NationStates Jolt Archive

San Francisco Bay Area? And you sound like you've never been outside your country, have you? At least in the larger cities in Europe nobody really gives a shit for anyone's sexual orientation, although there may still be used phrases like "that's gay" or so. But there really are more important things to ponder. And the fucking USA should rather see to cleaning up their mess in the Middle East and drop their aggressive politics and policies instead of bickering about homos. Homosexuality is a non-issue. And it helps reduce overpopulation.

The incident in question happened in the US. Hence, why we've mainly been talking about the state of equal rights for homosexuals in the US. I'm very aware that Europe is far more enlightened than the US in this aspect. It's quite frustrating really.

You're the one who sounds like you've never been out of your country. You are so blind as to be completely unaware how horrible it is for homosexual adolescents here sometimes. That is why getting kids to realize that homosexuality is perfectly normal and equal early is absolutely necessary, so that heterosexual teens will be more accepting of their homosexual peers later on, and so the latter group will have an easier time accepting themselves (if one is raised to believe that homosexuality is an evil, sinful disgusting thing, and one finds oneself attracted to members of the same sex, how do you think that must feel?).

And wtf does the (unnecessary and immoral) Iraq war have to do with this?

I'm guessing that involves lots of arm-flapping & jumping off tall buildings?

Actually we use Ornithopters.

Actually we use Ornithopters.

http://proto5.thinkquest.nl/~lle0232/med/afb/tmb/tnornithopter.jpg

Right on. Set those chickens free!

More evidence of the gay conspiracy:


http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q79/Dudukain/heatherhastwofnords.jpg

Well, the US are so obsessed with "moral issues" that they forget what they really should direct their attention to, like the bloodbath they have caused and continue to cause in Iraq. And the mess I was referring to includes more than just Iraq.

Again, one has NOTHING to do with the other. I agree on the fact that we should deal with Iraq problem and that we should lay off the "moral" issues, but to try and relate them is ludicrous and just an excuse to bash the US. It simply has not one darn thing to do with this issue.

why can't they acknowledge that this is obviously nailing homosexuality into children's' heads?! We know how kids are, they're curious, they are copycats and they don't fully understand things so its easier to manipulate their minds, especially since they're naturally suggestible because they're in that stage of life where they copy their parents.

If gays only wanted to get people to "realize they're people too and that they exist" like they say then instead of brainwashing toddlers would probably be trying so send a more of a "leave us alone" message rather than a "become like us" message.

So your suggestion is that children's grasp on their sexuality is so tenuous that they'll lose it because they are exposed to same-sex relationships? Hilarious. If your claim held ANY water, then there would be NO homosexuals, because kids have been exposed to stories like Cinderella and Snow White for pretty much the entire history of the US.

Why does it suddenly become brainwashing when it's a same-sex relationship? There is clearly no logic behind it. Just admit that your basis for this claim is that you'll do anything to sweep homosexuality under the rug and treat it like it's shameful, instead of perfectly normal.

why can't they acknowledge that this is obviously nailing homosexuality into children's' heads?!

Um, I'm going to take a stab in the dark here, and go with "Because it's not."


We know how kids are

Yes, some of us do. We're aware that kids rarely find the idea that people come in all sorts of different varieties confusing, shocking, or upsetting unless someone tells them they should. When I was growing up, I read stories in which some characters were black and some were white, which didn't confuse me. I read stories in which some characters were male and some were female, which didn't shock me. I read stories in which some characters were Christian and some were Jewish and some didn't believe in any God at all, and I was not at all upset. Heck, I even read stories with such unusual features as talking lions, three-foot-tall people with magical rings, dragons, men who could travel freely through time, a great many morally ambiguous characters, and all sorts of other concepts that would seem a lot harder for a young mind to understand than "some men like to kiss women, and some like to kiss men," and somehow my little mind didn't explode.

If gays only wanted to get people to "realize they're people too and that they exist" like they say then instead of brainwashing toddlers would probably be trying so send a more of a "leave us alone" message rather than a "become like us" message.

Again, this story only suggests that boys SHOULD kiss other boys if Cinderella suggests that boys SHOULD judge potential mates by their shoe size. A story in which a character happens to be gay cannot, in itself, be "brainwashing" any more than a story in which a character happens to be straight. Perhaps, in your view, we should just ban children from reading altogether?

The real issue here is the fear of some parents to have gay children. For all those parents I have a shocking message. A book does not make little boys and little girls gay. Genes do. So if you should happen to have a gay son or daughter, perhaps you are to blame. Not a fairy tale ;) .

If any child becomes gay after hearing or reading a book, it already was gay. And let me assure you that my nieces and nephews do not tend to be queer after having met, or played with, or having their dypers changed by me or their other uncle (my boyfriend).

The only problem here is the parents. If your child is gay , whether it is born or chosen (which is impossible), the most important thing is for your child to be happy. Any parent should aim for the happyness of their children. And yes, you can be happy if you are gay.

why can't they acknowledge that this is obviously nailing homosexuality into children's' heads?! We know how kids are, they're curious, they are copycats and they don't fully understand things so its easier to manipulate their minds, especially since they're naturally suggestible because they're in that stage of life where they copy their parents.

Yep. For God's sake, people, your children will copy everything you read to them!! Don't you remember when they turned into three little pigs and started constructing poorly-conceived domiciles?!


If gays only wanted to get people to "realize they're people too and that they exist" like they say then instead of brainwashing toddlers would probably be trying so send a more of a "leave us alone" message rather than a "become like us" message.
I think I see where you may be confused.

Many of us believe that people do need to "become like us," but the "like us" isn't referring to becoming homosexual. We think people need to "become like us" in that they need to get the fuck over their playground cootie obsessions and stop spending our tax dollars to lie to little kids. See, when you present heterosexuality as the only sexuality, you are lying just as you would be if you presented white as the only skin color.

We prefer not to have closet-case anti-gay yahoos spending our kids time and our money on lies and paranoid conspiracy theories. We'd prefer you "be like us" and stop being so damn freaked out about the fact that gay exists. Kids don't give a shit. They're not scared of it or worried about it or freaked out by it until YOU teach them to be, and then WE have to end up wasting yet more time and money cleaning up the mess YOU created.

That's lame. It's irresponsible and dishonest of you. So yes, be like us. Be a goddam grown-up.

everybody is trying to destroy somebody elses life, as a group or as individuals. get used to it. more open warfare.

everybody is trying to destroy somebody elses life, as a group or as individuals. get used to it. more open warfare.

Well to be honest, we're all trying to destroy your way of life. Once you're gone we'll live in peace and prosperity forever. At least, that's the plan. :)

Well to be honest, we're all trying to destroy your way of life. Once you're gone we'll live in peace and prosperity forever. At least, that's the plan. :)

like hell, then you will start to war among yourselves, you know it, and I know it. if you think killing me will bring you peace, think again people need enemies, sometimes it is even yourself.

We weren't led to believe anything that we didn't put on it. You think kids are looking at this story and deciding that Cinderella is attracted to the Prince? Really? You were thinking about sexuality at seven? How sad for you. I was thinking about playing football with my friends or pretending we were soldiers. I definitely not thinking about what gender or sex of people I wanted to have sex nor what gender or sex of people other people wanted to have sex with. I don't remmeber Cinderella or the Prince saying that other was cute or sexy or hot or any such thing. I don't recall any indication that they were doing ANYTHING other than fulfilling a sort of simplistic and cliched role for one another.

Children cannot be sexualized unless WE sexualize them. A story that is simply about two individuals in a relationship designed for children has nothing to do with sex nor should it.

And if we look to these stories to teach any bad thing, any bad form of indoctrination, it's that these women should hide out or wait for a some man to come and save them from the evil that would overtake them if not for said man. No complaints coming about that though. Just complaints that children might see two people of the same sex in a relationship because heterosexuality is a part of us that sits on a tiny little peak just waiting to be pushed off by exposure to anything else.


I'm not agreeing or disagreeing about the sexualization of children's stories. but it does establish a Hetronormative set of values (where things that are hetero are the norm) by saying boy are supposed to like girls, the prince gets the princeSS.

I had a friend, who read in a psychology book (I know, don't believe every thing you read) about a woman who's son had fairly lengthy hair and wanted to wear barretes (sp?) to school. A boy at school kept teasing him and saying he was a girl for wearing hairclips. Th young boy responded by dropping his pants and saying "I'm not a girl, see I have a penis" to which the teaser boy replies "Pull your pants back up. everyone has a penis, but only girls where barettes." Goes to show that while SEX might not be well defined in the minds of children, but certain GENDER roles are.

like hell, then you will start to war among yourselves, you know it, and I know it. if you think killing me will bring you peace, think again people need enemies, sometimes it is even yourself.

Hmmm, in that case perhaps we'll keep you around as a scapegoat.

Hmmm, in that case perhaps we'll keep you around as a scapegoat.

eaxctly. people need someone to fuck over. that's why "harmoni" is a concept that will never work.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing about the sexualization of children's stories. but it does establish a Hetronormative set of values (where things that are hetero are the norm) by saying boy are supposed to like girls, the prince gets the princeSS.

I had a friend, who read in a psychology book (I know, don't believe every thing you read) about a woman who's son had fairly lengthy hair and wanted to wear barretes (sp?) to school. A boy at school kept teasing him and saying he was a girl for wearing hairclips. Th young boy responded by dropping his pants and saying "I'm not a girl, see I have a penis" to which the teaser boy replies "Pull your pants back up. everyone has a penis, but only girls where barettes." Goes to show that while SEX might not be well defined in the minds of children, but certain GENDER roles are.

Yes, exactly. The books that present women as helpless until some prince kisses them do more damage than any random configuration of individuals having relationships in a story. These books don't present sexuality. They do present gender roles and most of them are damaging.

eaxctly. people need someone to fuck over. that's why "harmoni" is a concept that will never work.

I don't think "scapegoat" is the right word here. Whipping boy sounds more appropriate...

I don't think "scapegoat" is the right word here. Whipping boy sounds more appropriate...

Kinky.

Kinky.

:eek: Not that kind of ....oh forget it.

Any parent should aim for the happyness of their children. And yes, you can be happy if you are gay.



No! really, and next you'll be tellin' us that Gay means happy!;)

why can't they acknowledge that this is obviously nailing homosexuality into children's' heads?!
Because they are sane and do not feel any need to lie unnecessarily by way of acknowledging the untrue as true.
We know how kids are, they're curious, they are copycats and they don't fully understand things so its easier to manipulate their minds, especially since they're naturally suggestible because they're in that stage of life where they copy their parents.
Copy their parents as opposed to copying a book? If this true then your position is furtherundermined, unless you think the 'gay attack' is intended to cause parents to turn into homosexuals as a result of a fairytale having been read to their children.:rolleyes:

If gays only wanted to get people to "realize they're people too and that they exist" like they say then instead of brainwashing toddlers would probably be trying so send a more of a "leave us alone" message rather than a "become like us" message.
The book is not sending the message 'become like us', anymore than Hansel and Gretal is sending the message 'abandon your children in the forest to be eaten by cannibal witches. Again, the only persons trying to send a 'be more like us message' in this whole situation are certain heterosexuals who object to the fairytale either due to irrational and biggoted fears, or to fears that the next generation may contain a few less biggots.

Yes, exactly. The books that present women as helpless until some prince kisses them do more damage than any random configuration of individuals having relationships in a story. These books don't present sexuality. They do present gender roles and most of them are damaging.
My mother actually got in trouble for her choice of book when she came in to read to my 4th grade class (each week a parent was invited to come read a story to us, and other parents served us snack after). She read a version of Sleeping Beauty in which they'd swapped around the genders of all the characters. I remember one parent, in particular, complaining to my mother that, "Now all the girls will go around kissing the boys!!!"

Even at age 9 or so, I found that funny on several levels.

My mother actually got in trouble for her choice of book when she came in to read to my 4th grade class (each week a parent was invited to come read a story to us, and other parents served us snack after). She read a version of Sleeping Beauty in which they'd swapped around the genders of all the characters. I remember one parent, in particular, complaining to my mother that, "Now all the girls will go around kissing the boys!!!"

Even at age 9 or so, I found that funny on several levels.

Yes. It's amazing how offended people are when you don't teach children to operate in pre-determined and useless roles.

I often comment on the traditional "romantic" movie where guys meets girl, guy gets girl, guy acts like ass to girl, guy gets girl back by being cute. Mainstream media paints women as expecting little more from a guy than a willingness to make a fool out of himself if he's generally an ass.

Yes. It's amazing how offended people are when you don't teach children to operate in pre-determined and useless roles.

I often comment on the traditional "romantic" movie where guys meets girl, guy gets girl, guy acts like ass to girl, guy gets girl back by being cute. Mainstream media paints women as expecting little more from a guy than a willingness to make a fool out of himself if he's generally an ass.

If the media has taught me anything it's that the unpopular guy can always get the popular girl from the popular jackass guys, the popular guys always go for the unpopular(but really hot without glasses) girls despite their friends advising otherwise, and nerds will somehow help save the day.

Yes. It's amazing how offended people are when you don't teach children to operate in pre-determined and useless roles.

I often comment on the traditional "romantic" movie where guys meets girl, guy gets girl, guy acts like ass to girl, guy gets girl back by being cute. Mainstream media paints women as expecting little more from a guy than a willingness to make a fool out of himself if he's generally an ass.
Oh man, this Onion bit on that subject is like the best satire evarrrr:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29546

Romantic-Comedy Behavior Gets Real-Life Man Arrested

TORRANCE, CA—Denny Marzano, a 28-year-old Torrance man, was arrested Monday for engaging in the type of behavior found in romantic comedies...

I had a goodun today on another forum, let me just reproduce that for you:

'Usually, homosexuals are people who have been sexually abused at a young
age. After say multiple abusing, they begin to grow up depressed and
confused, and do not want to encounter that what had happened was wrong and
not of God's plan. So, as they reach high school, they are suddenly
surrounded by the "yay for gays!" group or the various homosexual clubs on
the campus. That suddenly breaks the line of confusion, and they
automatically think that being a gay or a lesbian is "okay". Later in their
life, they might sexually abuse a person of their own gender and hook them
into the trap, or they might end up finding another homosexual and "fall in
love". The point is is that they are not part of God's plan and design, and
high school doesn't help one bit. Yes, God still loves them, no he does not
like them disobeying him. They aren't rejected but they aren't following
the layout. Savvy, '

Ohhh how I did chortle.

Oh man, this Onion bit on that subject is like the best satire evarrrr:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29546

Romantic-Comedy Behavior Gets Real-Life Man Arrested

TORRANCE, CA—Denny Marzano, a 28-year-old Torrance man, was arrested Monday for engaging in the type of behavior found in romantic comedies...

I was tell my female friends that they are hypocrites because the same behavior that is romantic and beautiful when they are secretly interested but saying they aren't is creepy and scary when they are not secretly interested but saying they aren't. One of the requirements of the "no" means "no" argument is that "no" does actually mean "no".

I handle it this way. When a woman says "no" I assume she A) isn't interested or B) isn't confident enough to tell me she's interested in which case I'm not interested. Either way, "no" means "no" for me no matter what she means.

I really wish we would teach women and some men, for that matter, to be more confident so there wouldn't be this confusion of trying to figure out if it's rejection or if she's just being coy. The whole thing gives me a headache.

EDIT: Actually, let me clarify lest anyone take this of a tacit excuse for date-rape or stalking. It's not. I despise this confusing behavior of some people when courting, but that does not in any way excuse a man or woman from recognizing when their advances are clearly unwanted. If there is any question, then discretion is the better part of valor.

I'll await the day when I'm 70 years old, we have flying cars that run on air, virtual reality games that actually suck you into the system, an endless amount of healthy food for a cheap price, and complete tolerance for all the people of the world.

Cool. I typed King and King into google, and followed the links on Amazon, and found a whole list of books that help teach kids diversity:

List! (http://www.amazon.com/Picture-Teach-Reality-Family-Diversity/lm/35J7SO98JEZIV/ref=cm_lmt_dtpa_f_2_rdssss0/105-7400953-2838831)

I was tell my female friends that they are hypocrites because the same behavior that is romantic and beautiful when they are secretly interested but saying they aren't is creepy and scary when they are not secretly interested but saying they aren't. One of the requirements of the "no" means "no" argument is that "no" does actually mean "no".

I handle it this way. When a woman says "no" I assume she A) isn't interested or B) isn't confident enough to tell me she's interested in which case I'm not interested. Either way, "no" means "no" for me no matter what she means.

I really wish we would teach women and some men, for that matter, to be more confident so there wouldn't be this confusion of trying to figure out if it's rejection or if she's just being coy. The whole thing gives me a headache.

EDIT: Actually, let me clarify lest anyone take this of a tacit excuse for date-rape or stalking. It's not. I despise this confusing behavior of some people when courting, but that does not in any way excuse a man or woman from recognizing when their advances are clearly unwanted. If there is any question, then discretion is the better part of valor.
Yeah, I generally have little patience with "coy" behavior, whether from men or from women.

I agree with you that "no" means "no," and that's it. The fact that women and girls are often taught that they must always say "no," even when they mean "yes," is not just sexist bullshit...it's also extremely dangerous. It interferes with girls' and women's ability to assert what they do and do not want. Girls are taught to say "no" even when they really do want to have sex, which creates confusion for them as well as for their partner.

Also, when you teach girls they must always say "no," then you are teaching guys that they will always hear "no." That's what good girls say, after all, but the manly thing to do is to go ahead anyhow! Hell, guys are often taught that NO good girl will EVER say yes to sex, because only sluts do that, so any "normal" sexual encounter will involve the girl saying "no" and the guy going ahead with it over her objections.

To tie this all back into the OP, my "gay agenda" does pretty much require that many "traditional" heterosexual relationship models and sex practices be thrown out. I think they're dangerous, unfair, and often completely bonkers. I think they increase the likelihood that people will rape or get raped. I think throwing away traditional sex roles is one very good way to get rid of dangerous rape myths and gender-role crap that enables rape. And I think gay relationships are feared for that very reason. If nobody is "the man" in the relationship, then how will they know who is supposed to do the raping, and who is supposed to be raped?! If neither party is "the woman," how will they know who is supposed to protest meekly until overpowered?

I think that the world would be a better place without gays and lesbians.

That's not to say that I can't live with them. I say that if men would rather pack crap than do it like a normal person, then alls to 'em (just as long as they dont broadcast it). I'll just let their anal seepage be their punishment.

So I guess that people can be gay if they want to, just as long as they don't broadcast it. I don't mind gay people, unless they are standing behind me.:fluffle:

Shit man, and who gets to decide what a normal human is? You? Do you have knowledge of the workings of the human brain that the rest of us don't have then?

Shit man, and who gets to decide what a normal human is? You? Do you have knowledge of the workings of the human brain that the rest of us don't have then?

He's our new Troll In The Closet. He's been popping in to all the threads that have anything remotely to do with homosexuality, and posting freak-outs about Teh Gayz. He's either somebody's new puppet, or a 13 year old boy who is about 6 months from coming out.

I think that the world would be a better place without gays and lesbians.

That's not to say that I can't live with them. I say that if men would rather pack crap than do it like a normal person, then alls to 'em (just as long as they dont broadcast it). I'll just let their anal seepage be their punishment.

So I guess that people can be gay if they want to, just as long as they don't broadcast it. I don't mind gay people, unless they are standing behind me.:fluffle:
I think that the world would be a better place without left-handed and ambidextrous people.

That's not to say that I can't live with them. I say that if people would rather use their left hand than do it like a normal person, then alls to 'em (just as long as they dont broadcast it). I'll just let their lower life expectancy due to a lack of suitable every day objects be their punishment.

So I guess that people can be lefty if they want to, just as long as they don't broadcast it. I don't mind lefties, unless they are standing to my right.:fluffle:

This message of satire was brought to you by Laerod

He's our new Troll In The Closet. He's been popping in to all the threads that have anything remotely to do with homosexuality, and posting freak-outs about Teh Gayz. He's either somebody's new puppet, or a 13 year old boy who is about 6 months from coming out.

Ahhh yeah I thought I reconised the signs, I was sort hopeing not, but heh I really don't mind feeding the troll either.

He's our new Troll In The Closet. He's been popping in to all the threads that have anything remotely to do with homosexuality, and posting freak-outs about Teh Gayz. He's either somebody's new puppet, or a 13 year old boy who is about 6 months from coming out.

Ah, the new TITC model. It's nice. A bit clunky, and the AI needs some work, but it's alright for training the greenies.

I think that the world would be a better place without gays and lesbians.

That's not to say that I can't live with them. I say that if men would rather pack crap than do it like a normal person, then alls to 'em (just as long as they dont broadcast it). I'll just let their anal seepage be their punishment.

So I guess that people can be gay if they want to, just as long as they don't broadcast it. I don't mind gay people, unless they are standing behind me.:fluffle:

The world would be a better place without gays but hey, you can suck it up and live with them anyway, eh? As long of course, you have no idea they even exist. You are so noble. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I generally have little patience with "coy" behavior, whether from men or from women.

I agree with you that "no" means "no," and that's it. The fact that women and girls are often taught that they must always say "no," even when they mean "yes," is not just sexist bullshit...it's also extremely dangerous. It interferes with girls' and women's ability to assert what they do and do not want. Girls are taught to say "no" even when they really do want to have sex, which creates confusion for them as well as for their partner.

Also, when you teach girls they must always say "no," then you are teaching guys that they will always hear "no." That's what good girls say, after all, but the manly thing to do is to go ahead anyhow! Hell, guys are often taught that NO good girl will EVER say yes to sex, because only sluts do that, so any "normal" sexual encounter will involve the girl saying "no" and the guy going ahead with it over her objections.

To tie this all back into the OP, my "gay agenda" does pretty much require that many "traditional" heterosexual relationship models and sex practices be thrown out. I think they're dangerous, unfair, and often completely bonkers. I think they increase the likelihood that people will rape or get raped. I think throwing away traditional sex roles is one very good way to get rid of dangerous rape myths and gender-role crap that enables rape. And I think gay relationships are feared for that very reason. If nobody is "the man" in the relationship, then how will they know who is supposed to do the raping, and who is supposed to be raped?! If neither party is "the woman," how will they know who is supposed to protest meekly until overpowered?

Minus, the hyperbole, that's exactly my point. Gender roles are dangerous. The fact that people suggest that because the genders or sexes of these ludicrous roles found in these stories have been changed that children will be brainwashed is ludicrous and sad. This is a problem of defending the same broken ideas of relationshps in hopes of maintaining a very scary status quo regarding gender roles rather than a problem of sexuality.

These stories have only a passing connection to sexuality but a very clear and direct connection to relationships themselves and gender roles. People have been offended by my stating it as such, but you cannot get around that sexuality is not addressed by these stories. You're a great example because if you were a character in either the traditional stories or the story being protested people would be equally wrong in guessing at your sexuality.

Ah, the new TITC model. It's nice. A bit clunky, and the AI needs some work, but it's alright for training the greenies.

And like most sequels or remakes, the new version is even more one-dimensional and weakly explored than each past incarnation. I miss the good trolls. Far be it from me to encourage Sinuhue, but HerPower was gold.

Hey we should have children's stories about how being inbred and having extra digits is normal and acceptable. You know, so they won't grow up to be heartless bastards and discriminate against alternate family systems.

Hey we should have children's stories about how being inbred and having extra digits is normal and acceptable. You know, so they won't grow up to be heartless bastards and discriminate against alternate family systems.

First of all, this story says nothing about normal or acceptable. It simply acknowledges that they exist. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Meanwhile, thanks for being the example for exactly why we need to do something about the level of bigotry. Rather than make an intelligent argument, you chose to appeal to some ridiculous misunderstanding of same-sex couples and how they might be classified. Pretty typical for those that have no better argument.

Oh no, the story would be just like the one in the news story, only instead of being gay they would be siblings. Kids need to know about this kind of thing so they aren't confused later in life incase they ever get the hots for their sisters.

Oh no, the story would be just like the one in the news story, only instead of being gay they would be siblings. Kids need to know about this kind of thing so they aren't confused later in life incase they ever get the hots for their sisters.

Again, the fact that you choose to spew nonsense rather than make an argument is evidence of your confidence in the strength of your side of the debate.

Quick, tell me the one and only reason there is any reason to be concerned about incest?

Again, the fact that you choose to spew nonsense rather than make an argument is evidence of your confidence in the strength of your side of the debate.

Quick, tell me the one and only reason there is any reason to be concerned about incest?

It's icky.

It's icky.

Obviously not, but I suspect that's his reason for the basis of the comparison. I'm certain he doesn't realize that at one time interracial dating was also considered comparable to incest.

Obviously not, but I suspect that's his reason for the basis of the comparison. I'm certain he doesn't realize that at one time interracial dating was also considered comparable to incest.

Interracial dating makes me wonder if my dick is smaller than the black guy's.

Interracial dating makes me wonder if my dick is smaller than the black guy's.

It also used to be considered icky for women to care about whether they enjoy sex or not. It used to be icky for women to not be birthing children by 18. I used to be icky for people to choose their spouses based on love. It used to be icky to have an opinion that didn't match the Pope's. I'm not much for the icky argument.

It also used to be considered icky for women to care about whether they enjoy sex or not. It used to be icky for women to not be birthing children by 18. I used to be icky for people to choose their spouses based on love. It used to be icky to have an opinion that didn't match the Pope's. I'm not much for the icky argument.

Ickyness is a major factor in Bush's bioethics council's decisions.

Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the arguments presented in defense of human cloning is the extent to which they have to stretch and work to get around what appears to be an almost instinctive revulsion against cloning human beings on the part of the public and many scientists and decision makers. For reasons that many people have difficulty articulating, nearly everyone agrees that they do not want to see a cloned human being brought to term. What should we make of this revulsion? Is it mere prejudice, born of ignorance and of the fear of novelty? Or does it rest in some genuine insight?
http://www.bioethics.gov/background/workpaper3b.html

Again, the fact that you choose to spew nonsense rather than make an argument is evidence of your confidence in the strength of your side of the debate.

Quick, tell me the one and only reason there is any reason to be concerned about incest?

Oh no problems with incest? You liberals are a tough crowd.

OK so the story is about a mountain man, only he's married to a grizzly bear. Teaching kids about bestiality is important to prevent future violence against people that have sex with animals.

Oh no, the story would be just like the one in the news story, only instead of being gay they would be siblings. Kids need to know about this kind of thing so they aren't confused later in life incase they ever get the hots for their sisters."Morals" aren't mathematic, i.e. just because homosexuality = immoral and incest = immoral wouldn't automatically mean that homosexuality = incest, especially since you'd have to prove that both are immoral first.

There is a case with incest, so you try to avoid the fact that there isn't a case with homosexuality by equating them and arguing only about incest.

Oh no problems with incest? You liberals are a tough crowd.

OK so the story is about a mountain man, only he's married to a grizzly bear. Teaching kids about bestiality is important to prevent future violence against people that have sex with animals.

Ok, since reading is not your strong suit, I'll explain. I said there is a problem with incest. It's not comparable to same-sex relationships.

Now, I'll try again. Quick, tell me the one and only reason there is any reason to be concerned about incest? Why should one have a problem with incest?

I know the answer. I do have a problem with incest and unlike you I can articulate exactly why I have a problem with incest. But show me that I'm wrong and try making an argument.

"Morals" aren't mathematic, i.e. just because homosexuality = immoral and incest = immoral wouldn't automatically mean that homosexuality = incest, especially since you'd have to prove that both are immoral first.

There is a case with incest, so you try to avoid the fact that there isn't a case with homosexuality by equating them and arguing only about incest.

Unfortunately, he can't even articulate why there is a problem with incest. When asked he simply changed the subject.

Unfortunately, he can't even articulate why there is a problem with incest. When asked he simply changed the subject.

I suppose the good possibility of genetic damage to the offspring of such a couple or the very possible emotional consequences to one or both parties is something that couldn't have been brought up as an arguement? If one can't say why something like incest is wrong it is hard to fathom how one can argue about society's more gray issues.

I suppose the good possibility of genetic damage to the offspring of such a couple or the very possible emotional consequences to one or both parties is something that couldn't have been brought up as an arguement? If one can't say why something like incest is wrong it is hard to fathom how one can argue about society's more gray issues.

You nailed it and you're not even making the argument.

The issue with incest is that we worry about it affecting others in very real ways. With incest on many lawbooks it expressly addresses the issue of having a child and the potential consequences of having a child. Depending on how close the family member is genetically, the increase in risk is often double or more or the risk found between the average two random people.

With bestiality, the risk is obvious, no consent. Lack of consent means sex is not allowed. Very simple.

There is nothing about a same-sex relationship that can ever in any way be compared to either of these issues. The only thing comparable about them to anyone who would logically link them is the "ick" factor were one to feel that way. And the "ick" factor is not a logical basis for law no matter how much bigots would like it to be.

I suppose the good possibility of genetic damage to the offspring of such a couple...is something that couldn't have been brought up as an arguement?

Setting aside the other possibilities you offered (emotional damage, etc), allow me to lay your mind to rest about this one.

Statistically speaking, the likelihood of birth defects due to a pairing between close genetic relatives is not really a serious concern.

One source I've found (Bennett et al, Journal of Genetic Counseling, 2002) says that, on average, offspring of first-cousin unions have about a 2 to 3 percent greater risk of birth defects than the general population. By way of comparison, offspring born to mothers over the age of 40 are almost four times as likely to be born with Down's Syndrome compared to infants born to mothers 35 and younger.

The only serious risks come into play when a family already has a genetic defect in their gene pool. Obviously it is probably risky for multiple carriers of a harmful recessive gene to be having kids, because they increase the chances of their kids getting TWO copies of the same gene. But you'd have just the same risk if one of the family members with that gene had kids with a non-family member who also happened to have that gene.

Most of the examples that people hold up as examples of the harms of incest are actually not really what they may seem to be. For instance, the high incidence of hemophilia in certain European royal families wasn't caused by in-breeding, as many people seem to think. Hemophilia is an X-chromosome trait that was carried by female members of the royal line; any children they had would have been at risk, no matter who the fathers were.

Setting aside the other possibilities you offered (emotional damage, etc), allow me to lay your mind to rest about this one.

Statistically speaking, the likelihood of birth defects due to a pairing between close genetic relatives is not really a serious concern.

One source I've found (Bennett et al, Journal of Genetic Counseling, 2002) says that, on average, offspring of first-cousin unions have about a 2 to 3 percent greater risk of birth defects than the general population. By way of comparison, offspring born to mothers over the age of 40 are almost four times as likely to be born with Down's Syndrome compared to infants born to mothers 35 and younger.

The only serious risks come into play when a family already has a genetic defect in their gene pool. Obviously it is probably risky for multiple carriers of a harmful recessive gene to be having kids, because they increase the chances of their kids getting TWO copies of the same gene. But you'd have just the same risk if one of the family members with that gene had kids with a non-family member who also happened to have that gene.

Most of the examples that people hold up as examples of the harms of incest are actually not really what they may seem to be. For instance, the high incidence of hemophilia in certain European royal families wasn't caused by in-breeding, as many people seem to think. Hemophilia is an X-chromosome trait that was carried by female members of the royal line; any children they had would have been at risk, no matter who the fathers were.

I believe I read that it's about a 2 to 3 percent increase in overall likelihood. In other words, it's like 4% generally and 7% with first cousins and even higher for siblings. Of course, this is only a case if chidlren are a possiblity.

Another issue of incest is that part of what makes the relationships we have with family so safe is that there is no fear of arousing or arousal. I needn't worry that I might entice my uncle by sitting on his lap because a very young age he and I both have been taught that sexuality between relatives simply has no place.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/columns/fl.grossman.incest.04.09/
There are other justifications for incest laws that might be more compelling. Anthropologists Margaret Mead and Claude Levi-Strauss both wrote convincingly in defense of the "incest taboo." Mead characterized the widely held belief that incest is wrong as "among the essential mechanisms of human society."

According to Mead, the taboo has strong benefits: Because certain sexual and marital relationships are categorically forbidden, and the categorical ban is instilled early on in children's minds, children can grow and develop affectionate, close bonds with a wide span of relatives, without the intrusion of "inappropriate sexuality." Children can "wander freely, sitting on laps, pulling beards, and nestling their heads against comforting breasts-neither tempting nor being tempted beyond their years."

Levi-Strauss focused on the benefits of the incest taboo to society at large. The ban on intrafamily marriage forces families to reach outward and connect with other families -- and it is those connections between many different families that make society function.

Also -

The problem comes in another component of the constitutional analysis -- the "narrow tailoring" requirement, which tests the closeness of the relationship between the state's chosen means and its desired ends. According to the recent report, children of unrelated parents have a 3 percent to 4 percent chance of being born with a serious birth defect. Children of first cousins have only a slighter higher risk--roughly a 4 percent to 7 percent chance. Thus, the ban on cousin marriages will not go very far toward the general problem of preventing birth defects.

Agree or disagree, it's a bit more substantive than "it's icky."

There is nothing about a same-sex relationship that can ever in any way be compared to either of these issues. The only thing comparable about them to anyone who would logically link them is the "ick" factor were one to feel that way. And the "ick" factor is not a logical basis for law no matter how much bigots would like it to be.

Sure, I hardly see how a relationship that two adults agree to can be wrong. It is their choice and there are some sexual practices that can be done by straight people that should bring more of an "ick" factor to a person anyway. The "golden shower" to begin with.

*shudders*

Sure, I hardly see how a relationship that two adults agree to can be wrong. It is their choice and there are some sexual practices that can be done by straight people that should bring more of an "ick" factor to a person anyway. The "golden shower" to begin with.

*shudders*

Fortunately, we tend to keep sexuality completely out of children's stories altogether instead focusing on relationships and simply telling a compelling story. The sexuality of same-sex couples needn't become a part of these stories anymore than the often gruesome sexualities of oppositie-sex pairings.

Another issue of incest is that part of what makes the relationships we have with family so safe is that there is no fear of arousing or arousal. I needn't worry that I might entice my uncle by sitting on his lap because a very young age he and I both have been taught that sexuality between relatives simply has no place.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/columns/fl.grossman.incest.04.09/
There are other justifications for incest laws that might be more compelling. Anthropologists Margaret Mead and Claude Levi-Strauss both wrote convincingly in defense of the "incest taboo." Mead characterized the widely held belief that incest is wrong as "among the essential mechanisms of human society."

According to Mead, the taboo has strong benefits: Because certain sexual and marital relationships are categorically forbidden, and the categorical ban is instilled early on in children's minds, children can grow and develop affectionate, close bonds with a wide span of relatives, without the intrusion of "inappropriate sexuality." Children can "wander freely, sitting on laps, pulling beards, and nestling their heads against comforting breasts-neither tempting nor being tempted beyond their years."

Levi-Strauss focused on the benefits of the incest taboo to society at large. The ban on intrafamily marriage forces families to reach outward and connect with other families -- and it is those connections between many different families that make society function.

Agree or disagree, it's a bit more substantive than "it's icky."
Indeed. My problems with incest are with the emotional/social issues that it creates. I don't think the "biological" problems are really that big a deal.

So sorry to return to the issue in question, but it would be no bad thing if Macho culture did die out.

Just a point.

Indeed. My problems with incest are with the emotional/social issues that it creates. I don't think the "biological" problems are really that big a deal.

I know people tend to downplay the increase in risk, but I would consider nearly doubling the odds of genetic defect to be largely significant. Fortunately such issues are easily avoided these days simply by getting a genetic profile.

The emotional/social issues, however, are unavoidable and clearly significant. Of course, our troll friend would have learned this had he actually cared to have a discussion rather than assuming that us dirty liberals can't possibly see a value to an incest prohibition even after I stated there was one and asked if he knew what it was.

Some would argue the "beyond their years" portion of the part I quoted, saying that if you are raised in a healthy environment that being tempted beyond your years is unlikely, but the danger is not only in being tempted, but in tempting, which is a significant reason for societal taboos on both incest (where among family we are often in situations that would be inappropriate intimate with non-family because of the spectre of sexuality) and child sex acts or sexualization (yes, I'd include putting Jon Bonet Ramsey on stage dressed as a woman as quickly as a babysitter molesting a child).

So sorry to return to the issue in question, but it would be no bad thing if Macho culture did die out.

Just a point.

Our discussion directly relates to the point, because it's implied that the "ick" factor has value and that any "normalization" that would overcome that "ick" factor denies that value. We're pointing out that while the "ick" factor might have value when talking about other issues, we have yet to hear any significant value to lumping same-sex couples with these other issues.

I know people tend to downplay the increase in risk, but I would consider nearly doubling the odds of genetic defect to be largely significant. Fortunately such issues are easily avoided these days simply by getting a genetic profile.

Sure, but odds are increased far more simply by getting 5 years older. Yet I think it is often very wise for people to choose to wait 5 more years before having children.


Some would argue the "beyond their years" portion of the part I quoted, saying that if you are raised in a healthy environment that being tempted beyond your years is unlikely, but the danger is not only in being tempted, but in tempting, which is a significant reason for societal taboos on both incest (where among family we are often in situations that would be inappropriate intimate with non-family because of the spectre of sexuality) and child sex acts or sexualization (yes, I'd include putting Jon Bonet Ramsey on stage dressed as a woman as quickly as a babysitter molesting a child).
I absolutely agree with this. Teaching kids about sex and sexuality does not in any way have to mean sexualizing the kids. I knew the mechanics of sex before I started kindergarten, and I knew about the existence of homosexuality at least as early (having a lesbian godmother made it kind of hard to avoid knowing about that stuff). But I actually think my parents insulated me against many forms of sexualization that kids are normally exposed to.

So sorry to return to the issue in question, but it would be no bad thing if Macho culture did die out.

Just a point.

Did someone get picked on in school?

So sorry to return to the issue in question, but it would be no bad thing if Macho culture did die out.

I think the discussion of sexual taboos is right on topic for this thread.

Hell, homophobes and "macho" types are often the first to bring up things like incest or bestiality in conversations about homosexuality. Clearly, they see a parallel between these. So we take a look at that. :)

But of course I agree with you completely on the subject of macho culture. I think it's harmful to everybody, male and female, and insulting to just about everybody, too.

Did someone get picked on in school?
Well, yes, it's very likely that many of the people in this thread were picked on. Hypermasculinity itself is actually very often a reaction to teasing by peers. Boys who are taunted for being "girlish" or "feminine" will often seek to compensate by showing "manly" traits in the extreme. This is perfectly reasonable, from their perspective, though it can lead to some spectacularly bone-headed activities. There was a kid in my school who decided to sneak into the girls' lockerroom and masturbate in front of an entire gym class to prove that he "wasn't no faggot."

Well, yes, it's very likely that many of the people in this thread were picked on. Hypermasculinity itself is actually very often a reaction to teasing by peers. Boys who are taunted for being "girlish" or "feminine" will often seek to compensate by showing "manly" traits in the extreme. This is perfectly reasonable, from their perspective, though it can lead to some spectacularly bone-headed activities. There was a kid in my school who decided to sneak into the girls' lockerroom and masturbate in front of an entire gym class to prove that he "wasn't no faggot."

What a moron. Didn't he know he could just yank out a handful of chest hair like the guy on the snickers commercial?

Sure, but odds are increased far more simply by getting 5 years older. Yet I think it is often very wise for people to choose to wait 5 more years before having children.

I actually don't agree with that waiting that five years for exact reason you brought up. Right now, once women reach that stage in their life the danger to the likelihood for a healthy child becomes too much for me to accept. I wouldn't force my view on others, but it's how I feel. I think 40 is perhaps preferable to most 20-year-olds, but I think optimally people would do their birthing in their late 20's, early 30's. We can't downplay the importance of the physical health of both the child and the mother, even if we deem the psychological health to be more important (and I hope we do).

I absolutely agree with this. Teaching kids about sex and sexuality does not in any way have to mean sexualizing the kids. I knew the mechanics of sex before I started kindergarten, and I knew about the existence of homosexuality at least as early (having a lesbian godmother made it kind of hard to avoid knowing about that stuff). But I actually think my parents insulated me against many forms of sexualization that kids are normally exposed to.

I had the opposite experience. I was molested for a year, extending into acts that I've not yet performed and may never perform as an adult, yet we never ever discussed the incident. I was left from 4 to 17 to try and figure out how to deal with that sexualization because a psychiatrist said it was best for my parents to pretend it never happened.

Teaching our children about the world does several things.

1. It helps them to learn things that are true rather than just whatever they come across.
2. It helsp us to protect them by getting to know them better and being able to recognize when they are in danger of any kind.
3. It helps them to know that they can come to Mommy or Daddy or whatever they call their adult caregivers when someone is doing something inappropriate or when they just have questions about something that is hurting them or making them uncomfortable. Obviously, this extends way past sexualiztion and into nearly every danger our children face. Children are more aware than we almost ever give them credit for. It's our job to open a door for them to explore their questions with us lest we not realize they have them until it's too late.

My parents were convinced by that idiot psychiatrist that if they just bury my head in the sand that I'll never realize I'm being screwed, literally and figuratively.

Well, yes, it's very likely that many of the people in this thread were picked on. Hypermasculinity itself is actually very often a reaction to teasing by peers. Boys who are taunted for being "girlish" or "feminine" will often seek to compensate by showing "manly" traits in the extreme. This is perfectly reasonable, from their perspective, though it can lead to some spectacularly bone-headed activities. There was a kid in my school who decided to sneak into the girls' lockerroom and masturbate in front of an entire gym class to prove that he "wasn't no faggot."And? Was he no faggot? And did they enjoy the performance? :p

I think the discussion of sexual taboos is right on topic for this thread.

Hell, homophobes and "macho" types are often the first to bring up things like incest or bestiality in conversations about homosexuality. Clearly, they see a parallel between these. So we take a look at that. :)

But of course I agree with you completely on the subject of macho culture. I think it's harmful to everybody, male and female, and insulting to just about everybody, too.

And throw in the helpless damsel culture too or whatever we call it.

[QUOTE=Bottle;12309965]I think this says a lot about the failures of the adults in your life when you were growing up.

It's a pity that you didn't have any grown-ups around who could speak to you honestly and openly about the world. Hell, it's sad that you didn't personally know any out gay individuals, because you probably could have grown up feeling much more comfortable and understanding when it comes to homosexuality.

Kids are just as able to understand "princess-princess" as they are able to understand "prince-princess." It's only through the deliberate efforts of homophobic adults that children grow up in ignorance, these days. You actually have to put a whole lot of effort into making your kid remain ignorant and homophobic, as this very thread demonstrates! :D


Um, nobody is advocating that we "try out" same-sex love on children. That would be pedophilia, and is a completely different topic.

What people are suggesting is that we should stop artificially creating bigots by teaching children to view homosexuality as somehow less natural or normal than heterosexuality. Rest assured, that is not a belief that magically springs into kids' heads all by itself...you have to teach them to be nervous about sexuality. By themselves, normal little kids aren't all uptight about sexuality.[/QUOT

Homosexuality is wrong. If God had wanted homosexuality to be classified as a "normal" thing, he would have created Adam and steve, as well as Adam and Eve.

What a moron. Didn't he know he could just yank out a handful of chest hair like the guy on the snickers commercial?
I was actually there when the school officers came to get him, and I will always remember how one of them responded when he said he was trying to prove he wasn't a faggot.

The officer gives this blank, confused stare, and says, "Coulda just joined the football team. JV squad's looking mighty thin this year."

And? Was he no faggot? And did they enjoy the performance? :p
I honestly don't know whether or not he was a faggot, but I can tell you that he never got a date with any female at our school after that. :)

http://www.folsomlakebowl.com/Chef%20south%20park.gif

Remember children, everyone's a little gay.

I think this says a lot about the failures of the adults in your life when you were growing up.

It's a pity that you didn't have any grown-ups around who could speak to you honestly and openly about the world. Hell, it's sad that you didn't personally know any out gay individuals, because you probably could have grown up feeling much more comfortable and understanding when it comes to homosexuality.

Kids are just as able to understand "princess-princess" as they are able to understand "prince-princess." It's only through the deliberate efforts of homophobic adults that children grow up in ignorance, these days. You actually have to put a whole lot of effort into making your kid remain ignorant and homophobic, as this very thread demonstrates! :D


Um, nobody is advocating that we "try out" same-sex love on children. That would be pedophilia, and is a completely different topic.

What people are suggesting is that we should stop artificially creating bigots by teaching children to view homosexuality as somehow less natural or normal than heterosexuality. Rest assured, that is not a belief that magically springs into kids' heads all by itself...you have to teach them to be nervous about sexuality. By themselves, normal little kids aren't all uptight about sexuality.

Homosexuality is wrong. If God had wanted homosexuality to be classified as a "normal" thing, he would have created Adam and steve, as well as Adam and Eve.


Hehehehehehe...you're funny! Mwah!

And throw in the helpless damsel culture too or whatever we call it.
Oh lord yes.

I know I've got the rep of being a ball-busting feminist around here, but I'm honestly more annoyed by the "helpless damsel" types than I am by the idiot macho types.

Every God-Fearing Heterosexual Real American such as Pastor Ted Haggard knows that the Dawn of the Dead remake is really an allegory on homosexuality.

:D

I think the discussion of sexual taboos is right on topic for this thread.

Hell, homophobes and "macho" types are often the first to bring up things like incest or bestiality in conversations about homosexuality. Clearly, they see a parallel between these. So we take a look at that. :)

But of course I agree with you completely on the subject of macho culture. I think it's harmful to everybody, male and female, and insulting to just about everybody, too.

Sure, homophobes have to try and make analogies with what society views as even more disgusting but luckily more and more people are ignoring these fools.

Perhaps I'm mistaken on the "macho" comment but I see no reason why someone gay can't have macho qualities. They can certainly be dominant, overly "manly", aggressive, vain, etc. Sexual orientation doesn't affect if you are a self-centered jerk after all. :)

Well, yes, it's very likely that many of the people in this thread were picked on. Hypermasculinity itself is actually very often a reaction to teasing by peers. Boys who are taunted for being "girlish" or "feminine" will often seek to compensate by showing "manly" traits in the extreme. This is perfectly reasonable, from their perspective, though it can lead to some spectacularly bone-headed activities. There was a kid in my school who decided to sneak into the girls' lockerroom and masturbate in front of an entire gym class to prove that he "wasn't no faggot."

My response to the teasing (I was teased that, at four, I didn't enjoy sex with my female teen-aged babysitter so I must be gay) was to simply kick the crap out of anyone who decided to bully me. Throw in that I was punished for fighting, but called a "fag" by my father if chose to walk away from a fight and he found out about it (I had four siblings, he always found out).

Oddly, though, even at the height of my problems with violent I never get caught up in that macho crap about how men aren't supposed to have feelings or how we shouldn't interact with each other or women on any deep level at all.

I'd point out that now I'm an advocate for equality and my father is no longer openly racist (I don't expect that all of what he used to believe has disappeared) or openly homophobic. My grandmother who used to both openly dislike minorities and homosexuals has openly advocated interracial relatationships and said that one of the saddest things in her life is that she knew a couple, two males, where one died and because of current laws regarding the transfer of property and retirement benefits, the other was left completely destitute despite caring for the home and children of the other for many decades.

In other words, I think the rise and fall of the ridiculous roles, gender and otherwise, we've created in society can be so simply related to any cause or directly expected as a result of any one thing.

Oh lord yes.

I know I've got the rep of being a ball-busting feminist around here, but I'm honestly more annoyed by the "helpless damsel" types than I am by the idiot macho types.

Well, there are SO many different types of people that one can be annoyed with. :p

I actually don't agree with that waiting that five years for exact reason you brought up. Right now, once women reach that stage in their life the danger to the likelihood for a healthy child becomes too much for me to accept. I wouldn't force my view on others, but it's how I feel. I think 40 is perhaps preferable to most 20-year-olds, but I think optimally people would do their birthing in their late 20's, early 30's. We can't downplay the importance of the physical health of both the child and the mother, even if we deem the psychological health to be more important (and I hope we do).

I don't think the solution will ever be to try to dictate when a particular person has kids. It's just never going to be a realistic option, because each situation will vary so much. I don't think it's even possible to say that there is an ideal age for bearing of children, because the likelihood that a woman will receive good prenatal care and eat a good diet and all that INCREASES with age. And those are all risk factors, too!


I had the opposite experience. I was molested for a year, extending into acts that I've not yet performed and may never perform as an adult, yet we never ever discussed the incident. I was left from 4 to 17 to try and figure out how to deal with that sexualization because a psychiatrist said it was best for my parents to pretend it never happened.

Teaching our children about the world does several things.

1. It helps them to learn things that are true rather than just whatever they come across.
2. It helsp us to protect them by getting to know them better and being able to recognize when they are in danger of any kind.
3. It helps them to know that they can come to Mommy or Daddy or whatever they call their adult caregivers when someone is doing something inappropriate or when they just have questions about something that is hurting them or making them uncomfortable. Obviously, this extends way past sexualiztion and into nearly every danger our children face. Children are more aware than we almost ever give them credit for. It's our job to open a door for them to explore their questions with us lest we not realize they have them until it's too late.

My parents were convinced by that idiot psychiatrist that if they just bury my head in the sand that I'll never realize I'm being screwed, literally and figuratively.
These are some really important points.

I joked about it (maybe on this thread?), how if you don't tell your kids what "sex" is then one day you'll come home and find that they've invented a new game called "Hide The Pee-Pee In The Hoo-Hoo." But seriously speaking, if kids don't know a damn thing about sex or sexuality then they aren't going to be as able to assert themselves and communicate if something is wrong. They aren't going to be as able to cope if something bad happens to them, or even if their body is simply going through normal changes.

My own grandmother was terrified that she was about to die when she got her first period, because nobody had bothered to tell her a thing about it. Imagine being 11 years old, believing you were going to die from some horrible mysterious illness, but not being able to tell anybody because you knew you weren't allowed to mention anything about your "private parts."

Gaaah, it's just so fucked up to me that there are parents who intentionally neglect their children's education and intentionally put them at higher risk for injury and illness. I don't think I will ever really understand it, deep down.

Homosexuality is wrong. If God had wanted homosexuality to be classified as a "normal" thing, he would have created Adam and steve, as well as Adam and Eve.

Um... He did. Or do you believe that God did not create all of the heavens and the earth?

How exactly can you claim that an omnipotent being that created everything we know of could have in his creation something he didn't want? There are gay animals. Did he not create them? There are gay men and women and always have been. Who created them? Either God is omnipotent or he's not. Adam and Steve, as you put it, are most certainly as likely to be God's creation as Adam and Eve, unless you're one of those who believes in multiple creators.

Oh lord yes.

I know I've got the rep of being a ball-busting feminist around here, but I'm honestly more annoyed by the "helpless damsel" types than I am by the idiot macho types.

I'd it's more that the Helpless Damsel types nowadays are Blatantly Helpless and Whining Paris Hilton/Britney Spears types, which is really irritating.

I'd it's more that the Helpless Damsel types nowadays are Blatantly Helpless and Whining Paris Hilton/Britney Spears types, which is really irritating.

Paris Hilton isn't helpless. She works and earns money, though she doesn't need it. She's also apparently quite good at sucking cock.

“Paris also gives the best oral sex. Yes, she's better at it than Lindsay Lohan!”http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2004580002-2007050476,00.html

Homosexuality is wrong. If God had wanted homosexuality to be classified as a "normal" thing, he would have created Adam and steve, as well as Adam and Eve.Unless you can prove what god's will really is, your point is worthless. And btw the generation after Adam and Eve were men (Abel, Cain, Seth). What now, love?
And you're a female, right? With all that Angels stuff....
http://z.about.com/d/altreligion/1/0/b/y/2/glossarymesotetra.jpg

Um... He did. Or do you believe that God did not create all of the heavens and the earth?

How exactly can you claim that an omnipotent being that created everything we know of could have in his creation something he didn't want? There are gay animals. Did he not create them? There are gay men and women and always have been. Who created them? Either God is omnipotent or he's not. Adam and Steve, as you put it, are most certainly as likely to be God's creation as Adam and Eve, unless you're one of those who believes in multiple creators.

God did outlaw homosexuality though. Something that some Christians decide to ignore so they can be tolerant. But Christians can ignore or twist whatever they want in the Bible when it suits their interests.

I'd it's more that the Helpless Damsel types nowadays are Blatantly Helpless and Whining Paris Hilton/Britney Spears types, which is really irritating.

The one that makes me want to employ a simultaneous eye and ear gouge is the type like that girl on Beauty and the Geek this season. She shows moments of clarity that shows she's smarter than she lets on, but pretends to be this complete and absolutely annoying idiot. I don't generally care about reality shows, but if she wins, I'm declaring that a sign of the Apocolypse.

Again, tying this back to the topic, it's pretty clear that these types of gender roles "close your mouth honey and just look pretty" are far, far more dangerous than even the most "perverted" of couplings within a story book could possibly be.

Umm...the Bible does say homosexuality is okay. Duh, you're telling me Cain and Abel loved each other only in a brotherly way?

Also notice that God created Adam naked. And the abundance of well-muscled, topless men in religious art.

God did outlaw homosexuality though. Something that some Christians decide to ignore so they can be tolerant. But Christians can ignore or twist whatever they want in the Bible when it suits their interests.

He did? Are you sure? Didn't the same writers outlaw long hair (Jesus had long hair) and wearing two different kinds of fabric? Didn't the same writers endorse slavery and mysogyny? Perhaps, what God wants and doesn't want is a bit more complicated than you're letting on.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Homosexuality was put on par with wearing two fabrics. I suppose you'd be okay with you being ahead of the gays on the train to hell, no?

God did outlaw homosexuality though.The fabricated blasphemous Jewish god? Well, he's not real and thus no authority to give laws to anybody. And if you are following the bible, you are following Jewish fanatics who were afraid of Jews failing to reproduce...

Hey if there's no problem with sticking it up another man's pooper there shouldn't be a problem with sticking it in your sister.

It's not like you bang your cousin once and you get three headed babies. The Egyptians did it for hundreds of years and the worst they ended up with was vericose veins.

As to animals, is it okay if the animal is penetrating the human?

You're worried about a society where your sister might hit on you? I worried about a society where other guys hit on me.

As to animals, is it okay if the animal is penetrating the human?

Word is that's a driving industry in the darker, seedier parts of Mexico.

:D

He did? Are you sure? Didn't the same writers outlaw long hair (Jesus had long hair) and wearing two different kinds of fabric? Didn't the same writers endorse slavery and mysogyny? Perhaps, what God wants and doesn't want is a bit more complicated than you're letting on.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Homosexuality was put on par with wearing two fabrics. I suppose you'd be okay with you being ahead of the gays on the train to hell, no?And let's not forget that when a men has a brother who dies, that man has to get his sister-in-law pregnant...

Hey if there's no problem with sticking it up another man's pooper there shouldn't be a problem with sticking it in your sister.

It's not like you bang your cousin once and you get three headed babies. The Egyptians did it for hundreds of years and the worst they ended up with was vericose veins.

As to animals, is it okay if the animal is penetrating the human?

You're worried about a society where your sister might hit on you? I worried about a society where other guys hit on me.

And again, you willfully avoid the arguments to instead dwell in the land of appeals to ignorance and emotion. Let me guess, you'd think it was okay for a woman to molest a four-year-old boy, because the boy does the penetrating? Performing is not consent. Sorry, but that shows a ridiculous lack of understanding of even the most basic tenets of consent.

If you're going to use substitution as an argument like you're doing, you have to establish that the two issue are equivalent. You've not done so, nor have you tried.

Meanwhile, there's only one reason you'd be upset by being hit on by someone of the same sex. You're afraid you might get too drunk and forget it's supposed to be icky. Otherwise, what possible difference could it make to a mature and confident human being. As Shakespeare said, Methinks, thou dost protest too much.

As to animals, is it okay if the animal is penetrating the human?


Well, it doesn't work either way. Unless you launch them at high enough speeds to achieve a piercing wound.

The fabricated blasphemous Jewish god? Well, he's not real and thus no authority to give laws to anybody. And if you are following the bible, you are following Jewish fanatics who were afraid of Jews failing to reproduce...

He's fabricated and blasphemous? Hmmm... methinks you didn't really think that through.

Against whom is this "fabricated" blaspheming?

The fabricated blasphemous Jewish god? Well, he's not real and thus no authority to give laws to anybody. And if you are following the bible, you are following Jewish fanatics who were afraid of Jews failing to reproduce...

I am not religious in any way except that I still sometimes go to church with my parents to keep them appeased. But I don't have any kind of faith at all. But those who do can try to claim that they should be tolerant to homosexuals. But that makes no sense since in the Bible it is condemned. It is something that can not be ignored by the religious who don't want to appear to be intolerant. But they really have no choice unless they want to be hypocrites.

He's fabricated and blasphemous? Hmmm... methinks you didn't really think that through.
Against whom is this "fabricated" blaspheming?The original god(s) he was styled from.

I am not religious in any way except that I still sometimes go to church with my parents to keep them appeased. But I don't have any kind of faith at all. But those who do can try to claim that they should be tolerant to homosexuals. But that makes no sense since in the Bible it is condemned. It is something that can not be ignored by the religious who don't want to appear to be intolerant. But they really have no choice unless they want to be hypocrites.

False. Many religious people don't adhere to the Bible or even a JudeoChristian god. Meanwhile, even Christians often disagree on what should be in the Bible, what it means and how it should be addressed. You oversimply the issue so you can stereotype and hold people to a standard you completely fabricated.

Most of my friends who are Christian don't regard the Nicean Council to have any place in dictating what a Christian should believe.

The original god(s) he was styled from.

So you view the original god(s) to be sacred and inviolable? Interesting. Which god(s) is it that you find sacred? I'd really love to hear you expound on this.

Or you could simply that you're just blinding and ignorantly lashing out at Christians and you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Your choice, but trust me this road isn't going to end with you looking like anything but a bigot.

Hey if there's no problem with sticking it up another man's pooper there shouldn't be a problem with sticking it in your sister.

It's not like you bang your cousin once and you get three headed babies. The Egyptians did it for hundreds of years and the worst they ended up with was vericose veins.

As to animals, is it okay if the animal is penetrating the human?

You're worried about a society where your sister might hit on you? I worried about a society where other guys hit on me.

An animal can not give consent so the question simply doesn't make sense. And if you actually believe that society will ever allow incest to become common practice then you are simply allowing your fear of gays to totally take control of your senses.

I am not religious in any way except that I still sometimes go to church with my parents to keep them appeased. But I don't have any kind of faith at all. But those who do can try to claim that they should be tolerant to homosexuals. But that makes no sense since in the Bible it is condemned. It is something that can not be ignored by the religious who don't want to appear to be intolerant. But they really have no choice unless they want to be hypocrites.Tolerant? I.e. to suffer something that you think to be wrong?
And why would a grown up human ever give a **** for what the Bible says?
Homosexuality may be wrong, I don't know or care, but I do know that believing in the Bible certainly is wronger in every way.

False. Many religious people don't adhere to the Bible or even a JudeoChristian god. Meanwhile, even Christians often disagree on what should be in the Bible, what it means and how it should be addressed. You oversimply the issue so you can stereotype and hold people to a standard you completely fabricated.

Most of my friends who are Christian don't regard the Nicean Council to have any place in dictating what a Christian should believe.

I am using the Bible because in this country the Christian religion is the dominant faith. So I am using the religious people who follow that faith and so use that text in their religious ceremonies. I am perfectly aware that there are many belief systems that do not include the Bible. However in the US most do. And the idea that humans can pick and choose which passages to follow makes zero sense to me. If God actually exists then he has allowed his most loyal followers to write his holy book and all therein is his holy truth. If this is the case then humanity can't come in after the fact and change what they don't like because it is no longer PC. If it is in the Bible it must be correct. If a Christian believes there are wrong things in that text then where is their faith? Besides, the passage that is against homosexuality is quite clear, hardly ambiguous at all.

So you view the original god(s) to be sacred and inviolable? Interesting. Which god(s) is it that you find sacred? I'd really love to hear you expound on this.Yah and El. As they were worshiped before Jews merged them into their strange monotheistic ideology and changed their characters so as to suit only their own purposes as an assumed ethnic group.

Or you could simply that you're just blinding and ignorantly lashing out at Christians and you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Your choice, but trust me this road isn't going to end with you looking like anything but a bigot.Bigot? Maybe. I only tolerate what's tolerable.

I am using the Bible because in this country the Christian religion is the dominant faith. So I am using the religious people who follow that faith and so use that text in their religious ceremonies. I am perfectly aware that there are many belief systems that do not include the Bible. However in the US most do. And the idea that humans can pick and choose which passages to follow makes zero sense to me. If God actually exists then he has allowed his most loyal followers to write his holy book and all therein is his holy truth. If this is the case then humanity can't come in after the fact and change what they don't like because it is no longer PC. If it is in the Bible it must be correct. If a Christian believes there are wrong things in that text then where is their faith? Besides, the passage that is against homosexuality is quite clear, hardly ambiguous at all.

So, let's see if we've got this down. People must adhere to your version of Christianity that you don't believe and your translation of the Bible and your view of the infallibility and literal value of the Bible all of which you believe to be nonsense or else they are hypocrites? Ha. Forgive me for laughing, but HAHA.

If you don't realize that Christians are all exactly the same and don't all or even mostly believe the things you're espousing then you're not very aware of the world. The passage is hardly clear. Please, don't tell me that I have to educate you on the Bible you don't believe in. It seems a little ludicrous. Meanwhile, the majority of the Christians who believe in tolerance either don't consider this equal to acceptance (which you're suggesting) or believe the translation by men of a text not written by men, but passed down orally by men, is flawed.

Keep in mind that Jews who were those that actually passed down the tradition of the old testament don't agree with Christians on this and many, many points.

I am using the Bible because in this country the Christian religion is the dominant faith.Since when does the number of an ideology's followers make that ideology more valuable?

Yah and El. As they were worshiped before Jews merged them into their strange monotheistic ideology and changed their characters so as to suit only their own purposes as an assumed ethnic group.

Bigot? Maybe. I only tolerate what's tolerable.

Ah, so you find Yah and El to be sacred? Or are you perhaps being more than a little dishonest here?

And yes, it's bigotted to use ignorance and broad strokes to paint any entire group with the same brush for your own less than kind purposes. I'm sorry if that hurts your feeling. Your inability to accept that you used the term blasphemous in a clearly incorrect manner is just more evidence of your inability to accept that you've stepped in it. To pursue this course is also evidence that you're unwilling to logically accept that your position unteneble instead choosing to charge forward in a manner that one might call dogmatic.

I am using the Bible because in this country the Christian religion is the dominant faith. So I am using the religious people who follow that faith and so use that text in their religious ceremonies. I am perfectly aware that there are many belief systems that do not include the Bible. However in the US most do. And the idea that humans can pick and choose which passages to follow makes zero sense to me. If God actually exists then he has allowed his most loyal followers to write his holy book and all therein is his holy truth. If this is the case then humanity can't come in after the fact and change what they don't like because it is no longer PC. If it is in the Bible it must be correct. If a Christian believes there are wrong things in that text then where is their faith? Besides, the passage that is against homosexuality is quite clear, hardly ambiguous at all.

One logical problem with this way of thinking is that it ignores the existence of multiple versions of the Bible, not to mention an awful lot of potentially equally "holy" books that never made the cut in the first place - decisions that were made by ordinary people, not prophets or mouthpieces of God, according to the Bible itself. Given the manifest historical fact that lots and lots and lots of plain ol' mortals have fiddled around with the Bible over the centuries, it hardly seems illogical for some Christians to conclude that the word of God might have gotten diluted and muddled a bit.

So, let's see if we've got this down. People must adhere to your version of Christianity that you don't believe and your translation of the Bible and your view of the infallibility and literal value of the Bible all of which you believe to be nonsense or else they are hypocrites? Ha. Forgive me for laughing, but HAHA.

If you don't realize that Christians are all exactly the same and don't all or even mostly believe the things you're espousing then you're not very aware of the world. The passage is hardly clear. Please, don't tell me that I have to educate you on the Bible you don't believe in. It seems a little ludicrous. Meanwhile, the majority of the Christians who believe in tolerance either don't consider this equal to acceptance (which you're suggesting) or believe the translation by men of a text not written by men, but passed down orally by men, is flawed.

Keep in mind that Jews who were those that actually passed down the tradition of the old testament don't agree with Christians on this and many, many points.

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

How is one to take this in any way but a literal one? It is not like a parable of Jesus or something from the Book of Revelation that can be debated forever. There are simple laws and instructions that adherents to the Bible decide to ignore for whatever reason. And if followers of the Bible can decide that anything they feel is not worth following and can decide on a poor translation then they can go after anything. It has been two millenia afterall, who knows what subtle changes might have gone into the Bible after all that time? Why should anyone trust the Bible? All it is is a religion of picking and choosing and interpreting and they try to decide their their version is accurate. That is what is ludicrous.


Since when does the number of an ideology's followers make that ideology more valuable?

I never said it was more valuable. I said it was dominant.

Ah, so you find Yah and El to be sacred.Well, everybody in ancient times believed thus. So why shouldn't I? While the Jewish version of Yah did not even exist prior to the Persian, maybe even Ptolemaic, era and was thus never worshiped by any of the (fictional?) persons referred to in the Bible, which makes the latter a lie. So why tolerate any rulings or judgment on groups of people out of the Bible?

I never said it was more valuable. I said it was dominant.And that makes it what?

And that makes it what?

It makes it dominant. I have no hidding meaning here. No ideology is more "important" or "right" then any other. Mostly because I think that just about everybody is full of shit but maybe that is just a cynical view of mine. :)

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

How is one to take this in any way but a literal one? It is not like a parable of Jesus or something from the Book of Revelation that can be debated forever. There are simple laws and instructions that adherents to the Bible decide to ignore for whatever reason. And if followers of the Bible can decide that anything they feel is not worth following and can decide on a poor translation then they can go after anything. It has been two millenia afterall, who knows what subtle changes might have gone into the Bible after all that time? Why should anyone trust the Bible? All it is is a religion of picking and choosing and interpreting and they try to decide their their version is
accurate. That is what is ludicrous.

Hmmmm... so how does one lie with womankind? How does one lie with mankind? Many have read this to mean a dozen different things. It is a much disputed translation of a long-dead language.

Some have argued this was meant to say that one shouldn't do both. Some have argued that this was in reference to certain types of sex.

Come on, it's been debated for centuries but you have an answer so I'd love to see your credentials. What were the original words? Why do you favor this translation? Why do you favor this understanding of this translation? Why do you favor the infallible Bible belief above all others? Why do you favor this particular Bible as infallible above all others? Why do you favor this book of the Bible above all others?

It hasn't been two millenia. You can pretty much double that. But, hey, why be educated about the subject when you're trying to tell us what we must believe. A little effort here, friend.



I never said it was more valuable. I said it was dominant.

Yes, you did. You basically said that you can ignore all other Christian beliefs and sects because you only have to give any credence to the "dominant" kind.

I find it amusing that instead of having a meaningful discussion on the value of these stories being taught our children, I have to instead deal with the bile of those who paint Christians as hypocritical idiots. Hmmm... isn't one of your problems with the religion intolerance and bigotry?

Well, everybody in ancient times believed thus. So why shouldn't I? While the Jewish version of Yah did not even exist prior to the Persian, maybe even Ptolemaic, era and was thus never worshiped by any of the (fictional?) persons referred to in the Bible, which makes the latter a lie. So why tolerate any rulings or judgment on groups of people out of the Bible?

Again, you're simply lying. You've admitted you don't hold these beliefs to be sacred. Your use of the word was wrong and you slipped up in trying to attack Christians. But, hey, don't let facts get in your way. It's very important that you attack Christians so you can teach them all about how intolerance is wrong.... unless you're doing it.

Again, you're simply lying. You've admitted you don't hold these beliefs to be sacred. Your use of the word was wrong and you slipped up in trying to attack Christians. But, hey, don't let facts get in your way. It's very important that you attack Christians so you can teach them all about how intolerance is wrong.... unless you're doing it.I am not lying. The Bible and its supporters are lying.

http://www.fuckjimmy.com/media/2007_0107update/luckylouie_godcunt.zip

Hmmmm... so how does one lie with womankind? How does one lie with mankind? Many have read this to mean a dozen different things. It is a much disputed translation of a long-dead language.

Some have argued this was meant to say that one shouldn't do both. Some have argued that this was in reference to certain types of sex.

Come on, it's been debated for centuries but you have an answer so I'd love to see your credentials. What were the original words? Why do you favor this translation? Why do you favor this understanding of this translation? Why do you favor the infallible Bible belief above all others? Why do you favor this particular Bible as infallible above all others? Why do you favor this book of the Bible above all others?

It hasn't been two millenia. You can pretty much double that. But, hey, why be educated about the subject when you're trying to tell us what we must believe. A little effort here, friend.

Look I used the King James Version because it was the first I found. But here is the New Living Version:

“Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."

There is no way to escape its meaning. If God exists then He is against homosexuality. And on the King James it is simply meaning "as you do with womankind", people can try to change simple language but it is inescapable. But religion can choose to believe what it wants, it always has.

And yes it is four millenia, I wasn't thinking. That's what happens when I rush through a post.

*sigh*

I have to go now, I will try to check in again.

What's four millennia?

I am not lying. The Bible and its supporters are lying.

Pardon? The Bible and its supporters claimed that you hold Yah and El sacred? Hmmmm... I'm pretty sure that was you. Understand that in order for God to blasphemous a couple of things are necessary. He must be blaspheming something or someone that is held sacred and inviolable. You don't hold them sacred and inviolable, and to claim that you do just so you can avoid admitting that your claims about God are idiotic, is silly. You made the claim, so either admit you're lying about holding Yah and El sacred or admit that you don't have the moral high ground to hold over Christians.

Isn't Christian bashing fun?

Okay, other then wanting to send this intended flame a one way ticket to the forum mods. and the debate raging on over the terms Common Vs. Normal...

I can actually say this is an enjoyable thread. Its debate, not rant. It is evidence vs. evidence. it is viewpoint, rebuttal, retraction.

the sane still exist, they are NationStates.

im gay, i thought this was going to turn into another flame locked thread with hate speech, and biblical quotes,; with no one brave enough to stand up and say "the line is held, by me!"

-
the idea that gay/lesbian/bi parents will raise gay/lesbian/bi kids is stupid. the chance of it happening is the same chance of it happening with straight parents too.

the g/l/b parents each had straight parents when they themselves were kids. so that does not validate "superiority of straightness"

at risk of turning this in to a religious rant i proclaim i do not want it to be; therefore risking the slur title of hypocrite

religious texts are thousands of years old, what worked/-ish then, does not mean it will work now.

if you want to prove it, follow Hammaurabi's Code for a while; try and smile on occasion...or you want another code to follow that is really old, try being Amish. Or one of the castes of India, or a member of the Imperial Court of Japan or China...or just get etiquette training...good luck!

the main concern is that if you teach it, the students will be okay with that. tolerate it. accept it. possibly become it. " :eek: "

footnote: :headbang:

hence the scare-ish. even though my dad and step-mom know they have a gay son are cool with it completely. We three go to gay clubs together, have a good time. dance even! :eek: :p

Look I used the King James Version because it was the first I found. But here is the New Living Version:

“Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."

There is no way to escape its meaning. If God exists then He is against homosexuality. And on the King James it is simply meaning "as you do with womankind", people can try to change simple language but it is inescapable. But religion can choose to believe what it wants, it always has.

And yes it is four millenia, I wasn't thinking. That's what happens when I rush through a post.

*sigh*

I have to go now, I will try to check in again.

Oh, hey, here we go. Let's see if we can hold up your unsubstantiated assumptions on which your claim is based.

A) If God exists, then the Bible MUST be his testament.

I'm not sure how a person who doesn't believe in God is going to establish this as the only acceptable belief, but I'm happy to hear you prove this. If you can't, then the rest of your argument pretty much hits the dust.

B) If God exists and the Bible is/was his testament, then it is infallible.

Hmmm...strange since there are multiple versions of the Bible and the Torah on which the Bible is based has a completely different set of books and understandings. Seems a bit of a stretch. Please establish for me why two translations that say different things are both right? I'll wait.

C) If God exists then your current understanding of this passage is the only acceptable version of that passage even after 4000 years, the death of the original language, the verbal tradition for over 2000 years, the multiple translations that disagree on multiple points and your complete lack of ability to ever actually know what the original form was.

Again, this is quite strange given that you don't actually believe in God. It's funny how you happen to have access to the absolute truth that you claim doesn't exist. Logically conflicting, but, hey, who needs logic in a rant against Christians.

Again, isn't Christian bashing fun?

Pardon? The Bible and its supporters claimed that you hold Yah and El sacred? Hmmmm... I'm pretty sure that was you. Understand that in order for God to blasphemous a couple of things are necessary. He must be blaspheming something or someone that is held sacred and inviolable. You don't hold them sacred and inviolable, and to claim that you do just so you can avoid admitting that your claims about God are idiotic, is silly. You made the claim, so either admit you're lying about holding Yah and El sacred or admit that you don't have the moral high ground to hold over Christians.

Isn't Christian bashing fun?what the fuck are you talking about? The Jewish idea of god, namely Yhvh/Yahweh, is blasphemous in regard to actual ancient beliefs about Yah and El and others. And as a matter of fact I do hold the position that Yah, El, and others are rather worthy of worship than the slimy jealous Jewish "god" (which happens to be the Christian and Muslim "god" as well).

Blasphemy (Greek blaptein, "to injure", and pheme, "reputation") signifies etymologically gross irreverence towards any person or thing worthy of exalted esteem.
That's exactly what Jews do when putting their fabricated god over the ancient gods of their (assumed) ancestors and their contemporaries.

what the fuck are you talking about? The Jewish idea of god, namely Yhvh/Yahweh, is blasphemous in regard to actual ancient beliefs about Yah and El and others. And as a matter of fact I do hold the position that Yah, El, and others are rather worthy of worship than the slimy jealous Jewish "god" (which happens to be the Christian and Muslim "god" as well).

It can't be unless you hold the original beliefs to be sacred and inviolable. That's the point. It's the definition of blasphemy.

Even the weakest definition of blasphemous requires that you believe that the original idea is due a particular level of reverence that another version of God or gods somehow violates in your mind.

You can't say I don't believe in this, but I hold it sacred. They don't combine. Sorry. Try again.

You worship Yah and El? Now, you're going to claim that, hmmm? Because if you don't you misued the term in your bigotted rant against Christians.

You heard it here first. The gays are trying to brainwash your kids and wipe out your way of life through gay children's books. Soon all your kids will crave cock (except for your daughters), and will exhibit fabulous fashion and interior decorating skills. Thankfully the brave families of Massachusetts are fighting back.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2007-02-07T222235Z_01_N07433957_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-GAYS-SUIT.xml&WTmodLoc=USNewsHome_C2_domesticNews-3

The gays must be stopped. Now don't get me wrong I am no homo killing nazi. They just need to go back into the closet. We even have gay characters on TV this is all just too much.

I blame the gays for the sissifying of America. They are even anti-Boy Scouting. Boy Scouting of all things. I wish we could export 'em but we can't because they are citizens but we should at least all band together and discriminate against them. If nobody hired a gay or bought from a gay, they would go scrambling back into the closets lickity split. Oh yes!

The gays must be stopped. Now don't get me wrong I am no homo killing nazi. They just need to go back into the closet. We even have gay characters on TV this is all just too much.

I blame the gays for the sissifying of America. They are even anti-Boy Scouting. Boy Scouting of all things. I wish we could export 'em but we can't because they are citizens but we should at least all band together and discriminate against them. If nobody hired a gay or bought from a gay, they would go scrambling back into the closets lickity split. Oh yes!

Lickety split? Maybe the lesbians.

I hope you're being sarcastic.

Lickety split? Maybe the lesbians.

I hope you're being sarcastic.

Lesbians are awesome!

Lesbians are awesome!

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/2101/bulldykexi8.jpg

what the fuck are you talking about? The Jewish idea of god, namely Yhvh/Yahweh, is blasphemous in regard to actual ancient beliefs about Yah and El and others. And as a matter of fact I do hold the position that Yah, El, and others are rather worthy of worship than the slimy jealous Jewish "god" (which happens to be the Christian and Muslim "god" as well).

Blasphemy (Greek blaptein, "to injure", and pheme, "reputation") signifies etymologically gross irreverence towards any person or thing worthy of exalted esteem.
That's exactly what Jews do when putting their fabricated god over the ancient gods of their (assumed) ancestors and their contemporaries.

Oh, I see. So we are using the term to mean something it doesn't mean today because of what it's etymology signifies. Oh, yay. So much for treating language as a living form. You just keep digging that hole.

In case you're wondering here is the version from the CURRENT lexicon, which is what you should be using in a debate or, at the very least, you should mark your usage to signify that you're using an archaic and no longer used form.

Blashemy from Mirriam-Webster
1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God
(obviously this doesn't apply)
b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity
(Obviously this cannot apply since God didn't claim them for himself. Someone claimed them for Him. According to you God does not exist so can't actually fit this definition.)

2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable
(Again, you must actually believe in those gods to hold them sacred or inviolable). You claimed to hold them sacred. Ludicrous.

Meanwhile, I think what you meant to say before the bile clouded your ability to use language is that the creation of the Jewish God was blasphemous. One assigns the blasphemy to the Jews the other assigns it to God who you said doesn't exist.

But, again, I'm sorry I stepped all over your little diatribe about the evil Christians who violated your ancient Gods who you don't believe exist. Carry on.

No odder than reading them a story about a prince and a princess. You don't see any of these hypocrites bitching about that and calling it "sex ed".



Why? Some men fall in love with women, some men fall in love with men. There's nothing confusing about it, not even to a child.

Some men fall in love with women which is normal. Some men fall in love with little boys which is nasty. Some men fall in love with men which is nasty. Some men fall in love with little girls which is nasty. Some men fall in love with their relatives which is nasty. Some men fall in love with corpses which is nasty. Some men fall in love with horses and other beasts of the field and that is nasty. C'mon where is your sense of judgment? Is everything acceptable to you. I bet you are a liberal!

Go have fun ruining the world with your liberal nastiness. If only all of the liberals had but one neck so I could choke it.

The gays must be stopped. Now don't get me wrong I am no homo killing nazi. They just need to go back into the closet. We even have gay characters on TV this is all just too much.

"Stopped"? You make it sound like they're some sort of evil ninja clan assasinating political leaders.

I blame the gays for the sissifying of America.
Okay, you have stupid views.

They are even anti-Boy Scouting. Boy Scouting of all things.
Because Boy Scouts are anti-gay, anti-atheist, and tons of other things.
I wish we could export 'em but we can't because they are citizens
Export? What would we trade them for? Anyway, now you're starting to sound less like the "no homo kililng nazi" claim you made earlier.
but we should at least all band together and discriminate against them. If nobody hired a gay or bought from a gay, they would go scrambling back into the closets lickity split. Oh yes!
Um...Are you SURE you're not a homo killing nazi? You're really starting to sound like one. "NIGHT OF BROKEN GLASS ON THE HOMOS NOW!!!"

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/2101/bulldykexi8.jpg

The Horror! I take that back. Non-butchy lesbians are awesome.

It can't be unless you hold the original beliefs to be sacred and inviolable. That's the point. It's the definition of blasphemy.Only Merriam Webster's 2nd definition.

Even the weakest definition of blasphemous requires that you believe that the original idea is due a particular level of reverence. I do believe so. However, that's not what blasphemy requires. To use a word in a specific context I do not need to hold a related position myself.

You can't say I don't believe in this, but I hold it sacred. They don't combine. Sorry. Try again.Well, I don't necessarily believe in it, but I accept it as a possibility. Thus I indeed hold it sacred to a certain level. Try again.
The Jewish version on the other hand is not a possibility, given its genesis.

You worship Yah and El? Now, you're going to claim that, hmmm? Because if you don't you misued the term in your bigotted rant against Christians.I don't practice any worship of Yah or El. However, on the very rare occasion that I pray, I pray to the original Yah.

"Stopped"? You make it sound like they're some sort of evil ninja clan assasinating political leaders.

Okay, you have stupid views.

Because Boy Scouts are anti-gay, anti-atheist, and tons of other things.

Export? What would we trade them for? Anyway, now you're starting to sound less like the "no homo kililng nazi" claim you made earlier.

Um...Are you SURE you're not a homo killing nazi? You're really starting to sound like one. "NIGHT OF BROKEN GLASS ON THE HOMOS NOW!!!"

We do not let gays, girls, or the godless into the ranks of the Boy Scouts. That is because it is a moral organization and not a puppet to the PC and the depraved.

yes. yes of course. gay people are trying to destroy the american family by wanting to be happy together and to be treated equally. that makes perfect sense. they want to get married, so naturally they are brainwashing people. they're starting a war on america by wanting to be with the ones they love. it's so clear to me now!

We do not let gays, girls, or the godless into the ranks of the Boy Scouts. That is because it is a moral organization and not a puppet to the PC and the depraved.

Or because the Boy Scouts are a retarded republican fantasy?

Hey guys! We have a new troll!

Listen here boy, Scouts aren't American okay? Got that? :mad:

We do not let gays, girls, or the godless into the ranks of the Boy Scouts. That is because it is a moral organization and not a puppet to the PC and the depraved.I always thought Boy Scouts where practically all gays....

Only Merriam Webster's 2nd definition.

I do believe so. However, that's not what blasphemy requires. To use a word in a specific context I do not need to hold a related position myself.

The M-W 1rst definition requires the actor to you know, act. Since when can the nonexistent act?

You assigned the action to God. A rational person would have just admitted their mistake and moved on by now.

Well, I don't necessarily believe in it, but I accept it as a possibility. Thus I indeed hold it sacred to a certain level. Try again.
The Jewish version on the other hand is not a possibility, given its genesis.

It's not possible given it's genesis? I'm going to have to have you prove it. If I look at eight stories about a creature that include a duck-billed mammal, and an egg-laying mammal, and beaver-tailed mammal all living in the same area, conclude they are talking about the same creature, does the platypus not exist because you don't like the origins?

I didn't realize that existence could be negated by your understanding of the origin of one's knowledge of that being's existence. You could claim it make you less confident in the existence or that it makes you less open to that existence, but I hate to tell you there is only one thing that defines whether something exists or doesn't and it has nothing to do with anyone's understanding or the origin of that understanding.

But, again, don't let me interrupt your rant. You had quite a string of illogic going there and I hate to stop when you're doing such damage to your case all by yourself.

I don't practice any worship of Yah or El. However, on the very rare occasion that I pray, I pray to the original Yah.

Wow, interesting dichotomy. I love how it's the Christians and the Jews are illogical while you pray to someone that you claim doesn't exist.

Listen here boy, Scouts aren't American okay? Got that? :mad:

Nope. It was started by Robert Baden-Powell, a British man who liked taking pictures of boys skinny dipping.

We do not let gays, girls, or the godless into the ranks of the Boy Scouts. That is because it is a moral organization and not a puppet to the PC and the depraved.As a former boy scout, I must laugh heartily :D

Nope. It was started by Robert Baden-Powell, a British man who liked taking pictures of boys skinny dipping. I've heard that before, but I've never been able to confirm if it's a Jefferson-screwed-slaves type rumor or actual fact.

In any case, ephebophilic homosexuality has a fine tradition in the English institutions, and probably the Irish ones as well.

The M-W 1rst definition requires the actor to you know, act. Since when can the nonexistent act?

You assigned the action to God. A rational person would have just admitted their mistake and moved on by now.



It's not possible given it's genesis? I'm going to have to have you prove it. If I look at eight stories about a creature that include a duck-billed mammal, and an egg-laying mammal, and beaver-tailed mammal all living in the same area, conclude they are talking about the same creature, does the platypus not exist because you don't like the origins?

I didn't realize that existence could be negated by your understanding of the origin of one's knowledge of that being's existence. You could claim it make you less confident in the existence or that it makes you less open to that existence, but I hate to tell you there is only one thing that defines whether something exists or doesn't and it has nothing to do with anyone's understanding or the origin of that understanding.

But, again, don't let me interrupt your rant. You had quite a string of illogic going there and I hate to stop when you're doing such damage to your case all by yourself.
You are just silly. But I'm to sleepy now to explain too you ancient history untainted by biblical revisionism. And it is really not about me liking or disliking a concept's origins, it's about that concept having a sound foundation. The biblical concept of god, however, lacks all foundation.

Wow, interesting dichotomy. I love how it's the Christians and the Jews are illogical while you pray to someone that you claim doesn't exist.I claimed what?

Nope. It was started by Robert Baden-Powell, a British man who liked taking pictures of boys skinny dipping.

...Is that true? It sounds to good to be true.

You are just silly. But I'm to sleepy now to explain too you ancient history untainted by biblical revisionism. And it is really not about me liking or disliking a concept's origins, it's about that concept having a sound foundation. The biblical concept of god, however, lacks all foundation.

I claimed what?

And it requires foundation, why? Meanwhile, you've talked about some of the foundation of it. You don't like it, I understand that, but I'm sorry, you're simply not able to provide evidence for non-existence. It's logically impossible. So if you plan to provide evidence that God cannot possibly exist which was your claim, I'm just going to go ahead and being laughing now and avoid the rush.

...Is that true? It sounds to good to be true.

Jeal also mentions that Baden-Powell "…consistently praised the male body when naked and denigrated the female. At Gilwell Park, the Scouts' camping ground in Epping Forest, he always enjoyed watching the boys swimming naked, and would sometimes chat with them after they had just 'stripped off.'"[10]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Baden-Powell's_sexual_orientation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Baden-Powell's_sexual_orientation Awesome. I'd guess he must have been a philosopher.

And it requires foundation, why? Meanwhile, you've talked about some of the foundation of it. You don't like it, I understand that, but I'm sorry, you're simply not able to provide evidence for non-existence. It's logically impossible. So if you plan to provide evidence that God cannot possibly exist which was your claim, I'm just going to go ahead and being laughing now and avoid the rush.
I did in no way say what you claim I said. I was saying that the Bible, or rather the authors of its various texts, created a god out of much more ancient bits and pieces and then claimed it had always existed. But that's just not true. The biblical god (i.e. the biblical idea of god as in contrast to actual ancient beliefs) did not exist and thus does not exist. Do understand that? If god(s) exist(s), it's not possibly the biblical god. That's what I said. Archeology and all historical records support that, the only source telling otherwise is the Bible.
Good night.

We do not let gays, girls, or the godless into the ranks of the Boy Scouts. That is because it is a moral organization and not a puppet to the PC and the depraved.

Everybody, all together now...

BULLSHIT!!!!!

I did in no way say what you claim I said. I was saying that the Bible, or rather the authors of its various texts, created a god out of much more ancient bits and pieces and then claimed it had always existed. But that's just not true. The biblical god (i.e. the biblical idea of god as in contrast to actual ancient beliefs) did not exist and thus does not exist. Do understand that? If god(s) exist(s), it's not possibly the biblical god. That's what I said.

Hmmm... first, we have this thing called a quote function. Here, let's see what you said.

The Jewish version [of God] on the other hand is not a possibility, given its genesis.

You said the Jewish God is not possible. Not that it's unsupported, but impossible. I can't wait for you to prove that God is impossible. I'll wait and I'll try to stifle my giggles.

Now, again, you preclude your statements with the unavoidably false assertion that if the understanding of God didn't exist, then God didn't exist. The Jews didn't pretend like their understanding of God is eternal, they only asserted that God is.

You rest your assertions on a number of fallacies.

One that if one errantly arrives at a conclusion that the conclusion is false. It's simply not true. The conclusion can be either true or false. The conclusion is simply unsupported. Unsupported does not equal false.

Two, that if an understanding didn't exist eternally, then the subject of understanding also didn't exist, which asserts that existence is dependent on understand. Evidence, please.

Some men fall in love with women which is normal. Some men fall in love with little boys which is nasty. Some men fall in love with men which is nasty. Some men fall in love with little girls which is nasty. Some men fall in love with their relatives which is nasty. Some men fall in love with corpses which is nasty. Some men fall in love with horses and other beasts of the field and that is nasty. C'mon where is your sense of judgment? Is everything acceptable to you. I bet you are a liberal!

Go have fun ruining the world with your liberal nastiness. If only all of the liberals had but one neck so I could choke it.

Yay! A new troll!

We do not let gays, girls, or the godless into the ranks of the Boy Scouts. That is because it is a moral organization and not a puppet to the PC and the depraved.

That's right. The Boy Scouts should only be for heterosexual God-fearing men like Pastor Ted Haggard and Congressman Mark Foley.

If you're going to use substitution as an argument like you're doing, you have to establish that the two issue are equivalent. You've not done so, nor have you tried.

Oh wait my bad I thought it was obvious: The pooper is not where it goes, that's an exit not an entrance! Also, babies. Gay people can't have them. This is bad because babies are important.

As for the other thing, I was never trying to equate them. I was just showing how the same arguement can be used to justify teaching kids about all kinds of stuff good parents probably don't want them to know about.

That's right. The Boy Scouts should only be for heterosexual God-fearing men like Pastor Ted Haggard and Congressman Mark Foley.

The Boy Scout Motto - Because being a member of NAMBLA will keep you out of office.

Oh wait my bad I thought it was obvious: The pooper is not where it goes, that's an exit not an entrance! Also, babies. Gay people can't have them. This is bad because babies are important.

As for the other thing, I was never trying to equate them. I was just showing how the same arguement can be used to justify teaching kids about all kinds of stuff good parents probably don't want them to know about.

Only, it can't. See, just because you think it's icky doesn't defend your bigotry. If you don't want to put things in the pooper, here's a thought, don't. And if anyone ever tries against your will, guess what, this is and always will be illegal. So, no reason for you to worry about what gay more are doing or how they are doing it. Yay for you.

Meanwhile, you did equate them. See, you've not made a single argument why same-sex relationships should be hidden from children. Not one. Your only argument was to suggest it is equivalent to illegal forms of relationships and then claim that because one is wrong the other must be. You've not done your work here, buddy. You have to demonstrate why one has anything to do with the other, other than having your ignorance in common.

We do not let gays, girls, or the godless into the ranks of the Boy Scouts. That is because it is a moral organization and not a puppet to the PC and the depraved.

Actually, I knew a couple guys in the council in my town who were gay. One of them got Eagle Scout in fact. "Godless" is subjective. Some of the guys in my troop you would call that, but they'd disagree. My friend in another troop was actually an agnostic. But that's the bay area for you I guess.

Oh, and they don't let girls into scouts? I guess you've never heard of the Sea Scouts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Scouts_%28Boy_Scouts_of_America%29) then.

A Scout who earns the first rank, Apprentice, shows basic knowledge of the water. S/he must have basic marlinspike seamenship skills and water knowledge.

Hmmm...

Hmmm... first, we have this thing called a quote function. Here, let's see what you said.



You said the Jewish God is not possible. Not that it's unsupported, but impossible. I can't wait for you to prove that God is impossible. I'll wait and I'll try to stifle my giggles.

Now, again, you preclude your statements with the unavoidably false assertion that if the understanding of God didn't exist, then God didn't exist. The Jews didn't pretend like their understanding of God is eternal, they only asserted that God is.

You rest your assertions on a number of fallacies.

One that if one errantly arrives at a conclusion that the conclusion is false. It's simply not true. The conclusion can be either true or false. The conclusion is simply unsupported. Unsupported does not equal false.

Two, that if an understanding didn't exist eternally, then the subject of understanding also didn't exist, which asserts that existence is dependent on understand. Evidence, please.The Jews do pretend that their understanding of God is eternal. That's why the Bible exists at all. They claim, that folks in ancient times believed in the biblical god and worshiped him just as the Bible narrates. However, not only is there nothing to support that, but there is plenty of sources to contradict that. That's my point. The Bible doesn't inform us how miraculously the Jews gained understanding about their god, it claims that this understanding had always been there, and that in fact persons who were essentially Jewish in their mindset had always been there. Both is just not true. Why are you so inclined to believe one source (the Bible) rather than the thousands of other sources?
In all reason: there is no reason to believe in the Bible, the biblical god, or to follow any of the rules set up in the bible, let alone rules about relationships between humans (and the rules about man-woman relationships are just as stupid as those targeted at homosexuals).

The Jews do pretend that their understanding of God is eternal. That's why the Bible exists at all. They claim, that folks in ancient times believed in the biblical god and worshiped him just as the Bible narrates. However, not only is there nothing to support that, but there is plenty of sources to contradict that. That's my point. The Bible doesn't inform us how miraculously the Jews gained understanding about their god, it claims that this understanding had always been there, and that in fact persons who were essentially Jewish in their mindset had always been there. Both is just not true. Why are you so inclined to believe one source (the Bible) rather than the thousands of other sources?
In all reason: there is no reason to believe in the Bible, the biblical god, or to follow any of the rules set up in the bible, let alone rules about relationships between humans (and the rules about man-woman relationships are just as stupid as those targeted at homosexuals).


Wow, talk about willfully ignorant. They actually claim in the Bible that other gods were being worshipped when Moses began his teachings. The worship of those gods continued and there is no denying that on the part of the Jews. There are two commandments dedicated to addressing the fact that other gods were being worshipped. The commandments were given to the Jews and only the Jews. One wonders why God would make a commandment that would never apply or why Jews would write that God did? Hmmmm... Or perhaps, you're just making crap up.

However, provide your evidence. I'd like to see what part of the Jewish religion claims that Jews have always followed the teachings of God and only the teachings of God since the beginning of time. I'll wait.

Who said I follow the teachings of the Bible as infallible or that it is my primary source? Do you always set up a strawman just to set it ablaze?

Meanwhile, you keep shifting the goalposts. Before God was impossible. Now, you've switch to saying there is no reason to believe in Him. I guess I'l take that as an admission that your first argument was founded on ignorance and bile.

Oh, hey, here we go. Let's see if we can hold up your unsubstantiated assumptions on which your claim is based.

A) If God exists, then the Bible MUST be his testament.

I'm not sure how a person who doesn't believe in God is going to establish this as the only acceptable belief, but I'm happy to hear you prove this. If you can't, then the rest of your argument pretty much hits the dust.

B) If God exists and the Bible is/was his testament, then it is infallible.

Hmmm...strange since there are multiple versions of the Bible and the Torah on which the Bible is based has a completely different set of books and understandings. Seems a bit of a stretch. Please establish for me why two translations that say different things are both right? I'll wait.

C) If God exists then your current understanding of this passage is the only acceptable version of that passage even after 4000 years, the death of the original language, the verbal tradition for over 2000 years, the multiple translations that disagree on multiple points and your complete lack of ability to ever actually know what the original form was.

Again, this is quite strange given that you don't actually believe in God. It's funny how you happen to have access to the absolute truth that you claim doesn't exist. Logically conflicting, but, hey, who needs logic in a rant against Christians.

Again, isn't Christian bashing fun?

You may have interpreted bashing I certainly did no such thing.

I really don't know if the Bible is accurate or not, or if it is truly containing God's Word. It very well may not. But that one passage has been the same throughout the various translations I've read. So I simply believe that if someone calls themself Christian who follows the Bible and isn't a hypocrite has to denounce homosexuality. Simply the way it is. Or they could admit that even God isn't perfect and that the practice is wrong. Which of course doesn't make any sense given who God is.

We do not let gays, girls, or the godless into the ranks of the Boy Scouts. That is because it is a moral organization and not a puppet to the PC and the depraved.

Dude. I was a boy scout. ;)

Everybody, all together now...

BULLSHIT!!!!!

Boy Scouts are like sports teams and are fearful of gays. I'm sure they get nothing but horror stories of what they do to godly hetero boys if they are caught alone. :rolleyes:

That's right. The Boy Scouts should only be for heterosexual God-fearing men like Pastor Ted Haggard and Congressman Mark Foley.

They would be the scoutmasters, they need the impressionable innocent boys, you know.

But that one passage has been the same throughout the various translations I've read.

And yet, a quick conversation with someone who reads Hebrew would tell you that it may or may not be properly translated. The fact that it is translated in the same general manner throughout accepted Bible translations might have just as much to do with tradition as with the actual words.

So I simply believe that if someone calls themself Christian who follows the Bible and isn't a hypocrite has to denounce homosexuality. Simply the way it is. Or they could admit that even God isn't perfect and that the practice is wrong. Which of course doesn't make any sense given who God is.

Or they could admit that human beings aren't perfect. Even one who is inspired by God isn't infallible, and the message of God will be filtered through their own understanding before they can write it down for posterity.

One does not have to think that the Bible itself is infallible to follow it, any more than I have to think that my Biology book is infallible to view it as a credible source on Biology.

Did someone get picked on in school?

Not really, I'm just not a great fan of the traditional red blooded male.

Not really, I'm just not a great fan of the traditional red blooded male.

But they're the ones funnest to fuck.

And yet, a quick conversation with someone who reads Hebrew would tell you that it may or may not be properly translated. The fact that it is translated in the same general manner throughout accepted Bible translations might have just as much to do with tradition as with the actual words.

Ok, I can accept this. It simply proves even more that trusting anything in the Bible is not the smartest thing you can do. If it is then I would certainly be happy if it could be proven definitively to be false.

Or they could admit that human beings aren't perfect. Even one who is inspired by God isn't infallible, and the message of God will be filtered through their own understanding before they can write it down for posterity.

One does not have to think that the Bible itself is infallible to follow it, any more than I have to think that my Biology book is infallible to view it as a credible source on Biology.

I really don't know why Christians will be able to look at any part of the book without feeling wary if there are questionable passages. I certainly could never do that and keep any kind of faith. It seems to me that someone would simply have to have selective memory and pretend the offending parts don't exist.

You may have interpreted bashing I certainly did no such thing.

I really don't know if the Bible is accurate or not, or if it is truly containing God's Word. It very well may not. But that one passage has been the same throughout the various translations I've read. So I simply believe that if someone calls themself Christian who follows the Bible and isn't a hypocrite has to denounce homosexuality. Simply the way it is. Or they could admit that even God isn't perfect and that the practice is wrong. Which of course doesn't make any sense given who God is.

It hasn't been the same. There is a clear variation in these passages in only the two versions you've posted. There are even more variations if one actually explores translations

You may find this surprising, but Christians like pretty much every ideology that ever existed are not a hive mind with perfect agreement. A true scotsman fallacy does not help your argument. You don't define Christians. Each of them do.

It hasn't been the same. There is a clear variation in these passages in only the two versions you've posted. There are even more variations if one actually explores translations

You may find this surprising, but Christians like pretty much every ideology that ever existed are not a hive mind with perfect agreement. A true scotsman fallacy does not help your argument. You don't define Christians. Each of them do.

Some even toss out most of the old testament altogether. Quite a few believe that Jesus said that all the nitpicky old laws really don't matter if one is a good person who does good to others. Some feel that the old testament was corrupted by the men who wrote it and that only Jesus' own word can be taken at face value, and some believe that even then, only if it's consistant with the rest of his teachings.

Note, I am not a Christian. I just know some very liberal ones, as they tend to be, in this area.

Wow, talk about willfully ignorant. They actually claim in the Bible that other gods were being worshipped when Moses began his teachings. The worship of those gods continued and there is no denying that on the part of the Jews. There are two commandments dedicated to addressing the fact that other gods were being worshipped. The commandments were given to the Jews and only the Jews. One wonders why God would make a commandment that would never apply or why Jews would write that God did? Hmmmm... Or perhaps, you're just making crap up.

However, provide your evidence. I'd like to see what part of the Jewish religion claims that Jews have always followed the teachings of God and only the teachings of God since the beginning of time. I'll wait.

Who said I follow the teachings of the Bible as infallible or that it is my primary source? Do you always set up a strawman just to set it ablaze?

Meanwhile, you keep shifting the goalposts. Before God was impossible. Now, you've switch to saying there is no reason to believe in Him. I guess I'l take that as an admission that your first argument was founded on ignorance and bile.What teachings of Moses? Of course in the assumed time of Moses folks worshiped a multitude of gods, and they did for another thousand years. You seem to confuse Jews with Israelites. However, Hebrews or Israelites were not Jews, and they weren't even Jew-ish, no monotheists, and there's no indication they were following any rules as laid out in the Bible.
Once again: I am saying that since the biblical god was fabricated pretty late, he cannot possibly be real. Get that? It's like the Scientology crap. The story behind Scientology was made up by Hubbard, but would you believe it's an accurate historical account? I don't, because it comes out of nowhere and its author was obviously pulled that out of his arse. For the very same reasons I don't believe the biblical account or in the biblical "god".
And are you saying that Judaism isn't actually a monotheistic belief?

It hasn't been the same. There is a clear variation in these passages in only the two versions you've posted. There are even more variations if one actually explores translations

You may find this surprising, but Christians like pretty much every ideology that ever existed are not a hive mind with perfect agreement. A true scotsman fallacy does not help your argument. You don't define Christians. Each of them do.No. The Catholic and Orthodox churches define Christians. Those churches are the continuation of the group that Yeshua, dubbed "Christos" (=Messiah), founded. To be a Christian first of all means to be a member of this group, secondly it means to adhere to the teachings of this group (which indeed is not like being in a hive mind, but to sharing views and thought patterns).

What teachings of Moses? Of course in the assumed time of Moses folks worshiped a multitude of gods, and they did for another thousand years. You seem to confuse Jews with Israelites. However, Hebrews or Israelites were not Jews, and they weren't even Jew-ish, no monotheists, and there's no indication they were following any rules as laid out in the Bible.
Once again: I am saying that since the biblical god was fabricated pretty late, he cannot possibly be real. Get that? It's like the Scientology crap. The story behind Scientology was made up by Hubbard, but would you believe it's an accurate historical account? I don't, because it comes out of nowhere and its author was obviously pulled that out of his arse. For the very same reasons I don't believe the biblical account or in the biblical "god".
And are you saying that Judaism isn't actually a monotheistic belief?

I know what you're saying. It's just not logical. How does when they realized the "truth" prove it's not true. How does that say anything about whether or not it is true?

No, I'm saying you're trying to pretend as if they don't openly admit that Judaism came about in a time when there were other beliefs. You claimed they pretend they have always had their current beliefs. So far no evidence has been offered by you and now you're even admitting that other beliefs were held within the same people and that it is acknowledged.

Judaism was a realization, an evolution of past beliefs into a new belief based on what they believed was new information. Were they right? Well, the truth is, neither of us can establish that for sure. However, can we prove they are wrong or that the existence of the God they now believe in doesn't exist or is impossible? Nope. Can't even support the possibility. Hasn't stopped you from making the claim though, has it? Pretty illogical.

No. The Catholic and Orthodox churches define Christians. Those churches are the continuation of the group that Yeshua, dubbed "Christos" (=Messiah), founded. To be a Christian first of all means to be a member of this group, secondly it means to adhere to the teachings of this group (which indeed is not like being in a hive mind, but to sharing views and thought patterns).


Um, no, they don't. Christianity is a personal relgion. Christians are not defined by Churches and Churches didn't even exist at the onset of Christianity.

There are not teachings of the group. Christian means to be a follower of the teachings of Christ. Some groups may add more requirements, but Christian, by itself, means follower of the teachings of Christ.

Your other requirements are just a true scotsman fallacy and it's called a fallacy for a reason.

We do not let gays, girls, or the godless into the ranks of the Boy Scouts. That is because it is a moral organization and not a puppet to the PC and the depraved.
Wait, so you're an organization of boys and men who don't like having women around you? You're a boy's club that teaches young men to view females as immoral and "depraved"?

And you think this somehow makes Scouts LESS likely to be homosexual?

The gays must be stopped. Now don't get me wrong I am no homo killing nazi. They just need to go back into the closet. We even have gay characters on TV this is all just too much.

It has long been my theory that closet-case homophobes are really upset about acceptance of homosexuality because they personally get off on the "forbidden love" angle. If homosexuality is a dirty, dirty sin, and if it's a naughty little secret, then it's all spicy and fun. But if gay people are simply living together and going grocery shopping and putting down payments on homes and stuff, then you might as well just go home to your wife (yuck!).


I blame the gays for the sissifying of America. They are even anti-Boy Scouting. Boy Scouting of all things.
Okay, first of all I've never heard anybody claim that gays are anti boy-scouting...

But seriously, I thought the whole problem was that gays want to be out and in the Scouts. Because, of course, there have been gay scouts and scout masters for years and years and years, it's just that now they seem to think that lying about their sexual orientation isn't really in keeping with the Scout Motto. So if gays hate Scouting, then why are so many of them trying to get in or stay in the Scouts?


I wish we could export 'em but we can't because they are citizens but we should at least all band together and discriminate against them. If nobody hired a gay or bought from a gay, they would go scrambling back into the closets lickity split. Oh yes!
Sure worked on the uppity blacks, right folks? :D Whites banded together to engage in well-organized discrimination, and that was the last we ever had to hear about black civil rights...right? Right?

Christian, by itself, means follower of the teachings of Christ.But we do not have knowledge of the teachings of Yeshua, we do not even have knowledge if he is Christ. All we have are the teachings of the churches, i.e. the community that formed around Yeshua and was carried on by his followers afterwards. What additional requirements groups make is of no relevance, the basic requirements are the same: to receive the sacraments and thus carry on the blessings given by Yeshua, who Christians believe to be Christ (hence the name).

But we do not have knowledge of the teachings of Yeshua, we do not even have knowledge if he is Christ. All we have are the teachings of the churches, i.e. the community that formed around Yeshua and was carried on by his followers afterwards. What additional requirements groups make is of no relevance, the basic requirements are the same: to receive the sacraments and thus carry on the blessings given by Yeshua, who Christians believe to be Christ (hence the name).

False. We have many writings about what he taught. Our knowledge of the teachings of Christ is more extensive than our knowledge of the teachings of Socrates. Some of the writings are not associated with any church. Some are. The churches do not define what Christians believe.

And no, receiving the sacraments is not a requirement to be Christian. You don't even have to believe that Jesus was the savior in order to be Christian. Christian simply means follower of the teachings of Christ. No more. No less. No matter how badly you want to claim otherwise.

False. We have many writings about what he taught. Our knowledge of the teachings of Christ is more extensive than our knowledge of the teachings of Socrates. Some of the writings are not associated with any church. Some are. The churches do not define what Christians believe.

And no, receiving the sacraments is not a requirement to be Christian. You don't even have to believe that Jesus was the savior in order to be Christian. Christian simply means follower of the teachings of Christ. No more. No less. No matter how badly you want to claim otherwise.
You don't have firsthand accounts--you have secondhand, at best, accounts written by people with an agenda and then collated into scripture by later authorities with perhaps another agenda, and changed along the way by copyists and scribes often with their own agendas as well.

Adapted from a joke I recently heard about AIDS:


"If we can put a man on the moon, then someday we can put a gay man on the moon. Then, someday, we can put all gay men on the moon!"

:D

Adapted from a joke I recently heard about AIDS:


"If we can put a man on the moon, then someday we can put a gay man on the moon. Then, someday, we can put all gay men on the moon!"

:DWhat's that got to do with AIDS?

You don't have firsthand accounts--you have secondhand, at best, accounts written by people with an agenda and then collated into scripture by later authorities with perhaps another agenda, and changed along the way by copyists and scribes often with their own agendas as well.

Which is not that different than many of the teachings of Socrates via Plato, except that we only have one source (although if you believe the Q existed...). We can't be sure what of Plato's writings can be attributed to Socrates or even be certain Socrates actually existed.

Yes, there is an agenda. Of course there is. You don't Plato didn't have one. You don't know that people copying and scribing Plato's work didn't have an agenda.

We know that we have access to very old versions of many of the manuscripts and that SOME translations are scholarly attempts to be as true to the originals as possible.

The teachings of Jesus are very comparable to the teachings of Socrates in terms of our access despite you willingness to doubt one over the other.

What's that got to do with AIDS?

The original by Sarah Silverman was the same joke with AIDS substituted for gay. The new joke has nothing to do with AIDS.

"If we can put a man on the moon, then someday we can put a man with AIDS on the moon. Then, someday, we can put all men with AIDS on the moon!"

Meanwhile, don't feed the trolls.

What's that got to do with AIDS?

Shit really?

To hazzard a guess I would say that the original joke contained the wordds AIDS sufferes instead of Gay men?

I know what you're saying. It's just not logical. How does when they realized the "truth" prove it's not true. How does that say anything about whether or not it is true?Who realized what truth? When?

No, I'm saying you're trying to pretend as if they don't openly admit that Judaism came about in a time when there were other beliefs. You claimed they pretend they have always had their current beliefs. So far no evidence has been offered by you and now you're even admitting that other beliefs were held within the same people and that it is acknowledged. Of course Judaism came about when there were other beliefs. But additionally, the bible claims that the belief in the biblical god has always existed, for which there is just no evidence at all, but rather evidence against. You know, the Bible takes Yah and El out of their context and merges them (and a few other gods, such as Asherah) into the one biblical god, and it goes on narrating its story as if this biblical god had always existed and had been worshiped by the well-known biblical characters. However, there is nothing to support that approach at all.

Judaism was a realization, an evolution of past beliefs into a new belief based on what they believed was new information. Were they right? Well, the truth is, neither of us can establish that for sure. However, can we prove they are wrong or that the existence of the God they now believe in doesn't exist or is impossible? Nope. Can't even support the possibility. Hasn't stopped you from making the claim though, has it? Pretty illogical.Judaism was a fabrication out of many other beliefs and traditions, there is no process of realization observable. And what new information are you talking of? And what evolution are you talking of? In what span of time? Prior to the Persian era (i.e. around 550 BCE) there was no monotheism as the Bible suggests, however, the bible claims that such folks as Solomon, David, Saul, the Judges, Yoshua, Moses, Joseph, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Noah, Adam were followers of the biblical god. There is no whatsoever indication for that at all. In fact, all available sources tell otherwise about the beliefs in the respective time periods.
And the fact that the Bible is plainly lying about history renders the whole concept of god developed in it pointless.

What's that got to do with AIDS?

The original joke I heard was about a man with AIDS, that's all.

Which is not that different than many of the teachings of Socrates via Plato, except that we only have one source (although if you believe the Q existed...). We can't be sure what of Plato's writings can be attributed to Socrates or even be certain Socrates actually existed.

Yes, there is an agenda. Of course there is. You don't Plato didn't have one. You don't know that people copying and scribing Plato's work didn't have an agenda.

We know that we have access to very old versions of many of the manuscripts and that SOME translations are scholarly attempts to be as true to the originals as possible.

The teachings of Jesus are very comparable to the teachings of Socrates in terms of our access despite you willingness to doubt one over the other.



Yeah whatever but the point was one of the validity of the Bible being Christ words, and nowt to do with Socrates.

But, wait! Socrates was allegedly homosexual, too! That would mean that studying his philosophy would destroy Your Way of Life, too...! Hmm, who else in history was gay....?

Which is not that different than many of the teachings of Socrates via Plato, except that we only have one source (although if you believe the Q existed...). We can't be sure what of Plato's writings can be attributed to Socrates or even be certain Socrates actually existed.

Yes, there is an agenda. Of course there is. You don't Plato didn't have one. You don't know that people copying and scribing Plato's work didn't have an agenda.

We know that we have access to very old versions of many of the manuscripts and that SOME translations are scholarly attempts to be as true to the originals as possible.

The teachings of Jesus are very comparable to the teachings of Socrates in terms of our access despite you willingness to doubt one over the other.

Well, no one claims Socrates is divine either, so there's a different level of expectation there.

Edit: there's also no worldwide movement of over a billion claiming that the words of Socrates are inerrant and worth killing others over.

Who realized what truth? When?

Like I said, the "truth" is what they believe now. When they realized it has NOTHING to do with whether or not it is true despite your illogical claims otherwise.


Of course Judaism came about when there were other beliefs. But additionally, the bible claims that the belief in the biblical god has always existed, for which there is just no evidence at all, but rather evidence against. You know, the Bible takes Yah and El out of their context and merges them (and a few other gods, such as Asherah) into the one biblical god, and it goes on narrating its story as if this biblical god had always existed and had been worshiped by the well-known biblical characters. However, there is nothing to support that approach at all.

It does. According to whom? I've asked for evidence of the claim that the Bible claims that a widespread belief in God always existed. There are claims that certain humans interacted with God in particular instances, but no claims that I've seen of widespread belief. Prove me wrong. And this time, how about, you know, provide proof.

Lack of proof they did worship God is not evidence they didn't. I'm sure you're not going to fall into that gaping logical trap, are you?


Judaism was a fabrication out of many other beliefs and traditions, there is no process of realization observable. And what new information are you talking of? And what evolution are you talking of? In what span of time? Prior to the Persian era (i.e. around 550 BCE) there was no monotheism (let alone biblical monotheism), however, the bible claims that such folks as Solomon, David, Saul, the Judges, Yoshua, Moses, Joseph, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Noah, Adam were followers of the biblical god. There is no whatsoever indication for that at all. In fact, all available sources tell otherwise about the beliefs in the respective time periods.
And the fact that the Bible is plainly lying about history renders the whole concept of god developed in it pointless.

It is formed from many other beliefs. In fact, all beliefs held today are formed on previous beliefs. Every philosophy built on something learned. That's pretty much the nature of such things. Still has no bearing on whether or not it is true.

You think you can actually educatedly speak to the belief of certain individuals. Do tell? Please show me evidence of what Abraham believed? You do realize that for Abraham to believe something that there is NO requirement for it be widespread enough for evidence to remain of his beliefs today other than perhaps some stories and the like. Oh, wait, we've got those.

I can't wait for you to present some Abrahamic quotes that show he believed something else. 4000 years from now there will be little or no scholarly evidence that anyone was a follower of Samaramis in 1999, but can you tell me that because of this, we know that there were no followers of Samaramis in 1999? Nope. Lack of evidence is not equal to evidence against.

You're committing a logical fallacy.

Yeah whatever but the point was one of the validity of the Bible being Christ words, and nowt to do with Socrates.

The point is that we are talking about following the teachings, not about whether they are valid or not. It was suggested that we do not know what they are.

Well, no one claims Socrates is divine either, so there's a different level of expectation there.

Edit: there's also no worldwide movement of over a billion claiming that the words of Socrates are inerrant and worth killing others over.

So what? I was using Socrates as an example showing that Christian simply means to follow the teachings of Christ. It was suggested that we don't know what they are. We do. As much as we know the teachings of Socrates.

You can change the subject to why you don't like Christians, etc., but it has nothing to do with what a Christian is and is not relevant.

The point is that we are talking about following the teachings, not about whether they are valid or not. It was suggested that we do not know what they are.

And that suggestion still hasn't been completely refuted either--we have, at best, the spin on what others said the teachings of Jesus were, not firsthand accounts of said teachings.

This thread is still going? Didnt i see this last week??

You think you can actually educatedly speak to the belief of certain individuals.The Bible does. Without evidence. And without any hint on how the information about the belief of certain past individuals was obtained. And how could someone like Abraham believe in the biblical god, when the biblical god was only designed over 1200 years later? Tell me. And for what reasons would anybody assume that a single person would believe something different than the rest of the society he was living in? And for what purposes? And how would we possibly know about it when all biblical records are younger than 23xx years?

False. We have many writings about what he taught. Our knowledge of the teachings of Christ is more extensive than our knowledge of the teachings of Socrates. Some of the writings are not associated with any church. Some are. The churches do not define what Christians believe.
And no, receiving the sacraments is not a requirement to be Christian. You don't even have to believe that Jesus was the savior in order to be Christian. Christian simply means follower of the teachings of Christ. No more. No less. No matter how badly you want to claim otherwise.What teachings of Christ? Christos is Greek for Messiah, which Christians believe Yeshua to be. If you don't believe that Yeshua is the Messiah, you are not a Christian and cannot be a member of the community founded by Yeshua, which has evolved into the churches. The membership in the community of Yeshua based on the belief about the nature of Yeshua as Messiah makes a person a Christian. And the churches do indeed define what beliefs are required to be Christian. They also define that it is necessary to receive the blessing of Yeshua through contact from person to person through the generations (e.g. expressed in the sacraments).
The teachings of Yeshua are not known, simply because he didn't write anything. All there is are second-hand accounts from fanatics who are not necessarily trustworthy.

What teachings of Christ? Christos is Greek for Messiah, which Christians believe Yeshua to be. If you don't believe that Yeshua is the Messiah, you are not a Christian and cannot be a member of the community founded by Yeshua, which has evolved into the churches. The membership in the community of Yeshua based on the belief about the nature of Yeshua as Messiah makes a person a Christian. And the churches do indeed define what beliefs are required to be Christian. The also define that it is necessary to receive the blessing of Yeshua through contact from person to person through the generations (expressed in the sacraments).
The teachings of Yeshua are not known, simply because he didn't write anything. All there is are second-hand accounts from fanatics who are not necessarily trustworthy.

Messiah in terms of the way the Jews used it (which is not the same as the way some Christians not mean it) was used to refer to a King and deliverer of the Jews. Many Christians believe that Christ deliver Judaism from corruption and personalized the relationship with God and that he was a spiritual King. Some believe that he was a messiah (the way it is usually used today) and that he actually provided salvation from sin and is actually an aspect of God. These beliefs are not and needn't be universal.

Christian still means and will always mean follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ. You can keep professing your one true scotsman fallacy, but it's called a fallacy for a reason.

So, quick, which church defines Christianity? No vague claims. Which church because they don't all agree even on the claims you are making.

This thread is still going? Didnt i see this last week??

Dude, we have threads that last for months sometimes. ;)

The Bible does. Without evidence. And without any hint on how the information about the belief of certain past individuals was obtained. And how could someone like Abraham believe in the biblical god, when the biblical god was only designed over 1200 years later? Tell me. And for what reasons would anybody assume that a single person would believe something different than the rest of the society he was living in? And for what purposes?

First, you are making a circular argument. You keep saying that God doesn't exist, because they didn't learn about God, but must have made him up. Why must they have made him up? Because God doesn't exist. And so on.

See, it is absolutely possible that all those elements that were common to other religions and have become part of Judaism were just glimpses of truth. Judaism was first to get the whole truth and put it together as a widespread religion. Or the first we know about, perhaps. Regardless, no matter where you go with that, it's not evidence of whether or not they are right. Unless you start with the claim it must be completely made up, which of course begins with conclusion in hand.

Without evidence is not the same as proof against. I would say we cannot prove what Abraham believed so you cannot claim that the Bible is wrong on this front. You could have FAITH that he believed one way or another or that he existed or didn't, but there is no evidence for your claims that he did not believe in God.

Why might Abraham believe differently than his compatriots? Hmmmm... Perhaps he had knowledge they didn't. Who knows? Who cares? Again, because you don't find it likely that he would have the ability to believe differently than his colleagues doesn't mean that he didn't or couldn't.

Again, let's see this proof that God is impossible. I'll wait.

And that suggestion still hasn't been completely refuted either--we have, at best, the spin on what others said the teachings of Jesus were, not firsthand accounts of said teachings.

It doesn't have to be completely refuted. We have multiple sources or at least they are likely to be multiple sources. We have evidence of what was taught and followed fairly soon after the death of Christ. For historical accounts of an individual this is about as good as it gets.

Like I said, we have less evidence for Socrates, but it is still possible to logically claim that you follow his teachings. We recognize that there are teachings assigned to an individual named Socrates or assigned to Jesus. We can't actually prove one way or the other what the actual teachings were even if we had a multiple first-hand sources. We can only use what evidence we do have to compile what is available to us. That's all. You create a burden of proof not required for other famous figures like Socrates.

Your argument regarding this was that because it's a Faith you think the burden of proof should be higher. However, the absurd part of that is, by fact, faith doesn't require proof. Science does, of course, but there is nothing scientific about requiring more proof for one claim than for another.

It doesn't have to be completely refuted. We have multiple sources or at least they are likely to be multiple sources. We have evidence of what was taught and followed fairly soon after the death of Christ. For historical accounts of an individual this is about as good as it gets.
You really only have one source, and it's not extant (the Q Gospel) from which Mark worked. Luke and Matthew worked from his writings, and the Gospel attributed to John came from the same mind that gave us Revelation. And even so, all that gets you in the existence of the man, not what he actually taught. For his teachings--and this is what you seem to either be missing or ignoring--all we have is what the people who followed the teachers he supposedly left behind say they said he said, colored by their own intentions. That's not history--that's basically fiction.

Like I said, we have less evidence for Socrates, but it is still possible to logically claim that you follow his teachings. We recognize that there are teachings assigned to an individual named Socrates or assigned to Jesus. We can't actually prove one way or the other what the actual teachings were even if we had a multiple first-hand sources. We can only use what evidence we do have to compile what is available to us. That's all. You create a burden of proof not required for other famous figures like Socrates.
With good reason. The teachings of Jesus are held up by a significant portion of the world as the basis for religious belief, and those people, who hold an extraordinary amount of political and military power, have never been shy about imposing their will on those who disagree. If there were a worldwide group of people who were claiming the divinity of Socrates and claiming eternal damnation to those who dispute the verity of said teachings, then I'd hold it to the same standard.

First, you are making a circular argument. You keep saying that God doesn't exist, because they didn't learn about God, but must have made him up. Why must they have made him up? Because God doesn't exist. And so on.

See, it is absolutely possible that all those elements that were common to other religions and have become part of Judaism were just glimpses of truth. Judaism was first to get the whole truth and put it together as a widespread religion. Or the first we know about, perhaps. Regardless, no matter where you go with that, it's not evidence of whether or not they are right. Unless you start with the claim it must be completely made up, which of course begins with conclusion in hand.

Without evidence is not the same as proof against. I would say we cannot prove what Abraham believed so you cannot claim that the Bible is wrong on this front. You could have FAITH that he believed one way or another or that he existed or didn't, but there is no evidence for your claims that he did not believe in God.

Why might Abraham believe differently than his compatriots? Hmmmm... Perhaps he had knowledge they didn't. Who knows? Who cares? Again, because you don't find it likely that he would have the ability to believe differently than his colleagues doesn't mean that he didn't or couldn't.

Again, let's see this proof that God is impossible. I'll wait.Again, how could someone like Abraham believe in the biblical god, when the biblical god was only designed over 1200 years later? Just tell me. Because that is what the Bible claims. The Bible and Judaism do not claim any evolutionary process in this respect or "discovery of truth".
We know that the belief suggested in the Bible did not exist, so how could someone possible have followed it prior to its existence? You try to imply that all other beliefs were in fact only bits and glimpses of the truth that would lie in Judaism, but we both know that's utter crap.

Again, how could someone like Abraham believe in the biblical god, when the biblical god was only designed over 1200 years later?

Revisionist history, you may want to look that one up.

Again, how could someone like Abraham believe in the biblical god, when the biblical god was only designed over 1200 years later? Just tell me. Because that is what the Bible claims. The Bible and Judaism do not claim any evolutionary process in this respect or "discovery of truth".
We know that the belief suggested in the Bible did not exist, so how could someone possible have followed it prior to its existence? You try to imply that all other beliefs were in fact only bits and glimpses of the truth that would lie in Judaism, but we both know that's utter crap.

Again, you're starting with conclusion in hand. How he could believe in a Biblical God is if the Biblical God is real. You argument rests on claiming that God is fictitious and thus the Bible is false which proves that God is fictitious.

And your argument against the possibility that these other views were glimpses at the truth is "it's utter crap". Wow, compelling. I can't wait for you to give me raspberries. That'll learn me.

Revisionist history, you may want to look that one up.The entire Bible is revisionist history. :rolleyes:

<Snip-Sniip!>First of all, thanks for painting me a fucking picture about the joke thing earlier. I'm a bit dense at times, hehe.

But I'm curious about your source attribition claim & your proof of a historical Jesus. How can you attribute something to a particular source, if you don't know with any degree of certainty that it indeed is the source?
And about Jesus in particular, unless my memory's fucked, Tacitus is the best evidence of a historical Jesus besides the Bible, right?

But, wait! Socrates was allegedly homosexual, too! That would mean that studying his philosophy would destroy Your Way of Life, too...! Hmm, who else in history was gay....?

I understand Plato liked them young as well. But I'm sure we don't pay attention to peoples vices when we remember them, right? :p

You really only have one source, and it's not extant (the Q Gospel) from which Mark worked. Luke and Matthew worked from his writings, and the Gospel attributed to John came from the same mind that gave us Revelation. And even so, all that gets you in the existence of the man, not what he actually taught. For his teachings--and this is what you seem to either be missing or ignoring--all we have is what the people who followed the teachers he supposedly left behind say they said he said, colored by their own intentions. That's not history--that's basically fiction.

First of all, there are more Gospels than that. You've ignored them. Second of all, we aren't certain that there is a common source. The reason for the suggestion is that they seem to be consistent, but that they are accurate would be another explanation. Also, the Q Gospel, since we don't have it, is of questionable origin. We don't know if it was first-hand or derivative of first-hand information.

All recording history is colored by the intentions of those doing the recording and is often recorded by sources less close than these sources were. It's an argument for bias, but not proof of it. Again, prove it's fiction. You can't. There isn't evidence for it being fiction, only not evidence enough to treat is as fact. That is not the same thing.



With good reason. The teachings of Jesus are held up by a significant portion of the world as the basis for religious belief, and those people, who hold an extraordinary amount of political and military power, have never been shy about imposing their will on those who disagree. If there were a worldwide group of people who were claiming the divinity of Socrates and claiming eternal damnation to those who dispute the verity of said teachings, then I'd hold it to the same standard.

Again, because it's a faith, you're requiring MORE proof. Ludicrous and illogical. It denies the definition of faith and the application of it. Keep shaking your fist at the sky. It does nothing. Christianity is a faith and there is nothing scientific or rational about requiring more evidence for the claims of a faith than the claims of history.

Again, you're starting with conclusion in hand. How he could believe in a Biblical God is if the Biblical God is real. You argument rests on claiming that God is fictitious and thus the Bible is false which proves that God is fictitious.

And your argument against the possibility that these other views were glimpses at the truth is "it's utter crap". Wow, compelling. I can't wait for you to give me raspberries. That'll learn me.No. I start with the knowledge in hand that the biblical concept of god is not original but was fabricated out of other sources that are unrelated to the concept of the biblical god. Then I see that the history suggested in the Bible in respect to people's beliefs in ancient times does not correspond with history abundantly recorded otherwise. Then I see that neither the Bible itself nor its texts did exist prior to a certain point in time. Then I see that the sources upon which the authors of the Bible base their narration just do not exist and that they basically pulled the theological aspect of it out of their arses. The logical conclusion is that the Bible is a lie altogether and that the god it suggests does not exist.

Again, how could someone like Abraham believe in the biblical god, when the biblical god was only designed over 1200 years later? Just tell me. Because that is what the Bible claims.

First of all, thanks for painting me a fucking picture about the joke thing earlier. I'm a bit dense at times, hehe.

But I'm curious about your source attribition claim & your proof of a historical Jesus. How can you attribute something to a particular source, if you don't know with any degree of certainty that it indeed is the source?
And about Jesus in particular, unless my memory's fucked, Tacitus is the best evidence of a historical Jesus besides the Bible, right?

All evidence for Jesus is debateable. You can't prove Jesus existed or that he taught what is recorded, but as stated you can't do that with Socrates any better.

Tacitus is up for debate. Some argue that some of what it says were later substitutions and others question where he got his knowledge since he didn't, and didn't have to, cite sources. I would say he's a pretty reliable source, but that he still leaves some pretty large questions that we will likely never have the answer to, like whether Christian documents were his source for his claims about Christ being put to death by Pilate. That is what's funny about Nazz's requirements, becuase historians rarely have clear proof of what happened, but mostly just accounts that all are colored of one fashion or another, particularly when you're trying to describe events from 1000's of years ago.

What's that got to do with AIDS?

Sarah Silverman's version says "maybe someday we can put a man with AIDS on the moon. Maybe someday we can put everyone with AIDS on the moon" She was addressing a classroom full of primary school students and trying to inspire them.

No. I start with the knowledge in hand that the biblical concept of god is not original but was fabricated out of other sources that are unrelated to the concept of the biblical god. Then I see that the history suggested in the Bible in respect to people's beliefs in ancient times does not correspond with history abundantly recorded otherwise. Then I see that neither the Bible itself nor its texts did exist prior to a certain point in time. Then I see that the sources upon which the authors of the Bible base their narration just do not exist and that they basically pulled the theological aspect of it out of their arses. The logical conclusion is that the Bible is a lie altogether and that the god it suggests does not exist.

Again, how could someone like Abraham believe in the biblical god, when the biblical god was only designed over 1200 years later? Just tell me. Because that is what the Bible claims.

Again, first you ASSUME that God was designed rather than discovered. We have evidence that there was other aspects that were later found in the understanding of God and that may mean that these were incorporated into Judaism or it may mean that Jews found this information to be correct.

If you can't see that an argument that states "he couldn't have known God because God is fictitious so since they claim he knew God, we know God is fictitious" is clearly flawed, I simply don't know how to help you. Understanding what is and what isn't a circular argument is pretty much the basis of logic.

If say, like the Vikings, I land in America prior to Columbus's discover of America, then it's completely for a historian to later say that the Viking landed in what we now call America. Now, you could argue that since Columbus didn't discover America, that the Vikings couldn't know of it, but the fact is, that such an argument is ludicrous unless you assume that America is not a real thing available for discovery. That is called starting with your conclusion in hand or a circular argument. Simple really. Your argument only makes sense if God is fictitious and you are using it to prove that God is fictitious.

Even worse, you are using the claim that Abraham couldn't have worshipped God since the concept was new 1200 years later, to prove that the concept was new 1200 years later. Also absurd.

We do not let gays, girls, or the godless into the ranks of the Boy Scouts. That is because it is a moral organization and not a puppet to the PC and the depraved.

I have been a scout for 12 years. The last years everybody knew I was gay.That was no problem, not to any fellow scout nor the parents of the children I looked after. I wasn't a scout in the U.S. though. I'm Belgian.

Though a vast majority of Belgian scouts is straight, there is a large number of gay scouts. Even the national director of the Belgian scouting federation is gay. And girls are as welcome as boys with us. We do not discriminate.

And even though the Belgian Scouting federation is a Catholic organisation (a relict from the past, when all Belgians were Catholic), I believe that a majority of its members are not Catholic or religious,like me. (Dear God, a gay atheist, I will burn for sure :eek: )

Finally, gays are free to join the U.K. scouts. And they invented scouting. Time to move on, U.S.

Bye now.

Again, first you ASSUME that God was designed rather than discovered. We have evidence that there was other aspects that were later found in the understanding of God and that may mean that these were incorporated into Judaism or it may mean that Jews found this information to be correct.

If you can't see that an argument that starts with he couldn't have known God because God is fictitious so since they claim he knew God, we know God is fictitious.

If say, like the Vikings, I land in America prior to Columbus's discover of America, then it's completely for a historian to later say that the Viking landed in what we now call America. Now, you could argue that since Columbus didn't discover America, that the Vikings couldn't know of it, but the fact is, that such an argument is ludicrous unless you assume that America is not a real thing available for discovery. That is called starting with your conclusion in hand or a circular argument. Simple really. Your argument only makes sense if God is fictitious and you are using it to prove that God is fictitious.

Even worse, you are using the claim that Abraham couldn't have worshipped God since the concept was new 1200 years later, to prove that the concept was new 1200 years later. Also absurd.
Have you ever even read the Bible?
The Bible claims that Abraham believed in the biblical god. But we know (not assume) that this biblical god was only designed much later. What does that tell you about the validity of the biblical claim?

And your America discovery story does not at all reflect what I am talking about. This is not just about the name of things, it's about the nature of things. Ultimately the facts.

And btw, why do you keep refering to Yeshua as Christ?

First of all, there are more Gospels than that. You've ignored them. Second of all, we aren't certain that there is a common source. The reason for the suggestion is that they seem to be consistent, but that they are accurate would be another explanation. Also, the Q Gospel, since we don't have it, is of questionable origin. We don't know if it was first-hand or derivative of first-hand information.

All recording history is colored by the intentions of those doing the recording and is often recorded by sources less close than these sources were. It's an argument for bias, but not proof of it. Again, prove it's fiction. You can't. There isn't evidence for it being fiction, only not evidence enough to treat is as fact. That is not the same thing.
Still thinking this is a dichotomy, I see. Try coming at this obliquely for a minute. Jesus the man may well have existed--that means dick when you're talking about his teachings. King Arthur probably existed too, but not in the form given him Geoffrey of Monmouth. And I've never claimed that Jesus the man was definitively fiction--only that the legend has fictive qualities, and I stand by that.




Again, because it's a faith, you're requiring MORE proof. Ludicrous and illogical. It denies the definition of faith and the application of it. Keep shaking your fist at the sky. It does nothing. Christianity is a faith and there is nothing scientific or rational about requiring more evidence for the claims of a faith than the claims of history.
Well one thing is right anyway--there's nothing rational about faith.

Sarah Silverman's version says "maybe someday we can put a man with AIDS on the moon. Maybe someday we can put everyone with AIDS on the moon" She was addressing a classroom full of primary school students and trying to inspire them.

Just because you have AIDS doesn't mean you can't go to the moon.


There are many many other factors that will prevent you from going to the moon, but AIDS is not one of them.

All evidence for Jesus is debateable. You can't prove Jesus existed or that he taught what is recorded, but as stated you can't do that with Socrates any better.

Tacitus is up for debate. Some argue that some of what it says were later substitutions and others question where he got his knowledge since he didn't, and didn't have to, cite sources. I would say he's a pretty reliable source, but that he still leaves some pretty large questions that we will likely never have the answer to, like whether Christian documents were his source for his claims about Christ being put to death by Pilate. That is what's funny about Nazz's requirements, becuase historians rarely have clear proof of what happened, but mostly just accounts that all are colored of one fashion or another, particularly when you're trying to describe events from 1000's of years ago.

What requirements? What the hell are you babbling about?

Just because you have AIDS doesn't mean you can't go to the moon.


There are many many other factors that will prevent you from going to the moon, but AIDS is not one of them.

Great! If we put every AIDS patient on the moon we can wipe out AIDS on earth. We can even free up some resources and real estate in Africa. It'll be great.

Still thinking this is a dichotomy, I see. Try coming at this obliquely for a minute. Jesus the man may well have existed--that means dick when you're talking about his teachings. King Arthur probably existed too, but not in the form given him Geoffrey of Monmouth. And I've never claimed that Jesus the man was definitively fiction--only that the legend has fictive qualities, and I stand by that. .Well, that's the difference between Jesus (Yeshua, the real man) and Christ (Messiah, the posthumously deified human).

Have you ever even read the Bible?
The Bible claims that Abraham believed in the biblical god. But we know (not assume) that this biblical god was only designed much later. What does that tell you about the validity of the biblical claim?

Yes, I get that the Bible says he believed in the biblical God. However, you are assuming the Biblical God was designed which assumes that He is not real. You cannot verify this assumption or even support it. So you don't know. You're assuming. Design implies He doesn't exist. Prove it.

And your America discovery story does not at all reflect what I am talking about. This is not just about the name of things, it's about the nature of things. Ultimately the facts.
Yes, of course it's about the fact. The problem is that you don't know what they are. What is the nature of God? You don't know. Does God exist? You don't know. If he exists can He be discovered? You don't know. Has He been discovered? You don't know.

You know America was discovered because you know it exist. You assume God was designed because you assume He cannot be real, but if He is real, then He certainly could be discovered. So, either you prove He isn't real, or you cannot use claims that the concept of Him couldn't have existed at Abraham's time since it rests on God being a concept rather than an entity.

Just because you have AIDS doesn't mean you can't go to the moon.

There are many many other factors that will prevent you from going to the moon, but AIDS is not one of them.

Not to nitpick too much, but if you have a very severely compromised immune system there is no way any space agency would even consider putting you on a mission to the moon.

What requirements? What the hell are you babbling about?

You said you require more proof of Jesus than of other historical figures. Your requirements for proof of Jesus are requirements that rarely exist for historical figures. Recorded history is subject to the whim of those recording it. This is your complaint about Jesus, but it's true of everything you've ever learned about history. Sorry, but history, just cannot be an exact science. Subjectivity cannot help but pollute it. Always, not just in regards to beliefs and figures you don't like.

Still thinking this is a dichotomy, I see. Try coming at this obliquely for a minute. Jesus the man may well have existed--that means dick when you're talking about his teachings. King Arthur probably existed too, but not in the form given him Geoffrey of Monmouth. And I've never claimed that Jesus the man was definitively fiction--only that the legend has fictive qualities, and I stand by that.

Again, you are creating a requirement that simply can't be met by this history and is rarely met by any history. There will always be this kind of taint on such things. Fortunately, this is a faith and thus doesn't have to PROVE things true.

However, from a scientific standpoint there is as more evidence for the existence of Jesus and the record of his teachings and followers than Socrates whose existence, as far as I know, is not largely disputed. When it comes to historical figures like Socrates or Jesus we simply can't prove their existence beyond all possible doubt. It's a ludicrous requirement.



Well one thing is right anyway--there's nothing rational about faith.

...Or your requirement that it provide more proof than non-faith related figures or historical claims.

Meanwhile, your claim is provably false. There are many things rational about faith. Logic or proof is just not a requirement. It doesn't mean it doesn't ever enter into the equation.

However, if you'd like to prove that faith must be devoid of rational thought be my guest. I suspect it's going to be as difficult as proving God doesn't exist, however.

And btw, why do you keep refering to Yeshua as Christ?

Because I believe he was Christ. I believe he was a King and that he did deliver the Jews. Jews didn't require Messaih to be divine. He was simply going to be a great leader.

If you'd like me to only say Jesus, I will, however, you know exactly who I'm referring to, so it's a silly requirement.

You said you require more proof of Jesus than of other historical figures. Your requirements for proof of Jesus are requirements that rarely exist for historical figures. Recorded history is subject to the whim of those recording it. This is your complaint about Jesus, but it's true of everything you've ever learned about history. Sorry, but history, just cannot be an exact science. Subjectivity cannot help but pollute it. Always, not just in regards to beliefs and figures you don't like.

No, I didn't. I never even suggested such a thing. I never required anything, and I seriously wonder where you got that impression. I have no vested interest in whether Jesus existed or not---I don't really care. What I simply pointed out is that there's a lot less proof for his existence, much less his divinity, than many christians claim there is.

But here, let me spell it out for you again, so you can be clear on this. Jesus, the human being, may have, probably did exist, in much the same way that King Arthur existed. Does that make him divine? No. Does that even mean that he uttered the words attributed to him by secondhand sources who wrote what others said Jesus said? No. So to call what comes out of the Gospels--whether you're talking about the ones canonized in the Bible or the Gnostic Gospels or any of the others--the teachings of Jesus is to lend them a credibility and a history that they do not warrant from a rational point of view.

Now, if you want to base your life on that, go right ahead--that's your right. Personally, I try to live my own life by a number of the tenets ascribed to Jesus, because I think they're good and moral ideals to try to reach. But that would be the case whether Jesus said them or not. Hell, love your neighbor as yourself and treat others as you would be treated are good ideas, but they wouldn't be any better just because a divine personage said them.

I suspect it's going to be as difficult as proving God doesn't exist, however.
Actually, my job on that front is easy. The beginning assumption is the blank slate, that there is no God. The proof has to be that he/she/it exists. The burden is on the one attempting to prove the positive, not the negative.

Because I believe he was Christ. I believe he was a King and that he did deliver the Jews. Jews didn't require Messaih to be divine. He was simply going to be a great leader.So you don't believe Jesus is/was divine? And if not, in what way did he deliver the Jews? From what?

If you'd like me to only say Jesus, I will, however, you know exactly who I'm referring to, so it's a silly requirement.Unless you can offer any proof, that Jesus is the Messiah, I'd prefer you to call Yeshua by his name instead of an assumed title.

Actually, my job on that front is easy. The beginning assumption is the blank slate, that there is no God. The proof has to be that he/she/it exists. The burden is on the one attempting to prove the positive, not the negative.

Nope. The actual assumption is that we don't know. The burden is on the positive, but only if you want to make a scientific claim. However, scientifically you also can't have a hypothesis of non-existence or any assumption, because it's not falsifiable. Proof for God, at least according to my faith, cannot and will not ever be scientifically available. It's actually a tenet of my faith. That makes your ability to claim that my God does not exist and scientifically invalid claim.

Philosophically and logically the assumptions cannot be for lack of existence either. To claim that a lack of evidence is evidence of lack is a logical fallacy.

Proof for God, at least according to my faith, cannot and will not ever be scientifically available.
Well, that's fucking convenient. It's also intellectually dishonest.

So you don't believe Jesus is/was divine? And if not, in what way did he deliver the Jews? From what?

Not what I said. I said it's not a requirement of the Christian faith. What I believe personally is irrelevant to your claims.

And if not, he delivered the Jews by bringing them to a personal faith, rather than one that required intercession by others. He made their relationship with God direct and, thus, pure.

Unless you can offer any proof, that Jesus is the Messiah, I'd prefer you to call Yeshua by his name instead of an assumed title.

I don't have to prove it. The idea of Messiah is a tenet of faith. Faith does not require proof. However, if you can prove he wasn't, I'll be happy to adhere to your request.

Otherwise, I can't claim to KNOW that Jesus was Messiah, but I'm certainly free to BELIEVE it.

Yes, I get that the Bible says he believed in the biblical God. However, you are assuming the Biblical God was designed which assumes that He is not real. You cannot verify this assumption or even support it. So you don't know. You're assuming. Design implies He doesn't exist. Prove it.


Yes, of course it's about the fact. The problem is that you don't know what they are. What is the nature of God? You don't know. Does God exist? You don't know. If he exists can He be discovered? You don't know. Has He been discovered? You don't know.

You know America was discovered because you know it exist. You assume God was designed because you assume He cannot be real, but if He is real, then He certainly could be discovered. So, either you prove He isn't real, or you cannot use claims that the concept of Him couldn't have existed at Abraham's time since it rests on God being a concept rather than an entity.I am not assuming that the biblical god was designed. I know that. If it was otherwise, wouldn't there be ANY artifacts, texts, etc from prior to, say, 600 BCE, to suggest thus? And I know that in the time periods the Bible describes other gods were in fact worshiped, such as Yah and El. And even the residents of the Levant (including Samaria and the areas where the returning "Jews" settled) worshiped Yah, along with his wife Asherah and their son Baal. There is NO indication, however, that the biblical god was worshiped in the manner and time period the bible suggests.

Nope. The actual assumption is that we don't know. The burden is on the positive, but only if you want to make a scientific claim. However, scientifically you also can't have a hypothesis of non-existence or any assumption, because it's not falsifiable. Proof for God, at least according to my faith, cannot and will not ever be scientifically available. It's actually a tenet of my faith. That makes your ability to claim that my God does not exist and scientifically invalid claim.

Philosophically and logically the assumptions cannot be for lack of existence either. To claim that a lack of evidence is evidence of lack is a logical fallacy.

The burden of proof is still on the believer, whether it is rationally proveably or not. In a rational discourse on the subject you can't start with the assumption that god exists, because it isn't a rationally justifiable assumption. And by the way, many people have tried in the past to rationalize the existence of god. Many of those arguments are valid, if not actually sound.

Well, that's fucking convenient. It's also intellectually dishonest.

Pardon? How is it intellectually dishonest?

I believe the point of having faith at all is that it teaches us that some things we have to take on faith. If proof is provided to us by God, then the need for faith ceases and we cease to learn the wisdom of accepting some things on faith. Now I could be wrong on the fact that faith is something God wants for us or that God doesn't exist, but given my faith, you simply can't ever offer proof for my God. In fact, the existence of proof of a God would automatically negate my concept of God. So for my belief I can only be proven wrong, not proven right.

It's not that different from what Socrates taught in that he believed the greatest wisdom was in accepting that we cannot really know things.

I am not assuming that the biblical god was designed. I know that. If it was otherwise, wouldn't there be ANY artifacts, texts, etc from prior to, say, 600 BCE, to suggest thus? And I know that in the time periods the Bible describes other gods were in fact worshiped, such as Yah and El. And even the residents of the Levant (including Samaria and the areas where the returning "Jews" settled) worshiped Yah, along with his wife Asherah and their son Baal. There is NO indication, however, that the biblical god was worshiped in the manner and time period the bible suggests.

Practically every city-state and region in the fertile crescent had their own patron diety. The historical tribes of the Jews themselves were believed to be henotheists until they settled down to a monotheistic worship of Yhwh.

Not to mention the gods of the Vedas, which (supposedly) predate the Bible. Not to mention the gods of the ancient greeks, the egyptians, the sumerians, the...Etruscans...

Pardon? How is it intellectually dishonest?
Because you're saying, in essence, I can't be wrong because I don't believe I'm wrong and it's not necessary for me to prove I'm right. Easy to win an argument when you set the conditions so that you can't possibly lose.

The burden of proof is still on the believer, whether it is rationally proveably or not. In a rational discourse on the subject you can't start with the assumption that god exists, because it isn't a rationally justifiable assumption. And by the way, many people have tried in the past to rationalize the existence of god. Many of those arguments are valid, if not actually sound.


You also can't start with the assumption that God doesn't exist. The only rational justifiable position is that we cannot assume that God does or doesn't exist.

Belief requires no proof. It can have proof, but it doesn't require it.

What your claiming is called argument ad ignoratum or argument from ignorance. It means that you cannot assume something false simply because it is not proven true in logic or that you cannot assume something true simply because it has not been proven false. In logic, this is a fallacy and you are employing it.

Pardon? How is it intellectually dishonest?

I believe the point of having faith at all is that it teaches us that some things we have to take on faith. If proof is provided to us by God, then the need for faith ceases and we cease to learn the wisdom of accepting some things on faith. Now I could be wrong on the fact that faith is something God wants for us or that God doesn't exist, but given my faith, you simply can't ever offer proof for my God. In fact, the existence of proof of a God would automatically negate my concept of God. So for my belief I can only be proven wrong, not proven right.

It's not that different from what Socrates taught in that he believed the greatest wisdom was in accepting that we cannot really know things.

I can see that. However, that's not a valid premise for the historicity of Christ. It's a valid premise in the BELIEF in the historicity of Christ, but that's not the same thing.

Hello. *waves* I'm a young nation... And I live in Norway. Being as I am Scandinavian, I can tell you that Sweden and Norway in particular have very liberal views on homosexuality. Queer Eye for the Straigh Guy/Girl runs on primetime here. :D

I haven't read the whole thread yet, because I haven't the time, but I would like to point out something interesting I read.

There's an author named Unni Lindell, who often goes around to various primary schools and kindergartens ta talk to kids, and then she releases books where she posts what they say about spirituality, politics and other things. They were talking about angels, and a little girl said: "Men can't be angels, cause they don't like glitter and feathers and stuff." Another one then said: "Well, gay men could. They like glitter and feathers." And a little boy said: "I think I'll be gay when I grow up, cause I don't like girls much."

In my world, this proves something I saw discussed in this thread; children are not naturally bigoted. If a seven-year-old boy caan say something like this, isn't there hope for mankind? A boy who knows what homosexuality is, saying entirely seriously that he thinks he'll be gay when he grows up because he dislikes girls. And no boy in that room said, "Ew, gays are icky!"

When I have children, the first thing I'll teach them is that everyone is of equal worth, whether they like the same or the opposite sex. I am bisexual, and nothing pisses me off more than people believing that being gay is somehow less normal, or that people who like people of the same sex are different in any way. They're not. In most cases you wouldn't be able to tell a straight man and a gay man apart (although there are certainly exceptions, and the term "very gay" is a constant in my vocabulary).

Gay or straight, you love someone you love them, and nobody is hurt by it. Children would not be hurt by knowing that there are people who have different beliefs or different sexual orientations.

My mother's old best friend is gay. When I was about eight years old, my mum took me with her to have lunch with him, and she told me that he was a homosexual. I asked what that was, and she said that it meant that he was a man who liked men, and that women who like women are also homosexuals. I said "okay" and thought no more of it. It seemed like the most natural thing in the world.

The world breeds bigots. Parents breed bigots. Children are not born bigoted, and teaching them is nothing wrong.

If I had read a fairytale about a prince and a prince when I was seven, I would have found it fascinating and interesting, but if someone had told me it wasn't "normal", I would have said, "Why not?"

Well, I've been ranting on and on, and I have work to do. Just wanted to add my two... five... well, a lot of cents. :)

Because you're saying, in essence, I can't be wrong because I don't believe I'm wrong and it's not necessary for me to prove I'm right. Easy to win an argument when you set the conditions so that you can't possibly lose.

Or it could be that we're talking about belief where there is no requirement that something be proven. Again, you're employing a fallacy. You want to assume something is false until proven true. There is no such luxury in logic.

And I can possibly lose. If God is proven to exist, then my faith is false. It's really simple. It's those that God can be proven but just isn't proven that can't possibly lose. Because God can't be proven false so they can never ever have a state of conditions that would prove them wrong.

For me, any change in the current level of proof regarding a divine being would falsify my belief.

You also can't start with the assumption that God doesn't exist. The only rational justifiable position is that we cannot assume that God does or doesn't exist.

Belief requires no proof. It can have proof, but it doesn't require it.

What your claiming is called argument ad ignoratum or argument from ignorance. It means that you cannot assume something false simply because it is not proven true in logic or that you cannot assume something true simply because it has not been proven false. In logic, this is a fallacy and you are employing it.

That's not true at all. Have you ever heard of Russel's Teapot? It was a somewhat anecdotal argument against what you're suggesting:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Cited: http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html

Not what I said. I said it's not a requirement of the Christian faith. What I believe personally is irrelevant to your claims.

And if not, he delivered the Jews by bringing them to a personal faith, rather than one that required intercession by others. He made their relationship with God direct and, thus, pure. Now, did he? How so, if he wasn't divine?

I don't have to prove it. The idea of Messiah is a tenet of faith. Faith does not require proof. However, if you can prove he wasn't, I'll be happy to adhere to your request.

Otherwise, I can't claim to KNOW that Jesus was Messiah, but I'm certainly free to BELIEVE it.Either you know something, or you don't. There is no middle way of "believing". Of course you are free to believe whatever you want, but then I don't have to discuss with you anymore, because your position is only based in your personal feelings. Your beliefs only say something about yourself but not about the issue of belief.

Or it could be that we're talking about belief where there is no requirement that something be proven. Again, you're employing a fallacy. You want to assume something is false until proven true. There is no such luxury in logic.

And I can possibly lose. If God is proven to exist, then my faith is false. It's really simple. It's those that God can be proven but just isn't proven that can't possibly lose. Because God can't be proven false so they can never ever have a state of conditions that would prove them wrong.

For me, any change in the current level of proof regarding a divine being would falsify my belief.

No--I assume that nothing exists until it is proven that it does. There's a fucking universe of difference between the two, not that I expect you to notice.

That's not true at all. Have you ever heard of Russel's Teapot? It was a somewhat anecdotal argument against what you're suggesting:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Cited: http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html

You're changing the argument. We aren't talking about doubt. You're talking about assuming it to be false, which you cannot logically do. It's a fallacy. You can doubt it's veracity and you can refuse to accept it as a positve assertion, but that's not the same as assuming it as a negative assertion. If you make an assertion about existence or non-existence of God, then without evidence you are committing a logical error. It's really not that complicated.

No--I assume that nothing exists until it is proven that it does. There's a fucking universe of difference between the two, not that I expect you to notice.

You aren't assuming that nothing exists. You're assuming that something doesn't exist.

"The beginning assumption is the blank slate, that there is no God. "

It's a logical fallacy. You are claiming that the premise "God exists" is false until proven true. This is a logical fallacy. Your assumption "there is no God" has no logical basis.

No--I assume that nothing exists until it is proven that it does. There's a fucking universe of difference between the two, not that I expect you to notice.

I'd refer you to Descartes, and his arguments related to "doubting everything", but it seems like you're already fairly well versed on the subject.

Incidentally, Descartes' version of the Ontological Argument stemmed from just such a "assume nothing exists" standpoint, except that he went about "proving" them "logically". It's an interesting read, I'll try and find a source to link.

You're changing the argument. We aren't talking about doubt. You're talking about assuming it to be false, which you cannot logically do. It's a fallacy. You can doubt it's veracity and you can refuse to accept it as a positve assertion, but that's not the same as assuming it as a negative assertion. If you make an assertion about existence or non-existence of God, then without evidence you are committing a logical error. It's really not that complicated.

I see your point. However, if your entire argument rests on faith and belief, we have nothing further to debate.

Here it is, Nazz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodic_doubt

Not exactly the best source, but it's well presented.

I'd refer you to Descartes, and his arguments related to "doubting everything", but it seems like you're already fairly well versed on the subject.

Incidentally, Descartes' version of the Ontological Argument stemmed from just such a "assume nothing exists" standpoint, except that he went about "proving" them "logically". It's an interesting read, I'll try and find a source to link.

Doubting is not the same as proving false. I accept that my beliefs are acts of faith. That means that I accept that they could be false. That is doubt. My choice after examining a lot of other beliefs, understandings and the workings of the world was to choose to believe, but I accept that belief is not provable and that I don't KNOW that God exists.

You don't KNOW that God doesn't. You can't. To assume that God does not exist has no logical basis. You can refuse to accept that he exists, which is doubt. However, you cannot assume that he doesn't. It's really very simple.

I see your point. However, if your entire argument rests on faith and belief, we have nothing further to debate.

The debate was started by a ludicrous claim that existence of God is impossible. However, because people didn't actually read the entire argument, they mistakingly believed I was claiming some level of proof for the divinity of Christ or for the existence of God. I don't believe on can make a logical assumption on either point.

If you make an assertion about existence or non-existence of God, then without evidence you are committing a logical error. So, since you are a believer, you are committing a logical error.

And then again, this is more than just the usual question about the existence or non-existence of "god". This is about how the concept of the biblical god came into existence, and based on what, and for what purpose, and when. And how this concept of god along with the alleged worship of this god was projected into the past.

The debate was started by a claim that existence of God is impossible. The biblical god, that is. Not god(s) in general.

...the divinity of Christ...there is not even evidence for Yeshuah being the Messiah, so how could you possibly call him Christ? Just believing?

Now, did he? How so, if he wasn't divine?

You've never been taught anything by someone who wasn't divine? One can't be taught about their faith by someone who isn't divine? Really?


Either you know something, or you don't. There is no middle way of "believing". Of course you are free to believe whatever you want, but then I don't have to discuss with you anymore, because your position is only based in your personal feelings. Your beliefs only say something about yourself but not about the issue of belief.
Belief means I don't know, but I believe.

Your beliefs are based on your personal feelings, as well. You cannot logically claim that God is impossible, yet you've made that claim and worse claimed that it was a known fact.

Claiming that you have any evidence that God is impossible is just plain logically flawed.

Claiming that you can prove Jesus was not Messiah is logically flawed. The entire concept of Messiah is a tenet of faith. Claiming that I can't use the term unless I change it from faith into knowledge is ludicrous and denies the usage and purpose of the term.

The point is that we are talking about following the teachings, not about whether they are valid or not. It was suggested that we do not know what they are.

Heh really? I was thinking of this:

'Originally Posted by United Beleriand'

But we do not have knowledge of the teachings of Yeshua, we do not even have knowledge if he is Christ. All we have are the teachings of the churches, i.e. the community that formed around Yeshua and was carried on by his followers afterwards. What additional requirements groups make is of no relevance, the basic requirements are the same: to receive the sacraments and thus carry on the blessings given by Yeshua, who Christians believe to be Christ (hence the name).

'Originally Posted byJocabia'

False. We have many writings about what he taught. Our knowledge of the teachings of Christ is more extensive than our knowledge of the teachings of Socrates. Some of the writings are not associated with any church. Some are. The churches do not define what Christians believe.

And no, receiving the sacraments is not a requirement to be Christian. You don't even have to believe that Jesus was the savior in order to be Christian. Christian simply means follower of the teachings of Christ. No more. No less. No matter how badly you want to claim otherwise.

Which seems very much to me to be refuteing the question of the validity of the Bible being Jesus words. So what is contained in the Bible did it in fact come from Jesus?

You've never been taught anything by someone who wasn't divine? One can't be taught about their faith by someone who isn't divine? Really? You said "deliver", not "taught". And you failed to state from what they were delivered.

Belief means I don't know, but I believe. Why? Based on what?

Claiming that you can prove Jesus was not Messiah is logically flawed.But your claim that Jesus is the Messiah is not?
And btw, that's not what I claimed.

The biblical god, that is. Not god(s) in general.

Except you have no evidence for that. It's really simple. You can cast doubt on what people claim is support for the existence of God, but that doesn't make God impossible. It can't.

Your claim has no logical basis.

there is not even evidence for Yeshuah being the Messiah, so how could you possibly call him Christ? Just believing?

The entire concept is a tenet of faith. Do you now know what faith is? Yes, I have faith that Jesus was Messiah. I have faith that there is such a thing as Messiah. It's plain odd, that you would require that one tenet of faith fits with another tenet of faith when both ideas and the belief in them are acts of faith. It's like asking me to prove that I like chocolate.

You said "deliver", not "taught". And you failed to state from what they were delivered.

No, I stated it. You claimed that the teachings of Christ cannot do that if Jesus is not divine. I asked you to support such a requirement.

Why? Based on what?

It doesn't have to be based on anything. I didn't realize that this would become an English lesson.

In my case it's based on everything I've experienced and seen. It's not the only thing I believe. I also believe I just thought "this guy doesn't understand what believe means", but I can't prove it to you. Does that mean I'm wrong and I didn't think that?

But your claim that Jesus is the Messiah is not?
And btw, that's not what I claimed.

I'm not making a logical claim. I claiming that it is my faith. I'm not requiring you to call him Messiah. You are requiring me to not call him that. Thus, if you wish to press your beliefs on me, then you'd better have something to back them up on that amounts to more than "wah, I don't like it."