Topic awaiting preservation: The Christian Paradox (Page 2 of 7)

Jade, homosexuality is quite common in the natural world among animals of all sorts.
Shouldn't you all be out there saving those poore critters?

(^-^)b

BD + DL-44: doh! this is sick world we're living in.

I believe the Bonobo Monkeys are the most enthusiastic practitioners.

But one wonders how the homohope feels about heterosexual anal sex?

Especially if they practice it?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

poi said:
Actually I know nobody who choosed to be baptized, and those
who are not baptized are jews, budhist or muslims.

---

You need to expand your social circles a bit, there's actually quite a lot of people who have chosen to be baptized later on rather than being baptized at/near birth.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Although I'm sure that there is actually quite a difference in such things between Texas and France.

I would imagine that geography plays a big role actually, as different sects view the idea of baptism differently.

quote:

---

there's actually quite a lot of people who have chosen to be baptized later on rather than being baptized at/near birth.

---

Not meaning to nitpick, but how is that possible?

One doesn't have a choice at/near birth to either go ahead and be baptised, or wait until later - at least, not that I know of.

Wouldn't the parents have to decide that?

Here is Germany, as far as I can tell, it is also traditional to have the child baptised at/near birth (when it comes to baptising). I must also confess, that I don't know anyone that was baptised at a later date.

Fig: as DL-44 said, bare in mind that I live in France. It's really not the same culture. The share of protestants, or even of believers is not the same as in the US. To tell the truth, the only people of roughly my age ( ~20-35yo ) who believe are jews or muslims.

WS - in other words, people who were not baptized as children often choose to be baptized later in life.

Believe it or not, I am an example of this.

When I was about 13 or so, I was part of a church youth group. The overall experience, and the people involved, were very positive, and it influenced me at that time to become a part of the church itself. Baptism was required in order to do so, and as I had not been baptized I was at that time.

I shortly thereafter lost interest in the religion (for reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum here).

But the people (these specific people) were truly great.

Sorry, in retrospect that was poorly phrased. Obviously one wouldn't have a choice of their circumstances in childhood And good point, I realize that my view of things here in the states may be rather different than in areas of Europe.

Whatever the case, my point was that there are a number of protestant faiths that view baptism as a choice (which would see to be more biblical, 'they believed and were baptized') and is something that takes place later on, at whatever age the individual has made a choice to follow christianity and wants to be baptized.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

And its only because I don't agree with your way of thinking that you resort to name calling.

---

It has nothing to do with agreeing or not with a way of thinking because you do not think.
You memorize what you choose to hear and read and puke it out without giving it a first, let alone a second thought. The sad part is you think... you think.

quote:

---

WS - in other words, people who were not baptized as children often choose to be baptized later in life.

Believe it or not, I am an example of this.

---

That is interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

I have never been baptised. I also did not have my daughter baptised.

And here in Germany, I really don't know of anyone who was baptised later (though there probably are some - most that get baptised here get baptised at/near birth).

quote:

---

Just because a lot of people beleive something, doesn't make it true.

---

" Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll be sent to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity!

But he loves you,........................................................................................................................And he needs money! "

Also, " i before e, except after c "

(Edited by Zynx on 08-19-2005 01:55)

quote:

---

, homosexuality is quite common in the natural world among animals of all sorts.

---

Your kidding, right? What animal, any species besides humans, practices homosexuality?

Maybe I missed your sarcasm?

No, that is not a joke, it is very true.

What species? Many. Specifically? You'll have to do some research, but there aren't really any limits here....

As mentioned earlier or elsewhere the primates are known to practice homosexual acts. I believe the most studied of these are the Bonobo.

I also seem to recall reading certain insects and invertebrates among others, practice what might be loosely discribed as
homosexual acts" though how it might be without a 'homo=sap' involved I don't know.

Probably "same-sex" reproductive activity might suffice.

Geez, hermaphrodites must give jade and her kin the screaming fits.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Well we can speculate all day as to why the animal world displays sexual acts with same sex animals, but it is a far cry from the human emotion of love, that drives them to act they way they do.

A bit simplistic Zynx. We are not all that removed from the so-called lower orders and sheer sexual lust governs a lot of human sexual contact regardless of the gender mix.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Agreed, but to think therfore I am, separates us from them, and in doing do, so does the meaning of love for humans, which differs quite differently, than any animal to animal relationship. A mother tiger, takes care of and protects her cubs, but I wouldn't call that love, as humans know it. Yes we see similiarities in animals, but our brains work, and think differently, therefore our concept of love, is not an animal concept, and vice-versa.

I should hope to think that we have evolved past our original ancestorial emotions.

(Edited by Zynx on 08-19-2005 16:57)

quote:

---

Well we can speculate all day as to why the animal world displays sexual acts with same sex animals, but it is a far cry from the human emotion of love, that drives them to act they way they do.

---

And how is that relevant?

You asked, and were answered...so now you deflect and sidetrack?

quote:

---

but I wouldn't call that love, as humans know it.

---

Based on what? What do you have to back this argument up with?



{[edit: an interesting read -

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

(Edited by DL-44 on 08-19-2005 17:21)

The point Zynx is; not all human sexual congress is inspired by love.

Quite the contrary. The majority of sexual acts in the world, IMHO, have far more to do with physical pleasure than emotional attachment.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Sorry for hijacking this thread, as it was not my intention.

Diogenes, I see your point, but it is an emotion that defines humans.

Simply put, animals do not love.

Of course I never asked a tiger before, but animals are not capable to express, nor understand many human emotions.

And love is one of them.

Well, I see what you are aiming at.

However, your statement

quote:

---

animals do not love.

---

is no more substantiable than jade's assenine claims.

In fact there is much more evidence that animals do love than there is a god.

Perhaps not sexual love, but certainly other aspects of that complicated emotion are clearly displayed by animals of many species.

You may discount a lion protecting her young as mere instinct, but what drove that mother cat in New York last year to enter a burning building 6 or 7 times to rescue her kittens at the cost of hideous pain and disfigurement to herself?

Nope, Zynx, not that black and white.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

animals do not love. Is no more substantiable than jade's assenine claims.

---

I don't know that person so I am not sure if that's a compliment or an attack. At least you've been civil about this.

Like I said, I never asked an animal before, nor can we. Yet too many times it seems that we humans want to see ourselves in our pets, or the zoo animals, or wildlife. And too often it gets preposterous. I love my pet cat, and yes we communicate on some level, but he is not more human-like because we do. To train such animals all you need is a clicker and some food. It's a simple instinct. Yes some emotions can be displayed by animals, but they are the simple emotions, pain, fear, excitment, fight or flight. I don't see animals displaying that it's feelings were hurt because he was shoved away by the larger cat, when it came to feeding time. Or can you picture a giraffe who accidently stepped on his sibling A's foot, and then sibling A waited for a couple of days, and when sibling B wasn't looking, sibling A ran up and stopped on sibling B's foot, and said "Gotcha. Ha ha!

No it's not black & white, but I do think it to be 90/10, that animals DO NOT love.

Again, a simple question: Based on what? What do you have to back this argument up with?

Saying that you don't see them display it is pointless.

And, of course, this is yet another tangent that eludes the intial point: animals do in fact engage in homosexual behavior.

quote:

---

animals do in fact engage in homosexual behavior.

---

,

Absolutely and both with and without "love".

Zynx, if you have never seen a dog sulk because it's master rejected or rebuffed or scolded it, then you are on shaky ground with your argument.

Monkeys BTW, have displayed the revenge syndrome in study after study as well.

I think you assertion is pretty shaky here and be grateful you are not familiar with jade.

On the other hand, her attitude does somewhat bolster your position.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

For now let me just say these 2 things.

1) " anthropomorphism! "

2) " other animals have feelings. However their feelings must be interpreted in the context of their own physical needs and their own environment.

So, what physical need drove that mother cat into the burning building time-after-time?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

You asked, and were answered..........

---

I guess I am just not as easily persuaded as you are.

quote:

---

..........................so now you deflect and sidetrack?

---

I simply disagreed with your "immediate assumption" of perceived truth.

(Edited by Zynx on 08-20-2005 05:06)

quote:

---

I guess I am just not as easily persuaded as you are.

---

I'm sure you do actually have a point somwhere in all the nonsense you have been posting here.

You may want to actually get to it some time, whenever you're done wrapping yourself in the fantasy you seem to be making for yourself...
You obviously love tangents, but so far have shown yourself incapable of actually dealing with any given issue straight on.

When you're ready to do that, and with intelligence and with a point...then you might have the right to throw out your smartass comments as well.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to label the animal activities as bisexual instead of homosexual? I have many cats (outside), and the alpha haves sex with all the cats, no matter the gender. Although I have never heard of an animal only having sex with males, if there are also females around, it is something that is possible, I guess. If God makes people homosexual, couldn't He make animals the same way?

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

quote:

---

If God makes people homosexual,

---

So, just to be clear - are you in fact saying that god makes a person homosexual, rather than a person simply choosing to be that way?

(and for the record - many animals *do* in fact form long term, purely homosexual, relationships. it has been noted in dolphins, and in swans that I am aware of off hand)

quote:

---

If God makes people homosexual, couldn't He make animals the same way?

---

Soo...you are saying that God makes people Homosexual?

God is making someone into a sinner upon creation?

I thought that was the Devil's job.

Boy, you sure can spit out some whoppers.

Maybe you are right - maybe I shouldn't be calling you b) Troll. Maybe it should be a).

WebShaman: So God and the Devil are the same
Well that would explain a lot of things.

Well, considering that the Devil came from God...

I guess one could say that.

Considering both came from and survive only, in the imagination of man...what's the diff?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

I'm sure you do actually have a point somwhere in all the nonsense you have been posting here.You may want to actually get to it some time, whenever you're done wrapping yourself in the fantasy you seem to be making for yourself...You obviously love tangents, but so far have shown yourself incapable of actually dealing with any given issue straight on.When you're ready to do that, and with intelligence and with a point...then you might have the right to throw out your smartass comments as well.

---

"Issue stright on", meaning what you say I don't agree with, so I have a problem? I'm sorry you that you just can't deal with the idea that someone might disagree with you. I don't take every person's word's at face value as always being true. I feel sad for you that you do. So what I'f I told you that the chair that lincoln was killed in actually has NO MORE blood reside left on it whatsoever? Let alone that it has bullet holes in it? As for the smartass remarks, maybe if you weren't so use to giving them yourself, you might see the difference between those that are, "smartass", and those that are just "smart". Try and stop focusing your own guilt onto others, in some vain effort to belittle people. It's unbecoming of decent people.

Now back to the issue that you reminded that I research it, which I did(again), and I find that "Homosexuality" in the animal kingdom is simply something we don't have enough knowledge about to know whether or not it is true. I'd like to consider this an open debate, but since you consider this a closed one, our debate is moot, but the debate itself is not.

And just as if animals can have the same concept of love as we humans do, is to consider "anthropomorphism". I'd like to believe that the concept of "love" is a higher emotion for higher beings, such as us sentient beings. While I love my pet to sometimes silly ends, I do know that he is an animal. More so than I am. And while he winks when I say goodbye, and sinks low into the couch when I leave, it looks like he's trying to say something to me, as if his feelings are, "Dadum's don't leave whittle me. I'll be awwwww alone when your gone, and I don't think I can bare it." is justified more with "belief" than with scientific fact.

Perhaps people have just seen and wanted to believe Doctor Doolittle, just a bit too much, don't ya think? And is disagreeing with that, then perhaps you too might also believe that Lobster's "feel" pain when thrown into a boiling pot of water, just like we would? Has PETA diseased your brains? And if I am totally of balance here, then take the completely opposite point of view, and tell me;
What creature, if any that exist, DOES NOT have the capability to "love", or to "feel" like we do? So we are not farther evolved than bugs?

As for the cat running back into the house, maybe the story was a bit pumped up a bit, to make it a story, and that the cat did this merely out of instinct to save her babies. Is instinct love? If so, then if an owner of a cat, dies in the middle of the night, and the cat can't feed itself, then as days go by it gets hungry, so it begins to eat it's dead owner, then that's showing love?

You have no scientific evidence that you are a higher sentient being. You just believe that you are. Keep going down that existencial trip and you will soon find yourself in believing that nothing exists, and it is all a construct of you mind. Ultimately very boring stuff.

If you are not willing to accept that behaviors display emotion and feelings then further discussion with you on anything cognitive is pretty much moot, as you are turning you back on over 100 years of cognitive research. And it makes any discussion on these points with you, a complete waste of time.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

It's unbecoming of decent people.

---

Zynx, I don't need to defend DL, he is quite capable of doing so himself.

But such is uncalled for.

You need to get something straight, right now - entering an established forum, then deciding to join in an ass-kicking contest with only one leg, is not a very good position to start in.

You may wish to re-think your strategy, before continuing.

I have known DL on these boards for a long time - and he goes back way before I came. He has been a shining example of reason, logic, and critical thinking on this board for as long as I am aware of. I have truly learned much from DL, and that is saying alot.

Your "comments" regarding him are so far off the mark, that whatever you got coming, you have most definitely earned.

As for whether or not animals love, until we really solve what love is (is it just chemical? Is it more?), there is little point in debating it.

Such "wonderous" comments like

quote:

---

If so, then if an owner of a cat, dies in the middle of the night, and the cat can't feed itself, then as days go by it gets hungry, so it begins to eat it's dead owner, then that's showing love?

---

are bound to get you nowhere here, fast. That doesn't even make sense - hunger is a very powerful thing. It has even been known to drive humans to cannibalism. Your question alone shoots down the argument that you are making! If you are arguing, that animals can't love, because somehow love is only possible in humans due to what you consider...what? A higher evolved lifeform? Even that doesn't make sense!

Maybe if you re-read what DL posted, and really considered his words and the meaning in them...you might want to do as he suggested, and start posting stuff that makes at least a little sense.

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-22-2005 22:32)

I expect certain things on any site, and Webshaman you speak better than most. Honestly I try to respond to others, after I have been on such a site for a long time, and I appreciate your way of putting things. DL I never meant to denounce your state on intelligence, I only disagreed with your assertion on the issue. You could be a genius professor fo all I know, I just felt you came off a bit pushy with, "Asked and answered".

I guess once a point is made here, no one wishes that it be questioned. Yes my approach was slow, but that is the way I like to "feel"(Pun intended), my way around a new site. I don't always expect "civil" responses, but they are preferred. I can take 'em as well as dish 'em out, and I'm sorry I got a bit defensive with you DL.

I like to take both sides of an issue, and look at the extremes of each. I also capitulate when there is some common ground for a debate, and aqgrrements can be made, but here I see no one budging on the idea that animals CAN NOT do what we think they can, when it comes to emotion. Some might think that a sign, but I think of it as more of an impossibility.

I can quote web pag after page all day all if people like. And when it's relevant I will. But here, and most resarch does not swing the answer towards a 100% scientific factual agreement. Yet all of the answers to me were. How can that be. Am I researching from a different part of the web, that no one has access to?

Maybe I'm standind on a ledge here, and maybe this site NEEDS, links to believe, but searching on the web is today a minor task, that almost everyone can do. Since the scientific community's "jury" is still out on this one, then how is it that the majority cites the opposite to be true? I, again, can only associate this to their beliefs.

Biologically, certain animals do not possess even primitive nervous systems, yet here you would be burnt at the stake for claiming such scientific fact. Now to make a small leap into that creatures brain, that it can not say "feel" pain as we do, your rendered a heretic! My cat answer was taken as a simple statement, but it was meant to explain why the cat may have gone back into the house. I called it instinct, and my statement simply showed a clear example of instinct, which is not "love".

So I guess I'll have to draft a new way as to respond to such medical or biological questions. Science is a good place to start. And I guess I'll keep what I think is common sense, out of this realm. I never said animals do not have ANY emotion, I am just saying that animals can not exhibit ALL human emotions.

Animals exhibit behavior like man, but their way of reasoning why, is contained in a brain that it quite different from our own. Yes? I figure this issue really doesn't need that much scientific research to make that simple leap. It's not that it is smaller than ours, it is not as researched as ours. Animal braing surgery is far more complicated than human brain surgery. Why do you think that is? Because we know so little about the brain of an animal. But here so many people are steadfast about it's ability.

Scientifically saying that animals can "love" is based on a few research projects, by a few scientists, and in believing in their ability to have ALL of the same attributable emotions that we have, only gives rise to the idiotic idea of a "Doctor Doolittle".

Oh well what the hell, let's all go out, and dig through some trash cans, sniff some butts!

WHo's with me?!

quote:

---

I'm sorry you that you just can't deal with the idea that someone might disagree with you. I don't take every person's word's at face value as always being true. I feel sad for you that you do.

---

This is as far as I read.

This shows very clearly that you are an extremely delusional person, or that you simply lack very basic reading comprehension skills.

I will not explain or elaborate on that, except to say - if that is the view you have, then you have not read anything I have posted.

You are steadily showing yourself to be both very ignorant, very quick to jump to completely baseless concluions, and seemingly very eager to feel special by attempting to insult people.

I suggest, if you plan to continue participating in these discussions, that you get over this complex you seem to have.