Thoughts?
I've been thinking about homosexuality, because it's a hot topic in the news. The thought that crossed my mind was, if it is biologically "hard written" into genes, could it be part of evolutions way of population control? Straight men "love" their male children right? Mothers love their daughters, and you can interchange the two, but what seems to count is the "love" ... not the "sex?" Could being accepting of homosexuality help curb the over population problem? They can't have their own children, but often the one's that want them get a child that someone didn't want. Just a thought exploration. I'm not saying this is something I hold to be true, but possible.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Population will never be under control. People cant control them selfs ever.
Some research seems to indicate that while the gene, or combination of genes may produce homosexuality in men, it may as perhaps incompletely expressed in women, make them better mothers.
That might mean that while the homosexual male is less likely to reproduce, his sister might take better care of her children.
"The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. The Lord is an indian giver."
That might mean that while the homosexual male is less likely to reproduce, his sister might take better care of her children.
"The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. The Lord is an indian giver."
QUOTE (Gracchus+Jun 19 2009, 10:50 AM)
The Lord is an indian giver."
I think the proper term nowadays is "native american giver".
Why do people think homosexuality = population control?
How about considering homosexuality = population support?
Not every member of every population is a breeding member.
In a bee colony how many member are sexually reproductive?
1
In the animal kingdom there are less extreme examples. But as far as I know only the Alpha Males in a wolf pack breed.
And notice how people such Meem make baseless assumptions.
Namely that homosexuality is related to population control, and that if the homosexual members of the population were not homosexual then they would be having children.
how about celibacy and abstinance?
Do think they exist as means of population control?
How about considering homosexuality = population support?
Not every member of every population is a breeding member.
In a bee colony how many member are sexually reproductive?
1
In the animal kingdom there are less extreme examples. But as far as I know only the Alpha Males in a wolf pack breed.
And notice how people such Meem make baseless assumptions.
Namely that homosexuality is related to population control, and that if the homosexual members of the population were not homosexual then they would be having children.
how about celibacy and abstinance?
Do think they exist as means of population control?
QUOTE
And notice how people such Meem make baseless assumptions
Irony, take out my name and replace it with yours.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
And notice how people such Meem make baseless assumptions |
Irony, take out my name and replace it with yours.
Do think they exist as means of population control?
English please, because I can't make any sense of that jibberish.
Notice, that I support climate change. buttershug.
Notice how people like you assume this means I am against gay rights, or any-one's rights.
Notice how you made an assumption.
Notice how I said IF PEOPLE were more accepting of it, maybe it would help with population control, because OVERPOPULATION IS a PROBLEM.
QUOTE
Could being accepting of homosexuality help curb the over population problem? They can't have their own children, but often the one's that want them get a child that someone didn't want. Just a thought exploration. I'm not saying this is something I hold to be true, but possible
Notice how you interject your opinion, far from what I have said. Notice how I have talked about religion. Notice that someone else did. Notice I made absolutely no reference about it till now, to point out your fallibility. Notice your inability to comprehend what is being said, from what you THINK you are hearing.
That sounds like religious zealots who THINK they know what religion is.
I did not assume that you are against gay rights.
That has nothing to do with what I said.
I say homosexuality does not exist because of population control.
I think it's population support.
Scientists support climate change theory.
Religious people don't.
I think you are mixing two people up. I didn't say anything about "could accepting...." That was someone else.
In your first post you linked homosexuality and population control.
I'm merely asking why you did that?
Having homosexuals in a population does not necessarily affect it's ability to reproduce.
individuals yes, populations no.
That has nothing to do with what I said.
I say homosexuality does not exist because of population control.
I think it's population support.
Scientists support climate change theory.
Religious people don't.
I think you are mixing two people up. I didn't say anything about "could accepting...." That was someone else.
In your first post you linked homosexuality and population control.
I'm merely asking why you did that?
Having homosexuals in a population does not necessarily affect it's ability to reproduce.
individuals yes, populations no.
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 20 2009, 03:15 PM)
English please, because I can't make any sense of that jibberish.
Seriously... If you can't understand that, you must be dyslexic.
Seriously... If you can't understand that, you must be dyslexic.
Biologically speaking as I understand it the whole "population control" thing could be a red herring. It sounds like a form of group selection which I believe is discredited. Even if homosexuals never reproduced their parents did and on average have more than one child who statistically is probably heterosexual.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 22 2009, 07:19 PM)
Biologically speaking as I understand it the whole "population control" thing could be a red herring. It sounds like a form of group selection which I believe is discredited. Even if homosexuals never reproduced their parents did and on average have more than one child who statistically is probably heterosexual.
And if the offspring of siblings of the homosexual members had a better chance of survival because having a "gay uncle" then those genes would have a better chance of being passed on.
And if the offspring of siblings of the homosexual members had a better chance of survival because having a "gay uncle" then those genes would have a better chance of being passed on.
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 23 2009, 12:46 AM)
And if the offspring of siblings of the homosexual members had a better chance of survival because having a "gay uncle" then those genes would have a better chance of being passed on.
Culturally that may or may not be the case. What we have to be mindful of is anthropomorphising the process and attributing goals. The other issue is seeing homosexuality as a black & white thing. It might be more of a propensity thing with perhaps extremes at either end.
A friend of mine lived (and was hopelessly besotted with) a woman for years. It was only when they split up and after many years of myself and other friends helping him to get over the split did we discover that he considered himself bisexual.
Culturally that may or may not be the case. What we have to be mindful of is anthropomorphising the process and attributing goals. The other issue is seeing homosexuality as a black & white thing. It might be more of a propensity thing with perhaps extremes at either end.
A friend of mine lived (and was hopelessly besotted with) a woman for years. It was only when they split up and after many years of myself and other friends helping him to get over the split did we discover that he considered himself bisexual.
I think it's a matter of predisposition as well.
I wasn't asigning goals. I think it is not necessary for all members of a population to be reproductive. And if a population benefits by having some support members then it is more likely to survive.
And I'm not just talking about people. I think there are many populations with one alpha male that gets all the females. If there is something that makes the packs with the non-breeders, homosexual then it doesn't matter what the reason is. The more successfull pack will out reproduce the less successful packs.
I wasn't asigning goals. I think it is not necessary for all members of a population to be reproductive. And if a population benefits by having some support members then it is more likely to survive.
And I'm not just talking about people. I think there are many populations with one alpha male that gets all the females. If there is something that makes the packs with the non-breeders, homosexual then it doesn't matter what the reason is. The more successfull pack will out reproduce the less successful packs.
QUOTE
In a bee colony how many member are sexually reproductive?
They have at times their own group.
They do a kind of conga line dance.
And you had to edit that awesomely ineffectual response.
Outstanding.
Outstanding.
QUOTE (Granouille+Jun 28 2009, 07:05 PM)
And you had to edit that awesomely ineffectual response.
Outstanding.
Outstanding.
As all embryos begin as female, the males-to-be then undergo masculinization of both the brain and the body; sometimes, only one or the other happens, so it is not their fault to be gay or lesbian or bi-sexual (partial masculinization of the brain).
SEXUAL ORIENTATION PYRAMID
(from embryo masculinization of Body and Brain)
(all embryos begin as female—if it’s to be a male
it needs to be masculinized in both body and brain,
but sometimes only one or the other happens.)
Of MaleBrain, MaleBody, FemaleBrain, FemaleBody combinations:
MaleBrain + MaleBody = hetero male
MaleBody + FemaleBrain = gay male
FemaleBrain + FemaleBody = hetero female
FemaleBody + MaleBrain = lesbian female
MaleBody+ FemaleBody = hermaphrodite
(oppositional mixing)
MaleBrain+ FemaleBrain = bisexual
(oppositional mixing)
When the Pope discovers what science already knows, such as that all embryos begin as female, requiring, for a complete male, that both the brain AND the body must be masculinized (else gay or lesbian), then it will show yet another mistake by the Church, as in the past when it was thought that evil spirits caused physical ailments (as well as mental, i.e, the Devil).
SEXUAL ORIENTATION PYRAMID
(from embryo masculinization of Body and Brain)
(all embryos begin as female—if it’s to be a male
it needs to be masculinized in both body and brain,
but sometimes only one or the other happens.)
Of MaleBrain, MaleBody, FemaleBrain, FemaleBody combinations:
MaleBrain + MaleBody = hetero male
MaleBody + FemaleBrain = gay male
FemaleBrain + FemaleBody = hetero female
FemaleBody + MaleBrain = lesbian female
MaleBody+ FemaleBody = hermaphrodite
(oppositional mixing)
MaleBrain+ FemaleBrain = bisexual
(oppositional mixing)
When the Pope discovers what science already knows, such as that all embryos begin as female, requiring, for a complete male, that both the brain AND the body must be masculinized (else gay or lesbian), then it will show yet another mistake by the Church, as in the past when it was thought that evil spirits caused physical ailments (as well as mental, i.e, the Devil).
Some aliens do not like gays.
Its a problem that is comeing this way and has nothing to do with me.
Thanks for the laugh.
Its a problem that is comeing this way and has nothing to do with me.
Thanks for the laugh.
This has to be added separately and is not spamming.
It is known in Humans from Earth, that some mechanics in population size, causes homosexuality to be invested where the hypothalamus is either greatly diminished or not present at all at birth.
These historic past family units, were of a moderate size though.
The new formulas with population mass biological genetic reactions to a greater size of population overall head, is not known?
Our technology is simply not that good within the quantitative analysis range, of knowing how a greatly increased sized population, will chain influence effects to more homosexuals being born.
Before the gay bashing era, it was a noted phenomenon, with trusted family member gays, that they would help with such items that were closer to home and hearth and earned their pay.
But after the gay bash era had occurred and more gays were driven away, the social bo biological mechanics it seems have become muddled and there is not a good diagnostics envisage tool to judge if favorite gays, reintroduced to the favorite trust areas in families, would somehow have an affecting input to the process of gays being born and or needed.
In short what had caused this factor, was the straight male insecurity factor, about sexual virility.
This isn’t known.
In Chinese society it may be less gays are born or more accepted due to that culture being use to having a higher population head.
But what happens when the right to be gay becomes distorted by both changing roles and the probability of an incoming too high a population head?
Would the overloaded society develop a need to have more nonproducers and lots of gay children being born?
This is not known.
Let me tell you. There is one society close to Earth that has a few billion people over Earth’s prime population.
This is in Steven’s boo UFO Contact From Planet ACART.
In the context of the book, it is said that ACART has a very high population.
But then again, they also have short range space travel mastered and seem to have a handle on allot of their problems over Earth.
There are no such things as aliens and UFOs, “Right”!..?
It is known in Humans from Earth, that some mechanics in population size, causes homosexuality to be invested where the hypothalamus is either greatly diminished or not present at all at birth.
These historic past family units, were of a moderate size though.
The new formulas with population mass biological genetic reactions to a greater size of population overall head, is not known?
Our technology is simply not that good within the quantitative analysis range, of knowing how a greatly increased sized population, will chain influence effects to more homosexuals being born.
Before the gay bashing era, it was a noted phenomenon, with trusted family member gays, that they would help with such items that were closer to home and hearth and earned their pay.
But after the gay bash era had occurred and more gays were driven away, the social bo biological mechanics it seems have become muddled and there is not a good diagnostics envisage tool to judge if favorite gays, reintroduced to the favorite trust areas in families, would somehow have an affecting input to the process of gays being born and or needed.
In short what had caused this factor, was the straight male insecurity factor, about sexual virility.
This isn’t known.
In Chinese society it may be less gays are born or more accepted due to that culture being use to having a higher population head.
But what happens when the right to be gay becomes distorted by both changing roles and the probability of an incoming too high a population head?
Would the overloaded society develop a need to have more nonproducers and lots of gay children being born?
This is not known.
Let me tell you. There is one society close to Earth that has a few billion people over Earth’s prime population.
This is in Steven’s boo UFO Contact From Planet ACART.
In the context of the book, it is said that ACART has a very high population.
But then again, they also have short range space travel mastered and seem to have a handle on allot of their problems over Earth.
There are no such things as aliens and UFOs, “Right”!..?
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 22 2009, 09:38 AM)
I did not assume that you are against gay rights.
That has nothing to do with what I said.
I say homosexuality does not exist because of population control.
I think it's population support.
Scientists support climate change theory.
Religious people don't.
I think you are mixing two people up. I didn't say anything about "could accepting...." That was someone else.
In your first post you linked homosexuality and population control.
I'm merely asking why you did that?
Having homosexuals in a population does not necessarily affect it's ability to reproduce.
individuals yes, populations no.
Is a support system ... a control system for a problem buttershug? Like say, police for crime? Is being gay a problem? I suppose that depends on how you look at it and where you live. To me, it's obviously ... not a problem like over population is. But you made the assumption, about what I was saying
How many gay couples have the money to have some genetically "milk-shake-made" kid, or can afford to pay a decent surrogate vs. adoption? Why bring another child in when there is already one here? So it can be "my/our" child? Are we so conceded that we really do wish to "own" other people? Are homosexual couples able to naturally reproduce children? No, they aren't. So, if the homosexual population wants children, they have to get them by another means. This precisely effects the homosexual's ability to reproduce, not the overall population.
So it seems one is in need of the other, unless we want to grow babies ... "ch-ch-chia, the amazing baby that grows ... just add water!"
That has nothing to do with what I said.
I say homosexuality does not exist because of population control.
I think it's population support.
Scientists support climate change theory.
Religious people don't.
I think you are mixing two people up. I didn't say anything about "could accepting...." That was someone else.
In your first post you linked homosexuality and population control.
I'm merely asking why you did that?
Having homosexuals in a population does not necessarily affect it's ability to reproduce.
individuals yes, populations no.
Is a support system ... a control system for a problem buttershug? Like say, police for crime? Is being gay a problem? I suppose that depends on how you look at it and where you live. To me, it's obviously ... not a problem like over population is. But you made the assumption, about what I was saying
QUOTE
And notice how people such Meem make baseless assumptions.
Namely that homosexuality is related to population control, and that if the homosexual members of the population were not homosexual then they would be having children.
Namely that homosexuality is related to population control, and that if the homosexual members of the population were not homosexual then they would be having children.
How many gay couples have the money to have some genetically "milk-shake-made" kid, or can afford to pay a decent surrogate vs. adoption? Why bring another child in when there is already one here? So it can be "my/our" child? Are we so conceded that we really do wish to "own" other people? Are homosexual couples able to naturally reproduce children? No, they aren't. So, if the homosexual population wants children, they have to get them by another means. This precisely effects the homosexual's ability to reproduce, not the overall population.
So it seems one is in need of the other, unless we want to grow babies ... "ch-ch-chia, the amazing baby that grows ... just add water!"
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 29 2009, 02:51 PM)
How many gay couples have the money to have some genetically "milk-shake-made" kid,
If you're referring to artificially producing a child from genetic material procured from two members of the same sex, that's impossible.
Adoption is not necessarily that expensive... Especially when compared to the costs of pregnancy. Surrogates are often friends, in which case the surrogate's fees can be as cheap as $0. One of my friends volunteered to be a surrogate for two of her gay friends, and she didn't charge them a dime beyond her insurance copays, and since she had good insurance, her friends told me they'd spent less than $10,000, and that included all the baby's formula and diapers for the first several months, a crip, a carseat, rockers, bouncers, boppy seats, toys, plush animals, clothes, babyproofing equipment for around the house, etc, etc, etc... They probably spent slightly less on their child than I've spent on mine, and their child is certainly not suffering for it.
Adoption is not necessarily that expensive... Especially when compared to the costs of pregnancy. Surrogates are often friends, in which case the surrogate's fees can be as cheap as $0. One of my friends volunteered to be a surrogate for two of her gay friends, and she didn't charge them a dime beyond her insurance copays, and since she had good insurance, her friends told me they'd spent less than $10,000, and that included all the baby's formula and diapers for the first several months, a crip, a carseat, rockers, bouncers, boppy seats, toys, plush animals, clothes, babyproofing equipment for around the house, etc, etc, etc... They probably spent slightly less on their child than I've spent on mine, and their child is certainly not suffering for it.
Why bring another child in when there is already one here? So it can be "my/our" child?
Exactly. Well, not exactly coherent, but yeah: The point is to have a child of your own.
1. It's "conceited," not "conceded," dimwit.
2. Adopting a child or hiring a surrogate does not equate to owning a person, you complete retard... Otherwise every person alive is a slave.
1. It's "conceited," not "conceded," dimwit.
2. Adopting a child or hiring a surrogate does not equate to owning a person, you complete retard... Otherwise every person alive is a slave.
Are homosexual couples able to naturally reproduce children? No, they aren't.
Yes, they are. Not with each other, but they are (as likely to be) fully as capable as any heterosexual couple of having kids. They just need to do it with a surrogate.
No, it affects the two (or more) partners in a homosexual couple's ability to reproduce with each other, not their ability to reproduce as a whole.
Grammar isn't scientifically important, nor is the proper definition of the proper word remember ... dimwit? It's okay to just imply something without proper respect to the rules of grammar, when you say something but when I make a mistake ... hell hath no fury like a woman scored.
Grammar isn't scientifically important, nor is the proper definition of the proper word remember ... dimwit? It's okay to just imply something without proper respect to the rules of grammar, when you say something but when I make a mistake ... hell hath no fury like a woman scored.
QUOTE
So, if the homosexual population wants children, they have to get them by another means. This precisely effects the homosexual's ability to reproduce, not the overall population.
No, it affects the two (or more) partners in a homosexual couple's ability to reproduce with each other, not their ability to reproduce as a whole.
Ok, following along very carefully, the homosexaul population is not just 2 people, it is X. Non of X population can "naturally reproduce" or have children on their own ... without the rest of the heterosexual popluation is the understood given ... which you don't get ... dimwit
If you're referring to artificially producing a child from genetic material procured from two members of the same sex, that's impossible.
QUOTE
or can afford to pay a decent surrogate vs. adoption?
Adoption is not necessarily that expensive... Especially when compared to the costs of pregnancy. Surrogates are often friends, in which case the surrogate's fees can be as cheap as $0. One of my friends volunteered to be a surrogate for two of her gay friends, and she didn't charge them a dime beyond her insurance copays, and since she had good insurance, her friends told me they'd spent less than $10,000, and that included all the baby's formula and diapers for the first several months, a crip, a carseat, rockers, bouncers, boppy seats, toys, plush animals, clothes, babyproofing equipment for around the house, etc, etc, etc... They probably spent slightly less on their child than I've spent on mine, and their child is certainly not suffering for it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| or can afford to pay a decent surrogate vs. adoption? |
Adoption is not necessarily that expensive... Especially when compared to the costs of pregnancy. Surrogates are often friends, in which case the surrogate's fees can be as cheap as $0. One of my friends volunteered to be a surrogate for two of her gay friends, and she didn't charge them a dime beyond her insurance copays, and since she had good insurance, her friends told me they'd spent less than $10,000, and that included all the baby's formula and diapers for the first several months, a crip, a carseat, rockers, bouncers, boppy seats, toys, plush animals, clothes, babyproofing equipment for around the house, etc, etc, etc... They probably spent slightly less on their child than I've spent on mine, and their child is certainly not suffering for it.
Why bring another child in when there is already one here? So it can be "my/our" child?
Exactly. Well, not exactly coherent, but yeah: The point is to have a child of your own.
QUOTE
Are we so conceded that we really do wish to "own" other people?
1. It's "conceited," not "conceded," dimwit.
2. Adopting a child or hiring a surrogate does not equate to owning a person, you complete retard... Otherwise every person alive is a slave.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Are we so conceded that we really do wish to "own" other people? |
1. It's "conceited," not "conceded," dimwit.
2. Adopting a child or hiring a surrogate does not equate to owning a person, you complete retard... Otherwise every person alive is a slave.
Are homosexual couples able to naturally reproduce children? No, they aren't.
Yes, they are. Not with each other, but they are (as likely to be) fully as capable as any heterosexual couple of having kids. They just need to do it with a surrogate.
QUOTE
So, if the homosexual population wants children, they have to get them by another means. This precisely effects the homosexual's ability to reproduce, not the overall population.
No, it affects the two (or more) partners in a homosexual couple's ability to reproduce with each other, not their ability to reproduce as a whole.
QUOTE
1. It's "conceited," not "conceded," dimwit.
2. Adopting a child or hiring a surrogate does not equate to owning a person, you complete retard... Otherwise every person alive is a slave.
2. Adopting a child or hiring a surrogate does not equate to owning a person, you complete retard... Otherwise every person alive is a slave.
Grammar isn't scientifically important, nor is the proper definition of the proper word remember ... dimwit? It's okay to just imply something without proper respect to the rules of grammar, when you say something but when I make a mistake ... hell hath no fury like a woman scored.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1. It's "conceited," not "conceded," dimwit. 2. Adopting a child or hiring a surrogate does not equate to owning a person, you complete retard... Otherwise every person alive is a slave. |
Grammar isn't scientifically important, nor is the proper definition of the proper word remember ... dimwit? It's okay to just imply something without proper respect to the rules of grammar, when you say something but when I make a mistake ... hell hath no fury like a woman scored.
QUOTE
So, if the homosexual population wants children, they have to get them by another means. This precisely effects the homosexual's ability to reproduce, not the overall population.
No, it affects the two (or more) partners in a homosexual couple's ability to reproduce with each other, not their ability to reproduce as a whole.
Ok, following along very carefully, the homosexaul population is not just 2 people, it is X. Non of X population can "naturally reproduce" or have children on their own ... without the rest of the heterosexual popluation is the understood given ... which you don't get ... dimwit
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 29 2009, 08:59 PM)
Grammar isn't scientifically important, nor is the proper definition of the proper word remember ...
Congrats on making the dumbest post of the day....
Imbecile, idiot, stupid person, etc...
Imbecile, idiot, stupid person, etc...
It's okay to just imply something without proper respect to the rules of grammar, when you say something but when I make a mistake ... hell hath no fury like a woman scored.
You didn't typo it, dumbass. You used the wrong friggan word.
I have yet to claim otherwise, dumbass.
I have yet to claim otherwise, dumbass.
Non of X population can "naturally reproduce" or have children on their own ... without the rest of the heterosexual popluation is the understood given ...
Yes, they can. Show me some evidence that homosexual people are all sterile. A gay man and a lesbian can always get their freak on, or get artificial insemination.
Quoth the man who keeps implying that homosexuals are sterile...
Dumbass.
Congrats on making the dumbest post of the day....
Imbecile, idiot, stupid person, etc...
You didn't typo it, dumbass. You used the wrong friggan word.
I have yet to claim otherwise, dumbass.
Yes, they can. Show me some evidence that homosexual people are all sterile. A gay man and a lesbian can always get their freak on, or get artificial insemination.
Quoth the man who keeps implying that homosexuals are sterile...
Dumbass.
More evidence of your self serving attitude.
ToS
Imbecile, idiot, stupid person, etc...
You didn't typo it, dumbass. You used the wrong friggan word.
Note, that 2 of the words used to point out my error are not even words at all, period. They are underlined to highlight the irony of it. To get the proper idea of the irony, reverse their order and apply them to yourself.
This is proper forum behavior if I have ever seen it.
So, how do you know I didn't misspell it, and I don't have my glasses on, and I am sitting on my chair with a wireless keyboard 6 feet from the monitor ... and when I ran spell checker I might have thought I clicked the "right" word ...
Quoth the man who keeps implying that homosexuals are sterile...
Did I say anything about being sterile? Nope, sure didn't you did. You implied that is what I meant, far from the truth. If I did, you should be able to quote me on it word for word, otherwise, you're plagiarizing me (passing off your words for my own?), or patronizing me (insulting me) ... hmmm which is the right word? They both seem to fit, but what is the right choice?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=plagiarizing
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=patronizing
Congrats on making the dumbest post of the day....
QUOTE
dimwit?
Imbecile, idiot, stupid person, etc...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| dimwit? |
Imbecile, idiot, stupid person, etc...
It's okay to just imply something without proper respect to the rules of grammar, when you say something but when I make a mistake ... hell hath no fury like a woman scored.
You didn't typo it, dumbass. You used the wrong friggan word.
QUOTE
Ok, following along very carefully, the homosexaul population is not just 2 people, it is X.
I have yet to claim otherwise, dumbass.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Ok, following along very carefully, the homosexaul population is not just 2 people, it is X. |
I have yet to claim otherwise, dumbass.
Non of X population can "naturally reproduce" or have children on their own ... without the rest of the heterosexual popluation is the understood given ...
Yes, they can. Show me some evidence that homosexual people are all sterile. A gay man and a lesbian can always get their freak on, or get artificial insemination.
QUOTE
which you don't get ... dimwit
Quoth the man who keeps implying that homosexuals are sterile...
Dumbass.
And to be very clear, they are not dependant on the heterosexual population to do so, but they are dependant on heterosexual activity to naturally reproduce. Some homosexuals are just engrossed at the thought of heterosexual intercourse as heterosexuals are with homosexual intercourse. Fear and repulsive based stances, far from fact.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 29 2009, 09:11 PM)
Congrats on making the dumbest post of the day....
Imbecile, idiot, stupid person, etc...
You didn't typo it, dumbass. You used the wrong friggan word.
I have yet to claim otherwise, dumbass.
Yes, they can. Show me some evidence that homosexual people are all sterile. A gay man and a lesbian can always get their freak on, or get artificial insemination.
Quoth the man who keeps implying that homosexuals are sterile...
Dumbass.
More evidence of your self serving attitude.
ToS
QUOTE
The following content is not permitted to appear in any messages posted to Physforum.com message boards:
•Racism
•Hatred
•Harassment
•Racism
•Hatred
•Harassment
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The following content is not permitted to appear in any messages posted to Physforum.com message boards: •Racism •Hatred •Harassment |
Imbecile, idiot, stupid person, etc...
You didn't typo it, dumbass. You used the wrong friggan word.
Note, that 2 of the words used to point out my error are not even words at all, period. They are underlined to highlight the irony of it. To get the proper idea of the irony, reverse their order and apply them to yourself.
This is proper forum behavior if I have ever seen it.
So, how do you know I didn't misspell it, and I don't have my glasses on, and I am sitting on my chair with a wireless keyboard 6 feet from the monitor ... and when I ran spell checker I might have thought I clicked the "right" word ...
QUOTE
Imbecile, idiot, stupid person,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Imbecile, idiot, stupid person, |
Quoth the man who keeps implying that homosexuals are sterile...
Did I say anything about being sterile? Nope, sure didn't you did. You implied that is what I meant, far from the truth. If I did, you should be able to quote me on it word for word, otherwise, you're plagiarizing me (passing off your words for my own?), or patronizing me (insulting me) ... hmmm which is the right word? They both seem to fit, but what is the right choice?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=plagiarizing
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=patronizing
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 29 2009, 09:30 PM)
More evidence of your self serving attitude.
OH MY GOD!!! I can find a dozen violations by yourself in this thread alone. I simply have better things to do than whine about pissing off the mod. And yes, I know exactly why you're whining about the TOS,
1. dumbass is a word.
Dictionary.com - Dumbass
I'm sorry, but that was just stupid! You should really start learning to double check yourself before you blurt out stupidities like that....
2. "friggan" is an example of the purposeful distortion of proper spelling through the use of artistic license for the purpose of achieving a desired effect (in this case, conveying the flippancy with which I made the comment).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_licence
1. dumbass is a word.
Dictionary.com - Dumbass
I'm sorry, but that was just stupid! You should really start learning to double check yourself before you blurt out stupidities like that....
2. "friggan" is an example of the purposeful distortion of proper spelling through the use of artistic license for the purpose of achieving a desired effect (in this case, conveying the flippancy with which I made the comment).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_licence
They are underlined to highlight the irony of it. To get the proper idea of the irony, reverse their order and apply them to yourself.
1. "Friggan" doesn't apply to any person. It's an expletive.
2. "Dumbass" doesn't apply to me because I don't write stupid posts.
When you learn to follows the terms of service yourself, then you will be in a proper position to lecture others on them. Until then however...
Bite me.
When you learn to follows the terms of service yourself, then you will be in a proper position to lecture others on them. Until then however...
Bite me.
So, how do you know I didn't misspell it,
Because the "I" and "D" keys are located on opposing sides of the keyboard, and because even if they were adjacent, you were still missing a "T".
I don't. But none of those explain typing "conceded" instead of "conceited".
I don't. But none of those explain typing "conceded" instead of "conceited".
Did I say anything about being sterile? Nope, sure didn't you did. You implied that is what I meant, far from the truth.
You claimed that homosexuals cannot have children on their own. You completely ignored the possibility (until I pointed it out) that homosexuality and heterosexual intercourse are not mutually exclusive. Simply because a man has sex with a woman does not make him heterosexual, nor does a man having sex with another man make him homosexual. Same holds true for women. People experiment, people do things to make others happy and people do things because they want to reap the consequences, instead of for the enjoyment of doing them. Your entire argument ignores these facts. Plus, even though you acknowledged the possibility of artificial insemination or surrogate motherhood at least once, your argument still does not account for it.
Homosexuals can and do reproduce, period. It's a fact. Your argument assumes that they don't, making your argument false.
Read your links before you post them, dumbass. Plagiarism only works one way.
What you're claiming I did (and what you're actually doing right here) is engage in a straw-man fallacy. However, if you actually read what I posted, you'll see that I said you keep implying it, not that I said you keep claiming it.
Read your links before you post them, dumbass. Plagiarism only works one way.
What you're claiming I did (and what you're actually doing right here) is engage in a straw-man fallacy. However, if you actually read what I posted, you'll see that I said you keep implying it, not that I said you keep claiming it.
you're plagiarizing me (passing off your words for my own?), or patronizing me (insulting me) ... hmmm which is the right word? They both seem to fit, but what is the right choice?
"Patronizing" doesn't fit, dumbass. "Patronizing" is effectively defined as "behaving condescendingly" which in turn is defined as "to behave as if one is conscious of descending from a superior position, rank, or dignity."
For instance, if I were to respond with "Keep telling yourself that. Whatever makes you happy. " then that would be patronizing. But directly criticizing you is not patronizing, it is criticizing, insulting and unfavorably characterizing (accurately, I might add).
"Patronizing" doesn't fit, dumbass. "Patronizing" is effectively defined as "behaving condescendingly" which in turn is defined as "to behave as if one is conscious of descending from a superior position, rank, or dignity."For instance, if I were to respond with "Keep telling yourself that. Whatever makes you happy. " then that would be patronizing. But directly criticizing you is not patronizing, it is criticizing, insulting and unfavorably characterizing (accurately, I might add).
So keep telling yourself that, you are not a dumbass and keep telling me I am, and then keep smiley facing in condescension of me.
For the underline portion,
So keep telling yourself that, you are not a dumbass and keep telling me I am, and then keep smiley facing in condescension of me.
For the underline portion,
2. "Dumbass" doesn't apply to me because I don't write stupid posts.
Now, you have to ask yourself, if my post was stupid and you replied to it ... to prove your superior position .....
much like MJ, becoming a retard involved in a retarded conversation? Who's the dumbass? (slang-origin 1970-75, as provided in your link) So, I could invent a word today and it would in-fact be a proper word? Forizzle, not to be confused with foshizzle, my nizzle.
<---patronzing gesture. Is it clicking yet?
But lets try to stick on the topic of the thread, you claim I said or implied that I implied homosexuals were sterile. You then said ...
You're argument is assuming to know what I am implying, and you are implying that I wasn't aware of something till you so correctly pointed out, homo-sexual activity or sex is not hetero-sexual activity or sex. Homosexual activity or sex will not result in procreation, or reproduction.
You're argument is assuming to know what I am implying, and you are implying that I wasn't aware of something till you so correctly pointed out, homo-sexual activity or sex is not hetero-sexual activity or sex. Homosexual activity or sex will not result in procreation, or reproduction.
Simply because a man has sex with a woman does not make him heterosexual, nor does a man having sex with another man make him homosexual
Does it make them bisexual or trans-sexual? What does it make them, you clearly know, tell me so I can quote it, and not make wild implications. It does make her/him dependent on having heterosexual intercourse to reproduce. Can two men reproduce sexual with each other? Can two women?
OH MY GOD!!! I can find a dozen violations by yourself in this thread alone. I simply have better things to do than whine about pissing off the mod. And yes, I know exactly why you're whining about the TOS,
QUOTE
Note, that 2 of the words used to point out my error are not even words at all, period.
1. dumbass is a word.
Dictionary.com - Dumbass
I'm sorry, but that was just stupid! You should really start learning to double check yourself before you blurt out stupidities like that....
2. "friggan" is an example of the purposeful distortion of proper spelling through the use of artistic license for the purpose of achieving a desired effect (in this case, conveying the flippancy with which I made the comment).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_licence
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Note, that 2 of the words used to point out my error are not even words at all, period. |
1. dumbass is a word.
Dictionary.com - Dumbass
I'm sorry, but that was just stupid! You should really start learning to double check yourself before you blurt out stupidities like that....
2. "friggan" is an example of the purposeful distortion of proper spelling through the use of artistic license for the purpose of achieving a desired effect (in this case, conveying the flippancy with which I made the comment).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_licence
They are underlined to highlight the irony of it. To get the proper idea of the irony, reverse their order and apply them to yourself.
1. "Friggan" doesn't apply to any person. It's an expletive.
2. "Dumbass" doesn't apply to me because I don't write stupid posts.
QUOTE
This is proper forum behavior if I have ever seen it.
When you learn to follows the terms of service yourself, then you will be in a proper position to lecture others on them. Until then however...
Bite me.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is proper forum behavior if I have ever seen it. |
When you learn to follows the terms of service yourself, then you will be in a proper position to lecture others on them. Until then however...
Bite me.
So, how do you know I didn't misspell it,
Because the "I" and "D" keys are located on opposing sides of the keyboard, and because even if they were adjacent, you were still missing a "T".
QUOTE
and I don't have my glasses on, and I am sitting on my chair with a wireless keyboard 6 feet from the monitor ... and when I ran spell checker I might have thought I clicked the "right" word ...
I don't. But none of those explain typing "conceded" instead of "conceited".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and I don't have my glasses on, and I am sitting on my chair with a wireless keyboard 6 feet from the monitor ... and when I ran spell checker I might have thought I clicked the "right" word ... |
I don't. But none of those explain typing "conceded" instead of "conceited".
Did I say anything about being sterile? Nope, sure didn't you did. You implied that is what I meant, far from the truth.
You claimed that homosexuals cannot have children on their own. You completely ignored the possibility (until I pointed it out) that homosexuality and heterosexual intercourse are not mutually exclusive. Simply because a man has sex with a woman does not make him heterosexual, nor does a man having sex with another man make him homosexual. Same holds true for women. People experiment, people do things to make others happy and people do things because they want to reap the consequences, instead of for the enjoyment of doing them. Your entire argument ignores these facts. Plus, even though you acknowledged the possibility of artificial insemination or surrogate motherhood at least once, your argument still does not account for it.
Homosexuals can and do reproduce, period. It's a fact. Your argument assumes that they don't, making your argument false.
QUOTE
If I did, you should be able to quote me on it word for word, otherwise, you're plagiarizing me (passing off your words for my own?)
Read your links before you post them, dumbass. Plagiarism only works one way.
What you're claiming I did (and what you're actually doing right here) is engage in a straw-man fallacy. However, if you actually read what I posted, you'll see that I said you keep implying it, not that I said you keep claiming it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If I did, you should be able to quote me on it word for word, otherwise, you're plagiarizing me (passing off your words for my own?) |
Read your links before you post them, dumbass. Plagiarism only works one way.
What you're claiming I did (and what you're actually doing right here) is engage in a straw-man fallacy. However, if you actually read what I posted, you'll see that I said you keep implying it, not that I said you keep claiming it.
you're plagiarizing me (passing off your words for my own?), or patronizing me (insulting me) ... hmmm which is the right word? They both seem to fit, but what is the right choice?
"Patronizing" doesn't fit, dumbass. "Patronizing" is effectively defined as "behaving condescendingly" which in turn is defined as "to behave as if one is conscious of descending from a superior position, rank, or dignity."
For instance, if I were to respond with "Keep telling yourself that. Whatever makes you happy.
" then that would be patronizing. But directly criticizing you is not patronizing, it is criticizing, insulting and unfavorably characterizing (accurately, I might add).
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 29 2009, 09:14 PM)
And to be very clear, they are not dependant on the heterosexual population to do so, but they are dependant on heterosexual activity to naturally reproduce.
I don't know, suppose a gay man and a lesbian got together...
It could happen!
I don't know, suppose a gay man and a lesbian got together...
It could happen!
QUOTE
"Patronizing" doesn't fit, dumbass. "Patronizing" is effectively defined as "behaving condescendingly" which in turn is defined as "to behave as if one is conscious of descending from a superior position, rank, or dignity."For instance, if I were to respond with "Keep telling yourself that. Whatever makes you happy. " then that would be patronizing. But directly criticizing you is not patronizing, it is criticizing, insulting and unfavorably characterizing (accurately, I might add).
So keep telling yourself that, you are not a dumbass and keep telling me I am, and then keep smiley facing in condescension of me.
For the underline portion,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
"Patronizing" doesn't fit, dumbass. "Patronizing" is effectively defined as "behaving condescendingly" which in turn is defined as "to behave as if one is conscious of descending from a superior position, rank, or dignity."For instance, if I were to respond with "Keep telling yourself that. Whatever makes you happy. " then that would be patronizing. But directly criticizing you is not patronizing, it is criticizing, insulting and unfavorably characterizing (accurately, I might add). |
So keep telling yourself that, you are not a dumbass and keep telling me I am, and then keep smiley facing in condescension of me.
For the underline portion,
2. "Dumbass" doesn't apply to me because I don't write stupid posts.
Now, you have to ask yourself, if my post was stupid and you replied to it ... to prove your superior position .....
much like MJ, becoming a retard involved in a retarded conversation? Who's the dumbass? (slang-origin 1970-75, as provided in your link) So, I could invent a word today and it would in-fact be a proper word? Forizzle, not to be confused with foshizzle, my nizzle.
<---patronzing gesture. Is it clicking yet?But lets try to stick on the topic of the thread, you claim I said or implied that I implied homosexuals were sterile. You then said ...
QUOTE
You claimed that homosexuals cannot have children on their own. You completely ignored the possibility (until I pointed it out) that homosexuality and heterosexual intercourse are not mutually exclusive. Simply because a man has sex with a woman does not make him heterosexual, nor does a man having sex with another man make him homosexual. Same holds true for women. People experiment, people do things to make others happy and people do things because they want to reap the consequences, instead of for the enjoyment of doing them. Your entire argument ignores these facts. Plus, even though you acknowledged the possibility of artificial insemination or surrogate motherhood at least once, your argument still does not account for it.
Homosexuals can and do reproduce, period. It's a fact. Your argument assumes that they don't, making your argument false
Homosexuals can and do reproduce, period. It's a fact. Your argument assumes that they don't, making your argument false
You're argument is assuming to know what I am implying, and you are implying that I wasn't aware of something till you so correctly pointed out, homo-sexual activity or sex is not hetero-sexual activity or sex. Homosexual activity or sex will not result in procreation, or reproduction.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You claimed that homosexuals cannot have children on their own. You completely ignored the possibility (until I pointed it out) that homosexuality and heterosexual intercourse are not mutually exclusive. Simply because a man has sex with a woman does not make him heterosexual, nor does a man having sex with another man make him homosexual. Same holds true for women. People experiment, people do things to make others happy and people do things because they want to reap the consequences, instead of for the enjoyment of doing them. Your entire argument ignores these facts. Plus, even though you acknowledged the possibility of artificial insemination or surrogate motherhood at least once, your argument still does not account for it. Homosexuals can and do reproduce, period. It's a fact. Your argument assumes that they don't, making your argument false |
You're argument is assuming to know what I am implying, and you are implying that I wasn't aware of something till you so correctly pointed out, homo-sexual activity or sex is not hetero-sexual activity or sex. Homosexual activity or sex will not result in procreation, or reproduction.
Simply because a man has sex with a woman does not make him heterosexual, nor does a man having sex with another man make him homosexual
Does it make them bisexual or trans-sexual? What does it make them, you clearly know, tell me so I can quote it, and not make wild implications. It does make her/him dependent on having heterosexual intercourse to reproduce. Can two men reproduce sexual with each other? Can two women?
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 29 2009, 10:41 PM)
So keep telling yourself that, you are not a dumbass and keep telling me I am, and then keep smiley facing in condescension of me.
Since you asked nicely... Okay!
Ahh, so now you're a mind reader who can determine my motivations through the internet? Well, your powers are failing you. I replied because I enjoy arguing, even with dumbasses.
Ahh, so now you're a mind reader who can determine my motivations through the internet? Well, your powers are failing you. I replied because I enjoy arguing, even with dumbasses.
much like MJ, becoming a retard involved in a retarded conversation? Who's the dumbass?
Still you.
Sort of. So long as the people you are trying to communicate with understanding the meaning of any neologisms (a newly coined word or phrase) you use, they are proper words. For instance, if I were to coin the word "Grish" and define it as "synonymous with 'turkey' " then anytime I said "I ate grish." to anyone to whom I'd provided that definition, I'd be quite grammatically and syntactically correct. It would be pointless and stupid, but correct.
Sort of. So long as the people you are trying to communicate with understanding the meaning of any neologisms (a newly coined word or phrase) you use, they are proper words. For instance, if I were to coin the word "Grish" and define it as "synonymous with 'turkey' " then anytime I said "I ate grish." to anyone to whom I'd provided that definition, I'd be quite grammatically and syntactically correct. It would be pointless and stupid, but correct.
You're argument is assuming to know what I am implying,
No assumption is necessary. I can use these things called "logic" and "language" to determine what your implications are without needing you to explain them to me. I can do so because I have this thing called "intelligence" which facilitates these sorts of activities. If you were more intelligent, you'd understand that. An implication is not a motivation, or a private thought, or anything which can be hidden through grammar and syntax.
You've contradicted yourself on this point once already, first stating "Non of X population can "naturally reproduce" or have children on their own ... without the rest of the heterosexual popluation is the understood given ... " then going on to state "And to be very clear, they are not dependant on the heterosexual population to do so, but they are dependant on heterosexual activity to naturally reproduce." after I pointed out that a gay man and a lesbian can have sex and conceive a child.
If you'd simply made a mistake by saying "population" when you meant "sex," you could have just said so, and I'd have accepted that. Of course, it wouldn't change the implications of your posts, and since you've yet to acknowledge any such mistake, you're continuing to imply that what you meant was that it takes at least one heterosexual person to produce a child, which is patently false.
You've contradicted yourself on this point once already, first stating "Non of X population can "naturally reproduce" or have children on their own ... without the rest of the heterosexual popluation is the understood given ... " then going on to state "And to be very clear, they are not dependant on the heterosexual population to do so, but they are dependant on heterosexual activity to naturally reproduce." after I pointed out that a gay man and a lesbian can have sex and conceive a child.
If you'd simply made a mistake by saying "population" when you meant "sex," you could have just said so, and I'd have accepted that. Of course, it wouldn't change the implications of your posts, and since you've yet to acknowledge any such mistake, you're continuing to imply that what you meant was that it takes at least one heterosexual person to produce a child, which is patently false.
Homosexual activity or sex will not result in procreation, or reproduction.
I never claimed it would, I merely pointed out that you've been ignoring the possibility that not all sex a homosexual may have must be homosexual sex.
No.
No.
What does it make them, you clearly know, tell me so I can quote it, and not make wild implications.
It makes them absolutely nothing. Having one form of sex does not define you in any way. Homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality depend on which gender you are, and which gender (if either) you are attracted to.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
Can two men reproduce sexual with each other? Can two women?
Not yet, even though you have typed something incoherent which seems to imply that they could.
Since you asked nicely... Okay!
QUOTE
Now, you have to ask yourself, if my post was stupid and you replied to it ... to prove your superior position .....
Ahh, so now you're a mind reader who can determine my motivations through the internet? Well, your powers are failing you. I replied because I enjoy arguing, even with dumbasses.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now, you have to ask yourself, if my post was stupid and you replied to it ... to prove your superior position ..... |
Ahh, so now you're a mind reader who can determine my motivations through the internet? Well, your powers are failing you. I replied because I enjoy arguing, even with dumbasses.
much like MJ, becoming a retard involved in a retarded conversation? Who's the dumbass?
Still you.
QUOTE
(slang-origin 1970-75, as provided in your link) So, I could invent a word today and it would in-fact be a proper word?
Sort of. So long as the people you are trying to communicate with understanding the meaning of any neologisms (a newly coined word or phrase) you use, they are proper words. For instance, if I were to coin the word "Grish" and define it as "synonymous with 'turkey' " then anytime I said "I ate grish." to anyone to whom I'd provided that definition, I'd be quite grammatically and syntactically correct. It would be pointless and stupid, but correct.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (slang-origin 1970-75, as provided in your link) So, I could invent a word today and it would in-fact be a proper word? |
Sort of. So long as the people you are trying to communicate with understanding the meaning of any neologisms (a newly coined word or phrase) you use, they are proper words. For instance, if I were to coin the word "Grish" and define it as "synonymous with 'turkey' " then anytime I said "I ate grish." to anyone to whom I'd provided that definition, I'd be quite grammatically and syntactically correct. It would be pointless and stupid, but correct.
You're argument is assuming to know what I am implying,
No assumption is necessary. I can use these things called "logic" and "language" to determine what your implications are without needing you to explain them to me. I can do so because I have this thing called "intelligence" which facilitates these sorts of activities. If you were more intelligent, you'd understand that. An implication is not a motivation, or a private thought, or anything which can be hidden through grammar and syntax.
QUOTE
and you are implying that I wasn't aware of something till you so correctly pointed out, homo-sexual activity or sex is not hetero-sexual activity or sex.
You've contradicted yourself on this point once already, first stating "Non of X population can "naturally reproduce" or have children on their own ... without the rest of the heterosexual popluation is the understood given ... " then going on to state "And to be very clear, they are not dependant on the heterosexual population to do so, but they are dependant on heterosexual activity to naturally reproduce." after I pointed out that a gay man and a lesbian can have sex and conceive a child.
If you'd simply made a mistake by saying "population" when you meant "sex," you could have just said so, and I'd have accepted that. Of course, it wouldn't change the implications of your posts, and since you've yet to acknowledge any such mistake, you're continuing to imply that what you meant was that it takes at least one heterosexual person to produce a child, which is patently false.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and you are implying that I wasn't aware of something till you so correctly pointed out, homo-sexual activity or sex is not hetero-sexual activity or sex. |
You've contradicted yourself on this point once already, first stating "Non of X population can "naturally reproduce" or have children on their own ... without the rest of the heterosexual popluation is the understood given ... " then going on to state "And to be very clear, they are not dependant on the heterosexual population to do so, but they are dependant on heterosexual activity to naturally reproduce." after I pointed out that a gay man and a lesbian can have sex and conceive a child.
If you'd simply made a mistake by saying "population" when you meant "sex," you could have just said so, and I'd have accepted that. Of course, it wouldn't change the implications of your posts, and since you've yet to acknowledge any such mistake, you're continuing to imply that what you meant was that it takes at least one heterosexual person to produce a child, which is patently false.
Homosexual activity or sex will not result in procreation, or reproduction.
I never claimed it would, I merely pointed out that you've been ignoring the possibility that not all sex a homosexual may have must be homosexual sex.
QUOTE
Does it make them bisexual or trans-sexual?
No.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Does it make them bisexual or trans-sexual? |
No.
What does it make them, you clearly know, tell me so I can quote it, and not make wild implications.
It makes them absolutely nothing. Having one form of sex does not define you in any way. Homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality depend on which gender you are, and which gender (if either) you are attracted to.
QUOTE
It does make her/him dependent on having heterosexual intercourse to reproduce.
Irrelevant.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It does make her/him dependent on having heterosexual intercourse to reproduce. |
Irrelevant.
Can two men reproduce sexual with each other? Can two women?
Not yet, even though you have typed something incoherent which seems to imply that they could.
What is the purpose to your posting in this thread?
QUOTE
Now, you have to ask yourself, if my post was stupid and you replied to it ... to prove your superior position .....
QUOTE
Now, you have to ask yourself, if my post was stupid and you replied to it ... to prove your superior position .....
Ahh, so now you're a mind reader who can determine my motivations through the internet? Well, your powers are failing you. I replied because I enjoy arguing, even with dumbasses
Didn't you do that first?
You didn't typo it, dumbass. You used the wrong friggan word.
QUOTE
and I don't have my glasses on, and I am sitting on my chair with a wireless keyboard 6 feet from the monitor ... and when I ran spell checker I might have thought I clicked the "right" word ...
I don't. But none of those explain typing "conceded" instead of "conceited".
You forgot to put KNOW after I don't, but wait are you implying that I should know that's what you meant? But how should I know for certain without asking you? Anyways, you've managed to mangle the thread with intentions. Congratulations.
Have you ever gone grish hunting, forizzle? That would be frumpzatious (this is a word I invented to mean good, so it's understood now that I have have explained it, and makes perfect no fallible sense.)
They have at times their own group.
They do a kind of conga line dance.
You are still in good form Phillip. Did you ever get a job at that UFO junkyard? Remember the question you asked? "If there are so many UFO sightings shouldn't there be a UFO junkyard someplace?"
Who's' ever alter ego you are, you are at your best when you don't get serious and you let your imagination run.
In other words, when you don't give a ***.
Have at it Phillip.
QUOTE
QUOTE
What does it make them, you clearly know, tell me so I can quote it, and not make wild implications.
It makes them absolutely nothing. Having one form of sex does not define you in any way. Homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality depend on which gender you are, and which gender (if either) you are attracted to.
QUOTE
It does make her/him dependent on having heterosexual intercourse to reproduce.
Irrelevant. (really? so I can "sex" myself then, or another man, and reproduce?)
QUOTE
Can two men reproduce sexual with each other? Can two women?
Not yet, even though you have typed something incoherent which seems to imply that they could.
What does it make them, you clearly know, tell me so I can quote it, and not make wild implications.
It makes them absolutely nothing. Having one form of sex does not define you in any way. Homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality depend on which gender you are, and which gender (if either) you are attracted to.
QUOTE
It does make her/him dependent on having heterosexual intercourse to reproduce.
Irrelevant. (really? so I can "sex" myself then, or another man, and reproduce?)
QUOTE
Can two men reproduce sexual with each other? Can two women?
Not yet, even though you have typed something incoherent which seems to imply that they could.
QUOTE
Now, you have to ask yourself, if my post was stupid and you replied to it ... to prove your superior position .....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE What does it make them, you clearly know, tell me so I can quote it, and not make wild implications. It makes them absolutely nothing. Having one form of sex does not define you in any way. Homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality depend on which gender you are, and which gender (if either) you are attracted to. QUOTE It does make her/him dependent on having heterosexual intercourse to reproduce. Irrelevant. (really? so I can "sex" myself then, or another man, and reproduce?) QUOTE Can two men reproduce sexual with each other? Can two women? Not yet, even though you have typed something incoherent which seems to imply that they could. |
QUOTE
Now, you have to ask yourself, if my post was stupid and you replied to it ... to prove your superior position .....
Ahh, so now you're a mind reader who can determine my motivations through the internet? Well, your powers are failing you. I replied because I enjoy arguing, even with dumbasses
Didn't you do that first?
QUOTE
You didn't typo it, dumbass. You used the wrong friggan word.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
You didn't typo it, dumbass. You used the wrong friggan word. |
QUOTE
and I don't have my glasses on, and I am sitting on my chair with a wireless keyboard 6 feet from the monitor ... and when I ran spell checker I might have thought I clicked the "right" word ...
I don't. But none of those explain typing "conceded" instead of "conceited".
You forgot to put KNOW after I don't, but wait are you implying that I should know that's what you meant? But how should I know for certain without asking you? Anyways, you've managed to mangle the thread with intentions. Congratulations.
Have you ever gone grish hunting, forizzle? That would be frumpzatious (this is a word I invented to mean good, so it's understood now that I have have explained it, and makes perfect no fallible sense.)
QUOTE (philip347+Jun 28 2009, 07:43 PM)
They have at times their own group.
They do a kind of conga line dance.
You are still in good form Phillip. Did you ever get a job at that UFO junkyard? Remember the question you asked? "If there are so many UFO sightings shouldn't there be a UFO junkyard someplace?"
Who's' ever alter ego you are, you are at your best when you don't get serious and you let your imagination run.
In other words, when you don't give a ***.
Have at it Phillip.
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 29 2009, 11:31 PM)
What is the purpose to your posting in this thread?
I've already answered that question. Try to pay attention.
No, and I've already explained why (I anticipated you trying to suggest that I have). Try to pay attention.
No, and I've already explained why (I anticipated you trying to suggest that I have). Try to pay attention.
You forgot to put KNOW after I don't, but wait are you implying that I should know that's what you meant?
I was not implying anything of the sort, I was assuming it. You see, when two people are communicating and one of them asked whether the other engages in some activity (in this case, knowing) a direct response need not explicitly mention the activity. For instance, if I were to ask you "how do you party?" you would not need to say "I party like a rock star," you could validly say "I do so like a rock star."
In this case, because I was directly responding to your question (made obvious by the context), there was no need to include the word "know" in my response. You asked "How do you know?" and I responded "I don't."
All very valid (as long as we ignore your atrocious grammar). Although, admittedly, I should have known better than to assume you'd understand something like that, and phrased my response accordingly.
You could always try reading a book on grammar and syntax. You claim you plan to teach, so it would be a good idea if you knew how to communicate properly.
You could always try reading a book on grammar and syntax. You claim you plan to teach, so it would be a good idea if you knew how to communicate properly.
Anyways, you've managed to mangle the thread with intentions. Congratulations.
Quoth the man who attempts to cast up a smoke screen by attempting to argue with me over semantics and grammer rather than acknowledge making a mistake... tsk tsk, hypocrite.
Yes, actually. With a bow, no less.
You have yet to explain what you mean by "forizzle", but considering the context, I'm assuming it to be some sort of honorific, or another form of address.
Yes, actually. With a bow, no less.
You have yet to explain what you mean by "forizzle", but considering the context, I'm assuming it to be some sort of honorific, or another form of address.
That would be frumpzatious (this is a word I invented to mean good, so it's understood now that I have have explained it, and makes perfect no fallible sense.)
Congratulations! You actually learned something today.
I've already answered that question. Try to pay attention.
QUOTE
Didn't you do that first?
No, and I've already explained why (I anticipated you trying to suggest that I have). Try to pay attention.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Didn't you do that first? |
No, and I've already explained why (I anticipated you trying to suggest that I have). Try to pay attention.
You forgot to put KNOW after I don't, but wait are you implying that I should know that's what you meant?
I was not implying anything of the sort, I was assuming it. You see, when two people are communicating and one of them asked whether the other engages in some activity (in this case, knowing) a direct response need not explicitly mention the activity. For instance, if I were to ask you "how do you party?" you would not need to say "I party like a rock star," you could validly say "I do so like a rock star."
In this case, because I was directly responding to your question (made obvious by the context), there was no need to include the word "know" in my response. You asked "How do you know?" and I responded "I don't."
All very valid (as long as we ignore your atrocious grammar). Although, admittedly, I should have known better than to assume you'd understand something like that, and phrased my response accordingly.
QUOTE
But how should I know for certain without asking you?
You could always try reading a book on grammar and syntax. You claim you plan to teach, so it would be a good idea if you knew how to communicate properly.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But how should I know for certain without asking you? |
You could always try reading a book on grammar and syntax. You claim you plan to teach, so it would be a good idea if you knew how to communicate properly.
Anyways, you've managed to mangle the thread with intentions. Congratulations.
Quoth the man who attempts to cast up a smoke screen by attempting to argue with me over semantics and grammer rather than acknowledge making a mistake... tsk tsk, hypocrite.
QUOTE
Have you ever gone grish hunting, forizzle?
Yes, actually. With a bow, no less.
You have yet to explain what you mean by "forizzle", but considering the context, I'm assuming it to be some sort of honorific, or another form of address.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Have you ever gone grish hunting, forizzle? |
Yes, actually. With a bow, no less.
You have yet to explain what you mean by "forizzle", but considering the context, I'm assuming it to be some sort of honorific, or another form of address.
That would be frumpzatious (this is a word I invented to mean good, so it's understood now that I have have explained it, and makes perfect no fallible sense.)
Congratulations! You actually learned something today.
Simple question, simple answer.
If I made a typo when I said "no fallible sense" when I actually meant non, does this mean I used the wrong word, or made a typo, and did you catch that? You started part of your observation or argument based on grammar, but now are saying ....
Am I not allowed the same of you? Like how you just said "grammer" ... why can't I find any irony in your statements? It's certainly present, and you're not perfect either. You claim, I don't know that I am not perfect, do you know that you're not?
Once again, the simple question is,
If I made a typo when I said "no fallible sense" when I actually meant non, does this mean I used the wrong word, or made a typo, and did you catch that?
Goodnight,
or badnight ... matter of perspective.
If I made a typo when I said "no fallible sense" when I actually meant non, does this mean I used the wrong word, or made a typo, and did you catch that? You started part of your observation or argument based on grammar, but now are saying ....
QUOTE
Quoth the man who attempts to cast up a smoke screen by attempting to argue with me over semantics and grammer rather than acknowledge making a mistake... tsk tsk, hypocrite.
Am I not allowed the same of you? Like how you just said "grammer" ... why can't I find any irony in your statements? It's certainly present, and you're not perfect either. You claim, I don't know that I am not perfect, do you know that you're not?
Once again, the simple question is,
If I made a typo when I said "no fallible sense" when I actually meant non, does this mean I used the wrong word, or made a typo, and did you catch that?
Goodnight,
or badnight ... matter of perspective.
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 30 2009, 12:15 AM)
If I made a typo when I said "no fallible sense" when I actually meant non, does this mean I used the wrong word, or made a typo, and did you catch that?
1. Before I answer, I have to point out that your question is as incoherent as anything you've said thus far. Please start thinking through what you wish to communicate before typing it. It makes things so much easier, and will get you called a dumbass far less often than the status quo.
2. Yes, and this isn't the first time I've ignored a typo, either, as when I ignored the one in this quote:
Am I not allowed the same of you? Like how you just said "grammer" ... why can't I find any irony in your statements?
Because -as I just finished explaining to you- I'm perfectly willing to ignore typos. I typo like a fiend, because I never learned to type with more than 3 fingers at a time. However, I pay attention to my spell checker, and proof read my posts, so my typos are exceedingly rare, unlike yours.
I never once made such a claim. I've never even implied it. In fact, I've even implied the exact opposite by calling you a hypocrite. Can you see the connection, or do you need me to explain that by calling you a hypocrite, I was implying that you know your own mistakes, you're just unwilling to acknowledge them?
Not to mention the fact that I've never claimed to be perfect. I acknowledge errors, which itself makes any implication that I think of myself as perfect (which you just made) as false as possible.
Thank you for once again demonstrating your own inability to comprehend your own native language. Tell me, do you work hard to appear this stupid, or does it come naturally to you?
What other post in specific would you cite, there are so many where others are overly critical, in name sake, of what they think a question or answer means. I am not exactly sure what you mean, but I assumed it to be a general opinion of other posts. Most seemed concerned with pointing out what they think I am doing rather than questioning me like you have. I don't mean to appear to dance, but the music is playing. If you could give me a more specific tune, maybe I could name it, rather than dance.
(and ps)
typo in feedback, taking, not talking.
I am not exactly sure what you mean, but I assumed it to be a general opinion of other posts. .
No, it was not related to a specific post.
You had, I imagine, a view about the possible role of homosexuality when you opened the thread. I was just curious as to whether that view had changed. In short I am interested in whether the content of a thread, in total, or in particular, changes peoples views. I thought this would be an interesting one to inquire about because amid the knee jerk posts responding to you there were also some perceptive remarks that might have swayed your thinking.
God forgives all sins, homosexuals will burn in hell because they know they are a sinner? Then who wouldn't? We are all sinners, and we know it, therefore we will all burn in hell? Is that what bible says?
What is cheating on your spouse? Divorce? Killing your kids? I mean lets name every sin in the book, and say we know that everything is sinful, and we know that we are not perfect, so there is no hope for anyone that is not perfect, why don't you make jest at the cross then? Only one man ever is said to be perfect. Who's the bigger sinner, the thief, murderer, or homosexual? "judge not less ye be judged."
God forgives all sins, homosexuals will burn in hell because they know they are a sinner? Then who wouldn't? We are all sinners, and we know it, therefore we will all burn in hell? Is that what bible says?
What is cheating on your spouse? Divorce? Killing your kids? I mean lets name every sin in the book, and say we know that everything is sinful, and we know that we are not perfect, so there is no hope for anyone that is not perfect, why don't you make jest at the cross then? Only one man ever is said to be perfect. Who's the bigger sinner, the thief, murderer, or homosexual? "judge not less ye be judged."
To the person that understands the intent of God,
The respect for human life is the basis for all of society. Respect for human life is not just respect for life of those between the age of 20 and 30 but extends to all life and the process of life. The process of life even during dating and the respect we should have for the creation of life in marriage. It is the denial of life that is wrong. Homosexuals have made themselves the focus of the denial of life. Homosexuals have made the denial of life a cause.
Sin is having intent against the intent of God. Knowledge of or refusing to consider the intent of God is required for an intent or action against the intent of God to be a sin. In other words you must know or have the ability to know that a sin is a sin.
And your god's intent was that we kill homosexuals wasn't it? Not a great design if you have to order parts of that design to kill other parts and they usually refuse!
Against the design? What like an acrobat walking on their hands? Contraception? Walking on the Moon? What exactly is the design of God? Gay animals?
Against the design? What like an acrobat walking on their hands? Contraception? Walking on the Moon? What exactly is the design of God? Gay animals?
Homosexuality is a total denial of the intent of nature and the design of God.
So is contraception. Your God's designs are not very good at sticking to what His intentions were are they? Let me guess, free will? Maybe your God made a mistake or is a poor communicator. Or maybe doesn't exist at all and the whole concept of sin and intentional design were thought up by people. Or maybe you are in total denial of or oblivious to the 'real' God's intentions should one exist?
I now understand why Christopher Hitchens calls Christianity "Evil Rubbish"
1. Before I answer, I have to point out that your question is as incoherent as anything you've said thus far. Please start thinking through what you wish to communicate before typing it. It makes things so much easier, and will get you called a dumbass far less often than the status quo.
2. Yes, and this isn't the first time I've ignored a typo, either, as when I ignored the one in this quote:
QUOTE
Non of X population can "naturally reproduce" or have children on their own ...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Non of X population can "naturally reproduce" or have children on their own ... |
Am I not allowed the same of you? Like how you just said "grammer" ... why can't I find any irony in your statements?
Because -as I just finished explaining to you- I'm perfectly willing to ignore typos. I typo like a fiend, because I never learned to type with more than 3 fingers at a time. However, I pay attention to my spell checker, and proof read my posts, so my typos are exceedingly rare, unlike yours.
QUOTE
It's certainly present, and you're not perfect either. You claim, I don't know that I am not perfect, do you know that you're not?
I never once made such a claim. I've never even implied it. In fact, I've even implied the exact opposite by calling you a hypocrite. Can you see the connection, or do you need me to explain that by calling you a hypocrite, I was implying that you know your own mistakes, you're just unwilling to acknowledge them?
Not to mention the fact that I've never claimed to be perfect. I acknowledge errors, which itself makes any implication that I think of myself as perfect (which you just made) as false as possible.
QUOTE
Because -as I just finished explaining to you- I'm perfectly willing to ignore typos
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 30 2009, 01:06 AM)
Thank you for once again demonstrating your own inability to comprehend your own native language. Tell me, do you work hard to appear this stupid, or does it come naturally to you?
Hi Meem,
setting aside MouldyPants attempts to derail the thread with irrelevant ad hominems, have you read anything in the other posts that has modified your provisional thinking on the topic?
JG
setting aside MouldyPants attempts to derail the thread with irrelevant ad hominems, have you read anything in the other posts that has modified your provisional thinking on the topic?
JG
Not so much, but I have lived a little, with the respect of what another person chooses is their choice, not mine to choose for them.
QUOTE (John Galt+Jul 3 2009, 10:44 AM)
Hi Meem,
setting aside MouldyPants attempts to derail the thread with irrelevant ad hominems, have you read anything in the other posts that has modified your provisional thinking on the topic?
JG
I see yet another field in which you lack any knowledge: Logic.
An insult and an ad hominem are not the same thing. One is an argument, the other is a statement, dumbass.
And no insult I've hurled meems way is even remotely "irrelevant".
So do you have anything better to do, or do you just log onto to troll?
setting aside MouldyPants attempts to derail the thread with irrelevant ad hominems, have you read anything in the other posts that has modified your provisional thinking on the topic?
JG
I see yet another field in which you lack any knowledge: Logic.
An insult and an ad hominem are not the same thing. One is an argument, the other is a statement, dumbass.
And no insult I've hurled meems way is even remotely "irrelevant".
So do you have anything better to do, or do you just log onto to troll?
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 3 2009, 04:48 PM)
I see yet another field in which you lack any knowledge: Logic.
An insult and an ad hominem are not the same thing. One is an argument, the other is a statement, dumbass.
Well I do apologise. I had credited you with sufficient character to wish to participate in the thread topic. I therefore accepted that you were using the insults as implied ad hominems designed to devalue any contribution made by Meem. Thank you for explaining that you were just being rude.
No, I came here to resume discussion of the topic. My brief aside to Meem about you was to let him know the innocent bystanders saw everything. Now, it seems you'll likely post some lengthy offensive post in response. You go right ahead, but don't expect a reply. I have better things to do with my time than play with children.
Meem, could you help me out with your reply. As MouldyPants has so skillfully noted before I have comprehension difficuties and I don't entirely follow what you meant. I can see several equally plausible interpretations. Could you come back at it in different words. Thanks.
An insult and an ad hominem are not the same thing. One is an argument, the other is a statement, dumbass.
Well I do apologise. I had credited you with sufficient character to wish to participate in the thread topic. I therefore accepted that you were using the insults as implied ad hominems designed to devalue any contribution made by Meem. Thank you for explaining that you were just being rude.
QUOTE
So do you have anything better to do, or do you just log onto to troll?
I certainly wouldn't do that. I always recognise when I am in the presence of a master. There is no way I could compete with you for trolling, so I won't even try. I bow in awe. No, I came here to resume discussion of the topic. My brief aside to Meem about you was to let him know the innocent bystanders saw everything. Now, it seems you'll likely post some lengthy offensive post in response. You go right ahead, but don't expect a reply. I have better things to do with my time than play with children.
Meem, could you help me out with your reply. As MouldyPants has so skillfully noted before I have comprehension difficuties and I don't entirely follow what you meant. I can see several equally plausible interpretations. Could you come back at it in different words. Thanks.
QUOTE
have you read anything in the other posts that has modified your provisional thinking on the topic?
JG
JG
What other post in specific would you cite, there are so many where others are overly critical, in name sake, of what they think a question or answer means. I am not exactly sure what you mean, but I assumed it to be a general opinion of other posts. Most seemed concerned with pointing out what they think I am doing rather than questioning me like you have. I don't mean to appear to dance, but the music is playing.
If you could give me a more specific tune, maybe I could name it, rather than dance. (and ps)
typo in feedback, taking, not talking.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 3 2009, 07:59 PM)
I am not exactly sure what you mean, but I assumed it to be a general opinion of other posts. .
No, it was not related to a specific post.
You had, I imagine, a view about the possible role of homosexuality when you opened the thread. I was just curious as to whether that view had changed. In short I am interested in whether the content of a thread, in total, or in particular, changes peoples views. I thought this would be an interesting one to inquire about because amid the knee jerk posts responding to you there were also some perceptive remarks that might have swayed your thinking.
Quite simply, I think we have to be accepting of homosexuality, to not do so is seeking to control another "man's" choice. I have offered this suggestion to a professor of mine that attends church regularly. Her husband was also a pastor (when living), and she agreed with my, more or less saying, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Sin is not limited to be homosexual, and far as I can tell, the "persecution" of the homosexual is a sin committed out of pride and vanity, said to be amongst the deadliest of, not unconditional love. I see the larger part of religion seeking "heads" in the manner, and those whom aren't (religious) like to make jokes, "that's so gay."
The world would be a better place, not because people are gay, but because they are not blamed for being gay.
The same logic is applicable to abortion. "God" (which-ever branch/belief preferred) does not make our choices for us, who are we to make them for someone else?
I would say, "God" is pretty green.
The world would be a better place, not because people are gay, but because they are not blamed for being gay.
The same logic is applicable to abortion. "God" (which-ever branch/belief preferred) does not make our choices for us, who are we to make them for someone else?
I would say, "God" is pretty green.
Sin is having intent against the intent of God. Knowledge of or refusing to consider the intent of God is required for an intent or action against the intent of God to be a sin. In other words you must know or have the ability to know that a sin is a sin.
All actions against the design of God are evil and have nothing to do with the intent or knowledge of the person doing the evil action.
Even without the teaching of religion, the knowledge of the intent of God can be known from the nature of His creation and the world around us. Man has been created with the knowledge of right and wrong. We know instantly when we do wrong. Most of the time we recognize this as a feeling. When we have this feeling we are called to justify our action, if only to ourselves. Most of the time we try to rationalize the action we feel is wrong. Other actions that are taken to deal with the feeling of guilt are to deny and submerse the feeling of guilt.
Unresolved guilt causes conflicts and lead to a path of evil or mental problems. Many times, you will hear that the feeling of guilt is the result of other people being judgmental. This of course, leads to the desire to have everyone agree that the actions that make us feel guilty are not wrong. The problem is that there are never enough people to take away the feeling of guilt. It is seen that the need to resolve guilt has extended to passing evil laws.
From nature, we know that sex is intended to produce life. A feeling of guilt will result when the intent is to deny the intent of nature. Homosexuality is a total denial of the intent of nature and the design of God.
If homosexuality only had an effect on a personal basis, it would then only be a question of the relationship between the homosexual and God. However, as we are seeing the problem of guilt is affecting our entire society.
To the person that understands the intent of God, intent or action against the intent of God can ever be accepted. The result will be and is hate and actions against the churches and people that point out the evils of homosexuality. For proof of this, look at the feedback I have gotten.
May God help us all.
All actions against the design of God are evil and have nothing to do with the intent or knowledge of the person doing the evil action.
Even without the teaching of religion, the knowledge of the intent of God can be known from the nature of His creation and the world around us. Man has been created with the knowledge of right and wrong. We know instantly when we do wrong. Most of the time we recognize this as a feeling. When we have this feeling we are called to justify our action, if only to ourselves. Most of the time we try to rationalize the action we feel is wrong. Other actions that are taken to deal with the feeling of guilt are to deny and submerse the feeling of guilt.
Unresolved guilt causes conflicts and lead to a path of evil or mental problems. Many times, you will hear that the feeling of guilt is the result of other people being judgmental. This of course, leads to the desire to have everyone agree that the actions that make us feel guilty are not wrong. The problem is that there are never enough people to take away the feeling of guilt. It is seen that the need to resolve guilt has extended to passing evil laws.
From nature, we know that sex is intended to produce life. A feeling of guilt will result when the intent is to deny the intent of nature. Homosexuality is a total denial of the intent of nature and the design of God.
If homosexuality only had an effect on a personal basis, it would then only be a question of the relationship between the homosexual and God. However, as we are seeing the problem of guilt is affecting our entire society.
To the person that understands the intent of God, intent or action against the intent of God can ever be accepted. The result will be and is hate and actions against the churches and people that point out the evils of homosexuality. For proof of this, look at the feedback I have gotten.
May God help us all.
QUOTE
Homosexuality is a total denial of the intent of nature and the design of God.
God forgives all sins, homosexuals will burn in hell because they know they are a sinner? Then who wouldn't? We are all sinners, and we know it, therefore we will all burn in hell? Is that what bible says?
What is cheating on your spouse? Divorce? Killing your kids? I mean lets name every sin in the book, and say we know that everything is sinful, and we know that we are not perfect, so there is no hope for anyone that is not perfect, why don't you make jest at the cross then? Only one man ever is said to be perfect. Who's the bigger sinner, the thief, murderer, or homosexual? "judge not less ye be judged."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Homosexuality is a total denial of the intent of nature and the design of God. |
God forgives all sins, homosexuals will burn in hell because they know they are a sinner? Then who wouldn't? We are all sinners, and we know it, therefore we will all burn in hell? Is that what bible says?
What is cheating on your spouse? Divorce? Killing your kids? I mean lets name every sin in the book, and say we know that everything is sinful, and we know that we are not perfect, so there is no hope for anyone that is not perfect, why don't you make jest at the cross then? Only one man ever is said to be perfect. Who's the bigger sinner, the thief, murderer, or homosexual? "judge not less ye be judged."
To the person that understands the intent of God,
The devil did,
does that mean homosexuals are the devil? Does that mean everyone that gets a divorce are evil? I don't know, I'm not ready to claim I know the intent of god for everyone, but you are? I guess that makes you God.
does that mean homosexuals are the devil? Does that mean everyone that gets a divorce are evil? I don't know, I'm not ready to claim I know the intent of god for everyone, but you are? I guess that makes you God.
Of course, God forgives all sins that we are sorry for. There can not be forgiveness for sins that are denied a sin. Only by outside intervention can a person that denies a sin is a sin change and seek forgiveness. In most cases it is by others asking God to help that a person with a harden heart can a person that denies a sin is a sin change.
so, you're saying homosexuals will burn in hell, as long as they are homosexuals. That is also saying that any other person who does any other sin, and knows it's a sin, and we know that we will never be without sin ... unless "we are with god," and we and not with god till "we are in heaven." So .... we are all going to burn in hell? That's pretty harsh, I am not willing to make that claim.
I could guess as to how god would judge me, or anyone else on, but I will not dare judge it. God is the only judge right?
Is thou shalt not be a homosexual a commandment, or one of the seven deadly sins? You know extremist muslims don't like homosexuals either .. Could you supply a biblical reffence for me about homosexuality please, I would like to read where you're getting this from.
QUOTE
Guess, if you can, and choose, if you dare. [Lat., Devine, si tu peux, et choisis, si tu l'oses.]
Topic: Choice
Source: Heraclius (IV, 4)
Topic: Choice
Source: Heraclius (IV, 4)
I could guess as to how god would judge me, or anyone else on, but I will not dare judge it. God is the only judge right?
Is thou shalt not be a homosexual a commandment, or one of the seven deadly sins? You know extremist muslims don't like homosexuals either .. Could you supply a biblical reffence for me about homosexuality please, I would like to read where you're getting this from.
Sin is not judged on a curve. Heaven and hell are a choice we make. It is not the intent of God to send anyone to hell.
I am sorry that you can not see any of the intent of God. The very design of nature will tell you His intent. God has also sent prophets to teach us and if that was not enough God sent his only Son as your teacher. What more do you require?
The difference between most other sins and homosexuality is that homosexuality seems to require a denial that it is wrong. Any sin that is denied to be wrong has the same problem. You also do not see the murderer going around, except for the abortion murderer, promoting murder as a way of life.
Are you not able to see that God made man in His image and likeness and that design of God requires respect for human life above all other.
The respect for human life is the basis for all of society. Respect for human life is not just respect for life of those between the age of 20 and 30 but extends to all life and the process of life. The process of life even during dating and the respect we should have for the creation of life in marriage. It is the denial of life that is wrong. Homosexuals have made themselves the focus of the denial of life. Homosexuals have made the denial of life a cause.
Although abortion is just as or move evil and against the intent of God, very few proclaim abortion as good and seek it as a way of life.
I can see that your lack of knowledge of the one true God would lead you to think that any one that proclaims a moral view to be a god. why do you find Gods intent about the respect for life difficult to understand?
I am sorry that you can not see any of the intent of God. The very design of nature will tell you His intent. God has also sent prophets to teach us and if that was not enough God sent his only Son as your teacher. What more do you require?
The difference between most other sins and homosexuality is that homosexuality seems to require a denial that it is wrong. Any sin that is denied to be wrong has the same problem. You also do not see the murderer going around, except for the abortion murderer, promoting murder as a way of life.
Are you not able to see that God made man in His image and likeness and that design of God requires respect for human life above all other.
The respect for human life is the basis for all of society. Respect for human life is not just respect for life of those between the age of 20 and 30 but extends to all life and the process of life. The process of life even during dating and the respect we should have for the creation of life in marriage. It is the denial of life that is wrong. Homosexuals have made themselves the focus of the denial of life. Homosexuals have made the denial of life a cause.
Although abortion is just as or move evil and against the intent of God, very few proclaim abortion as good and seek it as a way of life.
I can see that your lack of knowledge of the one true God would lead you to think that any one that proclaims a moral view to be a god. why do you find Gods intent about the respect for life difficult to understand?
QUOTE (tlocity+Jul 4 2009, 07:32 AM)
Even without the teaching of religion, the knowledge of the intent of God can be known from the nature of His creation and the world around us. Man has been created with the knowledge of right and wrong. We know instantly when we do wrong.
The Aztec priests who ripped the hearts from their human sacrifices on the pinnacles of their pyramids believed they were doing a great good. They had absolutely no sense of wrong. There was no inner unease.
How do you explain that?
The Aztec priests who ripped the hearts from their human sacrifices on the pinnacles of their pyramids believed they were doing a great good. They had absolutely no sense of wrong. There was no inner unease.
How do you explain that?
QUOTE (tlocity+Jul 4 2009, 08:38 AM)
The respect for human life is the basis for all of society. Respect for human life is not just respect for life of those between the age of 20 and 30 but extends to all life and the process of life. The process of life even during dating and the respect we should have for the creation of life in marriage. It is the denial of life that is wrong. Homosexuals have made themselves the focus of the denial of life. Homosexuals have made the denial of life a cause.
I'm not a homosexual, and I have made the denial of life my cause, as have millions of individuals who engage in some type of birth control. Tlocity, do you take precautions to limit the number of your offspring? How many children have you produced, and how and when will it end?
I believe that responsible human beings should limit the size of their families, and responsible human societies should limit the size of their populations. Is there such a thing as too much human life on this planet? And if so, doesn't practicing homosexuality mitigate the effects of that situation?
I believe that responsible human beings should limit the size of their families, and responsible human societies should limit the size of their populations. Is there such a thing as too much human life on this planet? And if so, doesn't practicing homosexuality mitigate the effects of that situation?
QUOTE (tlocity+Jul 4 2009, 07:32 AM)
From nature, we know that sex is intended to produce life. A feeling of guilt will result when the intent is to deny the intent of nature. Homosexuality is a total denial of the intent of nature and the design of God.
May God help us all.
From nature we know that sex is more than just for procreation.
There are homosexual creatures. Even ones that adopty.
You havn't even made a case that there is a God. Why not start there before abdicating all moral responsibility to him?
May God help us all.
From nature we know that sex is more than just for procreation.
There are homosexual creatures. Even ones that adopty.
You havn't even made a case that there is a God. Why not start there before abdicating all moral responsibility to him?
QUOTE (tlocity+Jul 4 2009, 07:32 AM)
Sin is having intent against the intent of God. Knowledge of or refusing to consider the intent of God is required for an intent or action against the intent of God to be a sin. In other words you must know or have the ability to know that a sin is a sin.
And your god's intent was that we kill homosexuals wasn't it? Not a great design if you have to order parts of that design to kill other parts and they usually refuse!
QUOTE
All actions against the design of God are evil and have nothing to do with the intent or knowledge of the person doing the evil action.
Against the design? What like an acrobat walking on their hands? Contraception? Walking on the Moon? What exactly is the design of God? Gay animals?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| All actions against the design of God are evil and have nothing to do with the intent or knowledge of the person doing the evil action. |
Against the design? What like an acrobat walking on their hands? Contraception? Walking on the Moon? What exactly is the design of God? Gay animals?
Homosexuality is a total denial of the intent of nature and the design of God.
So is contraception. Your God's designs are not very good at sticking to what His intentions were are they? Let me guess, free will? Maybe your God made a mistake or is a poor communicator. Or maybe doesn't exist at all and the whole concept of sin and intentional design were thought up by people. Or maybe you are in total denial of or oblivious to the 'real' God's intentions should one exist?
QUOTE
If homosexuality only had an effect on a personal basis, it would then only be a question of the relationship between the homosexual and God. However, as we are seeing the problem of guilt is affecting our entire society.
To the person that understands the intent of God, intent or action against the intent of God can ever be accepted. The result will be and is hate and actions against the churches and people that point out the evils of homosexuality. For proof of this, look at the feedback I have gotten.
May God help us all.
To the person that understands the intent of God, intent or action against the intent of God can ever be accepted. The result will be and is hate and actions against the churches and people that point out the evils of homosexuality. For proof of this, look at the feedback I have gotten.
May God help us all.
I now understand why Christopher Hitchens calls Christianity "Evil Rubbish"
QUOTE (John Galt+Jul 3 2009, 02:19 PM)
Well I do apologise. I had credited you with sufficient character to wish to participate in the thread topic.
No, I should apologize. I credited you with sufficient intellect to have read the thread and understood my posts.
Ahh, you still lack an understanding of basic communication skills. No surprise there, I've had this demonstrated to me many times over now.
meem's 'contributions' undermine themselves.
Ahh, you still lack an understanding of basic communication skills. No surprise there, I've had this demonstrated to me many times over now.
meem's 'contributions' undermine themselves.
I certainly wouldn't do that. I always recognise when I am in the presence of a master. There is no way I could compete with you for trolling, so I won't even try. I bow in awe.
That would make sense if you could find any examples of me trolling.
"innocent bystander"?
I see you have not grown any integrity during your brief hiatus.
"innocent bystander"?
I see you have not grown any integrity during your brief hiatus.
Now, it seems you'll likely post some lengthy offensive post in response. You go right ahead, but don't expect a reply. I have better things to do with my time than play with children.
Oh, we both know you'll continue to argue with me. No matter how many times you say this, you never actually stick to it.
I'm sorry that you do not see that God put the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden, and the snake with it. That was his intent. God forgives, the snake doesn't. So if you want to eat from the tree of knowledge, take the advise from the snake and think you know god's mind, which makes you God, which is the same thing the snake thinks.
What did Jesus say about homosexuality? give a me a page and verse, not your opinion.
Uh that one?
Uh that one?
I like the internet forum remark that goes:
"There is no point in wrestling with a troll. You just get dirty and the troll enjoys it."
I'm sorry that you do not see that God put the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden, and the snake with it. That was his intent. God forgives, the snake doesn't. So if you want to eat from the tree of knowledge, take the advise from the snake and think you know god's mind, which makes you God, which is the same thing the snake thinks.
What did Jesus say about homosexuality? give a me a page and verse, not your opinion.
Not one word of what Jesus said was written down until long after he was dead.
And please give some evidence that the Garden of Eden ever existed.
Other than hearsay.
The "snake" doesn't forgive because he doesn't condemn.
No, I should apologize. I credited you with sufficient intellect to have read the thread and understood my posts.
QUOTE
I therefore accepted that you were using the insults as implied ad hominems designed to devalue any contribution made by Meem.
Ahh, you still lack an understanding of basic communication skills. No surprise there, I've had this demonstrated to me many times over now.
meem's 'contributions' undermine themselves.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I therefore accepted that you were using the insults as implied ad hominems designed to devalue any contribution made by Meem. |
Ahh, you still lack an understanding of basic communication skills. No surprise there, I've had this demonstrated to me many times over now.
meem's 'contributions' undermine themselves.
I certainly wouldn't do that. I always recognise when I am in the presence of a master. There is no way I could compete with you for trolling, so I won't even try. I bow in awe.
That would make sense if you could find any examples of me trolling.
QUOTE
No, I came here to resume discussion of the topic. My brief aside to Meem about you was to let him know the innocent bystanders saw everything.
"innocent bystander"?
I see you have not grown any integrity during your brief hiatus.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, I came here to resume discussion of the topic. My brief aside to Meem about you was to let him know the innocent bystanders saw everything. |
"innocent bystander"?
I see you have not grown any integrity during your brief hiatus.
Now, it seems you'll likely post some lengthy offensive post in response. You go right ahead, but don't expect a reply. I have better things to do with my time than play with children.
Oh, we both know you'll continue to argue with me. No matter how many times you say this, you never actually stick to it.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
You havn't even made a case that there is a God. Why not start there before abdicating all moral responsibility to him?
Because that would make sense. Don't you see that fundies like tlocity absolutely refuse to engage in rational endeavors or critical thought when it comes to these issues? That would apparently be a sin.
Because that would make sense. Don't you see that fundies like tlocity absolutely refuse to engage in rational endeavors or critical thought when it comes to these issues? That would apparently be a sin.
QUOTE
I am sorry that you can not see any of the intent of God. The very design of nature will tell you His intent. God has also sent prophets to teach us and if that was not enough God sent his only Son as your teacher. What more do you require?
I'm sorry that you do not see that God put the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden, and the snake with it. That was his intent. God forgives, the snake doesn't. So if you want to eat from the tree of knowledge, take the advise from the snake and think you know god's mind, which makes you God, which is the same thing the snake thinks.
What did Jesus say about homosexuality? give a me a page and verse, not your opinion.
QUOTE
That would make sense if you could find any examples of me trolling.
Uh that one?
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 4 2009, 04:43 PM)
Uh that one?
I like the internet forum remark that goes:
"There is no point in wrestling with a troll. You just get dirty and the troll enjoys it."
Hard work requires getting one's hand's dirty, unless you expect someone else to do it for you.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 4 2009, 11:29 PM)
Hard work requires getting one's hand's dirty, unless you expect someone else to do it for you.
True, but I've reviewed a sample output from the subject and find it to be filled with angst, arrogance and asperger's. I see nothing productive to be gained by indulging it.
Good luck.
True, but I've reviewed a sample output from the subject and find it to be filled with angst, arrogance and asperger's. I see nothing productive to be gained by indulging it.
Good luck.
I know how to wash my hands and feet. And I know when the time has come to yield on a failing effort. Malicious intent and untruth sickens me.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 4 2009, 04:40 PM)
I'm sorry that you do not see that God put the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden, and the snake with it. That was his intent. God forgives, the snake doesn't. So if you want to eat from the tree of knowledge, take the advise from the snake and think you know god's mind, which makes you God, which is the same thing the snake thinks.
What did Jesus say about homosexuality? give a me a page and verse, not your opinion.
Not one word of what Jesus said was written down until long after he was dead.
And please give some evidence that the Garden of Eden ever existed.
Other than hearsay.
The "snake" doesn't forgive because he doesn't condemn.
John Galt
The Aztec priests who ripped the hearts from their human sacrifices on the pinnacles of their pyramids believed they were doing a great good. They had absolutely no sense of wrong. There was no inner unease.
How do you explain that?
I have no way of explaining how you know what the Aztec priest believed or that they you know that they had no sense of wrong.
QUOTE
The Aztec priests who ripped the hearts from their human sacrifices on the pinnacles of their pyramids believed they were doing a great good. They had absolutely no sense of wrong. There was no inner unease.
How do you explain that?
I have no way of explaining how you know what the Aztec priest believed or that they you know that they had no sense of wrong.
Capracus
If you do not understand, that God’s plan for the creation of souls is the purpose of life. If you do not understand, that human life is made in the image and likeness of God for the purpose of sharing eternity with God. If you do not understand that love is a freewill choice and your life here is to make that choice to love God.
Then what do you think is a greater purpose of your life?
Why are you selfish and wish to deny life to others?
I do not consider that taking action to deny life a precaution. Taking action to deny the life of any innocent human any stage of the process of life is selfish and a basic evil. I have accepted all the children that God has sent to me and as of this date, the total is five.
How many lives have you denied? And when will that stop?
QUOTE
I'm not a homosexual, and I have made the denial of life my cause, as have millions of individuals who engage in some type of birth control. Tlocity, do you take precautions to limit the number of your offspring? How many children have you produced, and how and when will it end?
I believe that responsible human beings should limit the size of their families, and responsible human societies should limit the size of their populations. Is there such a thing as too much human life on this planet? And if so, doesn't practicing homosexuality mitigate the effects of that situation?
I believe that responsible human beings should limit the size of their families, and responsible human societies should limit the size of their populations. Is there such a thing as too much human life on this planet? And if so, doesn't practicing homosexuality mitigate the effects of that situation?
If you do not understand, that God’s plan for the creation of souls is the purpose of life. If you do not understand, that human life is made in the image and likeness of God for the purpose of sharing eternity with God. If you do not understand that love is a freewill choice and your life here is to make that choice to love God.
Then what do you think is a greater purpose of your life?
Why are you selfish and wish to deny life to others?
I do not consider that taking action to deny life a precaution. Taking action to deny the life of any innocent human any stage of the process of life is selfish and a basic evil. I have accepted all the children that God has sent to me and as of this date, the total is five.
How many lives have you denied? And when will that stop?
buttershug
From nature we know that man is more then an animal and being human and made in the image and likeness of God we know that sex is more then just pleasure. We know the great result that the pleasure of sex produces, children.
I think it is wrong to accuse the homosexuals of being less than human and equating them with animals. Man has the ability to be guided by more then animal instincts.
If you can not see God all around you and even in you own being then you are not able to see and are blind. Tell me what proof you are looking for? Tell me where all that exists comes from. If you understand the goal of science to discover and know the cause of everything and if and when science does discover the source of all things what will you call that source? What will you call the source of life, intellect, the ability of man to create, the ability of man to know and understand beyond his direct observation, the order of the universe, the first cause of the universe, what is the nature and source of love?
If you are ever able to understand the source, the name of that source is God. The name is God by definition of God.
QUOTE
From nature we know that sex is more than just for procreation.
There are homosexual creatures. Even ones that adopty.
You havn't even made a case that there is a God. Why not start there before abdicating all moral responsibility to him?
There are homosexual creatures. Even ones that adopty.
You havn't even made a case that there is a God. Why not start there before abdicating all moral responsibility to him?
From nature we know that man is more then an animal and being human and made in the image and likeness of God we know that sex is more then just pleasure. We know the great result that the pleasure of sex produces, children.
I think it is wrong to accuse the homosexuals of being less than human and equating them with animals. Man has the ability to be guided by more then animal instincts.
If you can not see God all around you and even in you own being then you are not able to see and are blind. Tell me what proof you are looking for? Tell me where all that exists comes from. If you understand the goal of science to discover and know the cause of everything and if and when science does discover the source of all things what will you call that source? What will you call the source of life, intellect, the ability of man to create, the ability of man to know and understand beyond his direct observation, the order of the universe, the first cause of the universe, what is the nature and source of love?
If you are ever able to understand the source, the name of that source is God. The name is God by definition of God.
Sinister Utopia God has always been clear. All God is looking for are friends to share His life with. Your choice is to decide if you would like a person like God to be a friend of yours. Do you wish to choose friends that respect all life or do you wish to spend eternity with friends that do not respect life or pick and choose what life they will like and what life they wish to kill.
Do you wish to spend eternity with people like you and do you think that would be heaven or hell
Do you wish to spend eternity with people like you and do you think that would be heaven or hell
QUOTE (tlocity+Jul 7 2009, 07:04 AM)
Sinister Utopia God has always been clear. All God is looking for are friends to share His life with. Your choice is to decide if you would like a person like God to be a friend of yours. Do you wish to choose friends that respect all life or do you wish to spend eternity with friends that do not respect life or pick and choose what life they will like and what life they wish to kill.
Do you wish to spend eternity with people like you and do you think that would be heaven or hell
You didn't answer any of my questions. You claim to know the mind of God. I do not expect or plan to live eternally. I enjoy what little freedoms I have. I have read the books that claim to be the word of your God where it is made quite clear that homosexuals ought to be killed just as shellfish are an abomination. The same word that makes extraordinary, unsubstantiated claims about the universe and the origins of life on this planet.
God just wants to be my friend? Ahh! Isn't that sweet.
Anyone be they Deity or not will at least have to curb their desire to kill innocent people if they want my friendship.
Evil nonsensical, unsubstantiated, immoral, blood thirsty RUBBISH!!
Fortunately for both of us, none of this malevolent tripe has any evidence to support it.
cool
Do you wish to spend eternity with people like you and do you think that would be heaven or hell
You didn't answer any of my questions. You claim to know the mind of God. I do not expect or plan to live eternally. I enjoy what little freedoms I have. I have read the books that claim to be the word of your God where it is made quite clear that homosexuals ought to be killed just as shellfish are an abomination. The same word that makes extraordinary, unsubstantiated claims about the universe and the origins of life on this planet.
God just wants to be my friend? Ahh! Isn't that sweet.
Anyone be they Deity or not will at least have to curb their desire to kill innocent people if they want my friendship.
Evil nonsensical, unsubstantiated, immoral, blood thirsty RUBBISH!!
Fortunately for both of us, none of this malevolent tripe has any evidence to support it.
cool
QUOTE (tlocity+Jul 7 2009, 06:55 AM)
buttershug
From nature we know that man is more then an animal and being human and made in the image and likeness of God we know that sex is more then just pleasure. We know the great result that the pleasure of sex produces, children.
I think it is wrong to accuse the homosexuals of being less than human and equating them with animals. Man has the ability to be guided by more then animal instincts.
If you can not see God all around you and even in you own being then you are not able to see and are blind. Tell me what proof you are looking for? Tell me where all that exists comes from. If you understand the goal of science to discover and know the cause of everything and if and when science does discover the source of all things what will you call that source? What will you call the source of life, intellect, the ability of man to create, the ability of man to know and understand beyond his direct observation, the order of the universe, the first cause of the universe, what is the nature and source of love?
If you are ever able to understand the source, the name of that source is God. The name is God by definition of God.
Humans are animals. No has found a fundamental difference yet.
Care to try?
homosexuals are not less than other humans. Homosexual behaviour is not being guided by animal instincts.
And your last paragraph says nothing other than God is what is.
There is no need to invoke sentience in the God you describe. No need for your God to be logical or active. No need to believe your God condemns people.
No need to believe in Heaven or Hell.
From nature we know that man is more then an animal and being human and made in the image and likeness of God we know that sex is more then just pleasure. We know the great result that the pleasure of sex produces, children.
I think it is wrong to accuse the homosexuals of being less than human and equating them with animals. Man has the ability to be guided by more then animal instincts.
If you can not see God all around you and even in you own being then you are not able to see and are blind. Tell me what proof you are looking for? Tell me where all that exists comes from. If you understand the goal of science to discover and know the cause of everything and if and when science does discover the source of all things what will you call that source? What will you call the source of life, intellect, the ability of man to create, the ability of man to know and understand beyond his direct observation, the order of the universe, the first cause of the universe, what is the nature and source of love?
If you are ever able to understand the source, the name of that source is God. The name is God by definition of God.
Humans are animals. No has found a fundamental difference yet.
Care to try?
homosexuals are not less than other humans. Homosexual behaviour is not being guided by animal instincts.
And your last paragraph says nothing other than God is what is.
There is no need to invoke sentience in the God you describe. No need for your God to be logical or active. No need to believe your God condemns people.
No need to believe in Heaven or Hell.
QUOTE (tlocity+Jul 7 2009, 06:37 AM)
Capracus
If you do not understand, that God’s plan for the creation of souls is the purpose of life. If you do not understand, that human life is made in the image and likeness of God for the purpose of sharing eternity with God. If you do not understand that love is a freewill choice and your life here is to make that choice to love God.
If you do not understand, that God’s plan for the creation of souls is the purpose of life. If you do not understand, that human life is made in the image and likeness of God for the purpose of sharing eternity with God. If you do not understand that love is a freewill choice and your life here is to make that choice to love God.
So in your view, the Earth is your god's nursery for souls, and everything contained within it is meant to condition those souls to form some emotional bond with your god. Further, it appears that the souls that are deemed worthy are the ones that have been conditioned to recognize the benevolence of your god, and at the same time ignore its sadistic abuse. Your god better fits the role of a livestock manager, than that of a loving caretaker.
Then why are people born gay? Part of Original Sin? You know, the part of the bible that says we - all of us - are already guilty of evil and sin before we are even conceived? That's how you define God as only wanting friends to share? I know dozens of parents who are 'infinitely' more compassionate than that. Fundamentalists like you are blind to the caprice and petulance of a creator that you yourselves define as merciful, forgiving, and loving. You can't have it both ways. The Christian God is, from his biblical actions, not nearly as forgiving as Jesus says we must be. Why are the wrongs of man - that we burn in hell for - not wrong when God commits them? is this because "All-Just" trumps "All-Loving", "All-Forgiving", "All-Merciful"? Thats what you would expect from angry vengeful humans, and so thats what you can expect from a God created by humans that want to see retribution over forgiveness. You fundamentalists can't see the forest for the trees. You believe in a God that satisfies your desire to punish those that don't agree with you, and appeal to 'mystery' to explain how a God can safely violate His own commandments that we burn in hell for if we commit them. But thats right, God doesn't die, and hell is for people who die, and as part of God's anger at Adam and Eve, he made all future generations to die...Talk about pre-meditated murder! If God was a man, he'd be hung a thousand times over for His transgressions against us, in the name of Justice, stemming solely from what Adam and Eve did. But he is God, with no God over him, so he doesn't have to worry, does he?
As an agnostic who believes in the possibility of a God, I am nevertheless appalled at all you fundies who reduce your creator to a big angry eternally unforgiving fascist dictator; you blaspheme your own God.
And condemn gays as easily as your God has already condemned all of us.
This is where I think you are tragically wrong.
The greatest product of love, not sex, is a child. I don't understand how anyone who believes in God doesn't understand his greatest gift, unconditional love. I thought "the bible" said, "God is love." Perhaps I should read it again.
I prefer the word "homosexual" rather than "gay" which is absurd.
I prefer the words "same-sex marriage" What is "gay marriage"?
Both marriage and same-sex marriage need to be analyzed; to wit:
1. Partners in marriage need not touch each other or live together.
2. In opposite-sex marriage, one or both partners can be homosexual.
3. In same-sex marriage, one or both partners could be heterosexual.
4. Same-sex marriages need not be sexual, and cannot be incestuous.
5. A same-sex marriage could be between a divorced woman and her widowed mother. The partners could then put all of mother's assets in an account by the entireties. Upon mother's death, all of mom's assets are owned by the daughter without probate or estate tax. Note that the partners could maintain different last names in this case.
6. A same-sex marriage could be between brothers, or sisters, or friends, or a person and a lawyer, or a person and a spouse-for-hire for the above purpose, or to prevent attachment of assets by a civil judgment, or for tax purposes, or for business purposes, or to prevent testimony by one of the partners against the other in a criminal trial. Note that after the "ceremony", the partners need never see each other again.
Same-sex marriage partners need not be homosexual to benefit from marriage.
QUOTE
Then what do you think is a greater purpose of your life?
To continue human evolution, but not do so at the expense of the environmental well being of the planet.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Then what do you think is a greater purpose of your life? |
To continue human evolution, but not do so at the expense of the environmental well being of the planet.
Why are you selfish and wish to deny life to others?
Why are you selfish and wish to deny life to others?
I don't see the earth as merely fertilizer for human souls, I see it as a collection of living and non-living elements that deserve as much respect and right to perpetuate as does humanity. I don't wish to deny life to others, I just don't want those who currently exist to selfishly monopolize the planet through excessive breeding.
QUOTE
I do not consider that taking action to deny life a precaution. Taking action to deny the life of any innocent human any stage of the process of life is selfish and a basic evil. I have accepted all the children that God has sent to me and as of this date, the total is five.
How many lives have you denied? And when will that stop?
I've been married for twenty years and have fathered two children. Early in the marriage, my wife had one early term abortion, but the rest of the denial of life was accomplished with an IUD. Not that I don't appreciate my children, but if had had to do it over, I would consider adoption, no children at all, or succumbing to gay recruitment.
How many lives have you denied? And when will that stop?
QUOTE (tlocity+Jul 7 2009, 07:04 AM)
Sinister Utopia God has always been clear. All God is looking for are friends to share His life with. Your choice is to decide if you would like a person like God to be a friend of yours. Do you wish to choose friends that respect all life or do you wish to spend eternity with friends that do not respect life or pick and choose what life they will like and what life they wish to kill.
Do you wish to spend eternity with people like you and do you think that would be heaven or hell
You don't respect homosexuals.
You think they are less than human.
And then you blame your hate on someone else.
Do you wish to spend eternity with people like you and do you think that would be heaven or hell
You don't respect homosexuals.
You think they are less than human.
And then you blame your hate on someone else.
QUOTE
Sinister Utopia God has always been clear. All God is looking for are friends to share His life with.
Then why are people born gay? Part of Original Sin? You know, the part of the bible that says we - all of us - are already guilty of evil and sin before we are even conceived? That's how you define God as only wanting friends to share? I know dozens of parents who are 'infinitely' more compassionate than that. Fundamentalists like you are blind to the caprice and petulance of a creator that you yourselves define as merciful, forgiving, and loving. You can't have it both ways. The Christian God is, from his biblical actions, not nearly as forgiving as Jesus says we must be. Why are the wrongs of man - that we burn in hell for - not wrong when God commits them? is this because "All-Just" trumps "All-Loving", "All-Forgiving", "All-Merciful"? Thats what you would expect from angry vengeful humans, and so thats what you can expect from a God created by humans that want to see retribution over forgiveness. You fundamentalists can't see the forest for the trees. You believe in a God that satisfies your desire to punish those that don't agree with you, and appeal to 'mystery' to explain how a God can safely violate His own commandments that we burn in hell for if we commit them. But thats right, God doesn't die, and hell is for people who die, and as part of God's anger at Adam and Eve, he made all future generations to die...Talk about pre-meditated murder! If God was a man, he'd be hung a thousand times over for His transgressions against us, in the name of Justice, stemming solely from what Adam and Eve did. But he is God, with no God over him, so he doesn't have to worry, does he?
As an agnostic who believes in the possibility of a God, I am nevertheless appalled at all you fundies who reduce your creator to a big angry eternally unforgiving fascist dictator; you blaspheme your own God.
And condemn gays as easily as your God has already condemned all of us.
I am glad to see this topic is being talked about realistically and how people seem to support the idea, you can't hate for someone to be gay but, then don't care when people use it as a remark to insult someone. If it's true or not is besides the point. And I'm pretty sure most people right now reading this, has read, where it has been used. You're right, I really don't understand people, but I do understand how I see myself, and how other people see me. It seems they always have their faces pressed against with my window, blocking my view of the outside world. So, I try to find tiny holes of light popping through, or I go to the upstairs window. I don't hate anyone, mostly because I don't want to be hated myself.
(edit)
I don't want to be an astrophysicist, just a human one ... that likes to look out into the cosmos from within.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4natV9IlXac...laynext_from=PL
(edit)
I don't want to be an astrophysicist, just a human one ... that likes to look out into the cosmos from within.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4natV9IlXac...laynext_from=PL
QUOTE
We know the great result that the pleasure of sex produces, children.
This is where I think you are tragically wrong.
The greatest product of love, not sex, is a child. I don't understand how anyone who believes in God doesn't understand his greatest gift, unconditional love. I thought "the bible" said, "God is love." Perhaps I should read it again.
Poor meem - doesn't know where babies come from. 
How brave of you, how ballsy, how honorable, how truthful, how you have proven yourself as a man of justice and courage ... to hide behind your curtain Occidental.
Saying the same thing you always do. Are you afraid to be yourself? I mean who is it really ... so many people here like to play so many stupid games.
http://www.psyfitec.com/2009/05/psychology-of-scams.html
Saying the same thing you always do. Are you afraid to be yourself? I mean who is it really ... so many people here like to play so many stupid games.
http://www.psyfitec.com/2009/05/psychology-of-scams.html
If I have something to say to you meem, ill say it to you. I have no need to hide behind a different screenname.
Its not my fault someone else has pity for you.
Its not my fault someone else has pity for you.
So, you choose to identify with them then. How ingenius of you, and foolish of me.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 7 2009, 04:50 PM)
I thought "the bible" said, "God is love." Perhaps I should read it again.
Perhaps you should oh dear philo-poser ... perhaps you should. There is a thing in life called "perception checking" ... check into it. You probably should have read about it during the Philosophy 101 course you surveyed.
"God is love" is a an unclear statement. Your interpretation of that statement is to accept it as written to mean that some supernatural entity called "god" defines/encompasses "love".
It is equally reasonable to assume that it means "love" defines/encompasses "god".
Much of what Jesus actually said was lost between his time here and the next generation which documented his life. It's simple to misunderstand those particular three words.
What makes more sense?
To worship a deity because he is love.
-or-
To worship love as your deity.
Here is a quote from St. Augustine with which you should familiarlize yourself ...
Perhaps you should oh dear philo-poser ... perhaps you should. There is a thing in life called "perception checking" ... check into it. You probably should have read about it during the Philosophy 101 course you surveyed.
"God is love" is a an unclear statement. Your interpretation of that statement is to accept it as written to mean that some supernatural entity called "god" defines/encompasses "love".
It is equally reasonable to assume that it means "love" defines/encompasses "god".
Much of what Jesus actually said was lost between his time here and the next generation which documented his life. It's simple to misunderstand those particular three words.
What makes more sense?
To worship a deity because he is love.
-or-
To worship love as your deity.
Here is a quote from St. Augustine with which you should familiarlize yourself ...
QUOTE
It is offensive and ruinous, something to be avoided at all cost, for a nonbeliever to hear a Christian talking about these things as though with Christian writings as his source, and yet so nonsensically and with such obvious error that the nonbeliever can hardly keep from laughing.
When does being good to someone mean that I am trying to play "god?"
Are you trying to use the bible? do you believe it? Are you trying to "tempt" me? So if I did believe in being good or positive to someone, and you say you are "just" in being bad or negative towards me, who does that make you? I mean, really. Do you believe in "the bible?"
occidental Posted: Today at 5:52 PM Quote
Advanced Member (bad joke)
Positive (another bad joke)
QUOTE (Meem @ Jul 7 2009, 05:42 PM)
I know, it's stupid to try and inspire people to think. That's all I want to do.
Poor misunderstood meem. Poor poor meem
I am really wondering, how it is, you won the essay contest?
Another bad joke, poor me, poor me. I am not you.
Advanced Member (bad joke)
Positive (another bad joke)
QUOTE
QUOTE (Meem @ Jul 7 2009, 05:42 PM)
I know, it's stupid to try and inspire people to think. That's all I want to do.
Poor misunderstood meem. Poor poor meem
I am really wondering, how it is, you won the essay contest?
Another bad joke, poor me, poor me. I am not you.
I prefer the word "homosexual" rather than "gay" which is absurd.
I prefer the words "same-sex marriage" What is "gay marriage"?
Both marriage and same-sex marriage need to be analyzed; to wit:
1. Partners in marriage need not touch each other or live together.
2. In opposite-sex marriage, one or both partners can be homosexual.
3. In same-sex marriage, one or both partners could be heterosexual.
4. Same-sex marriages need not be sexual, and cannot be incestuous.
5. A same-sex marriage could be between a divorced woman and her widowed mother. The partners could then put all of mother's assets in an account by the entireties. Upon mother's death, all of mom's assets are owned by the daughter without probate or estate tax. Note that the partners could maintain different last names in this case.
6. A same-sex marriage could be between brothers, or sisters, or friends, or a person and a lawyer, or a person and a spouse-for-hire for the above purpose, or to prevent attachment of assets by a civil judgment, or for tax purposes, or for business purposes, or to prevent testimony by one of the partners against the other in a criminal trial. Note that after the "ceremony", the partners need never see each other again.
Same-sex marriage partners need not be homosexual to benefit from marriage.
Capracus
From your perception, it is clear that you have no idea of the history of man or the nature of God.
Man was not created to be conditioned to be worthily to spend eternity with God. Man is intended by God to share eternity with God but only by the freewill choice of man.
You first need to understand the nature of love. Love is only possible by freewill choice. God has chosen to love us. We then have the choice to love or not love in return. Adam and Eve were given an opportunity to make that choice. Their choice was to deny the love of God and to try to be like God. The Devil offered them the fruit (the ability to become like God). This choice was in effect the same choice that the Devil had when He fell from Heaven because He thought He was greater then God. You can see even on here that many of the people are making a choice to be a god unto himself or herself.
God so loved the creation He had made that He decided to give each of us the ability to make the same choice for ourselves and did not just destroy Adam and Eve. This is where we are today. The second chance we have has come at great price. The price that was paid by Christ made you worthy of Heaven. There is nothing you can do to buy Heaven. You’re thinking is so far off I realize that you will not understand any of this.
You are given the fullness life to make the choice. God is more then all loving He is also all just. His love for you and in justice He is giving you knowledge of Him. You will have no claim that you were not given the ability of full knowledge.
If you understood the great value of the soul of man, you would know that all-else means nothing. If you had any understanding of God you would also know that God will give us all and even more then we need.
God has given us a source of energy that would eliminate our negative impact on the earth. God has given us the ability to provide for hundreds of thousands of times more people then our now on the earth.
It is our evil society that has given us evil leaders. Leaders that act to control and limit the supply of everything.
God will not act against Himself and can not help us with any of our problems if in helping us any of the result would be against His design. God will not help our government if the result is in anyway promoting the denial of life. Without the help of God there will be no wisdom.
QUOTE
So in your view, the Earth is your god's nursery for souls, and everything contained within it is meant to condition those souls to form some emotional bond with your god. Further, it appears that the souls that are deemed worthy are the ones that have been conditioned to recognize the benevolence of your god, and at the same time ignore its sadistic abuse. Your god better fits the role of a livestock manager, than that of a loving caretaker.
From your perception, it is clear that you have no idea of the history of man or the nature of God.
Man was not created to be conditioned to be worthily to spend eternity with God. Man is intended by God to share eternity with God but only by the freewill choice of man.
You first need to understand the nature of love. Love is only possible by freewill choice. God has chosen to love us. We then have the choice to love or not love in return. Adam and Eve were given an opportunity to make that choice. Their choice was to deny the love of God and to try to be like God. The Devil offered them the fruit (the ability to become like God). This choice was in effect the same choice that the Devil had when He fell from Heaven because He thought He was greater then God. You can see even on here that many of the people are making a choice to be a god unto himself or herself.
God so loved the creation He had made that He decided to give each of us the ability to make the same choice for ourselves and did not just destroy Adam and Eve. This is where we are today. The second chance we have has come at great price. The price that was paid by Christ made you worthy of Heaven. There is nothing you can do to buy Heaven. You’re thinking is so far off I realize that you will not understand any of this.
You are given the fullness life to make the choice. God is more then all loving He is also all just. His love for you and in justice He is giving you knowledge of Him. You will have no claim that you were not given the ability of full knowledge.
If you understood the great value of the soul of man, you would know that all-else means nothing. If you had any understanding of God you would also know that God will give us all and even more then we need.
God has given us a source of energy that would eliminate our negative impact on the earth. God has given us the ability to provide for hundreds of thousands of times more people then our now on the earth.
It is our evil society that has given us evil leaders. Leaders that act to control and limit the supply of everything.
God will not act against Himself and can not help us with any of our problems if in helping us any of the result would be against His design. God will not help our government if the result is in anyway promoting the denial of life. Without the help of God there will be no wisdom.
Sinister Utopia it is clear that you have decided and have made the choice. I am sad about your decision but realize that you are not open to discussion. I pray that God will act in you life. I know it is only by the action of God that would change your thinking at this point.
Buttershug it is sad that you can not see that man is much more then just an animal.
If you do not realize that man is more then an animal then all our freedoms are in danger. Our nation and government is founded on the belief that man is endowed with rights from God. Our rights in this country are like no other throughout the world. No one and no power of government can take our rights away.
God is able to endow man with rights because man is different then all other animals. If you do not believe this then you will not be surprised when you are treated like an animal and of course you will have no reason to complain.
I think that I have made it clear that I respect all man kind and it is the homosexual that is trying to deny the reason why man is different then animals. Man is made in the image and likeness of God and that difference demands and requires respect.
When the argument is stated that some animals are homosexual and therefore it is natural for man to also be homosexual denies the great difference between man and other animals.
If you do not realize that man is more then an animal then all our freedoms are in danger. Our nation and government is founded on the belief that man is endowed with rights from God. Our rights in this country are like no other throughout the world. No one and no power of government can take our rights away.
God is able to endow man with rights because man is different then all other animals. If you do not believe this then you will not be surprised when you are treated like an animal and of course you will have no reason to complain.
I think that I have made it clear that I respect all man kind and it is the homosexual that is trying to deny the reason why man is different then animals. Man is made in the image and likeness of God and that difference demands and requires respect.
When the argument is stated that some animals are homosexual and therefore it is natural for man to also be homosexual denies the great difference between man and other animals.
Soundhertz
God has His intended design. In that design, he gave you the ability to follow His design or to go your own way. You want it both ways. You want to follow your own design that acts against His intent and at the same time, you want God to help you act against Him.
I know of no time that God would not forgive if forgiveness were asked for.
The Garden of Eden was God’s design. It was a choice to live in God’s design. When Adam and Eve decided to deny God’s design that was a choice not to live in the Garden. They were no longer of the Garden. Part of living in the Garden was eternal life. Being no longer compatible with the design of the Garden, they no longer had eternal life.
Your problem is that you have no idea of the great injury the sin of Adam and Eve was. In all that exists, all must be balanced. The only balance for the damage was for God to send His Son to make up for the damage.
I realize that you have no concept of this reality and none of this means anything to you. Instead of saying how evil God is for His acts of justice consider the great evil that was done that God needed to punish. Then you may realize that the action God was required for that great evil.
It is interesting how you put all your failings as attributes of God.
God has His intended design. In that design, he gave you the ability to follow His design or to go your own way. You want it both ways. You want to follow your own design that acts against His intent and at the same time, you want God to help you act against Him.
I know of no time that God would not forgive if forgiveness were asked for.
The Garden of Eden was God’s design. It was a choice to live in God’s design. When Adam and Eve decided to deny God’s design that was a choice not to live in the Garden. They were no longer of the Garden. Part of living in the Garden was eternal life. Being no longer compatible with the design of the Garden, they no longer had eternal life.
Your problem is that you have no idea of the great injury the sin of Adam and Eve was. In all that exists, all must be balanced. The only balance for the damage was for God to send His Son to make up for the damage.
I realize that you have no concept of this reality and none of this means anything to you. Instead of saying how evil God is for His acts of justice consider the great evil that was done that God needed to punish. Then you may realize that the action God was required for that great evil.
It is interesting how you put all your failings as attributes of God.
QUOTE (tlocity+)
Sinister Utopia it is clear that you have decided and have made the choice.
What other choice can any reasonably minded honest individual make when (A, there is no evidence and (B, It's a degrading proposition?
There is no need for you to be sad about my decisions and I am open to discussion. Thanks.
There is no need for you to be sad about my decisions and I am open to discussion. Thanks.
I pray that God will act in you life. I know it is only by the action of God that would change your thinking at this point.
If there is a reasonable God then there is no need for you to pray. Have no fear, get on with your life and I suspect this reasonable being would be content that you were honest and tried to leave the world in as good if not better shape than when you found it.
Why not just try to be good for goodness sake?
What other choice can any reasonably minded honest individual make when (A, there is no evidence and (B, It's a degrading proposition?
QUOTE
I am sad about your decision but realize that you are not open to discussion.
There is no need for you to be sad about my decisions and I am open to discussion. Thanks.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am sad about your decision but realize that you are not open to discussion. |
There is no need for you to be sad about my decisions and I am open to discussion. Thanks.
I pray that God will act in you life. I know it is only by the action of God that would change your thinking at this point.
If there is a reasonable God then there is no need for you to pray. Have no fear, get on with your life and I suspect this reasonable being would be content that you were honest and tried to leave the world in as good if not better shape than when you found it.
Why not just try to be good for goodness sake?
The US Founding Fathers were quite secular and did not have to base equality for all men on having been created by God.
Tlocity your reasoning has no foundation in reality. You are assuming God then demonstrating why you believe in him based on your belief in him.
How is man different from animals? You can't use "we were created by God" untill you show some evidence of that.
We are smarter, does count either. Because there are smart animals.
Give an example you can demonstrate and isn't of an "er nature.
All your arguements can be replaced with "the Flying Spaghetti Monster".
Show me one that can't.
Tlocity your reasoning has no foundation in reality. You are assuming God then demonstrating why you believe in him based on your belief in him.
How is man different from animals? You can't use "we were created by God" untill you show some evidence of that.
We are smarter, does count either. Because there are smart animals.
Give an example you can demonstrate and isn't of an "er nature.
All your arguements can be replaced with "the Flying Spaghetti Monster".
Show me one that can't.
QUOTE (tlocity+Jul 10 2009, 08:50 AM)
God has given us a source of energy that would eliminate our negative impact on the earth. God has given us the ability to provide for hundreds of thousands of times more people then our now on the earth.
California, where I live, has a land area of 164,000 sq mi, and a population of about 37 million. So: 164,000/37,000,000= .0044/sq mi per person x 5,280^2= 123,569 sq ft. per person /100,000= 1.24 sq ft per person. The downside of these numbers are obvious to anyone with a pulse. I guess the upside would be that you could perform some spectacular human waves.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8141490.stm
QUOTE
It is our evil society that has given us evil leaders. Leaders that act to control and limit the supply of everything.
Let's go back to monarchy.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8141490.stm
Sinister Utopia a reasonable minded person would realize that all evidence shows that nothing exists by magic and that a source is required for all things in the universe. A reasonable person of science would not be happy until that source is identified. A reasonable person would accept the logic that explains that source unless some other explanation proves more logical.
In all the years of science, it has never been shown that God does not exist. In all the discoveries of science, that have advanced some knowledge of the nature of the universe, no discovery has shown that there is no God. In fact, all the discoveries of science have shown how great and wonderful the intelligent design of the universe is.
Among the discoveries, the Big Bang shows that the whole universe comes from one source. It is also seen that all things in the universe have one absolute reference, the Big Bang.
The intent of my posting on this thread has not to try to convince anyone of the existence of God. My intent is to show the thinking of those of us that find homosexuality unacceptable and the reasons why homosexuality can never be accepted.
You can no more accept perversion of natures laws, the laws of God, any more then you can accept the breaking of any of the other laws of science and physics, again laws of God. The only difference is that the laws of physics have immediate negative results. When you deny the law of gravity, you will feel the result with in minutes.
When you break the moral laws the negative result may not be seen for years. Those with the gift of wisdom are able to see more clearly the future results of any action. Those that deny wisdom will say “why does everything bad happen to me” when the negative results arrive.
Pray is talking to God. See how long any relationship can last if you do not talk to the other person.
In all the years of science, it has never been shown that God does not exist. In all the discoveries of science, that have advanced some knowledge of the nature of the universe, no discovery has shown that there is no God. In fact, all the discoveries of science have shown how great and wonderful the intelligent design of the universe is.
Among the discoveries, the Big Bang shows that the whole universe comes from one source. It is also seen that all things in the universe have one absolute reference, the Big Bang.
The intent of my posting on this thread has not to try to convince anyone of the existence of God. My intent is to show the thinking of those of us that find homosexuality unacceptable and the reasons why homosexuality can never be accepted.
You can no more accept perversion of natures laws, the laws of God, any more then you can accept the breaking of any of the other laws of science and physics, again laws of God. The only difference is that the laws of physics have immediate negative results. When you deny the law of gravity, you will feel the result with in minutes.
When you break the moral laws the negative result may not be seen for years. Those with the gift of wisdom are able to see more clearly the future results of any action. Those that deny wisdom will say “why does everything bad happen to me” when the negative results arrive.
Pray is talking to God. See how long any relationship can last if you do not talk to the other person.
QUOTE (tlocity+Jul 12 2009, 09:25 PM)
Sinister Utopia a reasonable minded person would realize that all evidence shows that nothing exists by magic and that a source is required for all things in the universe. A reasonable person of science would not be happy until that source is identified. A reasonable person would accept the logic that explains that source unless some other explanation proves more logical.
You mean the evidence that you imagine exists? While we are uncertain about the origins of the universe, taking advice from Bronze Age sheep herders seems unwise at this juncture.
On the other hand, there have been a multitude of opportunities for your 'god' to show his/her/its hand, but I guess it's not an important endeavor. Your intelligent design myth is a stopgap for your misguided education.
On the other hand, there have been a multitude of opportunities for your 'god' to show his/her/its hand, but I guess it's not an important endeavor. Your intelligent design myth is a stopgap for your misguided education.
Among the discoveries, the Big Bang shows that the whole universe comes from one source. It is also seen that all things in the universe have one absolute reference, the Big Bang.
All things in the universe? Sure about that?
What you have proven is that you are an insecure homophobe. You will be left behind, along with your hate-filled ideology.
What you have proven is that you are an insecure homophobe. You will be left behind, along with your hate-filled ideology.
You can no more accept perversion of natures laws, the laws of God, any more then you can accept the breaking of any of the other laws of science and physics, again laws of God. The only difference is that the laws of physics have immediate negative results. When you deny the law of gravity, you will feel the result with in minutes.
Isn't blasphemy against god's law? GOD DOES NOT EXIST. How was that on the blasphemy scale? Did you know that many different species of animals have the potential for homosexuality? Check it out, even seagulls can be gay.
I would argue that you do not have the said 'gift of wisdom'. Maybe you and your ilk will see the results of your hate speech in the years to come.
I would argue that you do not have the said 'gift of wisdom'. Maybe you and your ilk will see the results of your hate speech in the years to come.
Pray is talking to God. See how long any relationship can last if you do not talk to the other person.
You and your imaginary friend can piss off.
Quick question...
Which God?
What definition?
Allah?
Buddha?
Azura Mazda?
What definition?
Allah?
Buddha?
Azura Mazda?
There may be many gods but only one God.
How about Gods then?
You mean the evidence that you imagine exists? While we are uncertain about the origins of the universe, taking advice from Bronze Age sheep herders seems unwise at this juncture.
QUOTE
In all the years of science, it has never been shown that God does not exist. In all the discoveries of science, that have advanced some knowledge of the nature of the universe, no discovery has shown that there is no God. In fact, all the discoveries of science have shown how great and wonderful the intelligent design of the universe is.
On the other hand, there have been a multitude of opportunities for your 'god' to show his/her/its hand, but I guess it's not an important endeavor. Your intelligent design myth is a stopgap for your misguided education.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In all the years of science, it has never been shown that God does not exist. In all the discoveries of science, that have advanced some knowledge of the nature of the universe, no discovery has shown that there is no God. In fact, all the discoveries of science have shown how great and wonderful the intelligent design of the universe is. |
On the other hand, there have been a multitude of opportunities for your 'god' to show his/her/its hand, but I guess it's not an important endeavor. Your intelligent design myth is a stopgap for your misguided education.
Among the discoveries, the Big Bang shows that the whole universe comes from one source. It is also seen that all things in the universe have one absolute reference, the Big Bang.
All things in the universe? Sure about that?
QUOTE
The intent of my posting on this thread has not to try to convince anyone of the existence of God. My intent is to show the thinking of those of us that find homosexuality unacceptable and the reasons why homosexuality can never be accepted.
What you have proven is that you are an insecure homophobe. You will be left behind, along with your hate-filled ideology.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The intent of my posting on this thread has not to try to convince anyone of the existence of God. My intent is to show the thinking of those of us that find homosexuality unacceptable and the reasons why homosexuality can never be accepted. |
What you have proven is that you are an insecure homophobe. You will be left behind, along with your hate-filled ideology.
You can no more accept perversion of natures laws, the laws of God, any more then you can accept the breaking of any of the other laws of science and physics, again laws of God. The only difference is that the laws of physics have immediate negative results. When you deny the law of gravity, you will feel the result with in minutes.
Isn't blasphemy against god's law? GOD DOES NOT EXIST. How was that on the blasphemy scale? Did you know that many different species of animals have the potential for homosexuality? Check it out, even seagulls can be gay.
QUOTE
When you break the moral laws the negative result may not be seen for years. Those with the gift of wisdom are able to see more clearly the future results of any action. Those that deny wisdom will say “why does everything bad happen to me” when the negative results arrive.
I would argue that you do not have the said 'gift of wisdom'. Maybe you and your ilk will see the results of your hate speech in the years to come.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When you break the moral laws the negative result may not be seen for years. Those with the gift of wisdom are able to see more clearly the future results of any action. Those that deny wisdom will say “why does everything bad happen to me” when the negative results arrive. |
I would argue that you do not have the said 'gift of wisdom'. Maybe you and your ilk will see the results of your hate speech in the years to come.
Pray is talking to God. See how long any relationship can last if you do not talk to the other person.
You and your imaginary friend can piss off.
QUOTE (tlocity+Jul 13 2009, 02:25 AM)
You can no more accept perversion of natures laws, the laws of God, any more then you can accept the breaking of any of the other laws of science and physics, again laws of God.
Pray is talking to God. See how long any relationship can last if you do not talk to the other person.
There are homosexual penguins that have adopted a penquin chick.
Homosexuality is in nature.
It used to be that any examples in nature were written off as aberations then people started saying hey wait a second. Now that examples are not written off one by one they are seen to add up to being normal.
God doesn't talk to people and the relationship keeps going.
If God is talking to people he's lieing to most. Or the people are talking to God then lieing about what he says. How else do you explain the inconsistencies?
And you still havn't given one example of how humans are fundamentally different than animals. You make it sound so obvious but won't give a single example.
You have no evidence of God but are willing to abdicate all moral responsibility and condemn an entire group of people acting as nature intended.
Do you also condemn people who recieve blood transfusions? That goes against nature more than homosexual behaviour.
Pray is talking to God. See how long any relationship can last if you do not talk to the other person.
There are homosexual penguins that have adopted a penquin chick.
Homosexuality is in nature.
It used to be that any examples in nature were written off as aberations then people started saying hey wait a second. Now that examples are not written off one by one they are seen to add up to being normal.
God doesn't talk to people and the relationship keeps going.
If God is talking to people he's lieing to most. Or the people are talking to God then lieing about what he says. How else do you explain the inconsistencies?
And you still havn't given one example of how humans are fundamentally different than animals. You make it sound so obvious but won't give a single example.
You have no evidence of God but are willing to abdicate all moral responsibility and condemn an entire group of people acting as nature intended.
Do you also condemn people who recieve blood transfusions? That goes against nature more than homosexual behaviour.
Buttershug the source of any government or any working group of people is authority. This was understood throughout history. It seems that it is not being taught today. It is clear that you do not understand the government of the United States.
Any government that is founded on force is subject to a greater force.
Throughout history, governments have recognized the advantage of accepting the authority of God as the basis of the government.
From the Old Testament the respect for the king came from the fact that the king was made king by God. The kings of Europe sought the recognition of the Church to insure their authority. I realize you have never heard of “ The divine right of kings”.
It is interesting that the kings attacked the Church, the source of their authority, and then lost their heads.
When the United States was founded, the founding fathers understood that they by themselves had no authority. The founding fathers understood that only authority above the powers of earth would allow a country to survive.
Their statement that the power that came from the Creator can be given directly to the people and the people have the power to create a government based on the laws of God. The government created in this way is above men or the changing whim of the people.
No matter how you would like it to be different, the laws of God are the laws of this country. Under our founding agreement, any time our government does not respect the source of the authority, the laws of God, the people are no longer required to support the government. The people may then establish a new government.
I have given you the logic and the observations that prove there is the One True God. For some reason, you can not even respond. I think you mind is blocked. All you need do is show s source for all that exists, that is not God.
I have direct evidence of the difference of man from the other animals. I am able to create. I am able to act against my animal instincts. I am able to consider abstract concepts. I am able to reach conclusions based on logic. I am able to love. I am able to see the hand of God in all things. The list goes on and on……..
If you do not have any of these attributes, and some times, I think you don’t, then I can understand your doubt of God and the special nature of man. If you can not see any of this then I think you should consider that you may have a lack of ability in this area.
I have no idea what your "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" Is. If "the Flying Spaghetti Monster" has all the same attributes of God then I think you should learn the correct name of God. If "the Flying Spaghetti Monster" is different then God then what is your point?
Any government that is founded on force is subject to a greater force.
Throughout history, governments have recognized the advantage of accepting the authority of God as the basis of the government.
From the Old Testament the respect for the king came from the fact that the king was made king by God. The kings of Europe sought the recognition of the Church to insure their authority. I realize you have never heard of “ The divine right of kings”.
It is interesting that the kings attacked the Church, the source of their authority, and then lost their heads.
When the United States was founded, the founding fathers understood that they by themselves had no authority. The founding fathers understood that only authority above the powers of earth would allow a country to survive.
Their statement that the power that came from the Creator can be given directly to the people and the people have the power to create a government based on the laws of God. The government created in this way is above men or the changing whim of the people.
No matter how you would like it to be different, the laws of God are the laws of this country. Under our founding agreement, any time our government does not respect the source of the authority, the laws of God, the people are no longer required to support the government. The people may then establish a new government.
I have given you the logic and the observations that prove there is the One True God. For some reason, you can not even respond. I think you mind is blocked. All you need do is show s source for all that exists, that is not God.
I have direct evidence of the difference of man from the other animals. I am able to create. I am able to act against my animal instincts. I am able to consider abstract concepts. I am able to reach conclusions based on logic. I am able to love. I am able to see the hand of God in all things. The list goes on and on……..
If you do not have any of these attributes, and some times, I think you don’t, then I can understand your doubt of God and the special nature of man. If you can not see any of this then I think you should consider that you may have a lack of ability in this area.
I have no idea what your "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" Is. If "the Flying Spaghetti Monster" has all the same attributes of God then I think you should learn the correct name of God. If "the Flying Spaghetti Monster" is different then God then what is your point?
Capracus why do you show such limited thinking? Why do you limit the population to the surface of the earth?
The form of government or the lack of a government does not protect an evil society from the results of being evil. A violation of the laws of nature, the laws of nature are the laws of God, has negative results. This is true for all physical or moral laws.
The form of government or the lack of a government does not protect an evil society from the results of being evil. A violation of the laws of nature, the laws of nature are the laws of God, has negative results. This is true for all physical or moral laws.
The flying spaghetti monster has many of the attributes of God with a few crucial differences.
FSM is of recent vintage and lacks parent-to-child indoctrination
FSM is not protected in any nation by anti-blasphemy laws
FSM lacks gravitas in the minds of Santa-loving 5-year-olds.
Therefore, FSM is a useful test object for philosophical criticism of God. Please demonstrate God and the FSM can be distinguished by a test, even in principle.
FSM is of recent vintage and lacks parent-to-child indoctrination
FSM is not protected in any nation by anti-blasphemy laws
FSM lacks gravitas in the minds of Santa-loving 5-year-olds.
Therefore, FSM is a useful test object for philosophical criticism of God. Please demonstrate God and the FSM can be distinguished by a test, even in principle.
Flyingbuttressman all you have expressed is opinion. Try again with some support for your opinion.
Buttershug you are trying to have it both ways. The nature of man requires actions of men and not the action of animals. If man is the same as any other animal then there is no limit on the actions of man that is not a limit on any animal.
Should man kill and eat other men. I don’t see animals considering the good of man. Why should man care about the animals? Why should man protect other men? Should man go around killing those that are not of the same pack or the same breed?
To those, that much is given much is expected. I do not understand why you are trying to degrade the nature of man.
You keep pointing out how man is acting like animals and get insulted and say that homosexuals are not animals. Please tell me why they are acting like animals?
Man is able to develop his or her character. I realize that character has gone out of style. I do not think very many if any on here even know what character is.
A person’s character is the attributes that a person wants to be. Man is able by freewill choice direct his or her character. This allows man to be more then an animal limited by animal instincts.
Of course, God talks to man. I see that you have a limited education in this area.
Would you care to tell me what you mean by “fundamentally different “? I have given you example after example and again you seem to be blank.
Your existence and that of the universe should be enough proof of God. What proof are you looking for? Why do you think God should give you more proof than you have?
It is not my place to condemn any one but it is my responsibility to witness and to tell what I see and understand of the laws of God. Who of you would let a person fall to their death without trying to stop them? Not helping would be like not telling a blind man that he is about to fall over a cliff.
Should man kill and eat other men. I don’t see animals considering the good of man. Why should man care about the animals? Why should man protect other men? Should man go around killing those that are not of the same pack or the same breed?
To those, that much is given much is expected. I do not understand why you are trying to degrade the nature of man.
You keep pointing out how man is acting like animals and get insulted and say that homosexuals are not animals. Please tell me why they are acting like animals?
Man is able to develop his or her character. I realize that character has gone out of style. I do not think very many if any on here even know what character is.
A person’s character is the attributes that a person wants to be. Man is able by freewill choice direct his or her character. This allows man to be more then an animal limited by animal instincts.
Of course, God talks to man. I see that you have a limited education in this area.
Would you care to tell me what you mean by “fundamentally different “? I have given you example after example and again you seem to be blank.
Your existence and that of the universe should be enough proof of God. What proof are you looking for? Why do you think God should give you more proof than you have?
It is not my place to condemn any one but it is my responsibility to witness and to tell what I see and understand of the laws of God. Who of you would let a person fall to their death without trying to stop them? Not helping would be like not telling a blind man that he is about to fall over a cliff.
Rpenner what does the history of people or the actions of people have to do with the attributes of God or the “The flying spaghetti monster”
It is true that God has a history throughout the ages. Our knowledge of God can be seen in the very start of the universe. Our knowledge of the nature of God existing outside of time can be understood even by our minds that are limited by a three-dimensional experience.
If there is no basic difference except name then the name is used only to insult God and those that believe in God.
It is true that God has a history throughout the ages. Our knowledge of God can be seen in the very start of the universe. Our knowledge of the nature of God existing outside of time can be understood even by our minds that are limited by a three-dimensional experience.
If there is no basic difference except name then the name is used only to insult God and those that believe in God.
QUOTE (tlocity+Jul 13 2009, 05:27 AM)
If there is no basic difference except name then
... God is as made-up as the FSM, is the only reasonable conclusion, surely.
It is you who introduced the identity between FSM and God, when the task was to distinguish them. The FSM is a silly, made-up thing. That you would regard God as essentially the same is probably disturbing to your co-religionists. But once you tell us that you have assumed FSM and God are the same, then you assume that God only exists in the imagination.
How could you have missed this really simple point.
... God is as made-up as the FSM, is the only reasonable conclusion, surely.
It is you who introduced the identity between FSM and God, when the task was to distinguish them. The FSM is a silly, made-up thing. That you would regard God as essentially the same is probably disturbing to your co-religionists. But once you tell us that you have assumed FSM and God are the same, then you assume that God only exists in the imagination.
How could you have missed this really simple point.
QUOTE
It is true that God has a history throughout the ages.
Quick question...
Which God?
Rpenner as I have said I have no idea what FSM is in the minds of the people on here. My question is intended for my education. I have made no link to God and FSM.
Is the link that is trying to be made just bigotry or is there some point to the concept? If it is just bigotry, I am disappointed that you would take part in this.
Is the link that is trying to be made just bigotry or is there some point to the concept? If it is just bigotry, I am disappointed that you would take part in this.
RobDegraves there is only one God. God is a proper name and is used in reference to the One True God.
There may be many gods but only one God. God is the One above all. There can only be One above all by definition.
There may be many gods but only one God. God is the One above all. There can only be One above all by definition.
QUOTE
There can only be One above all by definition.
What definition?
Allah?
Buddha?
Azura Mazda?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There can only be One above all by definition. |
What definition?
Allah?
Buddha?
Azura Mazda?
There may be many gods but only one God.
How about Gods then?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.