To be aware of all these contradictions and still believe then you must have a lot of faith. But to hold up the Bible as perfection is hard for me to accept. But I make no judgement of it.
It's a funny thing. Most Christians here in America believe you can go to heaven on faith alone, therefore not really needing to follow the vague and contradictory ethics of the Bible, just required to have plain old morality and faith is the general point of Christianity here. But yet some people have a hard time accepting belief without accepting the Bible as anything short of God's work.
Either way, despite the negativity of the conservative Christians, there are many ways of being a good Christian. What you think of the Bible doesn't really decide this. I've seen a lot of Christians from both sides. There are always a few from both groups that don't really walk the path they speak of. So anyone who thinks they can make a clear judgement on a person's faith based on what they say isn't being mature.
Sorry for being off-topic, I was just replying to some of the comments here.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Nov 21 2003, 06:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 21 2003, 06:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Define Real Christian. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Someone who follows the teachings of Christ.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Translation: don't be an ****.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Translation: Church and state should be separate entities, and you should respect them separately as long as the two do not directly conflict.
State-sanctioned homosexual marriages do not conflict with your right to practice your religion as you see fit. If you try to say that the state can only perform marriages condoned by YOUR religion, you're just trying to make life difficult for everyone else, and you're being an ****. And hence, not Christian.
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Nov 21 2003, 10:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Nov 21 2003, 10:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Nov 21 2003, 06:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 21 2003, 06:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Define Real Christian. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Someone who follows the teachings of Christ.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Translation: don't be an ****.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Translation: Church and state should be separate entities, and you should respect them separately as long as the two do not directly conflict.
State-sanctioned homosexual marriages do not conflict with your right to practice your religion as you see fit. If you try to say that the state can only perform marriages condoned by YOUR religion, you're just trying to make life difficult for everyone else, and you're being an ****. And hence, not Christian. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hang on - your quoting the Bible there Samwise.
As we have already established - the Bible is bunk. Rubbish. Pick and choose what you will. It has no authority and should not be given any credibility.
Please, dont tell me its untrustworthy, and then quote from it.
Someone who follows the teaching of Christ? Even the ones about sexual immorality? Wait wait wait, no not that one, all the other other ones we like.
Bosnian - 9/10 of those quotes in that freaking huge list of yours I put down to pure propaganda. Simply because in order to obtain bulk inconsistencies for their audience to try and awe them with the pure weight of it, they dont pick and choose their battles.
They go for the old translations, they savage context. I remember back in the old evolution flamewars someone would post a creationist website, and then all the evolutionists would jump on, find one error and then refuse to take it seriously from then on.
With the website you just gave me, approximately 1/2 of those can be answered by me alone, with a Bible and a day or two to spare. And I'm not even a heavily learned or interested Christian. This stuff is pure propaganda - preaching to a choir who will probably never actually open the Bible itself.
And I'd hate to see what a full Biblical scholar could do to that list. There are some really quality arguements for Biblical contradictions - about 5 I believe. The rest is translation misunderstandings, context twisting and relying upon the readers pure ignorance. Please, have a read of sites like that before they are posted. If you are a half interested Christian you should know enough of the Bible to realise that site is completley unreliable. To sum up, what bothers me most about that site is not that its critising the Bible, its the manner in which it is doing so. Throwing dirt, not decent arguements but bulk dirt.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They go for the old translations, they savage context.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't understand. You use an example but it isn't directly connected to the inconsistences so I don't know what you're talking about.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And I'd hate to see what a full Biblical scholar could do to that list. There are some really quality arguements for Biblical contradictions - about 5 I believe. The rest is translation misunderstandings, context twisting and relying upon the readers pure ignorance. Please, have a read of sites like that before they are posted.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> An example would be good. Like where are the misunderstandings and context twistings?
I'm not an anti-creatonist, anti-Christian, or anything like that. I'm just taking the anti-Bible side to evoke a good argument out of the Christians on this forum. But I'd like you to take note that you can't gain anything in an argument just with accussations. Give at least one source to support the basic idea of your post. If you don't feel like giving a source, then writing a comprehensive reply would be good.
Yes - Yes we should <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
And I realise that I didnt provide specific examples, so in said new thread I will do so. Perhaps a resurrection of the old Accuracy and Consistency thread might be the answer.
A good and fair response, Marine01. I'd like to respond in turn with agreements and my own arguments, but I just caught myself in a debate thread on forum on the internet. What the heck am I doing here?
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Nov 21 2003, 08:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 21 2003, 08:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As we have already established - the Bible is bunk. Rubbish. Pick and choose what you will. It has no authority and should not be given any credibility.
Please, dont tell me its untrustworthy, and then quote from it.
Someone who follows the teaching of Christ? Even the ones about sexual immorality? Wait wait wait, no not that one, all the other other ones we like. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wah wah wah wah wah. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> I'm well within my rights to say that some parts of the Bible have good stuff without saying that the entire thing is to be taken as literal historical fact. It's not as simple as "either you believe all of it or you believe none of it." And I'm saying the part about not being an **** is truth, and the part about God creating the world in seven days might be an exaggeration.
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Nov 22 2003, 08:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Nov 22 2003, 08:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Nov 21 2003, 08:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 21 2003, 08:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As we have already established - the Bible is bunk. Rubbish. Pick and choose what you will. It has no authority and should not be given any credibility.
Please, dont tell me its untrustworthy, and then quote from it.
Someone who follows the teaching of Christ? Even the ones about sexual immorality? Wait wait wait, no not that one, all the other other ones we like. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wah wah wah wah wah. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> I'm well within my rights to say that some parts of the Bible have good stuff without saying that the entire thing is to be taken as literal historical fact. It's not as simple as "either you believe all of it or you believe none of it." And I'm saying the part about not being an **** is truth, and the part about God creating the world in seven days might be an exaggeration. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Samwise you are telling me that certain passages are to be taken seriously, and certain other passages are not to be taken seriously.
Who gets to decide? Basically you are stripping the authority from the Bible itself and placing it upon yourself. I get to decide basically.
To call yourself a Christian or "a follower of christ" and then choose to ignore certain teachings of his is pure hypocracy, and thats what was turning me into a nubling flamer earlier in the thread.
<!--QuoteBegin--CForrester+Nov 21 2003, 08:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ Nov 21 2003, 08:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You're assuming that we're smarter than other animals and that all animals are stupid. Yes, they act on instinct, but they also reason and understand. Not as much as humans do obviously, and it's not as apparent because they communicate differently, but they do reason and understand.
I'm not saying that we're "no better" than dogs when it comes to sex. I'm just saying that sex has more than one reason other than procreation. It's also for pleasure and expressing love. (Saying that other animals don't love is just ignorant)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People have sex for variuos reasons and people love things/people for there own reasons just because they belive it to be right doesn't make it so. Then beasteality would be kosher?? Hell bessie's lookin mighty fine......seriuosly though love is not an abnormality it is a "feeling" a reason a thing but it is natural for people to love wether a love for there kid or for there mate animals show no "love" for there own because they are animals they go on insticnt and "example". The mother bird will push the chicks out the nest so that they learn to fend for themselves and become adults in a sense people do this but to a higher degree of emotion we don't simply know when a kid is ready and if a kid is defective we do not kill them and forget the decisions made by humans are filled with alot of feelings.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Animals love, too. Also, I've got a problem with beastiality (Having sex with another species purely for the sex, against the animal's will) but see nothing wrong with zoophilia. (Having sex with another species because you love the animal, and because it loves you) Once again, saying that other animals do not love is just an ignorant statement. That's like saying that humans don't have a killing instinct, or a "Fight or Flight" instict.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just because we are a part of nature doesnt mean we are natural with how we live today no one is "real" everyone including myself has relied on other means of life when nature deals you a raw deal....other wise we wouldn't have plastic sergury or artificial insemenation so it is ok for homosexuls to be loved and feel love but plz stop trying to make it sound like it is normal i keep makin the point that it is natural for the "tools" to work you cant fit a bit into the wrong position b/c it just wont work as with homosexuality if was meant to be then 2 men or 2 women should be able to produce a baby with outside insemenation or with surreget mothers so it has to be wrong other wise it wouldnt work.....Again i am ot saying i hate homosexuals or am bashin them but it is what it is i have had this discussion with some of my friends one of whom is g@y and we both clashed in views but this is a topic that will never be resolved to everyones satifaction..<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Homosexuality isn't a choice. You can't say "Okay today, I'm going to be a homosexual" one and then say "Okay today, I'm going to be a heterosexual" the next. Well, you can SAY it, but it's not going to be true. You're assuming that sex is ONLY for procreation (having children) but it's not. It's also for pleasure and to express love. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> .....I never said that you just decide one day oh i think i am gonna be g@y and let it be i said that it has to with biology and peoples "chemistry" i never said people choose to be g@y.....
Ok wel i dont know about your whole beastiality is bad zoofilia is good thoery the animal is not meant to have sex with unless you are of that particular speceis either way it is sick....beside how do you know that the animal loves you?? for all the human knows its in heat....or is pent up by itself..i had homosexual cats before and it was odd seeing your 2 male cats trying to have sex i just pulled them away from one another but i felt sorry for them cuz for all they knew that was all that there was just "boys". And they needed to get there rocks off they are animals i wouldnt expect much else.
Animals dont show love they are not human people give animals too much credit to them. An animal can show "afection" but it is only when they are little and it is not really love it is for survival and like you better not mess with my young you sona b189u. Just because you some animals are able to be broken into house pets doesnt mean they love you for it...animals are ignorant they have no real logic or reasoning they have instinct and "feelings" in the sense that god damn that fire burns i better not touch that a gain and sometimes they will still touch it again to see if it still wil burn animals ARE DUMB they can be "taught" but with harsh methods to imbed that if i dont listen i will get hit that is all that goes through a dogs head and a cat is like of if i purr they will tend to me if they cry they will tend to me they only use there instincts.
I am not saying they cant have sex and they cant be in love I am saying stop trying to make it sound normal i could care less if they wanted to marry and be together i am just tired of people trying to make it like we should feel sorry or that its ok.......i cant say it enuff. You obviously dont know how to comprehend what i am saying i am saying what i mean and there is no other side of the fence it is what it is every point you make just shows your ignorance its not the other way around.
<!--QuoteBegin--[DT]StrongBad+Nov 22 2003, 11:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([DT]StrongBad @ Nov 22 2003, 11:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--CForrester+Nov 21 2003, 08:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ Nov 21 2003, 08:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You're assuming that we're smarter than other animals and that all animals are stupid. Yes, they act on instinct, but they also reason and understand. Not as much as humans do obviously, and it's not as apparent because they communicate differently, but they do reason and understand.
I'm not saying that we're "no better" than dogs when it comes to sex. I'm just saying that sex has more than one reason other than procreation. It's also for pleasure and expressing love. (Saying that other animals don't love is just ignorant)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People have sex for variuos reasons and people love things/people for there own reasons just because they belive it to be right doesn't make it so. Then beasteality would be kosher?? Hell bessie's lookin mighty fine......seriuosly though love is not an abnormality it is a "feeling" a reason a thing but it is natural for people to love wether a love for there kid or for there mate animals show no "love" for there own because they are animals they go on insticnt and "example". The mother bird will push the chicks out the nest so that they learn to fend for themselves and become adults in a sense people do this but to a higher degree of emotion we don't simply know when a kid is ready and if a kid is defective we do not kill them and forget the decisions made by humans are filled with alot of feelings.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Animals love, too. Also, I've got a problem with beastiality (Having sex with another species purely for the sex, against the animal's will) but see nothing wrong with zoophilia. (Having sex with another species because you love the animal, and because it loves you) Once again, saying that other animals do not love is just an ignorant statement. That's like saying that humans don't have a killing instinct, or a "Fight or Flight" instict.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just because we are a part of nature doesnt mean we are natural with how we live today no one is "real" everyone including myself has relied on other means of life when nature deals you a raw deal....other wise we wouldn't have plastic sergury or artificial insemenation so it is ok for homosexuls to be loved and feel love but plz stop trying to make it sound like it is normal i keep makin the point that it is natural for the "tools" to work you cant fit a bit into the wrong position b/c it just wont work as with homosexuality if was meant to be then 2 men or 2 women should be able to produce a baby with outside insemenation or with surreget mothers so it has to be wrong other wise it wouldnt work.....Again i am ot saying i hate homosexuals or am bashin them but it is what it is i have had this discussion with some of my friends one of whom is g@y and we both clashed in views but this is a topic that will never be resolved to everyones satifaction..<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Homosexuality isn't a choice. You can't say "Okay today, I'm going to be a homosexual" one and then say "Okay today, I'm going to be a heterosexual" the next. Well, you can SAY it, but it's not going to be true. You're assuming that sex is ONLY for procreation (having children) but it's not. It's also for pleasure and to express love. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> .....I never said that you just decide one day oh i think i am gonna be g@y and let it be i said that it has to with biology and peoples "chemistry" i never said people choose to be g@y.....
Ok wel i dont know about your whole beastiality is bad zoofilia is good thoery the animal is not meant to have sex with unless you are of that particular speceis either way it is sick....beside how do you know that the animal loves you?? for all the human knows its in heat....or is pent up by itself..i had homosexual cats before and it was odd seeing your 2 male cats trying to have sex i just pulled them away from one another but i felt sorry for them cuz for all they knew that was all that there was just "boys". And they needed to get there rocks off they are animals i wouldnt expect much else.
Animals dont show love they are not human people give animals too much credit to them. An animal can show "afection" but it is only when they are little and it is not really love it is for survival and like you better not mess with my young you sona b189u. Just because you some animals are able to be broken into house pets doesnt mean they love you for it...animals are ignorant they have no real logic or reasoning they have instinct and "feelings" in the sense that god damn that fire burns i better not touch that a gain and sometimes they will still touch it again to see if it still wil burn animals ARE DUMB they can be "taught" but with harsh methods to imbed that if i dont listen i will get hit that is all that goes through a dogs head and a cat is like of if i purr they will tend to me if they cry they will tend to me they only use there instincts.
I am not saying they cant have sex and they cant be in love I am saying stop trying to make it sound normal i could care less if they wanted to marry and be together i am just tired of people trying to make it like we should feel sorry or that its ok.......i cant say it enuff. You obviously dont know how to comprehend what i am saying i am saying what i mean and there is no other side of the fence it is what it is every point you make just shows your ignorance its not the other way around.
Billy Hives <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Lets just stay away from comparing homosexuality to bestiality shall we? We already ran through that whole thing in one of those old homosexuality threads we had.
As for the ruling, all I can say is: SUCK IT YOU HOMPHOBE ****!
<!--QuoteBegin--[DT]StrongBad+Nov 23 2003, 12:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([DT]StrongBad @ Nov 23 2003, 12:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I am not saying they cant have sex and they cant be in love I am saying stop trying to make it sound normal i could care less if they wanted to marry and be together i am just tired of people trying to make it like we should feel sorry or that its ok.......i cant say it enuff. You obviously dont know how to comprehend what i am saying i am saying what i mean and there is no other side of the fence it is what it is every point you make just shows your ignorance its not the other way around. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I know you aren't saying that they shouldn't be allowed to have sex or be in love. I'm saying that it is normal, just like heterosexual sex. It's obvious that I'm not going to convince you, but I want to get this clear in your head: Just because you think that it isn't normal doesn't make it true. There is no such thing as a "normal" animal, either.
<!--QuoteBegin--CForrester+Nov 23 2003, 09:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ Nov 23 2003, 09:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I know you aren't saying that they shouldn't be allowed to have sex or be in love. I'm saying that it is normal, just like heterosexual sex. It's obvious that I'm not going to convince you, but I want to get this clear in your head: Just because you think that it isn't normal doesn't make it true. There is no such thing as a "normal" animal, either. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Just because you think it is normal doesnt make it true either
(and the bible takes the same position on sex with animals as it does on homosexuality - its an abomination)
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Nov 23 2003, 04:08 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Nov 23 2003, 04:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--CForrester+Nov 23 2003, 09:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ Nov 23 2003, 09:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I know you aren't saying that they shouldn't be allowed to have sex or be in love. I'm saying that it is normal, just like heterosexual sex. It's obvious that I'm not going to convince you, but I want to get this clear in your head: Just because you think that it isn't normal doesn't make it true. There is no such thing as a "normal" animal, either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just because you think it is normal doesnt make it true either
(and the bible takes the same position on sex with animals as it does on homosexuality - its an abomination) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And just because a book written by an unknown, unverifiable man, about unknow, unverifiable events, 2,000 years ago says so, doesn't mean it's true either. Hey look! The earth is flat!
<!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Nov 23 2003, 01:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Nov 23 2003, 01:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Lets just stay away from comparing homosexuality to bestiality shall we? We already ran through that whole thing in one of those old homosexuality threads we had.
As for the ruling, all I can say is: SUCK IT YOU HOMPHOBE ****! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Its true, I brought it up in an old thread. And you have to be careful when making the comparision because it can easily turn into demonising.
What was concluded is that the real difference between man/man and man/animal was consent. That still doesnt sit right with me, but that was the general concensus.
Meh to homophobe comment - dont pretend that everyone on the opposing side is scared of what they dont understand and as such oppose it. I have many friends, especially work collegues who are g4y, and I neither fear them nor beat them with Bibles. But I still hold to my belief that its wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--uranium - 235+Nov 23 2003, 11:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (uranium - 235 @ Nov 23 2003, 11:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you're talking about the 'earth is flat' comment, I meant that in a 'if we believed everything we were told' sort of way. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> no, i was talking about the fact that you thought the bible was written 2000 years ago by Joe Bloggs from across the road
but, if you want to carry on talking about this, there is another thread dedicated to it, to save dragging this one of topic
Marine, the bible may say that homosexuality is a sin, but I don't think the US can base its laws on a religious law. In my opinion all laws should be made on the premise that the Constitution is the greatest authority in the land, not God. He may exist, but we can't know for sure, so we shouldn't base our lives on a hypothetical concept. Anyway, I don't think the govt should force the church and mosque and synagogue to grant g@y marriages. That is a breach of their freedom. However, it shouldn't withhold rights to married g@ys that married heteros would normally have. (you can have a hetero marriage by the state and have the same rights as if you were married in a church.. I think)
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Nov 22 2003, 07:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 22 2003, 07:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Samwise you are telling me that certain passages are to be taken seriously, and certain other passages are not to be taken seriously. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No. All passages are to be taken seriously. And all passages are to be taken in cultural and historical context.
Some statements can be judged to be unaffected by context - "do unto others," for example, the commandment that Jesus says is to be held above all others. There's nothing to indicate that this is any less true today than it was two thousand years ago, and it's reinforced by the fact that similar teachings can be found in almost every other major religion.
Other passages can be found to be influenced heavily by conditions that are no longer true. For example, creation stories that were penned by nearly-prehistoric man. A non-fundamentalist, when reading Genesis, reasons that humans at that stage in history couldn't have conceived of the universe as we understand it today, and God wouldn't have gained much by trying to explain it to them - they'd have gotten bogged down in basically irrelevant details. What IS in Genesis is the IMPORTANT bit, spiritually speaking - the notion that God is a loving creator, that we're imperfect, that life will therefore be imperfect, et cetera. The seven-days-to-create-the-world stuff was put in there because it made the story easier to understand to the audience at that time.
So in a similar vein, I'm saying that teachings against homosexuality were influenced heavily by cultural taboos and incomplete medical knowledge. It was believed, for example, that sperm could be "wasted", hindering reproductive ability. It was believed that it was necessary for humans to reproduce as often as possible, lest we become extinct. It was believed that homosexuality was a completely deliberate choice, not influenced by genetic or even environmental factors. I submit that had the authors of the Bible known better, they would not have categorized homosexuality as sexual immorality (it's unique among the other types of sexual immorality in that it harms no one, which makes me suspect it doesn't really belong there with adultery and rape and so forth) - and we'll note that Jesus speaks against sexual immorality in general, but not homosexuality specifically.
<!--QuoteBegin--Windelkron+Nov 23 2003, 09:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Windelkron @ Nov 23 2003, 09:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Marine, the bible may say that homosexuality is a sin, but I don't think the US can base its laws on a religious law. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ...and that's the real issue here. Thanks for steering us back on track, Windel. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Nov 23 2003, 08:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 23 2003, 08:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Nov 23 2003, 01:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Nov 23 2003, 01:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Lets just stay away from comparing homosexuality to bestiality shall we? We already ran through that whole thing in one of those old homosexuality threads we had.
As for the ruling, all I can say is: SUCK IT YOU HOMPHOBE ****! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Its true, I brought it up in an old thread. And you have to be careful when making the comparision because it can easily turn into demonising.
What was concluded is that the real difference between man/man and man/animal was consent. That still doesnt sit right with me, but that was the general concensus.
Meh to homophobe comment - dont pretend that everyone on the opposing side is scared of what they dont understand and as such oppose it. I have many friends, especially work collegues who are g4y, and I neither fear them nor beat them with Bibles. But I still hold to my belief that its wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sorry if you felt that comment was directed towards you. As you can see from my numerous postings on the subject in previous threads, I consider there to be two camps when it comes to people who argue that homosexuality is wrong: Those that have religious resons (you, boggle, ect), and those that are homophobes (to whom that comment was addressed). I was mearly enthusiastic that, at least, somewhere in this country there were people in power who weren't homophobes.
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Nov 23 2003, 10:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Nov 23 2003, 10:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Nov 22 2003, 07:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 22 2003, 07:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Samwise you are telling me that certain passages are to be taken seriously, and certain other passages are not to be taken seriously. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No. All passages are to be taken seriously. And all passages are to be taken in cultural and historical context.
Some statements can be judged to be unaffected by context - "do unto others," for example, the commandment that Jesus says is to be held above all others. There's nothing to indicate that this is any less true today than it was two thousand years ago, and it's reinforced by the fact that similar teachings can be found in almost every other major religion.
Other passages can be found to be influenced heavily by conditions that are no longer true. For example, creation stories that were penned by nearly-prehistoric man. A non-fundamentalist, when reading Genesis, reasons that humans at that stage in history couldn't have conceived of the universe as we understand it today, and God wouldn't have gained much by trying to explain it to them - they'd have gotten bogged down in basically irrelevant details. What IS in Genesis is the IMPORTANT bit, spiritually speaking - the notion that God is a loving creator, that we're imperfect, that life will therefore be imperfect, et cetera. The seven-days-to-create-the-world stuff was put in there because it made the story easier to understand to the audience at that time.
So in a similar vein, I'm saying that teachings against homosexuality were influenced heavily by cultural taboos and incomplete medical knowledge. It was believed, for example, that sperm could be "wasted", hindering reproductive ability. It was believed that it was necessary for humans to reproduce as often as possible, lest we become extinct. It was believed that homosexuality was a completely deliberate choice, not influenced by genetic or even environmental factors. I submit that had the authors of the Bible known better, they would not have categorized homosexuality as sexual immorality (it's unique among the other types of sexual immorality in that it harms no one, which makes me suspect it doesn't really belong there with adultery and rape and so forth) - and we'll note that Jesus speaks against sexual immorality in general, but not homosexuality specifically. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Hrrmmmm - I can certainly see where you are coming from, but I cant agree. Jesus was supposed to be very well educated in Jewish scripture. The fact that he doesnt criticise homosexuality specifically doesnt add to its legitimacy as a lifestyle choice. He criticised it using a generalisation that all of his listeners would have known. I do not have to specifically say "and nuclear weapons" when talking about wmd - nor should WMD be taken to mean I specifically didnt mention nuclear weapons for a reason.
It seems that you are taking the approach that the Laws in Leviticus were not given by God as claimed but invented by the Israelites... another case of the Bible lying and the supposed All powerful God being powerless to stop it.
Jesus himself often qouted from the OT - but you will not give it the same credibility he did. Jesus claimed to be the same God as that written about in the OT. Admittedly, Jesus did tell the Jews they had taken the Law as given in Leviticus too far, but he didnt claim that those laws were now bunk.
It was also given the stronger "as this is an abomination before the LORD" clause on the end. I still see no reason to treat it as less serious then any other of the sexual sins.
Skulkbait - understood. No offense taken what so ever.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Nov 23 2003, 10:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 23 2003, 10:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It seems that you are taking the approach that the Laws in Leviticus were not given by God as claimed but invented by the Israelites... another case of the Bible lying and the supposed All powerful God being powerless to stop it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Again, it's not a black or white issue of the Bible "lying". It's just a case of it often being written to a specific audience. The laws in Leviticus were based in large part around the needs of the Israelites at the time that book was written. The vast majority of them pertained to: <ul> <li>Maintaing social structure (an eye for an eye) <li>Sanitation (kosher laws) <li>Increasing population (bans on any behavior thought to decrease chances of having kids) </ul> We'll note that Jesus spoke out against a too-literal interpretation of "an eye for an eye", preaching that forgiveness and mercy are better than getting the other guy back. And modern Christians don't follow kosher laws at all, thanks to that little chat with Paul (conveniently, we now know enough about sanitation that we can avoid most food-borne diseases without following anything as strict as what Leviticus sets forth).
I think it's also significant that Jesus says "the devil can quote Scripture for his own purposes." To me, this says that quoting Scripture in itself is not enough - you need to take it in context and understand the meaning behind it. Fundamentalists with carefully bookmarked and highlighted passages (evangelizing Jehovah's Witnesses at the bus stop, for example) always strike me as the sort that Jesus was cautioning against.
Finally, regarding the Bible being infallible because God wouldn't allow it to contain "lies," come on now. If God made it his business to smite everyone who garbled the message, do you think I (who by your standards am a blasphemer of the first order) would be sitting here unsmoten?
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Nov 24 2003, 10:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Nov 24 2003, 10:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Finally, regarding the Bible being infallible because God wouldn't allow it to contain "lies," come on now. If God made it his business to smite everyone who garbled the message, do you think I (who by your standards am a blasphemer of the first order) would be sitting here unsmoten? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think the smiting happens after you die. God doesn't much interfere with the real world, as in 'good' doesn't win and 'evil' doesn't lose and die in agony. Often it's quite the opposite, so we have to assume that god gets medieval on my blasphemer arse in afterlife.
Poor me <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Nov 24 2003, 03:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Nov 24 2003, 03:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Nov 23 2003, 10:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 23 2003, 10:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It seems that you are taking the approach that the Laws in Leviticus were not given by God as claimed but invented by the Israelites... another case of the Bible lying and the supposed All powerful God being powerless to stop it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Again, it's not a black or white issue of the Bible "lying". It's just a case of it often being written to a specific audience. The laws in Leviticus were based in large part around the needs of the Israelites at the time that book was written. The vast majority of them pertained to: <ul> <li>Maintaing social structure (an eye for an eye) <li>Sanitation (kosher laws) <li>Increasing population (bans on any behavior thought to decrease chances of having kids) </ul> We'll note that Jesus spoke out against a too-literal interpretation of "an eye for an eye", preaching that forgiveness and mercy are better than getting the other guy back. And modern Christians don't follow kosher laws at all, thanks to that little chat with Paul (conveniently, we now know enough about sanitation that we can avoid most food-borne diseases without following anything as strict as what Leviticus sets forth).
I think it's also significant that Jesus says "the devil can quote Scripture for his own purposes." To me, this says that quoting Scripture in itself is not enough - you need to take it in context and understand the meaning behind it. Fundamentalists with carefully bookmarked and highlighted passages (evangelizing Jehovah's Witnesses at the bus stop, for example) always strike me as the sort that Jesus was cautioning against.
Finally, regarding the Bible being infallible because God wouldn't allow it to contain "lies," come on now. If God made it his business to smite everyone who garbled the message, do you think I (who by your standards am a blasphemer of the first order) would be sitting here unsmoten? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sif ur a blasphemer - ur just a little bit of a nublet <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Context and understanding are great. And they do often get savaged by both the Fundamentalist and the Liberal. However, it is so very much easier to be a conservative then a Liberal. I have dealt relatively easily with many liberals (in the church) simply because they often have litte/no backing - either Biblical or otherwise. They are rarely the dedicated ones.
The Fundamentalists get right in there, they are deeply and thoroughly interested in the Bible, understanding of and defence of. I cant say the same for most liberals, they seem to have less knowledge, less understanding and less to back themselves up - and more "its the whole vibe of it" stuff.
And it really cant be that way. If you want to go liberal as a christian, your task is far harder than the conservative. Life's tougher on the edge, when you are pushing the envelope, and you need to be so much more careful - and I just dont see that. Very few Liberal christians (i.e. supporters of homosexuality) are even interested enough to dig for Biblical backing, and when it does come for that - it turns into a slur campaign on the Biblical authors.
I question number 3 on that list. I can see what gives you that impression, but how do you know that? Also, can you please point out the differing context and meaning behind the old testament slamming of the practise of Homosexuality. With the context and meaning that I read in everything pertaining to homosexuality - it is all completely negative. Jesus spoke about forgiveness and mercy and tolerance - but not towards evil. Unlike most of the kosher laws, social laws etc - homosexuality was called evil. An abomination. The others were "dont do this, dont do that" - homosexuality was "dont do this, its evil".
If God didnt make it his business to protect what he calls his Word from being garbled, I would be shocked and disappointed. As history will show you, he's done a freaking good job for the past 2000 years. And sif I'm going to take anything seriously in a 2000+ yr old book thats got bs that Jesus himself qoutes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're assuming that we're smarter than other animals and that all animals are stupid. Yes, they act on instinct, but they also reason and understand.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well... that depends, what are you going to qualify as 'reasoning and understanding'? When talking about animals, many behaviours, such as altruism for example, have direct consequences on their ability to reproduce. It isn't like they are truely demonstrating intelligence, feelings or whatever, it is usually due to the fact they are propagating their genes in the optimal way. For example, ants use a fungus that produces an antibiotic to keep mould from growing on their food fungus farm (or is it the other way around O_o...). Is this intelligence? No, probably not. It is unlikely that the ants deliberately discovered the antibiotic reistant fungus, and probably picked it up from natural fungus growing in their farms. Colonies that developed a symbiotic relationship did better than those that didn't and the rest is history. It isn't really the same thing as what we do with GE bacteria for example or with other biological controls we do.
As for a sponge, care to make any logical sounding argument that a sponge or jellyfish can reason or understand? Or are we going to conveniently confine the definition of 'animal' to higher vertebrates? Now that I think of it, care to provide an invertebrate example of reasoning and understanding?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not saying that we're "no better" than dogs when it comes to sex. I'm just saying that sex has more than one reason other than procreation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But hold on, dogs only breed due to signals from a female at certain times of the year. This is all programmed in animals so that they breed at times where conditions are BEST to rear offspring. There isn't some sort of logic behind that other than it is the best time to do it. Animals don't have sex to affirm a relationship or bond, because most don't have that to begin with (including pack/herd animals like wolves and baboons), it's simply all about genes.
Humans are different in that respect and is why we shouldn't be comparing the likes of homosexual behaviours in humans to animals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's also for pleasure and expressing love.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Love is a human emotion, and you really can't apply human emotions onto animals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(Saying that other animals don't love is just ignorant)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree and would bet that you'd have a massively difficult time giving a SINGLE example of an insect demonstrating 'love'. Every time you'd have to come up with far fetched vertebrate examples (which would boil back down to genes) or redefine animal to suit your premise.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, I've got a problem with beastiality (Having sex with another species purely for the sex, against the animal's will) but see nothing wrong with zoophilia. (Having sex with another species because you love the animal, and because it loves you)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would support neither, and the second one is just completely wrong on so many levels.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Once again, saying that other animals do not love is just an ignorant statement. That's like saying that humans don't have a killing instinct, or a "Fight or Flight" instict.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hold on, no it isn't. You are comparing an undefined term to those that are in fact biologically built in (and we can see why). The flight or fight responce is actually based off hormonal levels and rapid physiological changes that occur over a very short period. Many chordates (such as mammals) express these kinds of systems. Trying to argue (as you are) that a lion loves it's cubs or a bird its chicks IS totally silly.
I would tend to agree, because I think there is a firm psychological or genetic basis in it somewhere. But this is not 100% known for certain, it could be a choice, we don't know yet. Of course, if you know the answer you could win a nobel prize in psychology for revealing it (scientifically).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You're assuming that sex is ONLY for procreation (having children) but it's not. It's also for pleasure and to express love.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, in humans this is exactly true because we're not really like other animals in this respect. Whereas in most animals sex is simply a desire to spread genes, in us it's uniquely different partly because we can breed all year around. The only other animal that has sex for pleasure is in fact...dolphins. I suppose you could attempt to argue that certain kinds of monkeys (bonobos) do as well, but that is less conclusive.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know you aren't saying that they shouldn't be allowed to have sex or be in love. I'm saying that it is normal, just like heterosexual sex.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it depends sorta on who you are wanting to talk to. Certainly attraction to members of your own sex occurs throughout many different animals, monkeys, apes, dogs and possibly dolphins engage in a bit of homosexual conduct. The difference comes down to the fact that homosexuality is death to ones particular genes in 'animal' populations and not really in human ones (Two words: Sperm Bank or Egg Donor). This makes the situation different on a biological level, especially considering that **** couples CAN have children via rather 'unnatural' means.
In addition, for **** men, going the anal route is usually very damagine to anal tissues and is why AIDs was so prevalent in **** male populations. No condoms, and massive tissue damage allows the virus to get in extremely easily. It doesn't take a lot of investigation to reveal that human anuses aren't designed for having a sausage stuck up them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's obvious that I'm not going to convince you, but I want to get this clear in your head: Just because you think that it isn't normal doesn't make it true.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very true.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no such thing as a "normal" animal, either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Depends, according to vegetarians, animal rights activists etc I've ever argued with the only animals that exist are chordates :/ Insects are never considered, cephalopods unimportant and sponges don't exist. But yes, I'd agree there is no such thing as a normal animal, but there are normal biological behaviours observed right throughout the animal kingdom right up to humans.
You are getting way, way off-topic here. Please get back to discussing the topic, Ruling on G*y marriage in Mass. Your current discussion belongs in another thread.
<!--QuoteBegin--Immacolata+Nov 24 2003, 10:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Immacolata @ Nov 24 2003, 10:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You are getting way, way off-topic here. Please get back to discussing the topic, Ruling on G*y marriage in Mass. Your current discussion belongs in another thread. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually that sounds like a good idea, although it still bears relevance (at least some of it here), I'll make a new discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're assuming that we're smarter than other animals and that all animals are stupid. Yes, they act on instinct, but they also reason and understand.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well... that depends, what are you going to qualify as 'reasoning and understanding'? When talking about animals, many behaviours, such as altruism for example, have direct consequences on their ability to reproduce. It isn't like they are truely demonstrating intelligence, feelings or whatever, it is usually due to the fact they are propagating their genes in the optimal way. For example, ants use a fungus that produces an antibiotic to keep mould from growing on their food fungus farm (or is it the other way around O_o...). Is this intelligence? No, probably not. It is unlikely that the ants deliberately discovered the antibiotic reistant fungus, and probably picked it up from natural fungus growing in their farms. Colonies that developed a symbiotic relationship did better than those that didn't and the rest is history. It isn't really the same thing as what we do with GE bacteria for example or with other biological controls we do.
As for a sponge, care to make any logical sounding argument that a sponge or jellyfish can reason or understand? Or are we going to conveniently confine the definition of 'animal' to higher vertebrates? Now that I think of it, care to provide an invertebrate example of reasoning and understanding?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not saying that we're "no better" than dogs when it comes to sex. I'm just saying that sex has more than one reason other than procreation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But hold on, dogs only breed due to signals from a female at certain times of the year. This is all programmed in animals so that they breed at times where conditions are BEST to rear offspring. There isn't some sort of logic behind that other than it is the best time to do it. Animals don't have sex to affirm a relationship or bond, because most don't have that to begin with (including pack/herd animals like wolves and baboons), it's simply all about genes.
Humans are different in that respect and is why we shouldn't be comparing the likes of homosexual behaviours in humans to animals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's also for pleasure and expressing love.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Love is a human emotion, and you really can't apply human emotions onto animals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(Saying that other animals don't love is just ignorant)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree and would bet that you'd have a massively difficult time giving a SINGLE example of an insect demonstrating 'love'. Every time you'd have to come up with far fetched vertebrate examples (which would boil back down to genes) or redefine animal to suit your premise.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, I've got a problem with beastiality (Having sex with another species purely for the sex, against the animal's will) but see nothing wrong with zoophilia. (Having sex with another species because you love the animal, and because it loves you)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would support neither, and the second one is just completely wrong on so many levels.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Once again, saying that other animals do not love is just an ignorant statement. That's like saying that humans don't have a killing instinct, or a "Fight or Flight" instict.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hold on, no it isn't. You are comparing an undefined term to those that are in fact biologically built in (and we can see why). The flight or fight responce is actually based off hormonal levels and rapid physiological changes that occur over a very short period. Many chordates (such as mammals) express these kinds of systems. Trying to argue (as you are) that a lion loves it's cubs or a bird its chicks IS totally silly.
I would tend to agree, because I think there is a firm psychological or genetic basis in it somewhere. But this is not 100% known for certain, it could be a choice, we don't know yet. Of course, if you know the answer you could win a nobel prize in psychology for revealing it (scientifically).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You're assuming that sex is ONLY for procreation (having children) but it's not. It's also for pleasure and to express love.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, in humans this is exactly true because we're not really like other animals in this respect. Whereas in most animals sex is simply a desire to spread genes, in us it's uniquely different partly because we can breed all year around. The only other animal that has sex for pleasure is in fact...dolphins. I suppose you could attempt to argue that certain kinds of monkeys (bonobos) do as well, but that is less conclusive.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know you aren't saying that they shouldn't be allowed to have sex or be in love. I'm saying that it is normal, just like heterosexual sex.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it depends sorta on who you are wanting to talk to. Certainly attraction to members of your own sex occurs throughout many different animals, monkeys, apes, dogs and possibly dolphins engage in a bit of homosexual conduct. The difference comes down to the fact that homosexuality is death to ones particular genes in 'animal' populations and not really in human ones (Two words: Sperm Bank or Egg Donor). This makes the situation different on a biological level, especially considering that **** couples CAN have children via rather 'unnatural' means.
In addition, for **** men, going the anal route is usually very damagine to anal tissues and is why AIDs was so prevalent in **** male populations. No condoms, and massive tissue damage allows the virus to get in extremely easily. It doesn't take a lot of investigation to reveal that human anuses aren't designed for having a sausage stuck up them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's obvious that I'm not going to convince you, but I want to get this clear in your head: Just because you think that it isn't normal doesn't make it true.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very true.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no such thing as a "normal" animal, either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Depends, according to vegetarians, animal rights activists etc I've ever argued with the only animals that exist are chordates :/ Insects are never considered, cephalopods unimportant and sponges don't exist. But yes, I'd agree there is no such thing as a normal animal, but there are normal biological behaviours observed right throughout the animal kingdom right up to humans. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> OMgosh ty someone who can scientifcally convey what i said in lamens terms!!!
Comments
<a href='http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/don...istencies.shtml</a>
To be aware of all these contradictions and still believe then you must have a lot of faith. But to hold up the Bible as perfection is hard for me to accept. But I make no judgement of it.
It's a funny thing. Most Christians here in America believe you can go to heaven on faith alone, therefore not really needing to follow the vague and contradictory ethics of the Bible, just required to have plain old morality and faith is the general point of Christianity here. But yet some people have a hard time accepting belief without accepting the Bible as anything short of God's work.
Either way, despite the negativity of the conservative Christians, there are many ways of being a good Christian. What you think of the Bible doesn't really decide this. I've seen a lot of Christians from both sides. There are always a few from both groups that don't really walk the path they speak of. So anyone who thinks they can make a clear judgement on a person's faith based on what they say isn't being mature.
Sorry for being off-topic, I was just replying to some of the comments here.
Someone who follows the teachings of Christ.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Translation: don't be an ****.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Translation: Church and state should be separate entities, and you should respect them separately as long as the two do not directly conflict.
State-sanctioned homosexual marriages do not conflict with your right to practice your religion as you see fit. If you try to say that the state can only perform marriages condoned by YOUR religion, you're just trying to make life difficult for everyone else, and you're being an ****. And hence, not Christian.
Someone who follows the teachings of Christ.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Translation: don't be an ****.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Translation: Church and state should be separate entities, and you should respect them separately as long as the two do not directly conflict.
State-sanctioned homosexual marriages do not conflict with your right to practice your religion as you see fit. If you try to say that the state can only perform marriages condoned by YOUR religion, you're just trying to make life difficult for everyone else, and you're being an ****. And hence, not Christian. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hang on - your quoting the Bible there Samwise.
As we have already established - the Bible is bunk. Rubbish. Pick and choose what you will. It has no authority and should not be given any credibility.
Please, dont tell me its untrustworthy, and then quote from it.
Someone who follows the teaching of Christ? Even the ones about sexual immorality? Wait wait wait, no not that one, all the other other ones we like.
Bosnian - 9/10 of those quotes in that freaking huge list of yours I put down to pure propaganda. Simply because in order to obtain bulk inconsistencies for their audience to try and awe them with the pure weight of it, they dont pick and choose their battles.
They go for the old translations, they savage context. I remember back in the old evolution flamewars someone would post a creationist website, and then all the evolutionists would jump on, find one error and then refuse to take it seriously from then on.
With the website you just gave me, approximately 1/2 of those can be answered by me alone, with a Bible and a day or two to spare. And I'm not even a heavily learned or interested Christian. This stuff is pure propaganda - preaching to a choir who will probably never actually open the Bible itself.
And I'd hate to see what a full Biblical scholar could do to that list. There are some really quality arguements for Biblical contradictions - about 5 I believe. The rest is translation misunderstandings, context twisting and relying upon the readers pure ignorance. Please, have a read of sites like that before they are posted. If you are a half interested Christian you should know enough of the Bible to realise that site is completley unreliable. To sum up, what bothers me most about that site is not that its critising the Bible, its the manner in which it is doing so. Throwing dirt, not decent arguements but bulk dirt.
I don't understand. You use an example but it isn't directly connected to the inconsistences so I don't know what you're talking about.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And I'd hate to see what a full Biblical scholar could do to that list. There are some really quality arguements for Biblical contradictions - about 5 I believe. The rest is translation misunderstandings, context twisting and relying upon the readers pure ignorance. Please, have a read of sites like that before they are posted.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An example would be good. Like where are the misunderstandings and context twistings?
I'm not an anti-creatonist, anti-Christian, or anything like that. I'm just taking the anti-Bible side to evoke a good argument out of the Christians on this forum. But I'd like you to take note that you can't gain anything in an argument just with accussations. Give at least one source to support the basic idea of your post. If you don't feel like giving a source, then writing a comprehensive reply would be good.
Also, should we take this to a new thread?
And I realise that I didnt provide specific examples, so in said new thread I will do so. Perhaps a resurrection of the old Accuracy and Consistency thread might be the answer.
Please, dont tell me its untrustworthy, and then quote from it.
Someone who follows the teaching of Christ? Even the ones about sexual immorality? Wait wait wait, no not that one, all the other other ones we like.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wah wah wah wah wah. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> I'm well within my rights to say that some parts of the Bible have good stuff without saying that the entire thing is to be taken as literal historical fact. It's not as simple as "either you believe all of it or you believe none of it." And I'm saying the part about not being an **** is truth, and the part about God creating the world in seven days might be an exaggeration.
Please, dont tell me its untrustworthy, and then quote from it.
Someone who follows the teaching of Christ? Even the ones about sexual immorality? Wait wait wait, no not that one, all the other other ones we like.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wah wah wah wah wah. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> I'm well within my rights to say that some parts of the Bible have good stuff without saying that the entire thing is to be taken as literal historical fact. It's not as simple as "either you believe all of it or you believe none of it." And I'm saying the part about not being an **** is truth, and the part about God creating the world in seven days might be an exaggeration. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Samwise you are telling me that certain passages are to be taken seriously, and certain other passages are not to be taken seriously.
Who gets to decide? Basically you are stripping the authority from the Bible itself and placing it upon yourself. I get to decide basically.
To call yourself a Christian or "a follower of christ" and then choose to ignore certain teachings of his is pure hypocracy, and thats what was turning me into a nubling flamer earlier in the thread.
I'm not saying that we're "no better" than dogs when it comes to sex. I'm just saying that sex has more than one reason other than procreation. It's also for pleasure and expressing love. (Saying that other animals don't love is just ignorant)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People have sex for variuos reasons and people love things/people for there own reasons just because they belive it to be right doesn't make it so. Then beasteality would be kosher?? Hell bessie's lookin mighty fine......seriuosly though love is not an abnormality it is a "feeling" a reason a thing but it is natural for people to love wether a love for there kid or for there mate animals show no "love" for there own because they are animals they go on insticnt and "example". The mother bird will push the chicks out the nest so that they learn to fend for themselves and become adults in a sense people do this but to a higher degree of emotion we don't simply know when a kid is ready and if a kid is defective we do not kill them and forget the decisions made by humans are filled with alot of feelings.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Animals love, too. Also, I've got a problem with beastiality (Having sex with another species purely for the sex, against the animal's will) but see nothing wrong with zoophilia. (Having sex with another species because you love the animal, and because it loves you) Once again, saying that other animals do not love is just an ignorant statement. That's like saying that humans don't have a killing instinct, or a "Fight or Flight" instict.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just because we are a part of nature doesnt mean we are natural with how we live today no one is "real" everyone including myself has relied on other means of life when nature deals you a raw deal....other wise we wouldn't have plastic sergury or artificial insemenation so it is ok for homosexuls to be loved and feel love but plz stop trying to make it sound like it is normal i keep makin the point that it is natural for the "tools" to work you cant fit a bit into the wrong position b/c it just wont work as with homosexuality if was meant to be then 2 men or 2 women should be able to produce a baby with outside insemenation or with surreget mothers so it has to be wrong other wise it wouldnt work.....Again i am ot saying i hate homosexuals or am bashin them but it is what it is i have had this discussion with some of my friends one of whom is g@y and we both clashed in views but this is a topic that will never be resolved to everyones satifaction..<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Homosexuality isn't a choice. You can't say "Okay today, I'm going to be a homosexual" one and then say "Okay today, I'm going to be a heterosexual" the next. Well, you can SAY it, but it's not going to be true. You're assuming that sex is ONLY for procreation (having children) but it's not. It's also for pleasure and to express love. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
.....I never said that you just decide one day oh i think i am gonna be g@y and let it be i said that it has to with biology and peoples "chemistry" i never said people choose to be g@y.....
Ok wel i dont know about your whole beastiality is bad zoofilia is good thoery the animal is not meant to have sex with unless you are of that particular speceis either way it is sick....beside how do you know that the animal loves you?? for all the human knows its in heat....or is pent up by itself..i had homosexual cats before and it was odd seeing your 2 male cats trying to have sex i just pulled them away from one another but i felt sorry for them cuz for all they knew that was all that there was just "boys". And they needed to get there rocks off they are animals i wouldnt expect much else.
Animals dont show love they are not human people give animals too much credit to them. An animal can show "afection" but it is only when they are little and it is not really love it is for survival and like you better not mess with my young you sona b189u. Just because you some animals are able to be broken into house pets doesnt mean they love you for it...animals are ignorant they have no real logic or reasoning they have instinct and "feelings" in the sense that god damn that fire burns i better not touch that a gain and sometimes they will still touch it again to see if it still wil burn animals ARE DUMB they can be "taught" but with harsh methods to imbed that if i dont listen i will get hit that is all that goes through a dogs head and a cat is like of if i purr they will tend to me if they cry they will tend to me they only use there instincts.
I am not saying they cant have sex and they cant be in love
I am saying stop trying to make it sound normal i could care less if they wanted to marry and be together i am just tired of people trying to make it like we should feel sorry or that its ok.......i cant say it enuff.
You obviously dont know how to comprehend what i am saying i am saying what i mean and there is no other side of the fence it is what it is every point you make just shows your ignorance its not the other way around.
Billy Hives
I'm not saying that we're "no better" than dogs when it comes to sex. I'm just saying that sex has more than one reason other than procreation. It's also for pleasure and expressing love. (Saying that other animals don't love is just ignorant)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People have sex for variuos reasons and people love things/people for there own reasons just because they belive it to be right doesn't make it so. Then beasteality would be kosher?? Hell bessie's lookin mighty fine......seriuosly though love is not an abnormality it is a "feeling" a reason a thing but it is natural for people to love wether a love for there kid or for there mate animals show no "love" for there own because they are animals they go on insticnt and "example". The mother bird will push the chicks out the nest so that they learn to fend for themselves and become adults in a sense people do this but to a higher degree of emotion we don't simply know when a kid is ready and if a kid is defective we do not kill them and forget the decisions made by humans are filled with alot of feelings.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Animals love, too. Also, I've got a problem with beastiality (Having sex with another species purely for the sex, against the animal's will) but see nothing wrong with zoophilia. (Having sex with another species because you love the animal, and because it loves you) Once again, saying that other animals do not love is just an ignorant statement. That's like saying that humans don't have a killing instinct, or a "Fight or Flight" instict.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just because we are a part of nature doesnt mean we are natural with how we live today no one is "real" everyone including myself has relied on other means of life when nature deals you a raw deal....other wise we wouldn't have plastic sergury or artificial insemenation so it is ok for homosexuls to be loved and feel love but plz stop trying to make it sound like it is normal i keep makin the point that it is natural for the "tools" to work you cant fit a bit into the wrong position b/c it just wont work as with homosexuality if was meant to be then 2 men or 2 women should be able to produce a baby with outside insemenation or with surreget mothers so it has to be wrong other wise it wouldnt work.....Again i am ot saying i hate homosexuals or am bashin them but it is what it is i have had this discussion with some of my friends one of whom is g@y and we both clashed in views but this is a topic that will never be resolved to everyones satifaction..<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Homosexuality isn't a choice. You can't say "Okay today, I'm going to be a homosexual" one and then say "Okay today, I'm going to be a heterosexual" the next. Well, you can SAY it, but it's not going to be true. You're assuming that sex is ONLY for procreation (having children) but it's not. It's also for pleasure and to express love. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
.....I never said that you just decide one day oh i think i am gonna be g@y and let it be i said that it has to with biology and peoples "chemistry" i never said people choose to be g@y.....
Ok wel i dont know about your whole beastiality is bad zoofilia is good thoery the animal is not meant to have sex with unless you are of that particular speceis either way it is sick....beside how do you know that the animal loves you?? for all the human knows its in heat....or is pent up by itself..i had homosexual cats before and it was odd seeing your 2 male cats trying to have sex i just pulled them away from one another but i felt sorry for them cuz for all they knew that was all that there was just "boys". And they needed to get there rocks off they are animals i wouldnt expect much else.
Animals dont show love they are not human people give animals too much credit to them. An animal can show "afection" but it is only when they are little and it is not really love it is for survival and like you better not mess with my young you sona b189u. Just because you some animals are able to be broken into house pets doesnt mean they love you for it...animals are ignorant they have no real logic or reasoning they have instinct and "feelings" in the sense that god damn that fire burns i better not touch that a gain and sometimes they will still touch it again to see if it still wil burn animals ARE DUMB they can be "taught" but with harsh methods to imbed that if i dont listen i will get hit that is all that goes through a dogs head and a cat is like of if i purr they will tend to me if they cry they will tend to me they only use there instincts.
I am not saying they cant have sex and they cant be in love
I am saying stop trying to make it sound normal i could care less if they wanted to marry and be together i am just tired of people trying to make it like we should feel sorry or that its ok.......i cant say it enuff.
You obviously dont know how to comprehend what i am saying i am saying what i mean and there is no other side of the fence it is what it is every point you make just shows your ignorance its not the other way around.
Billy Hives <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets just stay away from comparing homosexuality to bestiality shall we? We already ran through that whole thing in one of those old homosexuality threads we had.
As for the ruling, all I can say is: SUCK IT YOU HOMPHOBE ****!
I am saying stop trying to make it sound normal i could care less if they wanted to marry and be together i am just tired of people trying to make it like we should feel sorry or that its ok.......i cant say it enuff.
You obviously dont know how to comprehend what i am saying i am saying what i mean and there is no other side of the fence it is what it is every point you make just shows your ignorance its not the other way around. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know you aren't saying that they shouldn't be allowed to have sex or be in love. I'm saying that it is normal, just like heterosexual sex. It's obvious that I'm not going to convince you, but I want to get this clear in your head: Just because you think that it isn't normal doesn't make it true. There is no such thing as a "normal" animal, either.
Just because you think it is normal doesnt make it true either
(and the bible takes the same position on sex with animals as it does on homosexuality - its an abomination)
Just because you think it is normal doesnt make it true either
(and the bible takes the same position on sex with animals as it does on homosexuality - its an abomination) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And just because a book written by an unknown, unverifiable man, about unknow, unverifiable events, 2,000 years ago says so, doesn't mean it's true either. Hey look! The earth is flat!
and that just shows how much you know about the bible (you were talking about it weren't you)
may I suggest you go and read a little more about it, so at least you know what you are talking about.
As for the ruling, all I can say is: SUCK IT YOU HOMPHOBE ****! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its true, I brought it up in an old thread. And you have to be careful when making the comparision because it can easily turn into demonising.
What was concluded is that the real difference between man/man and man/animal was consent. That still doesnt sit right with me, but that was the general concensus.
Meh to homophobe comment - dont pretend that everyone on the opposing side is scared of what they dont understand and as such oppose it. I have many friends, especially work collegues who are g4y, and I neither fear them nor beat them with Bibles. But I still hold to my belief that its wrong.
no, i was talking about the fact that you thought the bible was written 2000 years ago by Joe Bloggs from across the road
but, if you want to carry on talking about this, there is another thread dedicated to it, to save dragging this one of topic
In my opinion all laws should be made on the premise that the Constitution is the greatest authority in the land, not God. He may exist, but we can't know for sure, so we shouldn't base our lives on a hypothetical concept.
Anyway, I don't think the govt should force the church and mosque and synagogue to grant g@y marriages. That is a breach of their freedom. However, it shouldn't withhold rights to married g@ys that married heteros would normally have. (you can have a hetero marriage by the state and have the same rights as if you were married in a church.. I think)
No. All passages are to be taken seriously. And all passages are to be taken in cultural and historical context.
Some statements can be judged to be unaffected by context - "do unto others," for example, the commandment that Jesus says is to be held above all others. There's nothing to indicate that this is any less true today than it was two thousand years ago, and it's reinforced by the fact that similar teachings can be found in almost every other major religion.
Other passages can be found to be influenced heavily by conditions that are no longer true. For example, creation stories that were penned by nearly-prehistoric man. A non-fundamentalist, when reading Genesis, reasons that humans at that stage in history couldn't have conceived of the universe as we understand it today, and God wouldn't have gained much by trying to explain it to them - they'd have gotten bogged down in basically irrelevant details. What IS in Genesis is the IMPORTANT bit, spiritually speaking - the notion that God is a loving creator, that we're imperfect, that life will therefore be imperfect, et cetera. The seven-days-to-create-the-world stuff was put in there because it made the story easier to understand to the audience at that time.
So in a similar vein, I'm saying that teachings against homosexuality were influenced heavily by cultural taboos and incomplete medical knowledge. It was believed, for example, that sperm could be "wasted", hindering reproductive ability. It was believed that it was necessary for humans to reproduce as often as possible, lest we become extinct. It was believed that homosexuality was a completely deliberate choice, not influenced by genetic or even environmental factors. I submit that had the authors of the Bible known better, they would not have categorized homosexuality as sexual immorality (it's unique among the other types of sexual immorality in that it harms no one, which makes me suspect it doesn't really belong there with adultery and rape and so forth) - and we'll note that Jesus speaks against sexual immorality in general, but not homosexuality specifically.
...and that's the real issue here. Thanks for steering us back on track, Windel. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
As for the ruling, all I can say is: SUCK IT YOU HOMPHOBE ****! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its true, I brought it up in an old thread. And you have to be careful when making the comparision because it can easily turn into demonising.
What was concluded is that the real difference between man/man and man/animal was consent. That still doesnt sit right with me, but that was the general concensus.
Meh to homophobe comment - dont pretend that everyone on the opposing side is scared of what they dont understand and as such oppose it. I have many friends, especially work collegues who are g4y, and I neither fear them nor beat them with Bibles. But I still hold to my belief that its wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry if you felt that comment was directed towards you. As you can see from my numerous postings on the subject in previous threads, I consider there to be two camps when it comes to people who argue that homosexuality is wrong: Those that have religious resons (you, boggle, ect), and those that are homophobes (to whom that comment was addressed). I was mearly enthusiastic that, at least, somewhere in this country there were people in power who weren't homophobes.
No. All passages are to be taken seriously. And all passages are to be taken in cultural and historical context.
Some statements can be judged to be unaffected by context - "do unto others," for example, the commandment that Jesus says is to be held above all others. There's nothing to indicate that this is any less true today than it was two thousand years ago, and it's reinforced by the fact that similar teachings can be found in almost every other major religion.
Other passages can be found to be influenced heavily by conditions that are no longer true. For example, creation stories that were penned by nearly-prehistoric man. A non-fundamentalist, when reading Genesis, reasons that humans at that stage in history couldn't have conceived of the universe as we understand it today, and God wouldn't have gained much by trying to explain it to them - they'd have gotten bogged down in basically irrelevant details. What IS in Genesis is the IMPORTANT bit, spiritually speaking - the notion that God is a loving creator, that we're imperfect, that life will therefore be imperfect, et cetera. The seven-days-to-create-the-world stuff was put in there because it made the story easier to understand to the audience at that time.
So in a similar vein, I'm saying that teachings against homosexuality were influenced heavily by cultural taboos and incomplete medical knowledge. It was believed, for example, that sperm could be "wasted", hindering reproductive ability. It was believed that it was necessary for humans to reproduce as often as possible, lest we become extinct. It was believed that homosexuality was a completely deliberate choice, not influenced by genetic or even environmental factors. I submit that had the authors of the Bible known better, they would not have categorized homosexuality as sexual immorality (it's unique among the other types of sexual immorality in that it harms no one, which makes me suspect it doesn't really belong there with adultery and rape and so forth) - and we'll note that Jesus speaks against sexual immorality in general, but not homosexuality specifically. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hrrmmmm - I can certainly see where you are coming from, but I cant agree. Jesus was supposed to be very well educated in Jewish scripture. The fact that he doesnt criticise homosexuality specifically doesnt add to its legitimacy as a lifestyle choice. He criticised it using a generalisation that all of his listeners would have known. I do not have to specifically say "and nuclear weapons" when talking about wmd - nor should WMD be taken to mean I specifically didnt mention nuclear weapons for a reason.
It seems that you are taking the approach that the Laws in Leviticus were not given by God as claimed but invented by the Israelites... another case of the Bible lying and the supposed All powerful God being powerless to stop it.
Jesus himself often qouted from the OT - but you will not give it the same credibility he did. Jesus claimed to be the same God as that written about in the OT. Admittedly, Jesus did tell the Jews they had taken the Law as given in Leviticus too far, but he didnt claim that those laws were now bunk.
It was also given the stronger "as this is an abomination before the LORD" clause on the end. I still see no reason to treat it as less serious then any other of the sexual sins.
Skulkbait - understood. No offense taken what so ever.
Again, it's not a black or white issue of the Bible "lying". It's just a case of it often being written to a specific audience. The laws in Leviticus were based in large part around the needs of the Israelites at the time that book was written. The vast majority of them pertained to:
<ul>
<li>Maintaing social structure (an eye for an eye)
<li>Sanitation (kosher laws)
<li>Increasing population (bans on any behavior thought to decrease chances of having kids)
</ul>
We'll note that Jesus spoke out against a too-literal interpretation of "an eye for an eye", preaching that forgiveness and mercy are better than getting the other guy back. And modern Christians don't follow kosher laws at all, thanks to that little chat with Paul (conveniently, we now know enough about sanitation that we can avoid most food-borne diseases without following anything as strict as what Leviticus sets forth).
I think it's also significant that Jesus says "the devil can quote Scripture for his own purposes." To me, this says that quoting Scripture in itself is not enough - you need to take it in context and understand the meaning behind it. Fundamentalists with carefully bookmarked and highlighted passages (evangelizing Jehovah's Witnesses at the bus stop, for example) always strike me as the sort that Jesus was cautioning against.
Finally, regarding the Bible being infallible because God wouldn't allow it to contain "lies," come on now. If God made it his business to smite everyone who garbled the message, do you think I (who by your standards am a blasphemer of the first order) would be sitting here unsmoten?
I think the smiting happens after you die. God doesn't much interfere with the real world, as in 'good' doesn't win and 'evil' doesn't lose and die in agony. Often it's quite the opposite, so we have to assume that god gets medieval on my blasphemer arse in afterlife.
Poor me <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Again, it's not a black or white issue of the Bible "lying". It's just a case of it often being written to a specific audience. The laws in Leviticus were based in large part around the needs of the Israelites at the time that book was written. The vast majority of them pertained to:
<ul>
<li>Maintaing social structure (an eye for an eye)
<li>Sanitation (kosher laws)
<li>Increasing population (bans on any behavior thought to decrease chances of having kids)
</ul>
We'll note that Jesus spoke out against a too-literal interpretation of "an eye for an eye", preaching that forgiveness and mercy are better than getting the other guy back. And modern Christians don't follow kosher laws at all, thanks to that little chat with Paul (conveniently, we now know enough about sanitation that we can avoid most food-borne diseases without following anything as strict as what Leviticus sets forth).
I think it's also significant that Jesus says "the devil can quote Scripture for his own purposes." To me, this says that quoting Scripture in itself is not enough - you need to take it in context and understand the meaning behind it. Fundamentalists with carefully bookmarked and highlighted passages (evangelizing Jehovah's Witnesses at the bus stop, for example) always strike me as the sort that Jesus was cautioning against.
Finally, regarding the Bible being infallible because God wouldn't allow it to contain "lies," come on now. If God made it his business to smite everyone who garbled the message, do you think I (who by your standards am a blasphemer of the first order) would be sitting here unsmoten? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sif ur a blasphemer - ur just a little bit of a nublet <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Context and understanding are great. And they do often get savaged by both the Fundamentalist and the Liberal. However, it is so very much easier to be a conservative then a Liberal. I have dealt relatively easily with many liberals (in the church) simply because they often have litte/no backing - either Biblical or otherwise. They are rarely the dedicated ones.
The Fundamentalists get right in there, they are deeply and thoroughly interested in the Bible, understanding of and defence of. I cant say the same for most liberals, they seem to have less knowledge, less understanding and less to back themselves up - and more "its the whole vibe of it" stuff.
And it really cant be that way. If you want to go liberal as a christian, your task is far harder than the conservative. Life's tougher on the edge, when you are pushing the envelope, and you need to be so much more careful - and I just dont see that. Very few Liberal christians (i.e. supporters of homosexuality) are even interested enough to dig for Biblical backing, and when it does come for that - it turns into a slur campaign on the Biblical authors.
I question number 3 on that list. I can see what gives you that impression, but how do you know that? Also, can you please point out the differing context and meaning behind the old testament slamming of the practise of Homosexuality. With the context and meaning that I read in everything pertaining to homosexuality - it is all completely negative. Jesus spoke about forgiveness and mercy and tolerance - but not towards evil. Unlike most of the kosher laws, social laws etc - homosexuality was called evil. An abomination. The others were "dont do this, dont do that" - homosexuality was "dont do this, its evil".
If God didnt make it his business to protect what he calls his Word from being garbled, I would be shocked and disappointed. As history will show you, he's done a freaking good job for the past 2000 years. And sif I'm going to take anything seriously in a 2000+ yr old book thats got bs that Jesus himself qoutes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're assuming that we're smarter than other animals and that all animals are stupid. Yes, they act on instinct, but they also reason and understand.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well... that depends, what are you going to qualify as 'reasoning and understanding'? When talking about animals, many behaviours, such as altruism for example, have direct consequences on their ability to reproduce. It isn't like they are truely demonstrating intelligence, feelings or whatever, it is usually due to the fact they are propagating their genes in the optimal way. For example, ants use a fungus that produces an antibiotic to keep mould from growing on their food fungus farm (or is it the other way around O_o...). Is this intelligence? No, probably not. It is unlikely that the ants deliberately discovered the antibiotic reistant fungus, and probably picked it up from natural fungus growing in their farms. Colonies that developed a symbiotic relationship did better than those that didn't and the rest is history. It isn't really the same thing as what we do with GE bacteria for example or with other biological controls we do.
As for a sponge, care to make any logical sounding argument that a sponge or jellyfish can reason or understand? Or are we going to conveniently confine the definition of 'animal' to higher vertebrates? Now that I think of it, care to provide an invertebrate example of reasoning and understanding?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not saying that we're "no better" than dogs when it comes to sex. I'm just saying that sex has more than one reason other than procreation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But hold on, dogs only breed due to signals from a female at certain times of the year. This is all programmed in animals so that they breed at times where conditions are BEST to rear offspring. There isn't some sort of logic behind that other than it is the best time to do it. Animals don't have sex to affirm a relationship or bond, because most don't have that to begin with (including pack/herd animals like wolves and baboons), it's simply all about genes.
Humans are different in that respect and is why we shouldn't be comparing the likes of homosexual behaviours in humans to animals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's also for pleasure and expressing love.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Love is a human emotion, and you really can't apply human emotions onto animals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(Saying that other animals don't love is just ignorant)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or just good biological science.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Animals love, too.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree and would bet that you'd have a massively difficult time giving a SINGLE example of an insect demonstrating 'love'. Every time you'd have to come up with far fetched vertebrate examples (which would boil back down to genes) or redefine animal to suit your premise.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, I've got a problem with beastiality (Having sex with another species purely for the sex, against the animal's will) but see nothing wrong with zoophilia. (Having sex with another species because you love the animal, and because it loves you)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would support neither, and the second one is just completely wrong on so many levels.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Once again, saying that other animals do not love is just an ignorant statement. That's like saying that humans don't have a killing instinct, or a "Fight or Flight" instict.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hold on, no it isn't. You are comparing an undefined term to those that are in fact biologically built in (and we can see why). The flight or fight responce is actually based off hormonal levels and rapid physiological changes that occur over a very short period. Many chordates (such as mammals) express these kinds of systems. Trying to argue (as you are) that a lion loves it's cubs or a bird its chicks IS totally silly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Homosexuality isn't a choice.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would tend to agree, because I think there is a firm psychological or genetic basis in it somewhere. But this is not 100% known for certain, it could be a choice, we don't know yet. Of course, if you know the answer you could win a nobel prize in psychology for revealing it (scientifically).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You're assuming that sex is ONLY for procreation (having children) but it's not. It's also for pleasure and to express love.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, in humans this is exactly true because we're not really like other animals in this respect. Whereas in most animals sex is simply a desire to spread genes, in us it's uniquely different partly because we can breed all year around. The only other animal that has sex for pleasure is in fact...dolphins. I suppose you could attempt to argue that certain kinds of monkeys (bonobos) do as well, but that is less conclusive.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know you aren't saying that they shouldn't be allowed to have sex or be in love. I'm saying that it is normal, just like heterosexual sex.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it depends sorta on who you are wanting to talk to. Certainly attraction to members of your own sex occurs throughout many different animals, monkeys, apes, dogs and possibly dolphins engage in a bit of homosexual conduct. The difference comes down to the fact that homosexuality is death to ones particular genes in 'animal' populations and not really in human ones (Two words: Sperm Bank or Egg Donor). This makes the situation different on a biological level, especially considering that **** couples CAN have children via rather 'unnatural' means.
In addition, for **** men, going the anal route is usually very damagine to anal tissues and is why AIDs was so prevalent in **** male populations. No condoms, and massive tissue damage allows the virus to get in extremely easily. It doesn't take a lot of investigation to reveal that human anuses aren't designed for having a sausage stuck up them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's obvious that I'm not going to convince you, but I want to get this clear in your head: Just because you think that it isn't normal doesn't make it true.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very true.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no such thing as a "normal" animal, either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Depends, according to vegetarians, animal rights activists etc I've ever argued with the only animals that exist are chordates :/ Insects are never considered, cephalopods unimportant and sponges don't exist. But yes, I'd agree there is no such thing as a normal animal, but there are normal biological behaviours observed right throughout the animal kingdom right up to humans.
Actually that sounds like a good idea, although it still bears relevance (at least some of it here), I'll make a new discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're assuming that we're smarter than other animals and that all animals are stupid. Yes, they act on instinct, but they also reason and understand.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well... that depends, what are you going to qualify as 'reasoning and understanding'? When talking about animals, many behaviours, such as altruism for example, have direct consequences on their ability to reproduce. It isn't like they are truely demonstrating intelligence, feelings or whatever, it is usually due to the fact they are propagating their genes in the optimal way. For example, ants use a fungus that produces an antibiotic to keep mould from growing on their food fungus farm (or is it the other way around O_o...). Is this intelligence? No, probably not. It is unlikely that the ants deliberately discovered the antibiotic reistant fungus, and probably picked it up from natural fungus growing in their farms. Colonies that developed a symbiotic relationship did better than those that didn't and the rest is history. It isn't really the same thing as what we do with GE bacteria for example or with other biological controls we do.
As for a sponge, care to make any logical sounding argument that a sponge or jellyfish can reason or understand? Or are we going to conveniently confine the definition of 'animal' to higher vertebrates? Now that I think of it, care to provide an invertebrate example of reasoning and understanding?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not saying that we're "no better" than dogs when it comes to sex. I'm just saying that sex has more than one reason other than procreation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But hold on, dogs only breed due to signals from a female at certain times of the year. This is all programmed in animals so that they breed at times where conditions are BEST to rear offspring. There isn't some sort of logic behind that other than it is the best time to do it. Animals don't have sex to affirm a relationship or bond, because most don't have that to begin with (including pack/herd animals like wolves and baboons), it's simply all about genes.
Humans are different in that respect and is why we shouldn't be comparing the likes of homosexual behaviours in humans to animals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's also for pleasure and expressing love.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Love is a human emotion, and you really can't apply human emotions onto animals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(Saying that other animals don't love is just ignorant)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or just good biological science.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Animals love, too.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree and would bet that you'd have a massively difficult time giving a SINGLE example of an insect demonstrating 'love'. Every time you'd have to come up with far fetched vertebrate examples (which would boil back down to genes) or redefine animal to suit your premise.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, I've got a problem with beastiality (Having sex with another species purely for the sex, against the animal's will) but see nothing wrong with zoophilia. (Having sex with another species because you love the animal, and because it loves you)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would support neither, and the second one is just completely wrong on so many levels.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Once again, saying that other animals do not love is just an ignorant statement. That's like saying that humans don't have a killing instinct, or a "Fight or Flight" instict.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hold on, no it isn't. You are comparing an undefined term to those that are in fact biologically built in (and we can see why). The flight or fight responce is actually based off hormonal levels and rapid physiological changes that occur over a very short period. Many chordates (such as mammals) express these kinds of systems. Trying to argue (as you are) that a lion loves it's cubs or a bird its chicks IS totally silly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Homosexuality isn't a choice.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would tend to agree, because I think there is a firm psychological or genetic basis in it somewhere. But this is not 100% known for certain, it could be a choice, we don't know yet. Of course, if you know the answer you could win a nobel prize in psychology for revealing it (scientifically).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You're assuming that sex is ONLY for procreation (having children) but it's not. It's also for pleasure and to express love.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, in humans this is exactly true because we're not really like other animals in this respect. Whereas in most animals sex is simply a desire to spread genes, in us it's uniquely different partly because we can breed all year around. The only other animal that has sex for pleasure is in fact...dolphins. I suppose you could attempt to argue that certain kinds of monkeys (bonobos) do as well, but that is less conclusive.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know you aren't saying that they shouldn't be allowed to have sex or be in love. I'm saying that it is normal, just like heterosexual sex.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it depends sorta on who you are wanting to talk to. Certainly attraction to members of your own sex occurs throughout many different animals, monkeys, apes, dogs and possibly dolphins engage in a bit of homosexual conduct. The difference comes down to the fact that homosexuality is death to ones particular genes in 'animal' populations and not really in human ones (Two words: Sperm Bank or Egg Donor). This makes the situation different on a biological level, especially considering that **** couples CAN have children via rather 'unnatural' means.
In addition, for **** men, going the anal route is usually very damagine to anal tissues and is why AIDs was so prevalent in **** male populations. No condoms, and massive tissue damage allows the virus to get in extremely easily. It doesn't take a lot of investigation to reveal that human anuses aren't designed for having a sausage stuck up them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's obvious that I'm not going to convince you, but I want to get this clear in your head: Just because you think that it isn't normal doesn't make it true.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very true.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no such thing as a "normal" animal, either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Depends, according to vegetarians, animal rights activists etc I've ever argued with the only animals that exist are chordates :/ Insects are never considered, cephalopods unimportant and sponges don't exist. But yes, I'd agree there is no such thing as a normal animal, but there are normal biological behaviours observed right throughout the animal kingdom right up to humans. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
OMgosh ty someone who can scientifcally convey what i said in lamens terms!!!
gj
-Billy Hives