bagemihl argues, and is far behind the humanities in recognizing it as a legitimate subject of inquiry.

Bagemihl formulates the charmingly named theory of biological exuberance, of which homosexuality is one manifestation. He wants to unlink biological analysis from the idea that reproduction -- and hence, heterosexuality -- is all. Biology must accept the apparent purposelessness of sexualities, he argues. Sexual pleasure is "inherently valuable" and "requires no further 'justification.'"

In support of this view, Bagemihl cites celibate animals, animals that exhibit shocking indifference to reproduction and species where sex is rare and difficult. He all but proves reproductive sex doesn't happen.

But of course reproduction does take place and must take place for natural selection to occur. (If creatures lived forever, they wouldn't need to reproduce, nor would they evolve.) The riddle is how a process driven by reproduction produces nonreproductive creatures, but it's not a very hard riddle, and indeed abundance, flexibility and exuberance are part of it.

Evolution is history. The forces of evolution operating in the past may have produced a creature that is fast, fierce or able to do calculus, but those forces don't direct a creature once it is born. Penguins who mated with other penguins of the opposite sex are the ones who left descendants, and every penguin is descended from penguins who committed at least one heterosexual act, but that doesn't mean this penguin, here and now, will commit only heterosexual acts. The capacity for pleasure that encouraged its ancestors to reproduce is available wherever the penguin chooses to direct it.

Successful life forms are characterized by diversity, so changing environments don't wipe them out. That diversity often extends to sexuality. Thus bisexuality and homosexuality are characteristics not of twisted nature, but of generous nature.

So what if animals are gay? Are people vindicated in our diverse sex lives by diversity in animals? If they put us on trial, can we bring as character witnesses lions who make the Sign of the Great Tawny Beast with same-sex lions? (And they do. Unless that's just a greeting.) No, not unless we would bring those same lions to testify that killing your new significant other's children is a useful way to free up their time for you and your future children. Animals do all kinds of things that we frown on for ourselves.

But we can bring the lions to testify that there's nothing unnatural about human sex lives, that bisexuality and homosexuality are not among those twisted human inventions, like income tax, or graduate school, or step aerobics, that have no close analog in the wild.

As Bagemihl says of this widely expressed idea, "What is remarkable about the entire debate about the naturalness of homosexuality is the frequent absence of any reference to concrete facts or accurate, comprehensive information about animal homosexuality."

There's no longer any excuse. At more than 750 pages of profusely illustrated, carefully referenced information, this is the ideal book to slam down on the fingers of anyone who says homosexuality isn't natural.
SALON | March 15, 1999

http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html

critique of bagemihl's book (http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dtw/reviews/books/Biological_Exuberance.html)

Spookz,


Interesting info on homo animals, forturnately, humans have not only choice but the knowledge of right and wrong, unlike animals. I found it quite odd. Animals usually have sex only during mating season unlike humans. At least thats what I was lead to believe. Now I really wanted to know why the rest of the monkey's didn't evolve........ perhaps I'll ask my professor..........and I don't find it sexy to be an ancestor to a monkey...either....I was simply reading The seduction of Eve by Satan through the serpent........ but I know eveyone doesn't believe in the Bible.

Originally posted by Voodoo Child
Lady: the prenatal conditions I refer to are things like exposure to testosterone and estrogen. Whether these are genetically determined, who the hell knows?
Choice could well be a component, but it is extremely likely that the determination of sexual orientation is not solely choice: if I were gay and separated from birth from my identical twin* there would be a 50% chance that he were gay. 20% chance for a non-identical twin and a 10% chance for my adoptive brother. Why is it 5 times more likely that my identical twin will like musical theatre and have excellent interior design skills?

----------------------
* how blessed the world would be.


Voodoo,

I understand what your saying, however I still personally believe it lies in a person moral compass. True..... homosexual urges can tempt the strongest of us..... but ultimately it's choice.

If you can find that 1 person that loves, respects and admires qualities about you that noone else in the past has - who cares whats between their legs?

"I understand what your saying, however I still personally believe it lies in a person moral compass. True..... homosexual urges can tempt the strongest of us..... but ultimately it's choice."

Sexual preference is a choice? For the next 5 years I want you to only be a lesbian. After all, it's just a choice, right? So you should have zero problem and be 100% content and feel healthy spending, say, the next 40 years as a lesbian!!!

And furthermore, what's immoral about being gay?

Interesting info on homo animals, forturnately, humans have not only choice but the knowledge of right and wrong, unlike animals. I'm not sure what this has to do with homosexuality. I mean, what does right and wrong have to do with homosexuality specifically?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I'm afraid Lady will come out of the closet as a fundamental Christian who knows that homosexuality is wrong.

Lady, I hope you don't, and if I am wrong, I apologize in advance.

The reason lots of people fear homosexuality has to do with other circumstances and situations which are associated with homosexuality. (IE pediphielia). Though their are contradictory studies, many studies have indicated that the majority of pediphelia is in fact homosexual (male male in most cases). It's been pointed out that most pediphiles admit to being heterosexual, the pediphile act they involved with was homosexual.

One might find also, that STD's have been for a lont time associated with homosexuality. In France, the early cases of AIDS detected their were primarily from males who went to bath-houses. Unfortunetly, people moaned and flamed this fact as "anti-gay" when in fact it was merely the circumstances. In turn, anti-gay people used this as an example of why homosexuality is bad, as gay rights people flamed it as BS, and in the end it ended up being a big political upheval instead of people treating it for what it really was - a public health crisis. AIDS spread a whole lot quicker partly because people on both sides of the Gay vs. Straight war were too stupid to deal with what was going on.

Their are lots of other examples, but intollerance as I have discovered, isn't just an issue of "You were taught stupid myths." It has to do with wether or not some memebers of the considered enemy act in ways which enforce your beliefs. For example, if a homosexual man rapes another man, the act was very violating and homosexual so the person attacked will associate homosexuality with their forced violation. The rape of men is in fact, a big issue in this country which is NOT spoken of. According to some studies, as many as one in 12 men have been raped, and 50% of all those cases are by men. By comparison, 98% of the rape of women is by men. It's a no brainer why men are less tollerant of homosexuality than women are!

In the end, it's really up to gays I think to deal with the negative things they are associated with by joining the causes on those fronts. Be honest - how many articles and protests do you see by homosexual movements against rape and pediphilia? You don't see much of any, which is why the associations of rape, pediphilia, and the like stand and in fact, the more extreme facits of the homosexual movement (not the mainstream) have associated themselves with the underground movement to accept pediphilia and homosexuality.

I am not anti-gay. I do believe however, that their are reasons why homosexuality has for thousands of years been considered an immoral act.

Originally posted by A4Ever
I'm afraid Lady will come out of the closet as a fundamental Christian who knows that homosexuality is wrong.

Lady, I hope you don't, and if I am wrong, I apologize in advance.


as far as i am concerned, lady already sounds like a fundamental christian.
(serpents, animals=no reasoning,soul...etc, homo=abomination)
so what??
i have no problem with her beliefs. unless they (fundamental christians) pick up swords and go on a jihad to convert the heathens, i can coexist with them. hell, i might even marry one of them (how kinky would that be!!!)

Years ago I was curious about this issue, of whether there was anything specifically right or wrong about (adult, consenting) sexual preferences. For a while it was big in the news, everyone was talking about it. I guess that was when the press and sitcoms and all were busy thrusting homosexuality in our faces (eeww!) all day every day, and Ellen was popular just for being gay, et cetera.

So at that time I considered it and investigated the relevent matters. I found that most serial killers in my country are heterosexual. Most child abusers are heterosexual, and married, and fathers. So I couldn't really find any correlation between homosexuality and "evil". On the other hand, I know a few gay guys, and they basically shag anyone they can, any time they can, without really getting to know them, and without protection. Basically, the few I know are complete sluts. Of course I can't base a judgement of all gay guys on the three or four that I know. As for homosexual females, I know quite a few, and only one of them I would consider a slut. Basically, I never found anything which would link homosexuality to being evil or wrong. The worst thing I found was that the gay clubbing culture in my city is quite unsafe and shallow, which of course is why there is so much disease going around in those circles (yes, there is).

PS: And if you're wondering, I'm about as straight as it gets.

Originally posted by Tyler
"I understand what your saying, however I still personally believe it lies in a person moral compass. True..... homosexual urges can tempt the strongest of us..... but ultimately it's choice."

Sexual preference is a choice? For the next 5 years I want you to only be a lesbian. After all, it's just a choice, right? So you should have zero problem and be 100% content and feel healthy spending, say, the next 40 years as a lesbian!!!




I don't choose too.............Why don't you be a lesbian?

Adam admits:

Years ago I was curious about this issue...

PS: And if you're wondering, I'm about as straight as it gets.

I wonder who Adam is really trying to convince, us or himself....Hmmmm....

:D

Sexual preference is a choice? For the next 5 years I want you to only be a lesbian. After all, it's just a choice, right? So you should have zero problem and be 100% content and feel healthy spending, say, the next 40 years as a lesbian!!!

That makes no sense. It is a choice, and the choice to be heterosexual does not invalidate the idea that homosexuality is a choice.

Why do you feel the need to blame homosexuality on something? It's a choice, respect their decision.

Originally posted by (Q)
Adam admits:

Years ago I was curious about this issue...

PS: And if you're wondering, I'm about as straight as it gets.

I wonder who Adam is really trying to convince, us or himself....Hmmmm....

Actually, Q, I was just thinking that you're looking mighty sexy right about now... :p

Originally posted by tiassa
I'm not sure what this has to do with homosexuality. I mean, what does right and wrong have to do with homosexuality specifically?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:






The knowledge of right and wrong..............but I personally believe God doesn't condone many things including homosexuality.........therefore upon recieving this info(Bible).........I personally conclude it must be a wrong or unintended behavior.

The knowledge of right and wrong..............but I personally believe God doesn't condone many things including homosexuality.........therefore upon recieving this info(Bible).........I personally conclude it must be a wrong or unintended behavior.

I have a question Lady. Say that a person (whether you believe is a choice or not) is not happy mentally with someone of the opposite sex. So they find a mate of the same sex, and they live happily ever after. Will this person burn in eternal flames the same as say... Adolf Hitler?

Originally posted by spookz
as far as i am concerned, lady already sounds like a fundamental christian.
(serpents, animals=no reasoning,soul...etc, homo=abomination)
so what??
i have no problem with her beliefs. unless they (fundamental christians) pick up swords and go on a jihad to convert the heathens, i can coexist with them. hell, i might even marry one of them (how kinky would that be!!!)



Obviously your not a Christian............that's O.K...........TAKES ALL KINDS.

Just so you know, although I disagree with you, and I don't believe in your god, I have no problem with your personal preferences in this matter. Often those who go against the current trends in the press are derided for being anachronistic or such, because the politically correct crowd are basically thought-police for anyone who disagrees with them. So, whenever you say something like "I don't like homosexuality" or "I think Saddam is a sexy beast", you know you'll get people complaining.

Originally posted by *stRgrL*
I have a question Lady. Say that a person (whether you believe is a choice or not) is So they find a mate of the same sex, and they live happily ever after. r?





not happy mentally with someone of the opposite sex.



Thats the story of my life and many others but I can't say that everyman in the world is going to treat me bad.. I've decided if God has a mate for all of us than I wait my turn.....I've stopped trying to pick out men.. I'm no good at it.





Will this person burn in eternal flames the same as say... Adolf Hitler





I don't care to get to preachy but you asked, I can't say if someone will go to hell (death bed confessiong - who knows) however blaming God for creating a behavior he considers an abomination.........will never bring a person to repentence..... if they truely believe they were created a murder, thief, adulter, homosexual.....etc ....that might put one in Hell.. but thats just my opinion.

Originally posted by Tyler
And furthermore, what's immoral about being gay?





Homosexuality and whether its immoral is the decision of the individual. My argument lies in leading people to believe God is satanic........... I could respect----choice. Crack heads, murders, adulterous.......ect.... don't blame God for their choices.... why not blame Satan.

Originally posted by Adam
Just so you know, although I disagree with you, and I don't believe in your god, I have no problem with your personal preferences in this matter. Often those who go against the current trends in the press are derided for being anachronistic or such, because the politically correct crowd are basically thought-police for anyone who disagrees with them. So, whenever you say something like "I don't like homosexuality" or "I think Saddam is a sexy beast", you know you'll get people complaining.





How many God's are there? Anachronistic... perhaps

Originally posted by Lady
How many God's are there? Stand for nothing fall for anything....... Anachronistic... perhaps

Originally posted by Lady
How many God's are there?
Gosh, zillions! The Greeks had a bunch of them, as did the Scandinavians ages ago. The various Americans groups have different Creator myths and crazy feathered dragons and all. The Australian natives have the Rainbow Serpent and others. The Middle East had Baal, Ishtar, Mithra, and of course the christian god is from the Middle East as well. India has more than anyone could be bothered to count. Various gods and goddesses representing aspects of nature were worshipped in Europe prior to Roman expansion. Heaps of gods and goddesses. Personally, I don't believe any of them exist, although some stories may be based on overgrown tales of the exploits of mere humans. Still, some of it makes for interesting reading.

It's been pointed out that most pediphiles admit to being heterosexual, the pediphile act they involved with was homosexual.Leading up to the 1992 general election in Oregon, the conservative-Christian PAC Oregon Citizens' Alliance published in the official voter guide the statistic that 95% of all child molestations are committed by homosexuals. Apparently, that's a gay man that's raping your daughter.
One might find also, that STD's have been for a lont time associated with homosexuality. In France, the early cases of AIDS detected their were primarily from males who went to bath-houses. Unfortunetly, people moaned and flamed this fact as "anti-gay" when in fact it was merely the circumstances. In turn, anti-gay people used this as an example of why homosexuality is bad ....One of the reasons the US government allowed the HIV epidemic to grow in the US is that Ronald Reagan thought of it as god's punishment to gays for sins committed, and apparently did not say "AIDS" or "HIV" until the sixth year of his term. Reagan was alleged in a poli-sci text I read in college, to have called AIDS "the gay measles". Thought I'd share that one.
According to some studies, as many as one in 12 men have been raped, and 50% of all those cases are by men. By comparison, 98% of the rape of women is by men. It's a no brainer why men are less tollerant of homosexuality than women are!How interesting. A couple of points I'd like to throw in there.

•_As homosexuals are alleged to make up 10% of the population, I find it interesting that they're committing so few rapes, and since many of those rapes are against homosexuals to begin with ... I'll have to do some math.

• On the other hand, 1 in 4 women in the US will be raped. I haven't heard of that number getting any more severe over the last decade, but I am darn sure it hasn't gotten any less severe.

•_I agree wholeheartedly about men, women, tolerance, and sexuality, but after I do the math ... will heterosexual homophobia (fear) be justified?
Be honest - how many articles and protests do you see by homosexual movements against rape and pediphilia? They turned the University of Oregon on its head that way. Men were expected to cross the street to avoid being near women. A woman panicked and sprayed some random dude in the face with pepper spray and all was cool because that's the peace of mind we nasty men owed the women. "Men Against Rape" was an organization founded and peopled entirely by homosexual men. I found it interesting that no heterosexual men joined an anti-rape movement. However, I see "women's" groups working against rape. I don't see a whole lot of heterosexual-male-celebration type groups protesting rape. I mean, come on ...
You don't see much of any, which is why the associations of rape, pediphilia, and the like stand and in fact, the more extreme facits of the homosexual movement (not the mainstream) have associated themselves with the underground movement to accept pediphilia and homosexuality.Funny that the first time I ever heard the definitive "link" of homosexuality and pedophilia, it was from the aforementioned OCA. Funny also that I've never seen that link demonstrated convincingly. Certes there is NAMBLA, but I can also point to the Communists, since I know for a fact from reading editorials nine years ago that the Spartacist League (Worker's Vanguard newspaper) protested the removal of an admitted NAMBLA member from New York public schoolrooms. (It's not like they fired the guy; they gave him a higher-paying job at the district office, where he was away from kids.) I mean, most of the time when people speak of the dangers of homosexuality toward other persons, I'm usually left with a sensation of, "Yes, and?" Just because people choose to pay attention to homosexuality does not oblige homosexuals to conduct themselves any differently or to devote any greater effort to anything than their heterosexual neighbors. After all, heterosexual activity is responsible for 100% of birth defects, but you don't see me picking on that do you? ;)
I am not anti-gay. I do believe however, that their are reasons why homosexuality has for thousands of years been considered an immoral act.I hear you. But please understand that's the same line I always hear. However, since you're demonstrably not one of the I'm-not-anti-gay-but-God-says-they-should-be-put-to-death crowd (they're worth a laugh before they get really frightening) I shan't question the validity of the claim. I just don't think that anyone can objectively establish the troubles of homosexuality as being any worse than heterosexuality when left to exist without prejudice, politics, and hatred. That's why tolerance is such an odd thing for me. I really don't understand what there is to tolerate.

Please remember that negative associations of homosexuality, sin, and HIV resulted in Americans burning children out of their homes for being so sinful as to receive an HIV-infected blood-transfusion in the days when nobody realized that they needed to screen blood for HIV.

But I noticed, Xevious, that your language was mostly quite specific about who and what is thought or thinking. I thank you for that, and it's part of how I know you're not part of that oddly spiteful crowd that often makes the same disclaimer you did.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa

One of the reasons the US government allowed the HIV epidemic to grow in the US is that Ronald Reagan thought of it as god's punishment to gays for sins committed, and apparently did not say "AIDS" or "HIV" until the sixth year of his term. Reagan was alleged in a poli-sci text I read in college, to have called AIDS "the gay measles". Thought I'd share that one.How interesting. A couple of points I'd like to throw in there.

Are you serious?

Lady
The knowledge of right and wrong..............but I personally believe God doesn't condone many things including homosexuality.........therefore upon recieving this info(Bible).........I personally conclude it must be a wrong or unintended behavior.Well, that's hardly knowledge.

You ever had a sexual partner of the same gender?

I always find among Christianity a presumption that God intentionally creates human beings to be unsatisfactory to Him. The Society of Friends is one of the only sects that gets a pass on this issue. Beyond that, it's a matter of original sin.

But that so-called "knowledge" comes from a book that, in my more direct mode I note fits very nicely into the nightstand drawer in an hourly-rate motel.

So help me out: which is right and which is wrong--(A) compassion, (B) persecution?

For instance, when God commanded the Israelites to destroy the Amelekites in order to settle a 400+ year-old grudge, was it really right to slay children in the womb?

Or Lot's praiseworthy compassion, when he was blessed for having thrown his daughters out to be raped because the rape of his daughters was more palatable to him than the thought of anyone having gay sex?

Right or wrong?

You can take what you want from the Bible, but please don't call it knowledge until you can establish it as such.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lady
[B]Once again can the gay community prove God created them gay?.....No... why claim such? Thats my ARGUMENT...... If you don't believe in the Bible thats your business but why attack it..the subject is about homosexuality not Lot not the Amelikians or whatever....... Believing homosexualilty is wrong is mine......but thats not my argument



Trying to discredit the Bible doesn't cause me to believe homosexual behavior is cool....questions concerning Lot and mentions of the Amikelalits...I'm not the author I have to ask for understand as well.(you can too)....but the subject concerns homosexuality.. I asked two questions.. Why lead the world to believe God deliberately created a behavior he considers perverse in which the penalty of is hell. Everyone is not going to accept that God is Evil. Why not just admitt it's a choice.... simple. It would make it so much easier.



You ever had a sexual partner of the same gender?


I don't choose too........




I always find among Christianity a presumption that God intentionally creates human beings to be unsatisfactory to Him.



This statement is what I have been trying to prove wrong...





So help me out: which is right and which is wrong--(A) compassion, (B) persecution?




So basically fall for anything........ there's no hostility or cruel treatment being done to any homosexual...by me.



You can take what you want from the Bible, but please don't call it knowledge until you can establish it as such.

It's knowledge to me I might understand it all (who does) but developing a personal relationship with God makes it all the better.........If you don't believe in the Bible or God........to each his own.

Why not just admitt it's a choice.... simple.

Did you choose to be straight? Probably not right?

Thinking a person will make themselves be with someone of the opposite because the majority thinks is right - is nonsense.

Be happy people and do what makes you happy - not what others percieve as happy and especially not what a book - that has more talk of murder, rape, etc. then any other - says to do.

"Why lead the world to believe God deliberately created a behavior he considers perverse in which the penalty of is hell. Everyone is not going to accept that God is Evil. Why not just admitt it's a choice.... simple. It would make it so much easier."

1) I don't recall someone coming up to me or my own thoughts at around the age of puberty going; "hey, uh, do you want to be straight or gay?" Do you??? Perhaps only the holy Christians get to be asked this but I seem to remember having not one fucking ounce of control over being straight (not that I'm complaining, straight folk don't have to put up with people like you with obviously no scietific education).

2) God created everything? God is omnipotent? Therefore he created the world with 100% knowledge that there would be hitler, stalin, gays, perverts.... If God actually didn't want anyone to be like this, all he had to do was create a universe where it would never happen. And seeing as god is omnipotent, this shouldn't be too much of a problem. But ya see, the Christian god ain't like this.

Originally posted by *stRgrL*
Did you choose to be straight? Probably not right?

Thinking a person will make themselves be with someone of the opposite because the majority thinks is right - is nonsense.

Be happy people and do what makes you happy - not what others percieve as happy and especially not what a book - that has more talk of murder, rape, etc. then any other - says to do.




I do have the choice of homosexuality,rape,murder,adultery,you name it. And if I should happen to give in to one of these temptations hopefully I would be forgiven rather than BLAME God. Once again this is my argument blaming God........ not personal sex preference's.

Ah but Lady, you have to realize that not everyone believes in mythology.

Originally posted by Tyler
"Why lead the world to believe God deliberately created a behavior he considers perverse in which the penalty of is hell. Everyone is not going to accept that God is Evil. Why not just admitt it's a choice.... simple. It would make it so much easier."

1) I don't recall someone coming up to me or my own thoughts at around the age of puberty going; "hey, uh, do you want to be straight or gay?" Do you??? Perhaps only the holy Christians get to be asked this but I seem to remember having not one fucking ounce of control over being straight (not that I'm complaining, straight folk don't have to put up with people like you with obviously no scietific education).







So we should just tell the children God purposely made some people gay so he could watch them burn in hell. I don't think so........ Once again no one is persecution the Gay community preference... only questioning the reason given behind the behavior.






2) God created everything? God is omnipotent? Therefore he created the world with 100% knowledge that there would be hitler, stalin, gays, perverts.... If God actually didn't want anyone to be like this, all he had to do was create a universe where it would never happen. And seeing as god is omnipotent, this shouldn't be too much of a problem. But ya see, the Christian god ain't like this.



True God created everything and never forced man to worship him. But let us not forget Satan is a factor and the complete opposite of God. And why God just didn't create a perfect universe to began with...... I think he did GARDEN OF EDEN..........however as we have all read......Eve's curosity for sex ruined the whole thing. And if you can only accept science,even better, because they still haven't found no gene connected to homosexuality.

Originally posted by Tyler
Ah but Lady, you have to realize that not everyone believes in mythology.




I DON'T BELIEVE IN MYTHOLOGY EITHER

"So we should just tell the children God purposely made some people gay so he could watch them burn in hell. I don't think so........ Once again no one is persecution the Gay community preference... only questioning the reason given behind the behavior"

Okay, answer me these questions
1) Is god omnipotent?
if yes...
2) Did god create everything?
if yes....
3) How is it not true then that god knew full well that hte universe he created would contain people for him to let burn?


"True God created everything and never forced man to worship him. But let us not forget Satan is a factor and the complete opposite of God. And why God just didn't create a perfect universe to began with...... I think he did GARDEN OF EDEN..........however as we have all read......Eve's curosity for sex ruined the whole thing. And if you can only accept science,even better, because they still haven't found no gene connected to homosexuality."

Ahhh, here's where you become a silly goose. See, if god created everything, that includes satan. And if he is omnipotent, he knew full well that satan would tempt man and man would fall.


"I DON'T BELIEVE IN MYTHOLOGY EITHER"

Christianity. But this is not a thread to debate religion so we will not discuss this here.

Originally posted by Tyler
"So we should just tell the children God purposely made some people gay so he could watch them burn in hell. I don't think so........ Once again no one is persecution the Gay community preference... only questioning the reason given behind the behavior"

Okay, answer me these questions
1) Is god omnipotent?
if yes...
2) Did god create everything?
if yes....
3) How is it not true then that god knew full well that hte universe he created would contain people for him to let burn?


"True God created everything and never forced man to worship him. But let us not forget Satan is a factor and the complete opposite of God. And why God just didn't create a perfect universe to began with...... I think he did GARDEN OF EDEN..........however as we have all read......Eve's curosity for sex ruined the whole thing. And if you can only accept science,even better, because they still haven't found no gene connected to homosexuality."

Ahhh, here's where you become a silly goose. See, if god created everything, that includes satan. And if he is omnipotent, he knew full well that satan would tempt man and man would fall.


"I DON'T BELIEVE IN MYTHOLOGY EITHER"

Christianity. But this is not a thread to debate religion so we will not discuss this here.




It's impossible for a atheist I assume to understand where I am comming from. (Its pointless) True Satan was created by God(never denied that) and True God is omnipotent(never denied that) and True God PROVIDED A WAY...to counterattack Satan's.

While trying to gain understanding on why homosexuals in particular either believe or use as an excuse God created them Gay..so they can practice their sexual preferences has revealed many different perspectives from many different kinds of people from vast non- religion or religion groups. I have finally concluded from doing some research that a small percentage of people tend to believe God did created homosexuality despite the claims of the Bible,a larger percentage believes it's in the realm of gene make up, despite their has been no discovery of a homo or hetero sexual gene, and still there is yet another group who believes its choice, which excludes God & science.

If science should ever find gene's than it would disprove our creatour..... Now for the qroup who claims God created homosexuality.... I challenge you to explain why pedophilia's couldn't claim God created them to desire young children?

I challenge you to explain why pedophilia's couldn't claim God created them to desire young children?

Uhhh.. cuz God doesnt exist. :bugeye: Duh! I thought you would of figured that out by now:D

a atheist?

hmm religion really is true knowledge.....

For me, I think of homosexuality as the same thing as having a relationship with someone really ugly, i don't want to have one, but i can't say it is wrong to have one.

"I challenge you to explain why pedophilia's couldn't claim God created them to desire young children?"

There's two people who makes this claim and both of them I find it impossible to have an education over 8th grade. Here's another one of them kooky idea's for you to grasp:

- We make something illegal because it is detrimental to society as a whole. Not because you're big man in the sky says so.
- Pedophelia involves at least one victim.
- Therefore it is detrimental to society.
- Homosexuality involves no victim.
- Therefore it is not detrimental to society.
- Pedopheliacs need help. They are offered it. It is, generally, a problem which can (for some) be difficult to repress. Thus, they need help. It is not a genetic problem, it is a psychological one.

Originally posted by Tyler
"I challenge you to explain why pedophilia's couldn't claim God created them to desire young children?"

There's two people who makes this claim and both of them I find it impossible to have an education over 8th grade. Here's another one of them kooky idea's for you to grasp:

- We make something illegal because it is detrimental to society as a whole. Not because you're big man in the sky says so.
- Pedophelia involves at least one victim.
- Therefore it is detrimental to society.
- Homosexuality involves no victim.
- Therefore it is not detrimental to society.
- Pedopheliacs need help. They are offered it. It is, generally, a problem which can (for some) be difficult to repress. Thus, they need help. It is not a genetic problem, it is a psychological one.






First it sounds like you have a serious problem with God (can't help you there) secondly, the laws of the land don't apply to the question asked. Homosexuals claim God created them gay why couldn't pedophelia's?

"First it sounds like you have a serious problem with God (can't help you there) secondly, the laws of the land don't apply to the question asked. Homosexuals claim God created them gay why couldn't pedophelia's?"

The Christian god is somewhat of an ass. Or at the very least, an underacheiver. Many other gods I have no problem with. The problem with you is that you say god and think of your god as the only one.

Secondly, here's where you don't know english (I suggest you learn it, it comes in valuable on this board - if you need a place to learn the local college generally offers night courses).

"Pedopheliacs need help. They are offered it. It is, generally, a problem which can (for some) be difficult to repress. Thus, they need help. It is not a genetic problem, it is a psychological one."
- Tyler Cohen

Originally posted by Tyler
"First it sounds like you have a serious problem with God (can't help you there) secondly, the laws of the land don't apply to the question asked.

The Christian god is somewhat of an ass. Or at the very least, an underacheiver. Many other gods I have no problem with. The problem with you is that you say god and think of your god as the only one.

Secondly, here's where you don't know english (I suggest you learn it, it comes in valuable on this board - if you need a place to learn the local college generally offers night courses).

"Pedopheliacs need help. They are offered it. It is, generally, a problem which can (for some) be difficult to repress. Thus, they need help. It is not a genetic problem, it is a psychological one."
- Tyler Cohen






Tyler,


Science hasn't discovered a homo or hetero gene( I understand that.)
Find the post where I said my God was the only one. But before you do answer this question>
Homosexuals claim God created them gay why couldn't pedophelia's?"

"Homosexuals claim God created them gay why couldn't pedophelia's?"

1) Not eveyrone is christian
2) When someone says "homosexuality is genetic" it therefore does not mean they blame god. To YOU they blame god. You have this hang up called "I'm-always-right" syndrome where as regardless of someone's belief you consider them Christian. My advise - stay away from anyone with an educated and who isn't Christian.
3) Not every homosexual claims it's genetics. Please go educate yourself on them.
4) Pedophelia has nothing to do with genetics. Please read what I wrote where it said "pedophelia is not genetics...". It is a psychological problem generally related to childhood trauma. If you would like I will search for a source for you.

Fixated (or exclusive type) pedophilia. The fixated pedophiles consider themselves to be trapped in childhood. They usually have minimum relations with adult peers, and relate better with children. They are identified mainly as men and their primary interest is in boys, with whom they develop boy to boy relationships. They typically plan their activities to promote access to young boys through church, neighborhood, or sporting activities.

Regressed (or nonexclusive type) pedophilia. On the other hand, the regressed pedophile is not ordinarily attracted to children. Those with regressed pedophilia are typically heterosexual married males and most likely to sexually molest 8 or 9 year old female children. Some pedophiles complain of anxiety or tension related to employment or marital relationship as precursors to pedophilic impulses, as well as alcohol or drug usage. They view the child as an adult substitute, and relate to the child in an adult to adult manner. The first sexual encounter is usually sudden and unplanned.

Cross-sex pedophilia. Male pedophiles who sexually molest young girls are typically diagnosed with regressed pedophilia. They commonly befriend the young girl and gradually engage in sexually activities, enticing, rather than forcing, the child. The activities frequently include fondling the child, encouraging the child to fondle the male, and possibly oral stimulation, but rarely sexual intercourse.

Same-sex pedophilia. While most pedophiles who engage in or fantasize about same-sex children do not participate in heterosexual adult sexual relations, they also deny being homosexual. Instead, the pedophiles are more sexually aroused by male and female children than by either gender of adults. The average age of molestation among boys is between 10 and 12. Sexual activities typically involve fondling and adult masturbation and/ or oral stimulation of the boy, and anal sex with the adult male taking the active role.

Female pedophilia. Although the vast majority of pedophilia is among males, female pedophilia does exist. However, female pedophilia is not commonly reported, possibly because the female's affection shown toward a child is seen as maternal, as opposed to sexual in the males. Additionally, male children do not view sexual relations with adult women negatively, and therefore may not report the incident. However, it is reportedly fairly common for young males (12 years old or younger) to engage in sexual activities (usually sexual intercourse) with adult women, usually in their twenties, who are usually known by the boys and typically friends of parents, neighbors or baby-sitters.

- http://www.umkc.edu/sites/hsw/issues/pedophil.html

There's a start.

"Tragically, the abused child is then more likely to become an abuser in adulthood (14). Thus, it would not be surprising that pedophilia could be more common among homosexual men: since they are more likely to have been victims of abuse themselves, they would also be more likely to initiate a repetition of that abuse with a same-sex child"

"Psychoanalysis recognizes the child abuser as typically an immature man who wants to "give love" to a boy which he did not himself receive in childhood. He makes a narcissistic identification with the child, seeing him as an idealized version of himself, and perceives himself as giving the same love which he wishes he had received from his own father. Thus the pedophile cannot understand that he is inflicting emotional damage"
- http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html


Studies I've seen talked about seem to indicate that a good number of consenting youths (13-16) who engage in sexual acts never suffer later in life mentally, physically or sexually. That's great news. However, there's still far too many of them who do suffer greatly to ever consider it worth legalization. Where there's that many victims it is detrimental to society.

"Homosexuals claim God created them gay why couldn't pedophelia's?"

Anyone can claim anything, but god isn't accepted by everyone. Not only that, there are many gods that people believe in (for those christians that seem not to know that). You can not make something legal by blaming your existence on god.

I'm serious that I've read that tidbit. The unfortunate part of the story is that the particular poli-sci text in which I came across that tale was among the books my college girlfriend chose to sell back to the University despite my protestations and while I was at work, so that she could pay for some more weed. Fair enough; I once spent my financial aid on her makeup; live and learn. (If I'm ever excessively harsh toward women and makeup, there stands my reason.)

But unfortunately I'm quite serious. Reagan is one of the original "gay measles" proprietors. What, however, can we expect of a man who stood before Congress thirty years before and placed his hand on a Bible and proceeded to (A) name names of suspected Communists in his association, and (B) lie while doing so? While I'm grateful that his anti-Communist zeal helped bring an end to the Cold War, I wish he hadn't been part of the ridiculous effort to take the world to the brink.

Such editorial comments aside, I am, unfortunately, quite serious that such information exists in my experience. I shall in the coming days, given the extremity of the assertion, attempt to provide some citation of that idea, but it's one of those obscure ones that came up in an article written by a guy who resigned from the Reagan administration in protest of certain social policies (HIV, obviously, one of them).

It's a fair question if it seems a little beyond belief. I'll give you that. It's one of the reasons I don't often speak of that girlfriend. It's hard not to speak ill of people when that's all they leave you.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Trying to discredit the Bible doesn't cause me to believe homosexual behavior is cool....questions concerning Lot and mentions of the Amikelalits...I'm not the author I have to ask for understand as well.(you can too)....but the subject concerns homosexuality.. I asked two questions.. Why lead the world to believe God deliberately created a behavior he considers perverse in which the penalty of is hell. Everyone is not going to accept that God is Evil. Why not just admitt it's a choice.... simple. It would make it so much easier.It's not a matter of that. It's a matter of taking what one finds in the Bible and assuming or concluding it to equal knowledge. That's the notion I protest, for, after all, these other things I've mentioned are also knowledge.

Now, it is hardly my problem that "everyone is not going to accept that God is Evil". It's a hard issue, especially in Biblical terms. God is good, but God is also the Supreme Thing. That is God is omnipotent in theory, but I've found that Christians find this problematic functionally. Other people find it problematic conceptually, but Christians often have problems understanding the implications of omnipotence. For instance, I was reading Kenneth Wade's Savage Future, a critique of the New Age movement that I picked up in a Christian (Seventh-Day Adventist) bookstore. I'm not entirely sure if he intended to do so, but he proclaimed in essence that God is not omnipotent and does not have nearly as great of authority in the Universe as even I was lead to believe by Lutheran and Catholic preachers. (It was more important, unfortunately, for Mr. Wade to get his potshots in against the New Age than it was to pay attention to the implications of his own arguments.)

God is no more purely good than purely evil. That's the problem. If people cannot accept the fact that the God to whom they plead for mercy--mercy for the fact of their birth, for they are born into sin--is also responsible for evil, it is hardly my problem.

So rather than ask, Why lead the world to believe God deliberately created a behavior he considers perverse in which the penalty of is hell? I would ask Why does God create people to be born into sin, requiring salvation through Jesus Christ, in essence creating beings which are unsatisfactory to his own needs?

And no, I don't expect everyone to accept the fact that the God described in the Bible is a moron, but come on ... if God has a problem with the design, that's His Own Problem.
Why not just admitt it's a choice.... simple. It would make it so much easier.You know, I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole.
I don't choose too........Why don't you choose to? Don't you think it would feel good? No? Well, believe it or not, some people are inclined to feel that heterosexual union does not feel good. It happens. Such is God's will.

Deal with it.

In the meantime, while I rarely pull out this standard, I am compelled to for simplicity's sake:

• If you have not had a sexual partner of the same gender, I'm not sure you're really qualified to speak to why homosexuals feel as they do.
I always find among Christianity a presumption that God intentionally creates human beings to be unsatisfactory to Him.

This statement is what I have been trying to prove wrong...A simple way to look at it:

• At what point in a person's life do they require salvation through Jesus Christ? One year? Two? When they develop a moral conscience? Why, then, was I and many of my generation baptized as infants before we could choose to accept God?

The simple fact is that Christian doctrine prescribes a state of human sin from the moment of birth. I would be very interested if some of our Christians were to discuss at what point sin enters the existence of a human being. I would be happy to moderate such a topic.
So basically fall for anything........ there's no hostility or cruel treatment being done to any homosexual...by me.Compassion? Persecution? Hell, there's always apathy. How silly of me to forget.

In the meantime, while you need not celebrate it, and while you might disclaim homophobia, you do create a condition whereby you demonstrate a certain xenophobia. God doesn't condone homosexuality. But God does condone heterosexual rape; how do you feel about that?

By partitioning out homosexuality--for God doesn't condone it--you are, in fact, making it something foreign or alien. Hence xenophobia, since it is enough of a worry to you to wonder how to address it. Technically, the answer is to address homosexuality as no different than anything else. If, however, a book tells you what to think, address it as the book sees fit. Or, specifically, as you decide the book tells you is proper.

But you've made homosexuality something alien. You choose to discriminate against it in order to award it more negative consideration than other concepts. Are you sure there is no cruelty done?

I mean, because it's easier that way is no reason to subscribe to an idea and call it knowledge.
It's knowledge to me I might understand it all (who does) but developing a personal relationship with God makes it all the better.........If you don't believe in the Bible or God........to each his own.Yes but you're wrong because I have a book that says if they take my corpse to the appropriate place on a river and drop me over a waterfall, my soul will be given the opportunity to pass through several challenges which I will be well prepared for by sorcerers and necromancers of my House, and upon completion of these tasks will be admitted to the glory of God, regardless of my conduct.

It's in a book, so I call it knowledge.

To each his own, indeed.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by Frencheneesz
"Homosexuals claim God created them gay why couldn't pedophelia's?"

Anyone can claim anything, but god isn't accepted by everyone. Not only that, there are many gods that people believe in (for those christians that seem not to know that). You can not make something legal by blaming your existence on god.






French,

This is my point anyone can claim anything and the homosexual community has made a claim which science can't back up.

Tyler,


Good info on perverts........you don't' have to convince me pedafiles weren't created sick, nor can you convince me that homosexual are created gay. However just because homosexuals are more excepted has nothing to do with the creation claim. Other individuals with other non- accepted lifestyles could make the same claims that homosexuals make.

Originally posted by tiassa
God is no more purely good than purely evil. That's the problem. If people cannot accept the fact that the God to whom they plead for mercy--mercy for the fact of their birth, for they are born into sin--is also responsible for evil, it is hardly my problem.

Now, it is hardly my problem that "everyone is not going to accept that God is Evil". It's a hard issue, especially in Biblical terms. God is good, but God is also the Supreme Thing. That is God is omnipotent in theory, but I've found that Christians find this problematic functionally. Other people find it problematic conceptually, but Christians often have problems understanding the implications of omnipotence. For instance, I was reading Kenneth Wade's Savage Future, a critique of the New Age movement that I picked up in a Christian (Seventh-Day Adventist) bookstore. I'm not entirely sure if he intended to do so, but he proclaimed in essence that God is not omnipotent and does not have nearly as great of authority in the Universe as even I was lead to believe by Lutheran and Catholic preachers. (It was more important, unfortunately, for Mr. Wade to get his potshots in against the New Age than it was to pay attention to the implications of his own arguments.)



Deal with it.

In the meantime, while I rarely pull out this standard, I am compelled to for simplicity's sake:

God is no more purely good than purely evil. That's the problem. If people cannot accept the fact that the God to whom they plead for mercy--mercy for the fact of their birth, for they are born into sin--is also responsible for evil, it is hardly my problem.


The simple fact is that Christian doctrine prescribes a state of human sin from the moment of birth. I would be very interested if some of our Christians were to discuss at what point sin enters the existence of a human being. I would be happy to moderate such a topic.Compassion? Persecution? Hell, there's always apathy. How silly of me to forget.


By partitioning out homosexuality--for God doesn't condone it--you are, in fact, making it something foreign or alien. Hence xenophobia, since it is enough of a worry to you to wonder how to address it. Technically, the answer is to address homosexuality as no different than anything else. If, however, a book tells you what to think, address it as the book sees fit. Or, specifically, as you decide the book tells you is proper.



It's in a book, so I call it knowledge.

To each his own, indeed.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool: [/B]








Tissa,




***I asked a simple question.......Why claim God created homosexual behavior? Can't prove it nor has science found a heter or homo gene.(thats not discrimination) The discussion has nothing to do with the battle of reiligons(but you are Tyler should start a thread) I do apologize for not knowing that people believe in so many gods. Are that there are so many gods. I personally don't believe that but it would be an interestiong to discuss the many gods.Perhaps the homosexual community can claim your Pagan God made them gay(everbody's happy)





In the meantime, while you need not celebrate it, and while you might disclaim homophobia, you do create a condition whereby you demonstrate a certain xenophobia. God doesn't condone homosexuality. But God does condone heterosexual rape; how do you feel about that?




*** I'm sure a rapist would have to ask forgiveness as well. And if you are referring to Lot I don't recall God tellling him to give his daughters to the men.Nor do I even remeber them going.







I mean, because it's easier that way is no reason to subscribe to an idea and call it knowledge.Yes but you're wrong because I have a book that says if they take my corpse to the appropriate place on a river and drop me over a waterfall, my soul will be given the opportunity to pass through several challenges which I will be well prepared for by sorcerers and necromancers of my House, and upon completion of these tasks will be admitted to the glory of God, regardless of my conduct.




***Sounds interesting have you met the sorcerers and necromancers....Is it kinda like a Catholic purgatory? I should ask.. you mentioned being admitted to the Glory of God........what God(name)







God is no more purely good than purely evil. That's the problem. If people cannot accept the fact that the God to whom they plead for mercy--mercy for the fact of their birth, for they are born into sin--is also responsible for evil, it is hardly my problem.





*** This is my understanding.....personally. Satan wanted the Power Of God and to be worship as God without the holiness..... he could only achieve this by being the total opposite and in some sense he is a God but of Evil and is worshipped. He wasn't forced to leave his orginal state nor where his followers but by choice. (Power hungrey monster) and when trying to rationlize his thinking I often ask how he expected to overthrow that which is infinite?




So rather than ask, Why lead the world to believe God deliberately created a behavior he considers perverse in which the penalty of is hell? I would ask Why does God create people to be born into sin, requiring salvation through Jesus Christ, in essence creating beings which are unsatisfactory to his own needs?


**Can't blame God for Eve's mistake but I am grateful he provided a way out. I'm sure Christ didn't enjoy being crucified(by devils) either. If I was in his shoes the whole human race would be lost.

And no, I don't expect everyone to accept the fact that the God described in the Bible is a moron, but come on ... if God has a problem with the design, that's His Own Problem.You know, I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole.Why don't you choose to? Don't you think it would feel good? No? Well, believe it or not, some people are inclined to feel that heterosexual union does not feel good. It happens. Such is God's will.




*** homosexuals, pedafilians, murders, rapist........(pick one) could all claim such is God's will............however he claims different...............anybody can say anything. Futhermore my argument isn't why homosexuals choose the lifestyle.




At what point in a person's life do they require salvation through Jesus Christ? One year? Two? When they develop a moral conscience? Why, then, was I and many of my generation baptized as infants before we could choose to accept God?




*** I'm not catholic (SATANIC CULT) my opinion. But perhaps you could ask the priest. I know one... he's trying to convert me..... would you like to contact him?




But you've made homosexuality something alien. You choose to discriminate against it in order to award it more negative consideration than other concepts. Are you sure there is no cruelty done?



homosexuality is hardly alien in my neck of the woods. I believe it would be easier on everybody, homosexuals included, to not state claims that aren't fact..............Choices is far more acceptable/respectable

But, of course, being blessed by an angel of the Lord for sending his daughters out to be raped? Consider the Bible itself (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis19.htm).

Why was Lot spared? Because instead of permitting homosexuality, he offered his two daughters to the crowd?[quote]Sounds interesting have you met the sorcerers and necromancers....Is it kinda like a Catholic purgatory? I should ask.. you mentioned being admitted to the Glory of God........what God(name)Don't know that I've met them yet, but some of the sorcerers I've come across may be of that vein. However, it's in a book, and that makes it knowledge if I apply the standard you're advocating.
This is my understanding.....personally. Satan wanted the Power Of God and to be worship as God without the holiness..... he could only achieve this by being the total opposite and in some sense he is a God but of Evil and is worshipped. He wasn't forced to leave his orginal state nor where his followers but by choice. (Power hungrey monster) and when trying to rationlize his thinking I often ask how he expected to overthrow that which is infinite?Seems to me it was God's will that he should try.

However, I might recommend Pagels' The Origin of Satan as well as several books on the history of the Devil in Christianity penned by Dr. Jeffrey Burton Russell. While I'm familiar with this traditional story, its Biblical foundation is weak, and when we stop and consider the evolution of the idea of Satan (cf Pagels) the story becomes less and less credible.

I guess the question I need answered, then, is what the limits of God's knowledge and authority?

By your understanding, of course.
Can't blame God for Eve's mistake but I am grateful he provided a way out. I'm sure Christ didn't enjoy being crucified(by devils) either. If I was in his shoes the whole human race would be lost.Christ was crucified by devils? I thought he was crucified by Romans.

What, again, are the limits of God's knowledge and understanding? According to the Bible (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis3.htm), it seems that God was afraid of the newly-endowed couple: Then the LORD God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever." (Gen. 3.22)

So God, the Alpha and Omega, creator and master of all things, was unable to create a better situation?

Quite obviously, God's "way out" is the best he could manage, which speaks volumes about his capabilities in terms of why he was frightened of Adam and Eve. I tend to think that we can't blame Adam, Eve, or the Serpent for God's will.
homosexuals, pedafilians, murders, rapist........(pick one) could all claim such is God's will............however he claims different...............anybody can say anything. I just think it's a lot harder to demonstrate the social damage caused by homosexuality than it is to demonstrate the social damage caused by heterosexuality, or even by child molesters. If God is as the Bible describes, then yes, God did make pedophiles as they are, or at least will that result. What we humans do about it is an entirely different thing. Remember, though, that buying (hetero-) sexual favors from a 10 year-old girl was legal in Massachusetts in 1875 while drinking alcohol was not. It's all a matter of priorities, and if we look to the motivations of such laws, we see Biblical communities all over the Boston experience.

Seems to me that in the face of such a God as the Bible describes, this situation can only be as God wills.
Futhermore my argument isn't why homosexuals choose the lifestyle.If you assert that homosexuals choose, then the reason why is very important. They "choose" because their natural impulse makes heterosexual contact unpleasant?

Seems to me you're recommending that homosexuals should "choose" to be raped--that is, to submit to sexual contact they do not wish.
I'm not catholic (SATANIC CULT) my opinion. But perhaps you could ask the priest. I know one... he's trying to convert me..... would you like to contact him?You could try not being lazy and ask him yourself. In the meantime, try answering the question: At what point in a person's life do they require salvation through Jesus Christ?
homosexuality is hardly alien in my neck of the woodsYet you make it something separate from you and your community. Are they "people" or are they "gay people"?

Hint: they're merely people. Any adjective you wish to stick onto the word people is your own choice according to those priorities most important to you.
Choices is far more acceptable/respectableYou've gone from "easier" to "more respectable"?

What's your foundation for that assertion?

The foundation for homosexuality as a natural part of life has much evidence. Primarily, it occurs in nature. Gay human beings are not the creatures on the planet who enjoy same-sex gratification.

Or did you miss Spookz's post? (9/17/02)

Obviously, you did not miss that post, since you brought in choice and "right and wrong" without establishing any basis for that "right and wrong". Yet you point out that if it was a matter of choice, it would be easier to deal with, and then you assert it more respectable to consider homosexuality a choice. Yet what I see is your dismissal of evidence that homosexuality does occur in nature compounded with the statement that it would be easier on everybody if we did not state claims that aren't fact, such as the fact that homosexuality occurs in nature outside the human experience.

You're treading a fine line between hypocrisy and horsepucky. Perhaps you could clear up a simple idea:

• Why are you so hooked on choices and the aspects of right and wrong to dismiss on the one hand evidence of homosexuality as a natural condition while on the other hand asking people to accept that homosexuality is a choice (artificial) because you don't think there's any factual basis to the natural aspect of homosexuality?

Seriously: you have isolated homosexuality as an issue, claimed it is a choice and not a natural condition, ignored evidence of homosexuality as a natural condition, and now hold that such claims as that homosexuality is a natural condition are not fact?

Just because it's easier doesn't make it the right resolution to the issue. In the meantime, you'll have to build a basis for "acceptable" and "respectable".

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
[quote[I'm sure a rapist would have to ask forgiveness as well. And if you are referring to Lot I don't recall God tellling him to give his daughters to the men.Nor do I even remeber them going.But, of course, being blessed by an angel of the Lord for sending his daughters out to be raped? Consider the Bible itself (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis19.htm).


However, I might recommend Pagels' The Origin of Satan as well as several books on the history of the Devil in Christianity penned by Dr. Jeffrey Burton Russell. While I'm familiar with this traditional story, its Biblical foundation is weak, and when we stop and consider the evolution of the idea of Satan (cf Pagels) the story becomes less and less credible.
So God, the Alpha and Omega, creator and master of all things, was unable to create a better situation?



What's your foundation for that assertion?

The foundation for homosexuality as a natural part of life has much evidence. Primarily, it occurs in nature. Gay human beings are not the creatures on the planet who enjoy same-sex gratification.

Or did you miss Spookz's post? (9/17/02)


You're treading a fine line between hypocrisy and horsepucky. Perhaps you could clear up a simple idea:


Seriously: you have isolated homosexuality as an issue, claimed it is a choice and not a natural condition, ignored evidence of homosexuality as a natural condition, and now hold that such claims as that homosexuality is a natural condition are not fact?


thanx,
Tiassa :cool: [/QUOTE]





Tissa,





Why was Lot spared? Because instead of permitting homosexuality, he offered his two daughters to the crowd?Don't know that I've met them yet, but some of the sorcerers I've come across may be of that vein. However, it's in a book, and that makes it knowledge if I apply the standard you're advocating.Seems to me it was God's will that he should try.


**Lot's daughter's were never raped (God's will?) you mentioned that homosexuals don't find pleasure in heterosexual relations....so nothing would have happened to Lot's daughter's EVEN IF THEY WANTED IT.




I guess the question I need answered, then, is what the limits of God's knowledge and authority?


** You said he was the supreme being..........you answered that one.



By your understanding, of course.Christ was crucified by devils? I thought he was crucified by Romans.


**Devil's inside the Romans.



What, again, are the limits of God's knowledge and understanding? According to the Bible (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis3.htm), it seems that God was afraid of the newly-endowed couple: Then the LORD God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever." (Gen. 3.22)



*** Adam and Eve was commanded not to eat of the tree which possed the knowledge of good and evil. They did eat of the TREE OF LIFE. As far as I understand God forgave Adam and Eve therefore they posses inmortality. True being that God is Alpha & Omega he knew Adam and Eve would fall therefore causing him to lose his creation to burn with Satan but he made a way.(NOW IT'S UP TO US) WOULD YOU HAVE DIED FOR US?



Quite obviously, God's "way out" is the best he could manage, which speaks volumes about his capabilities in terms of why he was frightened of Adam and Eve. I tend to think that we can't blame Adam, Eve, or the Serpent for God's will.I just think it's a lot harder to demonstrate the social damage caused by homosexuality than it is to demonstrate the social damage caused by heterosexuality, or even by child molesters. If God is as the Bible describes, then yes, God did make pedophiles as they are, or at least will that result. What we humans do about it is an entirely different thing. Remember, though, that buying (hetero-) sexual favors from a 10 year-old girl was legal in Massachusetts in 1875 while drinking alcohol was not. It's all a matter of priorities, and if we look to the motivations of such laws, we see Biblical communities all over the Boston experience.



**Why does God have to fear his creation? Let us not forget Satan's a factor. And even Satan can't posses us unless allowed. No one's forced to serve God, you do it because you believe in him, therefore, do to his non-tyrant
nature we are under free moral agency and if one choose to allow the spirit of pedophila rule his temple..... (choice)


** I'm sure the kids molested by priest and other per's would beg to differ on social damaged caused by homo or hetero pedophilans.



Obviously, you did not miss that post, since you brought in choice and "right and wrong" without establishing any basis for that "right and wrong". Yet you point out that if it was a matter of choice, it would be easier to deal with, and then you assert it more respectable to consider homosexuality a choice. Yet what I see is your dismissal of evidence that homosexuality does occur in nature compounded with the statement that it would be easier on everybody if we did not state claims that aren't fact, such as the fact that homosexuality occurs in nature outside the human experience.



**First, I didn't dismiss Tyler's post on homo animals........I stated... I was taught that animals have sex during mating season only. And if animals of the same sex are having sex I haven't found no passage in the Bible demanding the animals not to do so. Futhermore they don't have to worry about their soul or forgiveness or going to hell...... What the scientist saw they couldn't say with 100% surety it was a sexual act.



Seems to me that in the face of such a God as the Bible describes, this situation can only be as God wills.If you assert that homosexuals choose, then the reason why is very important. They "choose" because their natural impulse makes heterosexual contact unpleasant?



**I don't care why they choose it. (Free Moral Agency)





• Why are you so hooked on choices and the aspects of right and wrong to dismiss on the one hand evidence of homosexuality as a natural condition while on the other hand asking people to accept that homosexuality is a choice (artificial) because you don't think there's any factual basis to the natural aspect of homosexuality?


**Why are homosexuals so hooked on blamming God for their choices? I BELIEVE it's wrong(and have that right) and if others don't (Free Moral Agency)




Seems to me you're recommending that homosexuals should "choose" to be raped--that is, to submit to sexual contact they do not wish.You could try not being lazy and ask him yourself. In the meantime, try answering the question: At what point in a person's life do they require salvation through Jesus Christ?Yet you make it something separate from you and your community. Are they "people" or are they "gay people"?


** How can I answer that........that's up to the individual.
I can't make homosexuals separate from me, they live in my neighborhood, some are kin folks(eat my food up,pay no rent and sleep on my couch), and one in particular who recently became bi-sexual has been my best friend since childhood.




Hint: they're merely people. Any adjective you wish to stick onto the word people is your own choice according to those priorities most important to you.You've gone from "easier" to "more respectable"?



** I know their people(never denied that)
** It would make it eaiser and I have no reason not to respect other's choices (not the sex act )but the Choice.
** The crackheads in my shoot don't blame God for their addiction therefore nobody cares and I still respect them and their choice (not the act ) but the choice.
** I don't hate anyone and I don't hide how I feel to the homosexuals in my life and they respect it. ButI can say that these self proclaimed homo sexuals take it from who's ever putting it out that night.(just another booty call)



Just because it's easier doesn't make it the right resolution to the issue. In the meantime, you'll have to build a basis for "acceptable" and "respectable".


** Eventually you will see a split in the homosexual community those who will claim choice with no quarms and others who feel they have to claim God created them Gay for acceptance.(All in time)



**I've grown board of talking about people's sexual choices I'm more interested in learning about different religions and those wizards and where there power comes from( Are there any wizards on this board that you know of?)

It seems like this has turned into a pseudo battle of religion vs science.

Why do religious people always talk about gaining knowledge, like you gain knowledge by working in a knowledge mine? Knowledge is blah blah blah. Define knowledge.

"...despite their has been no discovery of a homo or hetero sexual gene, and still there is yet another group who believes its choice, which excludes God & science."

"This is my point anyone can claim anything and the homosexual community has made a claim which science can't back up."

You do not have to discover the exact gene to provide evidence of homosexuality being genetically caused. eg. there is a correlation between finger length and fingerprint ridges and homosexuality, twin studies as I mentioned before, the fact it tends to run in families, and homosexuality can be predicted at preschool(to the tune of 75% success) Also homosexuals are more likely to have an identical sequence at a certain location on their X chromosome.
If there WERE a lack of evidence it would not suggest that there is no genetic cause, but just that there is no evidence.
Homosexuals, I suspect, make this claim because they have first person experience of being gay and thus they perceive through introspection that it is innate and fixed rather than changable.
Personally, I think homosexuality is caused by physiological and genetic factors, in the main given the above evidence and that homosexuality rates are constant across all cultures

Originally posted by Voodoo Child
"...despite their has been no discovery of a homo or hetero sexual gene, and still there is yet another group who believes its choice, which excludes God & science."

"This is my point anyone can claim anything and the homosexual community has made a claim which science can't back up."

You do not have to discover the exact gene to provide evidence of homosexuality being genetically caused. eg. there is a correlation between finger length and fingerprint ridges and homosexuality, twin studies as I mentioned before, the fact it tends to run in families, and homosexuality can be predicted at preschool(to the tune of 75% success) Also homosexuals are more likely to have an identical sequence at a certain location on their X chromosome.
If there WERE a lack of evidence it would not suggest that there is no genetic cause, but just that there is no evidence.
Homosexuals, I suspect, make this claim because they have first person experience of being gay and thus they perceive through introspection that it is innate and fixed rather than changable.





Personally, I think homosexuality is caused by physiological and genetic factors, in the main given the above evidence and that homosexuality rates are constant across all cultures




Voodoo


Science still hasn't back it up(physiological,genetic) and they can't..............given your name is Voodoo I'm going to make a wild assumption that you know something about the spiritual realm. Now it's my opinion and belief that homosexuality, pedophilia,incest, sex with animals, and other deviant sexual behaviors are influenced by the spiritual realm, and science can't fix what's not tangable. Possession by a spirit is beyond The Scientific Method, unfortunately we don't have many who have the power to perfom exorcism's.(Gift) I do believe people have the ability to change but not with prozac or thordazine. By now I'm sure you know I believe in God, and because there are so many others who have different God's I'll call mine ( God) cool....As I was saying it's more of a spiritual battle.......the moment you want to be free....Satan lets the hyena's out.

Science still hasn't back it up(physiological,genetic) and they can't...... Now it's my opinion and belief that homosexuality, pedophilia,incest, sex with animals, and other deviant sexual behaviors are influenced by the spiritual realm

I see. So how do you explain the correlation between physical and genetic attributes and homosexuality? It seems people with shorter index fingers are targeted by Satan to a greater extent. Beelzebub also likes to check the Xq28 region of the X chromosome of the person he is about to tempt.
If you think that a spiritual explanation of these things fits the data better, then you must have a convincing explanation for the concordance between homosexuality, physical traits and the aforementioned region of the X chromosome. I'd really like to hear it. I've shown a good deal of evidence that suggests homosexuality is indeed the result of biological factors, however, there isn't any evidence at all to suggest that it has spiritual causes. There isn't any evidence at all to even suggest that:

a) There are spirits

b) They like to(and are capable of) messing with people's sexual orientation.

Voodoo Child BTW, is after the Jimi Hendrix song.

edited to fix whacky [] bracket

Just out of curiousity, what's with the intellectual hairshirts? Don't any of you realize how futile it is to argue with Lady and her sort?

Now, now Xev; anyone who believes it's more likely we evolved from snakes than monkeys can't be all bad!

Tyler:

I'd rather have evolved from Yaks. Good heavens. She could be the next Sir Loone or Fox Mulder.


(I swear, I am not Lady.)

What's a hairshirt?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07113b.htm

Yes, there is the lingering odour of futility. It is worth a try, though.

Originally posted by Voodoo Child
I see. So how do you explain the correlation between physical and genetic attributes and homosexuality? It seems people with shorter index fingers are targeted by Satan to a greater extent. Beelzebub also likes to check the Xq28 region of the X chromosome of the person he is about to tempt.
If you think that a spiritual explanation of these things fits the data better, then you must have a convincing explanation for the concordance between homosexuality, physical traits and the aforementioned region of the X chromosome. I'd really like to hear it. I've shown a good deal of evidence that suggests homosexuality is indeed the result of biological factors, however, there isn't any evidence at all to suggest that it has spiritual causes. There isn't any evidence at all to even suggest that:

a) There are spirits

b) They like to(and are capable of) messing with people's sexual orientation.

Voodoo Child BTW, is after the Jimi Hendrix song.

edited to fix whacky [] bracket



Genetic attributes science hasn't discovered...the physical attributes manifested(spiritual realm-possesion) Futhermore, if homosexual behavior is biological that's in the realm of science, and I don't recall any biologist announcing such a find world wide. And what about incest, pedafilian,and those who desire animals.......if homosexuality is biological these must be as well which means creation is the origin for such desires.(False) Now I don't know if you believe in the existence of anything ele's beyond humans or how we came to be.....but there is evidence of spirits.........for example, We like to think we're intelligent human beings and advancing, but let's look at (spirits- physical realm) Smoking, ciggaretts in particular, science has proven it's detrimental to the biological
make up of humans, causing many kinds of fatal cancer's (three dimensional) which not only inflict pain&suffering but shorten our lives dramatically. Scientist have proven this information to be true, but yet ciggaretts are massed marketed and improved with more addictive,deadly posions to kill us faster.......who are what is so sinister to create a product specifically formulated to destroy the biological make up of humans? And why does the Government allow it...........as far as human evolution(BACKWARDS) It is said that ciggaretts kill more people yearly than does all other drugs and alochol combined.......(but yet pot will get you thrown in the slammer-where you can then smoke cigarretts) I know this is not a religious or spiritual forum so I'll stop here.

Originally posted by Tyler
Now, now Xev; anyone who believes it's more likely we evolved from snakes than monkeys can't be all bad!





Why didn't the rest of the monkey's evolve into human's?

Originally posted by Xev
Tyler:

I'd rather have evolved from Yaks. Good heavens. She could be the next Sir Loone or Fox Mulder.








(I swear, I am not Lady.)


Are you sure?

Yes Lady, you know very well that I'm not you. I haven't created an alter ego to screw with people since Fox Mulder got boring.

Lot's daughter's were never raped (God's will?) you mentioned that homosexuals don't find pleasure in heterosexual relations....so nothing would have happened to Lot's daughter's EVEN IF THEY WANTED ITOh, that makes it right. :rolleyes:

On that note, why arrest anyone for attempted murder or conspiracy to commit a crime? If the crime doesn't occur, what is the problem with attempting it? To the other, the laws of man hardly apply to the laws of God, but on that same note, the logic you've offered presents problems with other traditional Biblical interpretations. As such, I'm wondering if you have any commentary on Genesis 22, in which God "put Abraham to the test" (22.1, NAB). You are, I take it, familiar with the story?

For the benefit of anyone not familiar with Genesis 22: God comes to Abraham and says, "Take your only son, Isaac, to Moriah and offer him as a burnt sacrifice unto me." Essentially, Abraham does just that, and as he is prepared to set his son ablaze, God offers a second sacrifice, a ram trapped in a bush, to be given back to him in lieu of Abraham's son.
Again the LORD'S messenger called to Abraham from heaven and said: "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you acted as you did in not withholding from me your beloved son, I will bless you abundantly and make your descendants as countless as the stars of the sky and the sands of the seashore; your descendants shall take possession of the gates of their enemies, and in your descendants all the nations of the earth shall find blessing--all this because you obeyed my command.' (Gen. 22.15-18, NAB))It seems, Lady, that by your logic, Abraham did not make any sacrifice unto the Lord. Yet the Lord finds that in Abraham's intent to carry through with the sacrifice that the act of sacrifice has been fulfilled. By what token is homosexuality so important to God that he should bless someone for offering a "smaller sin"? After all, if intent fulfills the act (a notion reinforced by Jesus' ministry; sins of the flesh can occur in the mind) then we see that applying a consistent (as opposed to arbitrary or opportunistic) perspective to the Bible, in order to accommodate your stance, we must call various critical elements of the Biblical message into question.

Now, I'm all well and fine with that, it's just that most Biblical advocates I know like to reinforce notions of the Bible's consistency and legitimacy, not undermine them.

To each their own, indeed.
You said he was the supreme being..........you answered that one.And, such as the Biblical God is considered to be the Supreme Being (and therefore authority), and also the creator of life, it would seem that people are as God creates them.
Devil's inside the Romans.Ah, well, that just clears everything up, then.

Of course, this situation, too, is as God wills. For, as you have noted, God is considered the Supreme being and therefore authority.
Adam and Eve was commanded not to eat of the tree which possed the knowledge of good and evil. They did eat of the TREE OF LIFE.Incorrect. How is it that I come to know the Bible better than its advocates?

From the Bible:

•_The LORD God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die." (Gen. 2.16-17)

• The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves. (Gen. 3.6-7)

•_Then the LORD God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever." The LORD God therefore banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he had been taken. (Gen. 3.22-23)

As you can see, Lady, you are incorrect when you write that they did eat of the tree of life.
As far as I understand God forgave Adam and Eve therefore they posses inmortality.Perhaps it's time to rethink that understanding, since it is based in an incorrect assertion of Biblical contents.
True being that God is Alpha & Omega he knew Adam and Eve would fall therefore causing him to lose his creation to burn with Satan but he made a way.(NOW IT'S UP TO US) WOULD YOU HAVE DIED FOR US?There are many things worth dying for. The world itself and the perpetuity of the human species are quite high on that list.

However, God, being Alpha and Omega, being Supreme Being and creator of life, foresaw this outcome, chose to execute the plan, anyway, and yet still holds people morally responsible. If God cannot fix the situation, well ... strike a point for Immutable Will and sack god's unbound authority.
Quite obviously, God's "way out" is the best he could manage, which speaks volumes about his capabilities in terms of why he was frightened of Adam and Eve.Now this does strike me as odd.

Accepting, for argument's sake, that this really is the best God could do, why, then, does God lie to people? It would appear that there are fairly narrow limits to God's authority, and while I haven't a problem with that, I must admit that the boundaries fall well inside the projected scope of God's power even according to the Bible.
Why does God have to fear his creation? Let us not forget Satan's a factor. And even Satan can't posses us unless allowed. No one's forced to serve God, you do it because you believe in him, therefore, do to his non-tyrant
nature we are under free moral agency and if one choose to allow the spirit of pedophila rule his temple..... (choice)And when someone stalks you in a parking lot and puts a knife to your throat and f--ks you senseless at the stake of your life, remember that you can't charge him with rape because you chose that it should happen.

As a general question, rhetorical per se, that does not apply solely to you, What is it with people and duress? Is this really the "freedom" we seek?

Or, to put it simply: "You are free to do what I say or be punished if you do not."

At least you're free.

Get in the van, baby. Get in the stinkin' van. :rolleyes:
I'm sure the kids molested by priest and other per's would beg to differ on social damaged caused by homo or hetero pedophilans.Well, personally, I think the whole Christian establishment could stand a rethinking of its sexual mores. I mean, really--if you take generations of men and ask them to deal with people's marital and sexual problems and ask them to devote that much attention to sexuality while prohibiting them contact most essential to the human condition, things will happen. Duh.

If there's anything that upsets me about the Catholic scandal outside the fact that children are being abused, it's that this focus on men abusing boys continues a long tradition of overlooking churches of all sects covering up for child abuse within the flock.

One thing you must still learn, Lady, in order to deal with sexual deviance maturely, you must first deal with sexuality in a mature fashion.
I was taught that animals have sex during mating season only.And once upon a time, I was taught that God created the world as told over the course of a few pages at the front of the Bible. In time, I learned more accurate descriptions of function in the Universe.
And if animals of the same sex are having sex I haven't found no passage in the Bible demanding the animals not to do so. Um ... that makes a difference.

Perhaps you could explain how that makes a difference.

Are the animals going to hell because they haven't accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior? Oh, shite! Maybe God should have created them to be capable of recognizing the self inasmuch as they might then be able to recognize the idea of a personal savior.

Imagine that ... a dog smart enough to read. Or a penguin, for that matter.
What the scientist saw they couldn't say with 100% surety it was a sexual actBy what definition of the word sexual? In the reproductive sense, homosexuality isn't a sexual act. People think it is a sexual act because it has to do with genitalia. But that superficial identification is it.

A question to you directly, Lady, but a rhetorical one for reflection: What about homosexuality is so important to a person as to cause them to shatter faith platforms or logical processes in the broader aspects of their lives in order to achieve this step along a narrow path?

In other words, it seems to me that many or most homophobes tend to be so determined to spread their condemnation of homosexuality that they're willing to rewrite their own logical platforms within that specific issue, creating massive contrasts between the expressed paradigm and the expressed results within that paradigm.

For instance, in our discussion, I've seen you wriggling to evade data that indicates that homosexual contact occurs in nature; I've seen you assert that duress equals free will; I've seen you base an assertion on an incorrect reading of the Bible ... it's time to ask you a very specific question, and this one can be taken as rhetorical or as direct; it's up to you: Are you really a Christian, or are you just an atheist provocateur? In the case of the former, I can only urge you to take more time with the scriptures of your faith until you can demonstrate a more fundamental knowledge of the ideas upon which you stake your principles. In the case of the latter, I must ask you to cease this sick dalliance with pseudo-Christianity; as a public exhibition, it seems a malicious parody of undereducated superstition.
I don't care why they choose it. (Free Moral Agency)That's your lack of compassion to answer for at Judgment.

Just because it's easier to pretend that people who think like you are right and people who don't are wrong does not make it so. Perhaps you should spend some time trying to understand people, since your explorations of their obligations to God according to the Bible has run so sour.
Why are homosexuals so hooked on blamming God for their choices? I BELIEVE it's wrong(and have that right) and if others don't (Free Moral Agency)Well, because idiots claiming to be Christians make it an issue. Oregon, for instance, where the 1990s were dominated politically by a Christian group working to cause the state to intentionally and forcefully discriminate against homosexuals. Colorado actually had its Amendment 2 hacked to pieces in federal court as an offense to the constitution. In Vermont, Christians are very upset that domestic benefits should be extended to homosexual partners. Donald Wildmon's Christian ministry has called for a boycott of Disney for extending benefits to homosexual partners. It would seem that, when a Christian chooses to persecute, it is up to the target to either lie there and take it or else resist. And when the language of the debate is put so childishly as Christians have put it for twelve years (in my lifetime) and longer (in general), it becomes very obvious that in order to communicate with this spiteful lobby, one must stoop to their level of communication. While I'm not a fan of baby-talk to children, and while I will read cosmological theory to children, I don't necessarily expect them to understand it the same way I do. Factors that affect my perception and retelling of said cosmology may include those which the children have not yet had the chance to experience. And while I'm not recommending baby-talk all around, I do recognize--and the gay community seems to recognize--the need to attempt to communicate with their Christian persecutors according to the necessary dialect. If Christians choose to point out that God hates homosexuality, then homosexuals ought to point out that if God hates it, He shouldn't have made it.

Perhaps in that sense the Christians just don't understand: so long as they meddle in other people's lives, they're going to hear these responses. As much as Christians would often like to silence the infidels, it simply doesn't work that way. My recommendation to you: if you don't want homosexuals saying God made them that way, then help the homosexuals get the angry, hateful Christians out of their lives, and out of the public eye.

And, in that sense, you would be doing your faith and your God a huge favor.
I can't make homosexuals separate from me, they live in my neighborhood, some are kin folks(eat my food up,pay no rent and sleep on my couch), and one in particular who recently became bi-sexual has been my best friend since childhood.And yet you don't see them as part of your community; you see them as something different that apparently needs to be observed, examined, and judged. Your choice to care that anyone is gay at all speaks to your priorities.
I know their people(never denied that)Then treat them as such.

Period.
It would make it eaiser and I have no reason not to respect other's choices (not the sex act )but the Choice.You mean that "Choice" which you have utterly failed to establish in light of the evidence and ideas presented?
The crackheads in my shoot don't blame God for their addiction therefore nobody cares and I still respect them and their choice (not the act ) but the choice.You know, it would be better off if they did. Because then they would be able to wonder what that means. And some of them might figure it out. In the meantime, homosexuality is not a crime in most states in this union, crack smoking is. Of course, I'm also one who advocates legalization of drugs so that we can finally haul the addicts out into the sunlight and make them taking a look at themselves without fearing Officer Friendly. Take a look at homosexuality: it's legal in most states and people have an easier time examining the issues related to homosexuality because nobody's in danger of being investigated for felonies for having ties to gay people. It's a much better climate. Hell, if the crackheads blamed God, they would have a point. What they did with that point would still be up to them, but they would have a point. If nothing happens without God's will ....
I don't hate anyone and I don't hide how I feel to the homosexuals in my life and they respect it. If you say so. Perhaps next time you should base your feelings in reality, instead of a rewritten Bible.
ButI can say that these self proclaimed homo sexuals take it from who's ever putting it out that night.(just another booty call)A couple of points:

(A) This is different from heterosexuality how?
(B) Let me know next time you're in Seattle. I'll happily take you out clubbing. And then you can see a number of things, such as (1) gay people going home with "whomever", (2) straight people going home with "whomever", (3) gay people going home with their stable partner, (4) straight people going home with their stable partner, (5) people of both orientations going home to look at porno and masturbate.

I guarantee you, it will take all of five minutes to show that entire range of people.
Eventually you will see a split in the homosexual community those who will claim choice with no quarms and others who feel they have to claim God created them Gay for acceptance.(All in time)Eventually you will come to understand that if you and other Christians choose to leave God out of the argument, or, better yet, choose human tolerance and merely accept people as they are, the gays will stop worrying so much about how God made them. As long people choose to examine the issues at all, the issues must be examined.
I've grown board of talking about people's sexual choices I'm more interested in learning about different religions and those wizards and where there power comes from( Are there any wizards on this board that you know of?None that I know of, but here's a hint: most of the wizards you come across, for all the fancy talk, will be approximately the equivalent of mystical "televangelism". Sure, they won't have huge ministries, but they'll be about as silly and pretentious, and even offensive.

Perhaps in the near future I'll put together a how-to guide on surviving the mountain of allegedly-sorcerous material out there. Don't worry, aside from the friends you choose, the biggest danger is boring yourself to death somewhere in the middle of Barrett or Mathers.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

eg. there is a correlation between finger length and fingerprint ridges and homosexualityVoodoo--

Two cents on finger length ... I happened to catch a bit on TLC a few weeks back, part of the "How to Build a Human" series, in which a British scientist spoke about finger length and hormones.

It seems that by taking a ratio of your right index finger and your right ring finger, you can determine certain things about males. Theoretically, the ring-to-index ratio is representative of a testosterone/estrogen ratio.

A couple of things to throw in there:

• The producers of the series interviewed a woman who was genetically male. She had female anatomy, no menstrual cycle, and an XY chromosome. The difference, they have determined, appears to be hormonal.

• The British doctor who had theories on finger length was invited down to a track meet whereupon he measured the fingers of the runners and then projected the outcome of the race using no other statistical advice. He called the race perfectly, in order.

Take that for what it's worth. I find it quite intriguing.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
Oh, that makes it right. :rolleyes:

On that note, why arrest anyone for attempted murder or conspiracy to commit a crime? If the crime doesn't occur, what is the problem with attempting it? To the other, the laws of man hardly apply to the laws of God, but on that same note, the logic you've offered presents problems with other traditional Biblical interpretations. As such, I'm wondering if you have any commentary on Genesis 22, in which God "put Abraham to the test" (22.1, NAB). You are, I take it, familiar with the story?

For the benefit of anyone not familiar with Genesis 22: God comes to Abraham and says, "Take your only son, Isaac, to Moriah and offer him as a burnt sacrifice unto me." Essentially, Abraham does just that, and as he is prepared to set his son ablaze, God offers a second sacrifice, a ram trapped in a bush, to be given back to him in lieu of Abraham's son.It seems, Lady, that by your logic, Abraham did not make any sacrifice unto the Lord. Yet the Lord finds that in Abraham's intent to carry through with the sacrifice that the act of sacrifice has been fulfilled. By what token is homosexuality so important to God that he should bless someone for offering a "smaller sin"? After all, if intent fulfills the act (a notion reinforced by Jesus' ministry; sins of the flesh can occur in the mind) then we see that applying a consistent (as opposed to arbitrary or opportunistic) perspective to the Bible, in order to accommodate your stance, we must call various critical elements of the Biblical message into question.

Now, I'm all well and fine with that, it's just that most Biblical advocates I know like to reinforce notions of the Bible's consistency and legitimacy, not undermine them.

To each their own, indeed.And, such as the Biblical God is considered to be the Supreme Being (and therefore authority), and also the creator of life, it would seem that people are as God creates them.Ah, well, that just clears everything up, then.

Of course, this situation, too, is as God wills. For, as you have noted, God is considered the Supreme being and therefore authority.Incorrect. How is it that I come to know the Bible better than its advocates?

As you can see, Lady, you are incorrect when you write that they did eat of the tree of life.Perhaps it's time to rethink that understanding, since it is based in an incorrect assertion of Biblical contents.There are many things worth dying for. The world itself and the perpetuity of the human species are quite high on that list.

The LORD God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden

Accepting, for argument's sake, that this really is the best God could do, why, then, does God lie to people? It would appear that there are fairly narrow limits to God's authority, and while I haven't a problem with that, I must admit that the boundaries fall well inside the projected scope of God's power even according to the Bible.And when someone stalks you in a parking lot and puts a knife to your throat and f--ks you senseless at the stake of your life, remember that you can't charge him with rape because you chose that it should happen.

As a general question, rhetorical per se, that does not apply solely to you, What is it with people and duress? Is this really the "freedom" we seek?

Or, to put it simply: "You are free to do what I say or be punished if you do not."

At least you're free.

Get in the van, baby. Get in the stinkin' van. :rolleyes: Well, personally, I think the whole Christian establishment could stand a rethinking of its sexual mores. I mean, really--if you take generations of men and ask them to deal with people's marital and sexual problems and ask them to devote that much attention to sexuality while prohibiting them contact most essential to the human condition, things will happen. Duh.

If there's anything that upsets me about the Catholic scandal outside the fact that children are being abused, it's that this focus on men abusing boys continues a long tradition of overlooking churches of all sects covering up for child abuse within the flock.

Perhaps you could explain how that makes a difference.


(A) This is different from heterosexuality how?
(B) Let me know next time you're in Seattle. I'll happily take you out clubbing. And then you can see a number of things, such as (1) gay people going home with "whomever", (2) straight people going home with "whomever", (3) gay people going home with their stable partner, (4) straight people going home with their stable partner, (5) people of both orientations going home to look at porno and masturbate.


Perhaps in the near future I'll put together a how-to guide on surviving the mountain of allegedly-sorcerous material out there. Don't worry, aside from the friends you choose, the biggest danger is boring yourself to death somewhere in the middle of Barrett or Mathers.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:













Tissa,


For the benefit of anyone not familiar with Genesis 22: God comes to Abraham and says, "Take your only son, Isaac, to Moriah and offer him as a burnt sacrifice unto me." Essentially, Abraham does just that, and as he is prepared to set his son ablaze, God offers a second sacrifice, a ram trapped in a bush, to be given back to him in lieu of Abraham's son.It seems, Lady, that by your logic, Abraham did not make any sacrifice unto the Lord. Yet the Lord finds that in Abraham's intent to carry through with the sacrifice that the act of sacrifice has been fulfilled. By what token is homosexuality so important to God that he should bless someone for offering a "smaller sin"? After all, if intent fulfills the act (a notion reinforced by Jesus' ministry; sins of the flesh can occur in the mind) then we see that applying a consistent (as opposed to arbitrary or opportunistic) perspective to the Bible, in order to accommodate your stance, we must call various critical elements of the Biblical message into question.






** Sounds like you have a problem with God and if you really wanted answer's you would go to him. However I read Abraham's story (God testing Abraham's loyalty).... I don't find God blessing Lot but rather angels trying to get them out of Sodom& Gommorah and if you discredit God so much perhaps you should rethink your own book, the one that claims being thrown in a river, in which wizards, prepare you for the Glory Of God.



To each their own, indeed.And, such as the Biblical God is considered to be the Supreme Being (and therefore authority), and also the creator of life, it would seem that people are as God creates them.Ah, well, that just clears everything up, then.



** So.........he created you to discredit him or did you choose too. People are given choices(Free Moral Agency) being that God is infinite he knew who would accept salvation and who wouldn't.I Know you don't believe in the Bible so what does Your God say about Homosexuality, Pedafilian's, Incest,and those who have sex with animals? Is it Right, Wrong? What?




From the Bible:

•_The LORD God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die." (Gen. 2.16-17)

• The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves. (Gen. 3.6-7)

•_Then the LORD God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever." The LORD God therefore banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he had been taken. (Gen. 3.22-23)
except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die."[/font] (Gen. 2.16-17)

• The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves. (Gen. 3.6-7)

•_Then the LORD God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever." The LORD God therefore banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he had been taken. (Gen. 3.22-23)


The LORD God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden

** Sounds like the Tree OF Life is included.




One thing you must still learn, Lady, in order to deal with sexual deviance maturely, you must first deal with sexuality in a mature fashion.And once upon a time, I was taught that God created the world as told over the course of a few pages at the front of the Bible. In time, I learned more accurate descriptions of function in the Universe.Um ... that makes a difference.


** who created the world?








A question to you directly, Lady, but a rhetorical one for reflection: What about homosexuality is so important to a person as to cause them to shatter faith platforms or logical processes in the broader aspects of their lives in order to achieve this step along a narrow path?


** They don't have the Fear Of God or don't believe in him.



People think it is a sexual act because it has to do with genitalia.


** Sounds sexual to me.........The Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary would disagree with you.


Are the animals going to hell because they haven't accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior? Oh, shite! Maybe God should have created them to be capable of recognizing the self inasmuch as they might then be able to recognize the idea of a personal savior.

Imagine that ... a dog smart enough to read. Or a penguin, for that matter.By what definition of the word sexual? In the reproductive sense, homosexuality isn't a sexual act.But that superficial identification is it.



** This is exactly why animals aren't held accountable for homosexual behavior even if it is manifested amongst (doubt it)





In other words, it seems to me that many or most homophobes tend to be so determined to spread their condemnation of homosexuality that they're willing to rewrite their own logical platforms within that specific issue, creating massive contrasts between the expressed paradigm and the expressed results within that paradigm.


** I ONLY ASKED WHY HOMOSEXUALS CLAIM GOD CREATED THEM GAY(CONTRADICTORY TO BIBLE),HOW SHOULD IT BE EXPLAINED TO THE YOUTH, AND LAST SCIENCE HASN'T BACKED THE CREATION PART. BUT NEVER DID I CONDEM. THE FORUM WENT CRAZY FROM THERE.


For instance, in our discussion, I've seen you wriggling to evade data that indicates that homosexual contact occurs in nature; I've seen you assert that duress equals free will; I've seen you base an assertion on an incorrect reading of the Bible ... it's time to ask you a very specific question, and this one can be taken as rhetorical or as direct; it's up to you: Are you really a Christian, or are you just an atheist provocateur? In the case of the former, I can only urge you to take more time with the scriptures of your faith until you can demonstrate a more fundamental knowledge of the ideas upon which you stake your principles. In the case of the latter, I must ask you to cease this sick dalliance with pseudo-Christianity; as a public exhibition, it seems a malicious parody of undereducated superstition.That's your lack of compassion to answer for at Judgment.



** I never avoided the material posted about animals.......let's be honest. And as far as duress equal free will......what are you talking about? Free Moral Agency? There's no restriction's there....... I'm I a christian? Or you a witch hidden under the word Pagan?



Just because it's easier to pretend that people who think like you are right and people who don't are wrong does not make it so. Perhaps you should spend some time trying to understand people, since your explorations of their obligations to God according to the Bible has run so sour.Well, because idiots claiming to be Christians make it an issue. Oregon, for instance, where the 1990s were dominated politically by a Christian group working to cause the state to intentionally and forcefully discriminate against homosexuals. Colorado actually had its Amendment 2 hacked to pieces in federal court as an offense to the constitution. In Vermont, Christians are very upset that domestic benefits should be extended to homosexual partners. Donald Wildmon's Christian ministry has called for a boycott of Disney for extending benefits to homosexual partners. It would seem that, when a Christian chooses to persecute, it is up to the target to either lie there and take it or else resist. And when the language of the debate is put so childishly as Christians have put it for twelve years (in my lifetime) and longer (in general), it becomes very obvious that in order to communicate with this spiteful lobby, one must stoop to their level of communication. While I'm not a fan of baby-talk to children, and while I will read cosmological theory to children, I don't necessarily expect them to understand it the same way I do. Factors that affect my perception and retelling of said cosmology may include those which the children have not yet had the chance to experience. And while I'm not recommending baby-talk all around, I do recognize--and the gay community seems to recognize--the need to attempt to communicate with their Christian persecutors according to the necessary dialect. If Christians choose to point out that God hates homosexuality, then homosexuals ought to point out that if God hates it, He shouldn't have made it.

** once again I never said God hate homosexuality he did.....not the person the act...... but on what basis can homosexuals make such claims(created Gay) ...Science? Bible? This is the Question?

Perhaps in that sense the Christians just don't understand: so long as they meddle in other people's lives, they're going to hear these responses. As much as Christians would often like to silence the infidels, it simply doesn't work that way. My recommendation to you: if you don't want homosexuals saying God made them that way, then help the homosexuals get the angry, hateful Christians out of their lives, and out of the public eye.



** Perhaps if they didn't make such claims they wouldn't get the Christian's attention. (leave God out of it)



Period.You mean that "Choice" which you have utterly failed to establish in light of the evidence and ideas presented?You know, it would be better off if they did. Because then they would be able to wonder what that means. And some of them might figure it out. In the meantime, homosexuality is not a crime in most states in this union, crack smoking is. Of course, I'm also one who advocates legalization of drugs so that we can finally haul the addicts out into the sunlight and make them taking a look at themselves without fearing Officer Friendly. Take a look at homosexuality: it's legal in most states and people have an easier time examining the issues related to homosexuality because nobody's in danger of being investigated for felonies for having ties to gay people. It's a much better climate. Hell, if the crackheads blamed God, they would have a point. What they did with that point would still be up to them, but they would have a point. If nothing happens without God's will ....If you say so. Perhaps next time you should base your feelings in reality, instead of a rewritten Bible.A couple of points:


** What's so difficult about choice? you either do it or you don't
** Once again, I have gay familly members and friends who recently went gay(still friends) but none of this has to do with my topic. And I don't see where I have judged anyone.......ask question's, yes, exspecially when the homosexual's I deal with are atheist.





I guarantee you, it will take all of five minutes to show that entire range of people.Eventually you will come to understand that if you and other Christians choose to leave God out of the argument, or, better yet, choose human tolerance and merely accept people as they are, the gays will stop worrying so much about how God made them. As long people choose to examine the issues at all, the issues must be examined.None that I know of, but here's a hint: most of the wizards you come across, for all the fancy talk, will be approximately the equivalent of mystical "televangelism". Sure, they won't have huge ministries, but they'll be about as silly and pretentious, and even offensive.




**I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE THIS POINT-------LEAVE GOD OUT OF IT(Amen)

Originally posted by Xev
Yes Lady, you know very well that I'm not you.



I haven't created an alter ego to screw with people since Fox Mulder got boring.


Well................WHY NOT?:D

Sounds like you have a problem with God and if you really wanted answer's you would go to him. However I read Abraham's story (God testing Abraham's loyalty).... I don't find God blessing Lot but rather angels trying to get them out of Sodom& GommorahWhich speaks nothing toward intent to act. The problem I have with such a miniscule god as presented in the Bible is, actually, quite irrelevant. Stop running from the issue.
if you discredit God so much perhaps you should rethink your own book, the one that claims being thrown in a river, in which wizards, prepare you for the Glory Of GodMy, my, good Lady. Is there a problem?

Like I said, just because it's in a book doesn't mean it's knowledge. The process I described for you can be found in the fantasy novels of Steven Brust.
he created you to discredit him or did you choose tooSuch as life is, such as it should be. Realize that you never actually perceive the present. It's all history by the time it hits your eyes and ears. It's kind of like looking at the equation after you've calculated it. The solution is the only one that could be, given the factors. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't.

In other words, if that God be true, then yes, my sentiments are according to His Will.
People are given choices(Free Moral Agency) being that God is infinite he knew who would accept salvation and who wouldn't.Doesn't change the fact that He made them that way.
I Know you don't believe in the Bible so what does Your God say about Homosexuality, Pedafilian's, Incest,and those who have sex with animals?Going down the list:

• Homosexuality--doesn't matter
• Pedophilia--this bears issues both of developmental health and consent. In fact, it serves well to demonstrate: child sexual abuse would not be as sexually traumatizing to the child if society in general was just a little less anal-retentive about matters sexual and biological. To the other, some of those pedophiles might not land in extremis. However, even with those considerations, we still see tremendous health hazards coming from sexual intercourse with children. Even if the grown-ups grew up enough to f--k their children without f--king them up, the stellar amount of developmental damage such intercourse causes rules out pedophilia as far too risky to submit anyone to, much less a child. I mean, sex with a thirteen year-old girl can triple her chance for cervical cancer. That's just a little ridiculous. But whether God creates a pedophile at the genetic level or molds one through the trials and conditions of life, God still wills the condition that results. A note from P.J. O'Rourke: Parents should never try to screw their children, except in their Will.
• Incest--I am tremendously against incest, however I will not deny two consenting adults their right to do whatever the hell makes them feel good.
• Bestialism--For something so ... seemingly distasteful, American culture has a thing for bestialism. Every guy I know has seen one or another video of either a woman blowing a horse or a woman f--king her dog. After drinking heavily, horsegag.avi was not something I was happy a friend showed me. The dog? Be careful what you wish for when you go looking for college-dorm porn. However, I can say in either case that the animals seemed to enjoy themselves, so I'm prone to say I don't want to hear about it, and that will make me happy enough.
Sounds like the Tree OF Life is included.I'm not sure what your point is.

Really, what is your point with that?
who created the world?I figure humankind will either figure that out or not. In the meantime, I still don't get why there has to be a Who. That seems entirely your own problem.
They don't have the Fear Of God or don't believe in himThis from someone who got the Bible wrong? Wouldn't the Fear of God compel you to get it right?
Sounds sexual to me.........The Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary would disagree with you.Then I think the researchers were seeing a sexual act, don't you?
This is exactly why animals aren't held accountable for homosexual behavior even if it is manifested amongst (doubt it)You still haven't figured out the fact that God wills them to behave that way.

I quote Floyd: "Is there anybody out there?"
I ONLY ASKED WHY HOMOSEXUALS CLAIM GOD CREATED THEM GAY(CONTRADICTORY TO BIBLE),HOW SHOULD IT BE EXPLAINED TO THE YOUTH, AND LAST SCIENCE HASN'T BACKED THE CREATION PART. BUT NEVER DID I CONDEM.Well I answered the original question ages ago. What, weren't you paying attention?

Why are you so afraid of homosexuality that you're devoting this much effort to it?

That you choose to separate it as an idea for examination indicates that it holds some sort of priority in your life. What is that priority? Why is it so important to you to identify homosexuality?

And where in the Bible does it say that God didn't create homosexuals?

Do you realize that for your talk of demons and so forth to have any legitimacy, God must either be weak enough to be unable to stop the evil or else God must will it.
I never avoided the material posted about animalsYou did have a problem with homosexual contact occurring in nature. As I look up at your words, I see it's still an issue: This is exactly why animals aren't held accountable for homosexual behavior even if it is manifested amongst (doubt it)

Deal with it, Lady.
And as far as duress equal free will......what are you talking about? Free Moral Agency? There's no restriction's thereWell, get in the van ...

Think of it this way: if you choose (A) you get a shiny reward. If you choose (B) I will punish you.

Now think of it this way: Why charge anyone with rape? After all, the woman made a choice.

What's that? Duress? Ah ....
I'm I a christian? Or you a witch hidden under the word Pagan?No matter how I segregated or integrated this with the rest of that alleged paragraph of yours, this doesn't seem to make any sense. Is there some inner significance in these words that I'm missing? Or is it just argumentative "filler"?
but on what basis can homosexuals make such claims(created Gay)A three word question just flashed through my mind, but I'll let it slide for right now.

What are the limits of God's power?

Answer that question straight, and then we'll get back to this.
Perhaps if they didn't make such claims they wouldn't get the Christian's attention. (leave God out of it)Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? Figure it out, Lady: If Christians hadn't used the Bible in an effort to compel the law to suspend civil and human rights on the basis of the gender of one's sexual partner, nobody would give a fuck whether God created anyone as they are.

Haven't you figured out that as long as God is the Supreme Authority in the Universe, the Alpha and Omega, as long as God is omnipotent, then God is ultimately responsible for everything in the Universe?

Now: What are the limits of God's power?
What's so difficult about choice? you either do it or you don'tYeah, tell that to the woman who chose to be gang-raped instead of having her throat slit.

What is so difficult about understanding that a gay person does not "choose" to like or dislike sexual contact any more than a person chooses to like or dislike a particular food? String beans just don't do it for me. I hate the things. Nobody in a million years can convince me string beans are a pleasant eating experience. Likewise, nobody in a million years can convince a gay person that heterosexual contact is better.
Once again, I have gay familly members and friends who recently went gay(still friends) but none of this has to do with my topicSo why do you feel the need to "explain" their behavior, such as the topic goes?
And I don't see where I have judged anyone.......ask question's, yes, exspecially when the homosexual's I deal with are atheist.I just find your thick-headedness to be offensive and spiteful.
I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE THIS POINT-------LEAVE GOD OUT OF ITSo get it through your head: The homosexuals will leave God out of it when the bloody fucking Christians do!

Easy enough?

Besides: Jesus was gay (www.elroy.net/ehr/gay.html) (I love this essay ... you'll see the problems that occur when Christians make people's sexual mores community business. Christianity in general has heaps of dirty laundry, and every once in a while, it has to get aired.

Do you have any divorced friends or family, Lady? Did any of them remarry? How do you explain their sins to the poor children?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa, I read the article on "When Christ was Gay" and I will fully admit that their are LOTS of Christians who are most hippocritical. However, plenty of them do live the way they profess to.

Of course, LOTS of movements and religious people, and scientists, and politicians are ALL hippocritical. It's human nature to be that way. I can give some great examples but that distracts from the subject at hand.

By condemning Christianity as a whole because not all of them practice what they preach, you are making sweeping generalizations about whole groups of people - a disrespect no one would ever tolerate if they applied it to blacks, feminists, liberals, greenpeacers, and plenty of others groups where plenty of people practice what they preach while others are total hippocrits.

If you have a beef with Christianity that's okay!! Lots of people do. But, don't condemn people who live that way as a whole based on the actions of SOME of them.

By condemning Christianity as a whole because not all of them practice what they preach, you are making sweeping generalizations about whole groups of people - a disrespect no one would ever tolerate if they applied it to blacks, feminists, liberals, greenpeacers, and plenty of others groups where plenty of people practice what they preach while others are total hippocrits.While this is technically a distraction, I feel it merits a response.

Very simply, Xevious, this topic is about homosexuality in various contexts, as asked by Lady. Thus, if you have a specific complaint about the way I've treated Christianity, document it and ask me about it. You might find your perception of it is wrong, although I do understand it's easier for you to take the route you have.

However, when we get right down to it, this isn't just about hypocrites. Even those who are "genuine" Christians subscribe to an arrogant, deceptive religious paradigm. I try not to blame children who are brainwashed by their parents, but as with racists, I expect adults to know right and wrong. I mean, what's the difference between a "genuine" racist and someone who just likes to use the word "nigger" all the time? Should we have more respect for the "genuine" racist because he or she isn't hypocritical, and actually means it when using insulting words?

So deal with it. The choice to be a Christian is not one I have a tremendous amount of respect for. It's tough to do it right, I admit, but I don't intend to spend my life wandering the earth with my lantern held high looking for an honest Christian. Especially since most of the people I know who have approached that state have altered their religious paradigm in order to escape the constraints of Christianity. That degree of integrity seems to defy Christian capability, but since that's merely observational and experiential in my life, I can see how I'm absolutely imagining it. :rolleyes:

In the meantime, which generalizations specifically would you like to undertake? We can do it publicly, you can PM me, you can email me. Go ahead and ask the question. At worst you might get an answer. At best, you might actually have a point to make. But I won't know until you tell me and we discuss those very issues. In the meantime, don't generalize about my generalizations. It's pretty silly when you do.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa, I come to think it's pointless to debate with you because you sound like you so sure of your position and you yourself are so intollerant that it's useless to even try to present another point of view. I can see already you seem to look down upon me.


At worst you might get an answer. At best, you might actually have a point to make.

You might find your perception of it (christianity) is wrong, although I do understand it's easier for you to take the route you have.

If I will not be respected even from the get-go their is no point. You in turn will not be respected. It's funny for someone who preaches tollerance and detests hippocracy that you show it in your own actions.

Originally posted by tiassa
present[/i]. It's all history by the time it hits your eyes and ears. It's kind of like looking at the equation after you've calculated it. The solution is the only one that could be, given the factors. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't.

I quote Floyd: "Is there anybody out there?"Well I answered the original question ages ago. What, weren't you paying attention?

And where in the Bible does it say that God didn't create homosexuals?


Deal with it, Lady.Well, get in the van ...

Think of it this way: if you choose (A) you get a shiny reward. If you choose (B) I will punish you.

Now think of it this way: Why charge anyone with rape? After all, the woman made a choice.

What's that? Duress? Ah ....No matter how I segregated or integrated this with the rest of that alleged paragraph of yours, this doesn't seem to make any sense. Is there some inner significance in these words that I'm missing? Or is it just argumentative "filler"?A three word question just flashed through my mind, but I'll let it slide for right now.

Now: What are the limits of God's power?Yeah, tell that to the woman who chose to be gang-raped instead of having her throat slit.


thanx,
Tiassa :cool:







Tiassa,

B]Which speaks nothing toward intent to act. The problem I have with such a miniscule god as presented in the Bible is, actually, quite irrelevant. Stop running from the issue.My, my, good Lady. Is there a problem





** Unlike us God is able to raise the dead had he gone through with it.But we come to find out it was a faith tester. Eventually God would sacrifice his own son.(a moment between God & his prophet)




In other words, if that God be true, then yes, my sentiments are according to His Will.Doesn't change the fact that He made them that way.Going down the list:

• Homosexuality--doesn't matter
• Pedophilia--this bears issues both of developmental health and consent. In fact, it serves well to demonstrate: child sexual abuse would not be as sexually traumatizing to the child if society in general was just a little less anal-retentive about matters sexual and biological. To the other, some of those pedophiles might not land in extremis. However, even with those considerations, we still see tremendous health hazards coming from sexual intercourse with children. Even if the grown-ups grew up enough to f--k their children without f--king them up, the stellar amount of developmental damage such intercourse causes rules out pedophilia as far too risky to submit anyone to, much less a child. I mean, sex with a thirteen year-old girl can triple her chance for cervical cancer. That's just a little ridiculous. But whether God creates a pedophile at the genetic level or molds one through the trials and conditions of life, God still wills the condition that results. A note from P.J. O'Rourke: Parents should never try to screw their children, except in their Will.
• Incest--I am tremendously against incest, however I will not deny two consenting adults their right to do whatever the hell makes them feel good.
• Bestialism--For something so ... seemingly distasteful, American culture has a thing for bestialism. Every guy I know has seen one or another video of either a woman blowing a horse or a woman f--king her dog. After drinking heavily, horsegag.avi was not something I was happy a friend showed me. The dog? Be careful what you wish for when you go looking for college-dorm porn. However, I can say in either case that the animals seemed to enjoy themselves, so I'm prone to say I don't want to hear about it, and that will make me happy enough.I'm not sure what your point is.



** You're the first to admitt God made pedafilian,homosexuality, and bestialism or willed it.............basically you don't believe Satan has a role in anything? If Satan were out of the picture none of the above would exist...behavior's created by Satan to make man fall. When I speak of Free Moral Agency look at it this way- there's all kinds of temptations Satan's worldy delights and God's provided way. But in order for God not to be a Tyrant he allowed Satan to use his tactics......therefore man aren't forced to worship God but have a choice .........I think this is more of a permissive will rather than his perfect will.


** I tryed to make the point earlier if homosexuality is accepted as creation rather than choice.....than those who committ the behavior's above can also make the same claims,and you admitted that. If it's more of creation theory rather than choice we have no right to condem pedafiles, incest, beastality, and other deviant behaviors- if it's a God given desire. I personally don't believe that but you already know that.




Really, what is your point with that?I figure humankind will either figure that out or not. In the meantime, I still don't get why there has to be a Who. That seems entirely your own problem.This from someone who got the Bible wrong? Wouldn't the Fear of God compel you to get it right?Then I think the researchers were seeing a sexual act, don't you?You still haven't figured out the fact that God wills them to behave that way.


** You mentioned God didn't created the world...why should humankind have to figure it out.....if you have the answer?

^And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of EVERY tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat.

** The Tree Of Life is included in the trees they could eat from.only after the fall was they no longer allowed to eat of the Tree Of Life.

** Temptation is set forth so that mankind can make a choice. God doesn't force people to worship him......and this is why Satan is allowed to use his tactic's.......but no one force's us on the choices we make pertaining to (Free Moral Agency) (FMA) has nothing to do with being forced in a van or raped.



Why are you so afraid of homosexuality that you're devoting this much effort to it?

That you choose to separate it as an idea for examination indicates that it holds some sort of priority in your life. What is that priority? Why is it so important to you to identify homosexuality?


** I believe God when he say's he didn't create homosexual or any deviant behaviors(for that matter) As I mentioned before I have relatives and friends who enjoy homosexual relations as well as hetero relations. And I don't see how telling people they can't change helps. I know it has to be a personal experience with a individual & God before many believe him. However my world would be upside down if God purposely created people so he could abhor them and throw them in hell. People need to know they can change and God is there not to judge but to love and save. Seek him.


What are the limits of God's power?


** Ask him..........develope a relationship despite all the things you heard about God.......question the bible.........question him. At least he'll see your interested in knowing. You' ll be amazed in some of the way's he answer's.



Do you realize that for your talk of demons and so forth to have any legitimacy, God must either be weak enough to be unable to stop the evil or else God must will it.You did have a problem with homosexual contact occurring in nature. As I look up at your words, I see it's still an issue: This is exactly why animals aren't held accountable for homosexual behavior even if it is manifested amongst (doubt it)


** Satan knows his time is short......
** Mankind can either choose between God or Satan........(God is not a Tyrant)
** I also mentioned I don't believe animals have sex anytime they want to but rather during mating season nor can the students prove it was a sexual act in the animal kingdom. Sure if a human see's a gorilla grabbing another gorilla's private's of course were going to think sexual. It is sexual to us.



Answer that question straight, and then we'll get back to this.Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? Figure it out, Lady: If Christians hadn't used the Bible in an effort to compel the law to suspend civil and human rights on the basis of the gender of one's sexual partner, nobody would give a fuck whether God created anyone as they are.


**I do know people use the Bible for their own agenda's and twist the word therin but don't get upset with me.



Haven't you figured out that as long as God is the Supreme Authority in the Universe, the Alpha and Omega, as long as God is omnipotent, then [i]God is ultimately responsible for everything in the Universe?


** I've always know that God is ultimate but he is not responsible for our choices, sure he may have allowed Satan to use tactic's to make us fall but he also provided a way out. Man has a choice to either Serve God or Satan .......we aren't forced to serve God and in order for that to be so there had to be another......option (Satan)



What is so difficult about understanding that a gay person does not "choose" to like or dislike sexual contact any more than a person chooses to like or dislike a particular food? String beans just don't do it for me. I hate the things. Nobody in a million years can convince me string beans are a pleasant eating experience. Likewise, nobody in a million years can convince a gay person that heterosexual contact is better.So why do you feel the need to "explain" their behavior, such as the topic goes?I just find your thick-headedness to be offensive and spiteful.So get it through your head: [i]The homosexuals will leave God out of it when the bloody fucking Christians do![/i

**Perhaps you should watch Jerry Springer, where self proclaimed homosexuals change their prefrences like a clean person changes their underware or just come to my neighborhood.




Easy enough?

Besides: Jesus was gay (www.elroy.net/ehr/gay.html) (I love this essay ... you'll see the problems that occur when Christians make people's sexual mores community business. Christianity in general has heaps of dirty laundry, and every once in a while, it has to get aired.

**If Christ was gay he couldn't not have died for our sin's
** You don't have to convince me that Christianity has dirty laundry(start with the R.C.C.


Do you have any divorced friends or family, Lady? Did any of them remarry? How do you explain their sins to the poor children?


** I do have some divorce's in my family however the children or approx. 12-15 year's older and they don't care as far as I can tell.

I HATE imacs, they suck. And I hate these stupid sarcasm faces:rolleyes: and the aristocratic your-a-dumbass laugh:p . Maybe i just need counciling.


By the way, is this forum about god or what?!


Unlike us God is able to raise the dead had he gone through with it.But we come to find out it was a faith tester. Eventually God would sacrifice his own son.(a moment between God & his prophet)If God could raise the dead then why not let Abraham go forward with the actual act of sacrificing his son? It seems the intent is enough. Quit dodging the issue.
You're the first to admitt God made pedafilian,homosexuality, and bestialism or willed itI should be famous, then.

No, dear Lady, I am not the first. Christians have known for a long, long time, and just had a hard time dealing with it.
basically you don't believe Satan has a role in anything?Nobody has shown me that the Devil is necessary or vital in terms of the occurrence of evil. Satan seems quite the unnecessary middle-man.
If Satan were out of the picture none of the above would exist...behavior's created by Satan to make man fallAh, so God is not the Supreme Authority? Without the equal authority of the Devil, evil would not exist? Perhaps you should expand on your point to cover such bases.
When I speak of Free Moral Agency look at it this way- there's all kinds of temptations Satan's worldy delights and God's provided wayWell, that notion presupposes the existence and authority of Satan.
But in order for God not to be a Tyrant he allowed Satan to use his tactics......therefore man aren't forced to worship God but have a choiceJust like, in order not to be a rapist, the man in the van gives a woman a choice: submit or get a knife in the throat.

In order for God to not be a tyrant? Choose God's way or be punished does not equal free will or free moral agency. In order for will or moral agency to be free it must be unfettered by external duress.
.I think this is more of a permissive will rather than his perfect will. In other words, God's law changes as ... who, you see fit? If it was a permissive will, it would permit--that is, give permission to--such behavior without the threat of reprisal on Judgment Day.
You mentioned God didn't created the world...why should humankind have to figure it out.....if you have the answer? Now that is quite a stupid leap. Try the actual issue.

Why does there has to be a who?
The Tree Of Life is included in the trees they could eat from.only after the fall was they no longer allowed to eat of the Tree Of Life.Would you please tell me what this has to do with anything? Had they actually eaten of the Tree of Life, why had they not achieved immortality? Had they actually eaten of the Tree of Life, why was God worried that they would eat from the Tree of Life?
God doesn't force people to worship him......and this is why Satan is allowed to use his tactic's.......but no one force's us on the choices we make pertaining to (Free Moral Agency) (FMA) has nothing to do with being forced in a van or raped. Actually, God doesn't force people to worship him any more than a rapist forces a woman to have sex with him. It is a matter of free choice versus duress that you seem to fail to understand. If "God does not force people to worship him", then "a rapist does not force a woman to have sex with him".

Obey God or go to Hell, as per the Bible.

Obey the rapist or get a knife in the throat.

In either case, it's your own damn choice, right? So why prosecute the rapist? The woman chose to have sex, which seems to undermine the notion of rape.
I believe God when he say's he didn't create homosexual or any deviant behaviors(for that matter)And where does God say that?
And I don't see how telling people they can't change helps.I don't see how telling a homosexual must change helps. Perhaps you could explain that, as an ethical issue (since that is the forum we're in): Why should a homosexual attempt to be a heterosexual?

Lights, camera ... you're on.
However my world would be upside down if God purposely created people so he could abhor them and throw them in hell.Well, at least you're honest about that.

Thank you for demonstrating that little point. Are you sure you're not an atheist provocateur? I don't know many who could have pulled off that little slam against Christian faith as well as you just did. Those who could ... well, they're both bright and obsessive. But it was a nice nail in the wrist of Christian faith.
People need to know they can change and God is there not to judge but to love and save.Funny, doesn't the Bible say something about God sitting in Judgment? Somewhere in Matthew, at least? Somewhere around Matthew 25, at least? You know, those on the right hand go to heaven, those on the left are cast into the fire reserved for the Devil and his angels? Remember Jesus' little speech there, about whatsoever you do or don't do to the least of his brethren?

It's these little lapses that tip me toward the notion that you're an atheist playing provocateur. Nonetheless, the nail in the wrist about how upside down your world would be if God turned out to be something other than you wanted it to be was skillfully driven.
Ask him..........develope a relationship despite all the things you heard about God.......question the bible.........question him. At least he'll see your interested in knowing. You' ll be amazed in some of the way's he answer's.Why are you so afraid to answer that question? I'm asking you. If I ask God, at least I get deafening silence. If I ask you I get sad excuses. Try answering the question. I am asking you!

• What is the limit of God's power?
Satan knows his time is short...... Something about ruby slippers and faery-dust comes to mind. What does Satan's wristwatch have to do with anything?
Mankind can either choose between God or Satan........(God is not a Tyrant) And mankind can also choose between ice cream and sorbet (Sorbet is not a dairy product).
I also mentioned I don't believe animals have sex anytime they want to but rather during mating season nor can the students prove it was a sexual act in the animal kingdom.Hang out with bonobos sometime.
Sure if a human see's a gorilla grabbing another gorilla's private's of course were going to think sexual. It is sexual to us. Yes ... human sexual obsession is definitely part of the problem. I still don't see why homosexuality is so damned important to you that you need to make a point of explaining it to children.
I do know people use the Bible for their own agenda's and twist the word therin but don't get upset with me.Next time try answering the issue straight. When you figure it out, let me know. I'd loan you the fifty cents, but I think pay phones will cost more by the time you figure it out.
I've always know that God is ultimate but he is not responsible for our choices, sure he may have allowed Satan to use tactic's to make us fall but he also provided a way out.And that's why God punished Adam and Eve for making choices?

If our choices were merely of academic interest to God, if our choices had nothing to do with morality, then why punish the people? God looked at the future in which homosexuals would exist and said, "It is good."
Man has a choice to either Serve God or Satan And man has a choice between Barq's and A&W root beer. (A&W is not caffeinated.)
we aren't forced to serve God and in order for that to be so there had to be another......option (Satan)Then why does God have the authority to judge those who serve Satan?
Perhaps you should watch Jerry Springer, where self proclaimed homosexuals change their prefrences like a clean person changes their underware or just come to my neighborhood.Um ... okay. Jerry Springer ... when I think of a less insulting way to advise you of what the hell is wrong with that, I'll come back to it. In the meantime, I think I'm starting to see why you don't know the contents of the Bible you advocate.

Tell me, what would God say about your choice to preach his name in ignorance? False teachings in the name of God are very sinful, you know.
If Christ was gay he couldn't not have died for our sin's Okay, I'll bite. Why not?
You don't have to convince me that Christianity has dirty laundry(start with the R.C.C.Talk about shooting fish in a barrel! Tell me, do you kick dogs or steal candy from children? There have been problems in the Catholic organization since before it was organized or catholic. I would have thought that the "Protestant reformation" would have been about more than labels and dominion. In other words, you'd think Christians would start cleaning their damn laundry instead of just hanging out more soiled laundry.
I do have some divorce's in my family however the children or approx. 12-15 year's older and they don't care as far as I can tell.I noticed you left out a part of that in order to divert the issue.

Did any of that divorced family remarry, Lady?

Answer that question and then we can examine the children, as such.

I see you tap-dancing around the issues. Really, why can't you just focus on the issues you raised? Why are you afraid to face them? Oh, is Jerry Springer on? Forgive me. I hold myself answered. At least we know a little more about what's important to you.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

so nice to have someone doing all the grunt work!

;)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Christ was gay he couldn't not have died for our sin's
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, I'll bite. Why not?

Tiassa, it says:
"if Christ was gay he could NOT NOT have died for our sins"

Lady,
what is the ultimate reason for you to believe God would even find this an important matter?
And why is it important to you?
In other words: why is homosexuality a moral issue?
that was my original question, and it has not been answered by you. as you can see by the replies, the Bible can very well be used to show God loves all humans (not only straight men).

here is for clarity, why i do not feel the question has been answered:

"The knowledge of right and wrong..............but I personally believe God doesn't condone many things including homosexuality.........therefore upon recieving this info(Bible).........I personally conclude it must be a wrong or unintended behavior."
what are you on? what does this mean.

Even stranger:
"Homosexuality and whether its immoral is the decision of the individual. My argument lies in leading people to believe God is satanic........... I could respect----choice. Crack heads, murders, adulterous.......ect.... don't blame God for their choices.... why not blame Satan."

Apart from the coontents- your writing do make sense. the logic is flawed, but the grammar is okay - UNTIL you get to answer the why-it-is-wrong question. Then all fails.

is it so extremely hard to consider that it is a misguided coception that homosexuals are perverse and go to hell.
If you do, you will see suddenly all questions (like: "Why lead the world to believe God deliberately created a behavior he considers perverse in which the penalty of is hell. ") get answered.

I come to think it's pointless to debate with you because you sound like you so sure of your position and you yourself are so intollerant that it's useless to even try to present another point of view. I can see already you seem to look down upon me.You know, one of these days, one of these pathetic assertions of how unfair and intolerant and how much I look down at people will become a legitimate topic.

But it won't happen as long as you just sit there and whine that I'm doing it. If you are unwilling to offer examples of what disturbs you, I can hardly address those points.
If I will not be respected even from the get-go their is no pointI have no respect for childish whining. If you have an example in mind, well, I'll respect that or not based on the merits of the example.
You in turn will not be respected.And that will be different from yesterday how?

Take a look around, Xevious, most people who fight with me have a bone to pick, anyway. Take T1 as an example: the guy never actually argues the topic with me, whatever it is is some perverse obsession with arguing with me. KalvinB was the same way. Xev has done that before but she is capable of arguing the topic. But very few who undertake any of my posts in the religious forum demonstrate any understanding, and that's hardly my problem. You'll notice that in other forums, people are capable of addressing issues and not me.
It's funny for someone who preaches tollerance and detests hippocracy that you show it in your own actions. Help me laugh with you and give me an example.

I have very little respect for the kind of weasel-whining you're about right now. Show me what you've got, tell me what's bugging you, and you might even have a point. I will never know unless you tell me.

I mean, I'm getting kind of sick of it. I keep hearing about how awful I am, but nobody can give me any good examples. Show me. Go on, try.

Or else shut the hell up.

--Tiassa :cool:

Merlijn:
Tiassa, it says:
"if Christ was gay he could NOT NOT have died for our sins"True enough, it seems. To point out your next post in the topic, you note that Lady's "grammar is okay". Why point that out?

The reason I ask is partially the reason for my mistake. I got used to reading around the awful grammar and spelling, and had been trying to not say anything about it. Oh, well. It caught up with me, it seems. Nonetheless, if not not is the way I should be reading it, I must wonder what the hell that response was supposed to mean in the context of its post.

Thanks for clearing that up, though I must admit it makes a couple of things less clear.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

pro gay christians pick articles in the bible that support them

anti gay christians do the same

god the schizo (http://www.ambs.edu/LJohns/Homosexuality.htm)

Originally posted by Merlijn
Tiassa, it says:
"if Christ was gay he could NOT NOT have died for our sins"

Lady,
what is the ultimate reason for you to believe God would even find this an important matter?
And why is it important to you?
In other words: why is homosexuality a moral issue?
that was my original question, and it has not been answered by you. as you can see by the replies, the Bible can very well be used to show God loves all humans (not only straight men).



**Why God choose that the sacrifice had to be perfect......ask him?
** This wasn't my orginal issue (perfect sacrifice)
** I personally think it's a moral issue due to the content in the Bible
** I NEVER said God didn't Love gay men.

Tiassa,


]If God could raise the dead then why not let Abraham go forward with the actual act of sacrificing his son? It seems the intent is enough. Quit dodging the issue.


** Ask him? This has nothing to do with my topic.



o, dear Lady, I am not the first. Christians have known for a long, long time, and just had a hard time dealing with it.Nobody has shown me that the Devil is necessary or vital in terms of the occurrence of evil. Satan seems quite the unnecessary middle-man.Ah, so God is not the Supreme Authority? Without the equal authority of the Devil, evil would not exist? Perhaps you should expand on your point to cover such bases.Well, that notion presupposes the existence and authority of Satan.Just like, in order not to be a rapist, the man in the van gives a woman a choice: submit or get a knife in the throat.



** Who ever said Satan and God was equal in power?
** What does choosing the homosexuality lifestyle have to do with being raped?


In order for God to not be a tyrant? Choose God's way or be punished does not equal free will or free moral agency. In order for will or moral agency to be free it must be unfettered by external duress.In other words, God's law changes as ... who, you see fit? If it was a permissive will, it would permit--that is, give permission to--such behavior without the threat of reprisal on Judgment Day.Now that is quite a stupid leap. Try the actual issue.


** But you still have a choice.... and the consequences are made know......make your choice.




Why does there has to be a who?Would you please tell me what this has to do with anything? Had they actually eaten of the Tree of Life, why had they not achieved immortality? Had they actually eaten of the Tree of Life, why was God worried that they would eat from the Tree of Life?Actually, God doesn't force people to worship him any more than a rapist forces a woman to have sex with him. It is a matter of free choice versus duress that you seem to fail to understand. If "God does not force people to worship him", then "a rapist does not force a woman to have sex with him".



** Why don't you tell me why half of the stuff you introduced into my topic has nothing to do with the orginal questions?

** You was wrong, Adam& Eve could and did eat from the Tree of Life.

** I wasn't forced to worship God




In either case, it's your own damn choice, right? So why prosecute the rapist? The woman chose to have sex, which seems to undermine the notion of rape.And where does God say that?I don't see how telling a homosexual must change helps. Perhaps you could explain that, as an ethical issue (since that is the forum we're in): Why should a homosexual attempt to be a heterosexual?


** Whoever said a homosexual must change? I SAID WHY LEAD PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THEY CAN'T CHANGE?





Thank you for demonstrating that little point. Are you sure you're not an atheist provocateur? I don't know many who could have pulled off that little slam against Christian faith as well as you just did. Those who could ... well, they're both bright and obsessive. But it was a nice nail in the wrist of Christian faith.Funny, doesn't the Bible say something about God sitting in Judgment? Somewhere in Matthew, at least? Somewhere around Matthew 25, at least? You know, those on the right hand go to heaven, those on the left are cast into the fire reserved for the Devil and his angels? Remember Jesus' little speech there, about whatsoever you do or don't do to the least of his brethren?




** I personally don't find the R.C.C. to follow the Christian Faith......are you sure you're not a witch?

** Is this a religious forum? No



It's these little lapses that tip me toward the notion that you're an atheist playing provocateur. Nonetheless, the nail in the wrist about how upside down your world would be if God turned out to be something other than you wanted it to be was skillfully driven.Why are you so afraid to answer that question? I'm asking you. If I ask God, at least I get deafening silence. If I ask you I get sad excuses. Try answering the question. I am asking you!

** If you get sorry excuse's QUIT ASKING?



Lights, camera ... you're on.Well, at least you're honest about that.
• What is the limit of God's power?Something about ruby slippers and faery-dust comes to mind. What does Satan's wristwatch have to do with anything?And mankind can also choose between ice cream and sorbet (Sorbet is not a dairy product).Hang out with bonobos sometime.Yes ... human sexual obsession is definitely part of the problem. I still don't see why homosexuality is so damned important to you that you need to make a point of explaining it to children.Next time try answering the issue straight. When you figure it out, let me know. I'd loan you the fifty cents, but I think pay phones will cost more by the time you figure it out.And that's why God punished Adam and Eve for making choices?



** Why shouldn't kids learn alternate sexual lifestyles when it's represented around them. They learn the norm why not the other?

** Why homosexuality is important to me...........I could ask you the same?

** According to the Bible Adam & Eve's not in hell (punishment?)




f our choices were merely of academic interest to God, if our choices had nothing to do with morality, then why punish the people? God looked at the future in which homosexuals would exist and said, "It is good."And man has a choice between Barq's and A&W root beer. (A&W is not caffeinated.)Then why does God have the authority to judge those who serve Satan?Um ... okay. Jerry Springer ... when I think of a less insulting way to advise you of what the hell is wrong with that, I'll come back to it. In the meantime, I think I'm starting to see why you don't know the contents of the Bible you advocate.



** Where does God make that statement? Homosexuality being good?
**Why doesn't he have the authoriy to judge those who choose to worship Satan..........they knew the consequence's.
** Adam & Eve did eat of the Tree Of Life ( I knew that)





Tell me, what would God say about your choice to preach his name in ignorance? False teachings in the name of God are very sinful, you know.Okay, I'll bite. Why not?Talk about shooting fish in a barrel! Tell me, do you kick dogs or steal candy from children? There have been problems in the Catholic organization since before it was organized or catholic. I would have thought that the "Protestant reformation" would have been about more than labels and dominion. In other words, you'd think Christians would start cleaning their damn laundry instead of just hanging out more soiled laundry.I noticed you left out a part of that in order to divert the issue.


** I didn't choose to speak on all these other issues you bought up. But if you want to know ask him?

** You're guilty of twisting and leaving words out as well.


Did any of that divorced family remarry, Lady?

**And what does this have to do with my topic?


see you tap-dancing around the issues. Really, why can't you just focus on the issues you raised? Why are you afraid to face them? Oh, is Jerry Springer on? Forgive me. I hold myself answered. At least we know a little more about what's important to you.

** Who ever said it was important.........entertaing.

Originally posted by tiassa
Merlijn:True enough, it seems. To point out your next post in the topic, you note that Lady's "grammar is okay". Why point that out?

The reason I ask is partially the reason for my mistake. I got used to reading around the awful grammar and spelling, and had been trying to not say anything about it. Oh, well. It caught up with me, it seems. Nonetheless, if not not is the way I should be reading it, I must wonder what the hell that response was supposed to mean in the context of its post.

Thanks for clearing that up, though I must admit it makes a couple of things less clear.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:


If you'll stop crying I'll correct it.

Ask him? This has nothing to do with my topic.Actually it does. Since you seem to have such an issue with the notion that God created homosexuals the way they are, it seems relevant to discuss the limitations of God's power. After all, in terms of social policy--where God's judgment and authority seem quite relevant to the Christian supremacists--the sin against God is a primary motivator of anti-gay movements. In terms of theology, it does seem odd that God should have to judge his own creations; perhaps God should create something suitable to his tastes for once.
Who ever said Satan and God was equal in power?It's not even an issue until people start using Satan as an excuse for God's will. When Christians resort to asserting conditions whereby the Devil does not operate under the authority of God, they are awarding Satan at least equality enough to defy God's law.
What does choosing the homosexuality lifestyle have to do with being raped?It has to do with the assertion that human beings, facing God's judgment and possible condemnation to the fires, still have free will. Free will does not exist under conditions of duress. To say that man has free will to adhere to God's law discounts the notions of redemption and judgment. One has the choice to obey God's law or be punished, just as the woman in the van has the choice to have sex with the so-called rapist or get a knife in the throat.

It's a functional comparison, see? Such possibilities exist according to the logic that asserts conditions of duress to equal free will or free moral agency.
But you still have a choice.... and the consequences are made know......make your choice.Something about the rapist in the van? See the prior segment of this post for clarification.
Why don't you tell me why half of the stuff you introduced into my topic has nothing to do with the orginal questions?Enumerate those factors and we'll examine them.
You was wrong, Adam& Eve could and did eat from the Tree of LifeYou have no Biblical grounds for that claim. Furthermore, Genesis 3 indicates that, at the time God expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, that they had not taken of the fruit of the Tree of Life.
I wasn't forced to worship GodSo you won't be punished or deprived should you choose to not follow God's law or way? Perhaps you could fill us in on the notion of judgment.
Whoever said a homosexual must change? I SAID WHY LEAD PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THEY CAN'T CHANGE?Establish that people are being led to believe that they can't change. Then we can examine that point.
I personally don't find the R.C.C. to follow the Christian Faith......are you sure you're not a witch?I'm not a very good witch in the sense that I'm not utterly dedicated to witchcraft. But everybody around here knows I have a long affiliation with The Craft. Yet you'll have to remind me: What does that have to do with anything?
Is this a religious forum? NoThen why raise religious topics?
If you get sorry excuse's QUIT ASKING?True, but the side bets on whether or not you'll ever be honest in this discussion are raking me in a lot of money. :rolleyes:

Are sorry excuses the best we can expect of you?
Why shouldn't kids learn alternate sexual lifestyles when it's represented around them. They learn the norm why not the other?Heterosexual, reproductive-intended sexuality must occur for the human species to continue. Beyond reproduction, sexuality is an issue of different consequences. The basics of human function must be taught, but one needs no demonizing or praise in the classrooms of casual sex.
Why homosexuality is important to me...........I could ask you the same?Yet another question you refuse to answer?

Pathetic.

However, I will do you the courtesy of answering your question: Homosexuality is important to me because for the last twelve years of my life people have been trying to pass laws in the name of religion that would suspend civil and human rights based solely on the gender of a person's sexual partner. This is an unacceptable situation, as it defies almost every American value which makes freedom important and human beings worth anything. I will not see my friends cast into social ostracism, will not see my neighbors relegated to second-class citizens, and will not allow the curtailing of my own expression as prescribed by such efforts as the OCA's 1992 push to remove books from libraries on the grounds that they mention homosexuality without condemning it as offensive, detrimental, or perverse. Homosexuality as a political and social issue will cease being of such importance to me when the persecutors cease their persecution.

Easy enough to understand?
According to the Bible Adam & Eve's not in hell (punishment?)And where, according to the Bible, are they?

I mean, the Bible doesn't say Amelek is in hell, either.

In the meantime, I do believe their punishment was spelled out in Genesis. You ought to try reading it sometime.
Where does God make that statement? Homosexuality being good?God had foreknowledge of the world, just as he had knowledge of Adam and Eve's coming sins. And yet he still went through with creation and called it "good".
Why doesn't he have the authoriy to judge those who choose to worship Satan..........they knew the consequence's.I don't see the relevance of this question, since I wrote: Then why does God have the authority to judge those who serve Satan?

According to the Bible, God sits in judgment of human souls, rewarding some with admission to heaven and punishing others by casting them into the fires reserved for the Devil and his angels.

Yet if "they knew the consequences", then where is the free moral agency? What, there's consequences to a that free choice? I mean, if you jump off a building and plummet to the ground, that's a natural process of God's Universe. But if the consequence is one of deliberate will, it is duress. We're back to the rapist in the van.
Adam & Eve did eat of the Tree Of Life ( I knew that)You knew that? Well, we've seen you claim that many times. However, you have not yet provided any Biblical evidence for this assertion which contradicts the evidence in Genesis 3.

Tell me: when you know something, how do you know it? Just because it's easier if you decide you know it? Because it's what you want to be true? When you know something that is in such direct contradiction of the established facts (e.g. asserting a Biblical condition that is so untrue as to be contradicted by the Bible), how do you know?
I didn't choose to speak on all these other issues you bought up. But if you want to know ask him?If God chooses to answer, He will. In the meantime, why are you avoiding such questions? Is it not the least bit unethical for you to go about preaching falsehoods in the name of God? Is it not the least bit immoral for you to go about twisting the words of His book in order to make it easier for yourself?
You're guilty of twisting and leaving words out as well.Document them. Drag them out, tell me why they're important.

And in the meantime, why do you want me to ask God what I'm asking you? Will God give me something better than a pathetic excuse?

Silence is golden, you know. :rolleyes:
And what does this have to do with my topic?You should try answering the question once in a while, and it can be made clear to you. In the meantime, why are you so afraid to answer the questions? Is it because you are actually smarter than you play your persona, and know that once you answer these questions honestly, you'll be left standing without any basis for your regard for homosexuality?
Who ever said it was important.........entertaing.It's what you choose. Seems important enough to be chosen.

At any rate, it would serve you well to try approaching this topic honestly for a change. You're merely annoying in my opinion. But I do wonder about that God you seem to believe in. I wonder what he thinks of the various lies, misrepresentations, and cowardice you're showing in his name?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

If you'll stop crying I'll correct it.What's this? Correct what you want. You're always welcome to remind me, as well, if your poor presentation has communicated the wrong ideas.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

STOP POSTING HUGE COLUMNS!

NOONE IS GOING TO READ THEM!

I certainly didn't, it is too much and too irrelevant to me.


AND NOONE ANSWERED MY QUESTION!!!!!!

WHY is EVERYONE talking about GOD? This is not about god. What the hell? If there is a god like christians proclaim, he is phycho and he created the world in his own phycho image.

STOP POSTING HUGE COLUMNS!

NOONE IS GOING TO READ THEM!I love the notion that people are willing to bitch about what they won't read. :rolleyes:
WHY is EVERYONE talking about GOD? This is not about god. What the hell?Well, you could look at the topic post:
For year's the gay community has led us to believe that homosexuality was not a choice but rather God created them that way, however, with the advance research of DNA there is no proof linking a gene to homesexuality. So here is the question, how should schools, parents, or pastors explain homosexuality, exspecially, to the youth? (Lady, 9.11.2002)And then there's my answer:
• Pastors: according to the prejudices of religion
• Schools: according to necessity and relevance
• Parents: according to the priority of principles versus the priority of function (Tiassa, 9.15.2002)And then Lady's reply to that post:
to accept that God would create a behavior he identifies as an abomination...calls for questioning of God's character (Lady, 9.15.2002)And the next day I comment on that questioning of God's character and the notion of "temptation", and then we hear a bit about "Free Moral Agency" (Lady, 9.16), and then some commentary from Lady (9.17) regarding Eve, the serpent, and the Bible ...

I would hope you see, Frencheneesz, that God has been part of the discussion from the very beginning.
If there is a god like christians proclaim, he is phycho and he created the world in his own phycho image.Fair enough. I've thought the same thing many a time.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by Lady
**Why God choose that the sacrifice had to be perfect......ask him?
** This wasn't my orginal issue (perfect sacrifice)
No no no... Christ (and I expect you believe that is Jesus) being perfect is not what I referred to. I am sorry to have brought up the hole thing. I just thought the double negation was funny.

Originally posted by Lady
** I personally think it's a moral issue due to the content in the Bible
** I NEVER said God didn't Love gay men.
True. And I know the Old testament (Lev. 18:somewhere) says you should not have intercourse with a man like with a woman.
But Lev. 14:somewhere_else it says we should not eat pork and sea-fruit. It's cheap to point out each others "mistakes". But here it is functional. BECAUSE it's all in the Old Testament! And ever since we received the New Testament we all know that we should love God and that we should love our neighburs like ourselves. The rest are details.
Since Jesus said that not what goes into your mouth, but that wich comes out of it makes you unclean, it is okay to eat all the pork you can find. But what the vein of his Teaching means to all the other arbitrary rules from the Old Testament is forgotten or plainly ignored.

Tiassa,





Actually it does. Since you seem to have such an issue with the notion that God created homosexuals the way they are, it seems relevant to discuss the limitations of God's power. After all, in terms of social policy--where God's judgment and authority seem quite relevant to the Christian supremacists--the sin against God is a primary motivator of anti-gay movements. In terms of theology, it does seem odd that God should have to judge his own creations; perhaps God should create something suitable to his tastes for once.It's not even an issue until people start using Satan as an excuse for God's will. When Christians resort to asserting conditions whereby the Devil does not operate under the authority of God, they are awarding Satan at least equality enough to defy God's law.It has to do with the assertion that human beings, facing God's judgment and possible condemnation to the fires, still have free will. Free will does not exist under conditions of duress. To say that man has free will to adhere to God's law discounts the notions of redemption and judgment. One has the choice to obey God's law or be punished, just as the woman in the van has the choice to have sex with the so-called rapist or get a knife in the throat.



** The limitations of God has nothing to do with Why homosexuals make claims of creation rather than choice futhermore, scienctist hasn't deemed it so. This is my argrument.. You sound as if you're mad at God because you can't freely worship Satan without suffering the penality.(sounds personal)

**Who ever said Satan doesn't operate under the authority of God?



It's a functional comparison, see? Such possibilities exist according to the logic that asserts conditions of duress to equal free will or free moral agency.Something about the rapist in the van? See the prior segment of this post for clarification.Enumerate those factors and we'll examine them.You have no Biblical grounds for that claim. Furthermore, Genesis 3 indicates that, at the time God expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, that they had not taken of the fruit of the Tree of Life.So you won't be punished or deprived should you choose to not follow God's law or way? Perhaps you could fill us in on the notion of judgment.Establish that people are being led to believe that they can't change. Then we can examine that point.I'm not a very good witch in the sense that I'm not utterly dedicated to witchcraft. But everybody around here knows I have a long affiliation with The Craft. Yet you'll have to remind me: What does that have to do with anything?Then why raise religious topics?True, but the side bets on whether or not you'll ever be honest in this discussion are raking me in a lot of money. :rolleyes:

** If you read your own post you have established why people can't change.

** Affliation with the craft.......yet you don't believe in Satan( yeah right)

** Adam& Eve had immortality from the start and lost it for human kind upon the fall. Futhermore they could eat from every tree( Tree Of Life included) except the Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil.



Are sorry excuses the best we can expect of you?Heterosexual, reproductive-intended sexuality must occur for the human species to continue. Beyond reproduction, sexuality is an issue of different consequences. The basics of human function must be taught, but one needs no demonizing or praise in the classrooms of casual sex.Yet another question you refuse to answer?




** SEE POST ENTITLED YOU WIN.



Pathetic.

However, I will do you the courtesy of answering your question: [b]Homosexuality is important to me because for the last twelve years of my life people have been trying to pass laws in the name of religion that would suspend civil and human rights based solely on the gender of a person's sexual partner. This is an unacceptable situation, as it defies almost every American value which makes freedom important and human beings worth anything. I will not see my friends cast into social ostracism, will not see my neighbors relegated to second-class citizens, and will not allow the curtailing of my own expression as prescribed by such efforts as the OCA's 1992 push to remove books from libraries on the grounds that they mention homosexuality without condemning it as offensive, detrimental, or perverse. Homosexuality as a political and social issue will cease being of such importance to me when the persecutors cease their persecution.



** What does this have to do with creation VS choice?



In the meantime, I do believe their punishment was spelled out in Genesis. You ought to try reading it sometime.God had foreknowledge of the world, just as he had knowledge of Adam and Eve's coming sins. And yet he still went through with creation and called it "good".I don't see the relevance of this question, since I wrote: Then why does God have the authority to judge those who serve Satan?



** Sounds like your upset or scared.... hell is your destination for flirting with the Devil. (sounds personal)



Yet if "they knew the consequences", then where is the free moral agency? What, there's consequences to a that free choice? I mean, if you jump off a building and plummet to the ground, that's a natural process of God's Universe. But if the consequence is one of deliberate will, it is duress. We're back to the rapist in the van.You knew that? Well, we've seen you claim that many times. However, you have not yet provided any Biblical evidence for this assertion which contradicts the evidence in Genesis 3.


** Why don't you ask the Devil? I have photo of him on the paranormal forum, go see him.

** It's not my concern on why you can't worship Satan and still go to heaven?

ell me: when you know something, how do you know it? Just because it's easier if you decide you know it? Because it's what you want to be true? When you know something that is in such direct contradiction of the established facts (e.g. asserting a Biblical condition that is so untrue as to be contradicted by the Bible), how do you know?If God chooses to answer, He will. In the meantime, why are you avoiding such questions? Is it not the least bit unethical for you to go about preaching falsehoods in the name of God? Is it not the least bit immoral for you to go about twisting the words of His book in order to make it easier for yourself?Document them. Drag them out, tell me why they're important.


** I didn't twist what is spoken of about homosexuality nor did I even quote the scripture's.
** Look it up for your self


At any rate, it would serve you well to try approaching this topic honestly for a change. You're merely annoying in my opinion. But I do wonder about that God you seem to believe in. I wonder what he thinks of the various lies, misrepresentations, and cowardice you're showing in his name?



** I'm annoying.......but yet you continue to write me
** It's no point in trying to explain anything to a person who claims they don't believe in Satan but has affiliation with the craft. Mabey you should try be honest.

** As far as the other's you keep refering to let them write me.




And in the meantime, why do you want me to ask God what I'm asking you? Will God give me something better than a pathetic excuse?


** You have a problem with the Bible and my answers's are pathetic(right?) SO QUIT ASKING (CAPESH) I'm not the author. Would it make sense to ask the author?

Lady
The limitations of God has nothing to do with Why homosexuals make claims of creation rather than choice futhermore, scienctist hasn't deemed it soIt would seem to me the two issues are essential.

From literature:
Then it follow'd most naturally, It is God that has made it all: Well, but then it came on strangely, if God has made all these Things, He guides and governs them all, and all Things that concern them; for the Power that could make all Things, must certainly have Power to guide and direct them.

If so, nothing can happen in the great Circuit of his Works, either without his Knowledge or Appointment.

And if nothing happens without his Knowledge, he knows that I am here, and am in this dreadful Condition; and if nothing happens without his Appointment, he has appointed all this to befal me.

Nothing occurr'd to my Thought to contradict any of these Conclusions; and therefore it rested upon me with the greater Force, that it must needs be, that God had appointed all this to befal me; that I was brought to this miserable Circumstance by his Direction, he having the sole Power, not of me only, but of every Thing that happen'd in the World. Immediately it follow'd,

Why has God done this to me? What have I done to be thus us'd? (Daniel Defoe, Robinson Crusoe (http://www.bibliomania.com/0/0/17/31/16785/2.html), chapter 3)Or from the Catholics, even though you seem to have some problem with them:
Nothing happens without the will or permission of God. Our Lord tells us that not one sparrow falls to the ground without the will of our Heavenly Father, and that the very hairs of our head are numbered. (My Catholic Faith (http://net2.netacc.net/~mafg/mcf/mcfc005.htm), Rev. Louis LaRovoire Morrow)Or some freethinking perspective on Puritanism:
People want to believe that they are good and that God will bless them. They want the world in which they live to be stable, even predictable, with definite rules; they don't want chaos or uncertainty. In this philosophy (derived from Puritan predetermination), God is the "big kahuna," absolutely nothing happens without his approval or say-so. This means that absolutely everything that occurs, does so for a reason -- and not just for a reason, but a good reason, because all of God's reasons are, by definition, good. (In God We Trust (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/4614/Godwetrust.html), Kyle Giblet)Or perhaps from Christianworld Ministries:
• Nothing happens that God does not allow. Isaiah 14:24 says, "The Lord (YHWH) of hosts has sworn, saying, Surely, as I have thought, so it shall come to pass, And as I have purposed, so it shall stand."

• As Isaiah 45:7 says, "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity: I the Lord (YHWH), do all these things." (Universal Salvation (http://www.christianworld.freeserve.co.uk/page9.htm), Christianworld Church Ministry)And perhaps an interesting Christian perspective that you might wish to shed light on in relation to the topic issue; after all, it seems to echo part of your point:
"So you believe that God controls everything, right down to the last detail?"

"Yes. To the falling of sparrows. To the number of hairs on our heads. Nothing happens apart from the Father."

"God causes everything directly?"

"No, of course not. That would be a form of pantheism. If God does everything directly, there is no such thing as secondary agents —individuals other than God. I said that God controls everything. Nothing, including the smallest detail, is outside His control."

"Does the Bible teach this?"

"Yes. Inescapably."

I took my Bible out. "All right. Where?"

"Is it safe to say you already believe that God providentially governs things like the physical world, and the animal kingdom? As in Amos 4:7, where the Lord causes rain to fall on one city, and not on another? Or in Matthew 6, where it teaches that the Father feeds the birds?"

"Right. There is no problem there. I am primarily concerned about His providential control over the free actions of men. Can God see to it that someone does just what God wants him to, and at the same time not violate the integrity of that person’s free will?"

"Certainly. This is one of those subjects that has too many verses to go over in one session. I'll have to give you another list to study later. But there are a few passages worth addressing now." (Easy Chairs (http://www.antithesis.com/conversations/easychairs_03.html), Douglas Wilson)Or perhaps from Gospelcom:
We also have the security of knowing that nothing happens to us in this life without God's knowledge and care. Jesus reminded us that even the hairs of our head are all numbered. Furthermore, if we put our trust in God, he has promised to supply our every need. And Peter encourages us to "Cast all our cares on him because he cares for us." (How to Grow (http://www.gospelcom.net/actsi/living/grow1.htm), ACTS International)Now then, Lady, I would hope that you can see that by most, if not all measures of Christian faith, God is allegedly responsible for everything in the Universe. The only real question comes from the Easy Chairs excerpt, when the text claims that God can, by his power, force a human being to take action without overriding free will. Such is the flexibility of the word free, I suppose.

Nonetheless, as every hair on your head is counted, so is every cell and every gene. God, being Supreme according to Biblical assertions, wills the human condition such as it is.

How is that important to homosexuality? Perhaps it's presumptuous to think you don't understand that connection, but instead of a lack of evidence supporting the notion of your understanding, I see a mountain of evidence supporting your lack of understanding.

God creates people as they are. And we see in these excerpts the assertion that God can force people to action. It would seem like free will or free moral agency do apply once we establish that not having a choice equals free will.

Now, if large segments of Christianity did not make public issues out of homosexuality, did not move to persecute homosexuality, did not claim homosexuality "unnatural", I doubt the manner in which God created homosexuals would be at all relevant.
You sound as if you're mad at God because you can't freely worship Satan without suffering the penality.(sounds personal)Nah. I just think it's really, really stupid to assert that someone choosing under duress has free will.
Who ever said Satan doesn't operate under the authority of God?I personally don't think Satan operates outside of God's will. I think Satan is a conceptual patsy designed to remove attention from the fact that an allegedly good and loving God commissions evil.

However, if a Christian chooses to excuse God by saying that the alleged evil is the result of Satan, I'm wondering how that condition excuses God. God must still will this evil, for nothing happens without God's will. If I pay a hit-man to kill someone, am I exonerated because I did not fire the mortal round? If I watch a friend murder someone and choose to not intervene, am I not responsible for my failure to protect life? The bottom line is that if one approves of what happens when one has the power to stop it, one is still responsible. I happened to get transfixed by a morbid "true crime" story on TV last night. It seems that a wicked stepmother had a friend claim to be the cousin of a 10 year-old. The friend managed to sign the boy out of school, and though the boy didn't know the cousin very well, he left willingly in her custody. The stepmother was hiding in the backseat. As the friend drove away, the stepmother emerged from beneath a blanket and proceeded to strangle and beat the boy to death. The friend, claiming she was in shock at this turn of events, numbly continued to drive the car out of town. She did help conceal the body. So it would seem that when they convicted her of abduction and mistreatment of a corpse, the state had a case. However, by the ideas we're discussing here, I would have to say the murder conviction was completely out of line. After all, she merely allowed the murder to happen when she had the opportunity to stop it. It's not like she actually killed the kid.

In that sense, I do wonder if people realize what happens when they take down their own principles in search of justification for an idea.

For instance, in our debate: is homosexuality really so important to you that you will distort the Bible? Is it really so important to you that you will claim a reduced scope of God's authority in order to exonerate Him?

In the end, even if Satan does "tempt" people into homosexuality, (A) God approves of this temptation, and (B) God wills the conditions that allow the submission to temptation.
If you read your own post you have established why people can't changeWell, given that I don't see that, perhaps you'd best cite the text and give us some commentary. In the meantime, I still want to know how people are being led to believe they cannot change.
Affliation with the craft.......yet you don't believe in Satan( yeah right)Got my walking papers from Satan ages ago. He's a nice guy, but we don't work well together. Believe me, it's healthier for Christendom in general if the religious and spiritual visions of my youth are never legitimized. And as I learned a little more about Satan, I found that his station is an unfortunate result of Christian denial. Christianity manufactured Satan as a theological persona from the dregs of apocalyptic Judaism and elements of small-minded fear. I highly recommend Elaine Pagels' The Origin of Satan.
Adam& Eve had immortality from the start and lost it for human kind upon the fall. Futhermore they could eat from every tree( Tree Of Life included) except the Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil.Are you able to establish that Biblically?

Didn't think so.
SEE POST ENTITLED YOU WIN.And?

You know, more to the question is where that post is. It's not in this topic, insofar as I can tell using a text search on every page of the topic. Sciforums' search engine couldn't locate the post searching either a wildcard of the word win or by surveying the whole of your posts at Sciforums. I can fairly conclude that the post doesn't exist, which condition doesn't surprise me. Nonetheless, would you prefer me to interpret that as your response is yet to come or that you have no response whatsoever? (I even checked to make sure a text search would read post titles.)
What does this have to do with creation VS choice?Umm ... you asked why homosexuality was important to me in the sense we're discussing.

Furthermore, Christian groups frequently raise challenges against human and civil rights based solely on the gender of a person's sexual partner. While US law says homosexuals can be gay and does not distinguish between chosen or created homosexuality, the notion of choice and creation seems to be a primary motivator of those who would destroy human rights and dignity in the name of the Bible and its God.
Sounds like your upset or scared.... hell is your destination for flirting with the Devil. (sounds personal)No, it's more a matter of how silly that kind of religion is. Society is for everyone, and I appreciate diversity, but Christians seem to have the collective effect of bogging down social progress and upsetting social harmony. If someone has a good reason to rock the boat, more power to them. But I do wish the Christians who behave this way would at least find a reason. In the meantime, I find it odd that such Christians spend so much time worrying about other people's sex lives.
Why don't you ask the Devil? I have photo of him on the paranormal forum, go see him.Really, I have to advise you that it is a very bad state for Christianity if you legitimize the religious visions that occurred to a protestant (Lutheran) born pagan surviving a Catholic school. Leave those visions as mere neuroses or else it will be my regret to inform you that Satan doesn't know what the hell God's problem is, either, and Jesus Christ can't express to me why anyone's fighting except that it's God's will.

Point being, I've asked the Devil before. I've also spoken with Jesus on that count. It seems to me, based on the content of your posts, that you would not like the answers The Son gave, and this is why I advise you to cease with silly rhetoric like that, because you probably don't want to deal with the facts that would be in evidence should those visions be legitimate.

Furthermore, why are you running even farther away from your topic? I noticed that in your two-point response to the text you selected, you chose to not comment on the inadequacy of your Biblical assertions.

Is it that much easier for you to focus on Satan than it is to give your own faith a moment's honest consideration?
It's not my concern on why you can't worship Satan and still go to heaven?Heaven, in my opinion, is well-beside the point. Furthermore, this isn't about worshipping Satan, and I seriously wonder why you're so frightened of your own topic. It's a little sad, and I'm more than slightly embarrassed for you. Keep it up and I might be moved to pity you.
I didn't twist what is spoken of about homosexuality nor did I even quote the scripture's.You have made assertions about the Bible which you cannot support Biblically, and which contradict the text of the Bible. The problem with you not quoting Scripture is that when you make random assertions like "Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the Tree of Life", you are contradicting the Bible and providing no evidence to support your assertion. It would be helpful if you actually would quote Scripture because most of your assertions about the Bible have the quality of ass-ventriloquism. In other words, it's just mere flatulism.
Look it up for your selfThe epitome of spreading God's word? It would be nice if you could actually demonstrate that your assertions about Biblical matters were in any way true or even legitimate.
I'm annoying.......but yet you continue to write meKnocking Christians is a little like shooting fish in a barrel. I'm happy to give you a soapbox to further undermine the Christian quest for God's kingdom. I'm more than happy to let Christians weaken Christianity. Believe me, as annoying as you are, I do take some small delight in the living result. I smile when I think of people reading your words and wondering if Christians really are that devoid of intellect. In the end, potential converts think about it and say, "I don't want to become like that. If God makes me incoherent, frightened, and bitter, why should I want to take that step down into the gutter?"
It's no point in trying to explain anything to a person who claims they don't believe in Satan but has affiliation with the craft. Mabey you should try be honest.Honesty, m'Lady, is something people get tired of in me. I think people wish I would lie a little more around here. After all, the number of complaints I've been getting lately from people who are upset that they can't understand me tells me that I haven't dishonestly tailored my words to suit people's tastes. And, furthermore, given that my view upset both Christians and atheists alike, I'm willing to stand on the honesty of examining what others are unwilling to consider.

We used to have a couple of posters that liked to employ simple turnabouts. Like your jab at honesty. Like them, you have unfortunately overlooked a critical detail. The jab is secondary; the conditions must exist for the jab to be effective. Merely playing rubber-glue is still child's play, just like it was when I was a child.
You have a problem with the Bible and my answers's are pathetic(right?) SO QUIT ASKING (CAPESH) I'm not the author. Would it make sense to ask the author?Well, if you believe any of it, I would expect you to at least know what it is you believe. But that doesn't seem to be in evidence.

What makes it really annoying is that you consistently dodge the issues that are central to the topic itself. As long as you continue to assert these views, and as long as you do so as demonstrably dishonestly as you have, I shall continue to ask you if you have anything beyond pathetic excuses. Of course, I will eventually get tired of it and conclude you really are that stupid, but for now I maintain my underlying hope in humanity; nobody's really as stupid as your arguments make you out to be.

The funny thing is that if you'd answered these questions when they were asked, we would probably be done with this debate by now.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure the word you're looking for is capiche.

"Capesh" sounds like a Byzantine seafood restaurant.

--Tiassa :cool:

SEE POST ENTITLED YOU WIN.Lady

I think I can hold myself answered now about the whereabouts of this post.

At least, I think I can.

I think it's the topic entitled You've Won.

Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

If sexual orientation towards one sex (whether homo- or heterosexual) were not genetically determined, we would have to conclude that ambisexuality is the genetically determined "universal" sexuality, & that inclinations towards one sex or the other were socially determined.

There are many problems with that idea, not least of which is the fact that individuals with homosexual orientation appear to be a quite small minority in every culture. Why should this be the case, if everyone is "born" ambisexual?

Another problem is the question of "why"? What phenotypic (& thus genotypic) advantage could come fom universal ambisexuality - especially if that's allegedly lost to social influences (for most people) anyway? It seems much more likely that sexual orientation is indeed genetically determined, with homosexuality representing a genetic variation whose nature is so far not really understood (although the genetic determinants of heterosexual orientation are also not known at this stage).