22 Jul 08
Originally posted by googlefudgePure nonsense.
Actually there is evidence that from the species perspective, there are benefits to having homosexuals around (or having a degree of homosexual behaviour). It can increase a species survival fitness, which is probably why almost every where in nature you can find homosexual behaviour.
You probably live in a city on concrete. That line of reasoning is bogus. I'm a farmer. I live with nature everyday. Homosexuality is against nature when practiced by humans. And the suggestion that animals exhibit homosexual behavior is just plain stupid. It only reveals that those who believe that don't know nature, and don't know animals.
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by josephwmy reasoning is flawed as compared with your reasoning to wipe out those that are over the population limit.
[b]"homosexuality is the species answer to over population. no longer driven by the need to reproduce, we are now given a vacation from having lots of kids."
Over population? That is a hoax.
Why use homosexuality to stop over population? Why not simply exterminate those that are lower down on the evolutionary scale?
Sorry, but your reasoning is flawed.[/b]
and exterminate those that are lower down the evolutionary scale? who are those people? share your wisdom.
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by googlefudgeLook at a map. If every person living stood shoulder to shoulder we would all fit in an area the size of Connecticut. There's plenty of room for many more on this planet. The problem is there are those who want it all for themselves.
over population is a hoax?? really, to what end?
22 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwSorry, you are plain out wrong.
Pure nonsense.
You probably live in a city on concrete. That line of reasoning is bogus. I'm a farmer. I live with nature everyday. Homosexuality is against nature when practiced by humans. And the suggestion that animals exhibit homosexual behavior is just plain stupid. It only reveals that those who believe that don't know nature, and don't know animals.
There are numerous documentations of homosexual behavour beween animals of same species and same sex. I've myself seen picture of apes doing blow jobs. Not even with the slightest of shame.
Shame is of human nature. Moreover of religious nature. If you are ashamed by homosexual behaviour then you have to work with it.
With not much seeking on the internet I found rather quickly this:
Another one is:
&feature=related
This is a proof that you are wrong, plain wrong. You don't know what you're a talking about. I've often encountered that christian people are dead sure that they have the ultimate truth on their hand. When prooven wrong they answers with - silence. This embarressed behaviour can be seen in the Thread 96558. Silence, dead silence.
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziI was being facetious. English is difficult to understand. Especially in this forum.
my reasoning is flawed as compared with your reasoning to wipe out those that are over the population limit.
and exterminate those that are lower down the evolutionary scale? who are those people? share your wisdom.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by josephwI live in the country, Next to a farm, I read scientific journals and read books.
Pure nonsense.
You probably live in a city on concrete. That line of reasoning is bogus. I'm a farmer. I live with nature everyday. Homosexuality is against nature when practiced by humans. And the suggestion that animals exhibit homosexual behavior is just plain stupid. It only reveals that those who believe that don't know nature, and don't know animals.
Nature includes; cannibalism, murder, rape, and Homosexual behaviour, saying that something is 'Natural' or otherwise doesn't make that thing/practice good or bad. Also as a farmer I would expect you to have noticed the odd cow trying to hump another cow, if not watch a bloopers/take out show on TV, your shore to see it if you watch long enough. Plus, have you never heard of bonobo's?
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasIt is a misinterpretation of animal behaviour, and the projecting of human values to animals.
Sorry, you are plain out wrong.
There are numerous documentations of homosexual behavour beween animals of same species and same sex. I've myself seen picture of apes doing blow jobs. Not even with the slightest of shame.
Shame is of human nature. Moreover of religious nature. If you are ashamed by homosexual behaviour then you have to work with it.
22 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwHow can these footages be misinterpreted?
It is a misinterpretation of animal behaviour, and the projecting of human values to animals.
Is it not acts of homosexuality?
Did you look at them at all? Or are you dead sure without seeing them?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by josephwThe question is not the physical space required to fit everyone on this earth, its the space required to FEED those people. Are you suggesting that we won't be over populated till every square inch of land on the earth is covered with people standing shoulder to shoulder and the population is in the trillions? no, didn't think so. We are running out of space/water to feed the population, hence overpopulated.
Look at a map. If every person living stood shoulder to shoulder we would all fit in an area the size of Connecticut. There's plenty of room for many more on this planet. The problem is there are those who want it all for themselves.
22 Jul 08
There is another christian fundamental kind. People in this group can deny the truth until the sun goes nova. They are stubborn like donkeys. They think that if they repeat the same lie enough number of times then it will eventually be a truth. Like old 78 rpm music disk that has gone wrong. "Homosexual acts is a sin" "Homosexual acts is a sin" "Homosexual acts is a sin" "Homosexual acts is a sin" "Homosexual acts is a sin" "Homosexual acts is a sin", and when they are proven wrong they continue with the same thing over and over again "Homosexual acts is a sin" "Homosexual acts is a sin" "Homosexual acts is a sin" and so on ad infinitum.
22 Jul 08
5 edits
Originally posted by josephw…So, as an atheist you have no code of conduct? …
Try atheism?
So, as an atheist you have no code of conduct? If you do, on what authority do you base you beliefs in?
Homosexuality is considered immoral by the vast majority of people around the world at all times and places because it is self evident by nature alone. The attempt to legitimise homosexuality is self delusional.
Atheism says nothing about what “code of conduct” we should have and nor is it supposed to. Being a atheist simply means you don’t believe there is a god -that is all.
Therefore, atheists generally regard the question of what “code of conduct” we should have as a totally separate issue that has nothing to with “atheism”. Obviously this doesn’t mean atheists don’t have a code of conduct! -Most of them do have a code of conduct.
…If you do, on what authority do you base you beliefs in? …
I think many atheists can answer that using just one word: “reason” -unless you are just talking about “moral code of conduct” when you talk about “beliefs” in the above, in which case they get that in a similar way you do except they don’t consult any scriptures -instead they just make up their own minds and don’t need any “moral figure” to do that.
…Homosexuality is considered immoral by the vast majority of people around the world at all times and places because it is self evident by nature alone. …
For a start, in the classical world of ancient Greece homosexuality was not regarded as “immoral” by the majority of people -and they didn’t even have a word for “homosexuality”. So you are wrong when you say “Homosexuality is considered immoral by the vast majority of people around the world at ALL times and places..."
Hypothetically, if it was “self evident by nature” (whatever that is supposed to mean) for us to be cannibals, would you consider it immoral to be vegetarian? Suppose a scientific study proved with irrefutable evidence that it is in each mans "nature" (whatever that is supposed to mean) to have lots of wives, would you then say having lots of wives is moral? I think you would answer no to both of these questions -we must conclude that what is or is not in our "nature" to do is irrelevant to the question of what we should do.
Also, exactly what would you mean by "self evident by nature” I don’t think that this is something that has clear meaning anyway.
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by josephwYou constantly redefine what the Bible says and then stick out your chin, stamp your foot and
I'm simply saying that if one rejects or denies that God has told us what sin is, and seeks to redefine what the Bible clearly says sin is, that person does not understand the mind of God.
say 'I'm not changing my mind, no matter what you say.' I'm pretty sick of your 'My God is
better than your god, and my understanding of the Bible eclipses your understanding of the Bible'
attitude.
If you want to defend a position, then fine. If not, then thank you for your (malformed) opinion.
Nemesio
22 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwIt's breathtaking that you have the balls to post in this forum anymore, given how many times
The Bible clearly teaches that God is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. That is how God has revealed Himself. When one says that the idea that God is not three in one, then one fails to understand the Godhead.
1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.,
you've been proven explicitly wrong.
The quotation (out of context, what a shock!) reads, in Greek, starting at verse 6 and ending with
verse 8:
Outos estin o elthon di udatos kai aimatos, Iesous CHristos, ouk en to udati monon
This one is the one having come by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not in/by the water only
all en to udati kai en to aimati kai to pneuma estin to marturoun,
but in/by the water and in/by the blood; and the spirit is the one giving tesitmony,
oti to pneuma edtin e aletheia. Oti treis eisin oi marturountes,
because the spirit is the truth. Because there are three giving testimony,
to pneuma kai to uder kai to aima, kai oit treis eis to en eisin.
the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three for the one [testimony] are.
---
In short, it is saying that the three (referred to earlier as God, Son and Spirit -- again, notice
the distinction you like to ignore between God and Son) are of one mind in their varying ways
of testifying to the Truth (a favorite topic of the author of the Johannine letters).
The part you quoted (again, a shocker!) that 'these three are one' is a fabrication from
the late manuscripts for the Latin Vulgate and are not original to the letter. But, you seem to
like to inherit a lot of dogmas from the Roman Church, so why not inherit the mistranslations
they espoused back in the dark ages (this passage has been removed since the Roman Church
embraced Biblical scholarship rather than idolizing an ancient translation like you do).
I'm sure this information will do little or nothing to curb your hubris or humble you into recognizing
how little of the Bible, and consequently Christianity, you actually understand, but I figured I
might prevent a few other people from being swayed by your passionate ignorance along the
way.
Nemesio
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by josephwYou're saying that YOU understand the mind of God? I certainly don't.
Look, I'm not insulting anyone. I'm simply saying that if one rejects or denies that God has told us what sin is, and seeks to redefine what the Bible clearly says sin is, that person does not understand the mind of God.
The Bible says that God created everything. And so He did. But to go to the extreme and suggest that God is responsible for our choices ...[text shortened]... orum.
The Bible is really quite easy to understand if one simply lets it say what it says.