Topic awaiting preservation: The Christian Paradox

Interesting piece:

http://harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristianParadox.html

Although on exceprt it gives the general gist of the arguement.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

Doesn't really surprise me much.

Odd for a country whose first significant Christian settlers left England because they wanted to focus more on the text of the Bible than the conventions of The Church, isn't it.

Of course, most people that claim to know about anything don't really know it very well.

Unfortunately true for the most part emps. I'm reading a really good book right now called Searching For God Knows What that discusses how western Christian theology seems to base itself on the idea that God likes the conservative, american republicans best and wants us all to be wealthy and comfortable, whereas Christ's message had nothing at all to do with that and if anything leans toward an opposite truth.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ. Thomas Jefferson."

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

^^^

Very true words.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and
ower themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ. Thomas Jefferson."

---

Everybody has an opinion and that is just what it is. I put no great stock in Thomas Jefferson words. Sure, supposedly he was a statesman in the political way. Why does this make him a great person? Why should I believe what he believes? Follow the ideals of who you want, but that does not mean there is any truth in it as opposed to the truth of those who follow Christ in the way they choose. The wealthy rich, the poor destitute still love the Christ and follow his ways regardless of class barriers. Believe me, Jesus teachings are not simple. That are hard to follow. His way is a constant stuggle to live by in this world. We need some kind of faciliator to keep us in check when we loose our way. Just like our parents do and teachers do. So clergy, pastors, ministers, lay pople are a good way to help us.

His opinion is at least as valid as anything oozing out of the vatican.

More-so in fact as he had no agenda as does the vatican.

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:

---

More-so in fact as he had no agenda as does the vatican.

---

Why pick on the Vatican. Many other denominations build wealth to self-enrich their personal portfolios. Benny Hinn, Swagget Ministries, John Olsteen, Rev Sun Moon, etc. . The fact that more people listen to what comes out of Rome or other failthful ministries than the words of TJ would lead me more apt to believe that God is with them. In other words, the following in numbers in Christian faithful should validate the Gospels. And the fact that a majority of citizens of the great and powerful US of A of which TJ is considersed a great statesmen adheres to faithful principles set out by their denominations instead of TJs ideals is something to think about.

PS Dio. Check out the Hallmark special tonite at 7. I think you will agree that nothing oozed out of John Paul II. who represented the Vatican. He truly was the most respected and holy man of his time. The fact that he traveled to world to give the simple message of "Be not afraid" and promoted peace and goodwill is not what I considered to be the ooze you think of. You see a very small picture of a larger one in regard to Christians. All you see is how you feel and not the feelings of others.

quote:

---

In other words, the following in numbers in Christian faithful should validate the Gospels

---

Because a lot of people buy into something, it must be right?
C'mon Jade.

I must honestly say that is just blatant stupidity.

Ok. then there are billions of stupid people out there. Right?

quote:

---

Ok. then there are billions of stupid people out there. Right?

---

Oh, someone should make that into a sig!

Scratch that. I want it on a T-Shirt!

The number of one billion of Xian is overated, because the church count as believer the persons who are baptized which is radically different since many people are not baptized by choice but it is imposed to them when they are several months old by their parents by bigotry, social pressure or tradition.


But indeed jade's sentence would make a cool sig/T-shirt.

Well, Poi these billions of Christians baptized or not still have a mind of their own to change their belief like you all have as they get older. Some will covert to your way of thinking and then maybe come back to the fold. Nothing is imposed on adults today. So why aren't masses taking your cue. Don't forget the bigtory is on the other side as well. These days no one is pressured, ridiculed, beaten, killed in the name of Christianity in the days of old. Why is Christiantiy still growning by leaps and bounds even today? What do you think the reason is?

The reason probably is that really few people know they can cancel their baptem, and a hell lot of people actually like the folklore and scenic aspect of a wedding in a church though they are strong atheists. All those people are still counted as Xians.

I know nobody who is pressured by Xianity, but almost everybody I know have been baptized without their approval and most of them are atheists. Ok being imposed something when you can neither talk or walk is not really "pressure", but it's not what I call free will or respect either. Actually I know nobody who choosed to be baptized, and those who are not baptized are jews, budhist or muslims.



(Edited by poi on 08-16-2005 00:27)

John Paul was a jerk!

This is the guy who told millions of catholics in africa they couldn't use condoms, condemning tens of thousands to death from aids and causing thousands of children to be born already afflicted with aids.

Dogma over reality.

Very humanitarian.

This is the guy who actively supported efforts to move and protect pedophile priests around the world.

Nice guy. Makes one wonder about his own sexual proclivities.

No, you catholics may be snowed by all that papal bullshit, but there are millions of peole who see jp and the Catholic church for the hypocritical farce that it is.

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:

---

These days no one is pressured, ridiculed, beaten, killed in the name of Christianity in the days of old.

---

What? What about...Ireland? Protestants vs Catholics. Been sleeping through recent history?

How about...the Inuit folk? Only recently, has the Church drawn back from persecuting their Shamans. How many suicides does the Church have on its hands because of this? Thank god the Shamans went underground, and managed to preserve some of their culture and teachings. They are slowly, very slowly, starting to come back, and Inuits are re-discovering their heritage.

No thanks to the Church.

And Po1 raise an enormously important point - in Europe, a lot of baptisms, etc get done due to social pressures on the parents to do so with their child (and the children themselves, if they are not) - and of course, the nice bribery - presents candy, money, you name it! Not to mention the burial place, the wedding in the Church, etc.

Such is the norm here in Germany - I couldn't even STOP it from being done to my daughter (lawfully).

I think the total number of real, practicing xians are a fraction of the number "counted".

So, as usual Jade, you don't know what you are talking about.

Doesn't it get tiring?

quote:

---

Ok. then there are billions of stupid people out there. Right?

---

First of all - YES!

Second of all, you tragically miss the point - AGAIN.

The point being:

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

Stating that it does, is, as I said, just blatant stupidity.

Hitler had the support of almost of all of Germany, Austria, Italy, and more. Does that make him right?

quote:

---

Don't forget the bigtory is on the other side as well.

---

And in 2nd grade, that argument might get you somewhere. You think it is ok to be a bigot simply becuase other people are bigots too?

Grow up.

quote:

---

Ok. then there are billions of stupid people out there. Right?

---

Yup, you have lots of company.

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

Thank you jade. With your no pressure claim your reminded me a documentary made in US I saw several weeks ago. It was about a sort of group of therapy where people having discovered their homo/bi-sexuality were "cured" thanks to the faith the Jesus Christ the über lord. The faithful person really pressured the gay men. That was incredible how they kept telling them how bad and unpure it was to be appealed by some body of the same sex, and that by doing that they were simply throwing their soul in the flames of hell. They even pressured the family and children of the gay men who felt guilty and counted the number of time they had been appealed by another man each day. I watched the whole documentary with my jaw on the floor in awe.

Thank God he was cured of his homosexuality. Praise God Almighty. Homosexuality is of unpure spirit. What power of God thru a human person. And more power to those who perform these kind of exorcisms of unclean spirits. Amen. Alleluia Alleluia Alleluia.

I am in awe of these wonderous works.

I am merely in awe...of such collossal ignorance.

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:

---

The reason probably is that really few people know they can cancel their baptem, and a hell lot of people actually like the folklore and scenic aspect of a wedding in a church though they are strong atheists. All those people are still counted as Xians.

---

This is what I don't understand, if your athiest now and were baptized in a ritual when you were younger, how can you have a problem with what your parents did if you don't believe now in the purpose of the ritual of baptism. You would have to believe the ritual was meaningless. Therefore it should have no impact on you as a person and bind you or on anyone else who chooses another sect or becomes athiest. So why all the whinning about it. Move on and forget about it. Your so concerned with your fellow man being trapped in a sect by birthright into a religious community when it shouldn't offened you in the least. You and anyone else can unbind yourself by freewill. If a child was baptized as an infant or at 6, 12, years old. They are not bound by their baptism by this physical world, only in the spiritual if you have a belief in it. So your concerns have no merit.

quote:

---

Thank God he was cured of his homosexuality. Praise God Almighty. Homosexuality is of unpure spirit. What power of God thru a human person. And more power to those who perform these kind of exorcisms of unclean spirits. Amen. Alleluia Alleluia Alleluia.

I am in awe of these wonderous works.

---

Cured?

Wonderous works?

You are a buffoon Jade.

Plain and simple.

As for Poi's point: the number of christians in the world, which are always so proud to tout, is based on these baptisms - many of which are, as you said, meaningless - and so the 'billions of christians' that you are so proud to be herded with don't actually exist in the number you claim.

I don't expect you to grasp the point, but there it is.

(Edited by DL-44 on 08-16-2005 17:57)

quote:

---

Thank God he was cured of his homosexuality. Praise God Almighty. Homosexuality is of unpure spirit. What power of God thru a human person. And more power to those who perform these kind of exorcisms of unclean spirits. Amen. Alleluia Alleluia Alleluia.

I am in awe of these wonderous works.

---

What a crock.

Well, at least Jade has finally showed her true colors.

Did I say they were meaningless to the God Almighty? I think not. You didn't understand. Its meaningless to you. Therefore you should not care one iota.

Most of unbaptized Christians profess to be Christian. If they were not baptized earlier, they can still be baptized of their own free will. Just check, out most protestant denominations who wait till their child or adult children are realy to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior. Most will still consider themselves Christian if their family is Christian but negleted to get them baptized. Did you understand that? Since I am in the baptism ministry at my church, I see many age groups being baptized. Especially adults. So its really the opposite. There are more Christians undocumented. So there are more self-proclaimed Christians out there that the tally sheets tell.


Web, Where have you been? I have always shown my true colors. What most of you don't understand is that we do not focus on the individual homosexual person but the unclean spirit that dwells within them. We take issue with that spirit. You take the issue of Christians vs Homosexual as very personal. What you don't understand, you put a face of bigtory, hyprocrasy on those who defend the natural law of God. You call us righteous do gooders who should keep their nose in their own affairs. But to turn away and show indifference is contrary to the Christian belief. Would I rather adhere to the laws of God or the laws of the US Supreme Court? I say if the laws of the land are in conlict with God's laws I don't adhere or follow them. In the long run who will I have pleased, God or the US Government.. Therefore we practice patience, love, kindness and much prayer for God to overcome in these persons. We Christians believe the human person created by God belongs to God and no other. However cast off that person believes he is, God still dwells in them. And this power given to us in prayers, gives us the power ourselves to help banish these unclean spirits from persecuting these indiviuals. A man or woman who is a practicing homosexual or lesbian being at odds with the natural human law of this world results in a hard, unhappy and depressed life. Its documented that most do not have long life spans because of the anguish, self-doubt and trouble from the mainstream that they exeperice. I don't believe that this would be the way their life was intended by God.. We as Christians believe they were created for eternal happiness and it is the hope of all Christians that they beneffit from the graces of God that are given freely.

(Edited by jade on 08-16-2005 20:42)

Where the hell do you get all that rubbish from.

Crazy ass extremists. Are you out there burning witches and stoning adulturers as well? The bible says you should, so, go on, get to it.

Dan @ Code Town

I am not a bible christian.

You're are not much of a xian at all, you are a bewildered fanatic judging by what you post.

If there were any power in your mythical god, if baptism had any actual effect, if your assenine theory of spirits held any water, then baptism would rid the child of the evil spirit and they would never grow up to be gay.

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

All the more reason to burn witches jade... why not keep up with a good ol' tradition of catholic church after all? Tool.


edit: beside your stupidity is really starting to piss everyone off, get into your head dimwit:

it has been said thousands of times before, homosexuality is natural, it has been recorded in nature amongs various spieces of mammals. I know you will just shrug it off and continue being stupid till your death, but please shut up with your rhetoric, you sounds like that moron Jerry Falwell.




(Edited by Ruski on 08-16-2005 22:07)

(Edited by Ruski on 08-16-2005 22:16)

quote:

---

If there were any power in your mythical god, if baptism had any actual effect, if your assenine theory of spirits held any water, then baptism would rid the child of the evil spirit and they would never grow up to be gay.

---

Evidently you do not understand the concept of the Christian Baptism. Baptism doesn't save you. It initiates you into the family of Jesus Christ. It contains no magic powder to ward off evil spirits. Christians must work out their salvation. Thats Baltimore Catechism 101. Peter was baptized, Paul was baptized yet they still suffered weak faith at times.

Why can't you be loving to the Christian as your are to the homosexual? Your guilty of accusations against Chrisitans. Aren't you that pot calling the kettle black too ?

quote:

---

All the more reason to burn witches jade... why not keep up with a good ol' tradition of catholic church after all? Tool.

---

This chronic accusation really gets old.

quote:

---

Homosexuality is of unpure spirit.

---

Look who is talking hypocrite...

quote:

---

Thank God he was cured of his homosexuality. Praise God Almighty. Homosexuality is of unpure spirit. What power of God thru a human person. And more power to those who perform these kind of exorcisms of unclean spirits. Amen. Alleluia Alleluia Alleluia.

I am in awe of these wonderous works.

---

Please, tell me this is some 37th degree humour. Please. If it's not you certainly deserves the award of the biggest prick I've ever talked with.

quote:

---

These days no one is pressured, ridiculed, beaten, killed in the name of Christianity in the days of old.

---

You might say 1994 is not "these days", but ... Hello!! the genocyd in Rwanda was made in part in the name of God. Some priests even mass murdered their fidels. And today, those who dare to question the existence of god there are still finger pointed.

Oh, and to finish on the baptem point. You say one shouldn't care of being baptized without his approval, especially in early age, if he's atheist. But there's 3 problems :

1. the total lack of respect of the freedom of cult of that person in its early age,
2. the baptem does mean something to Xians, something really important, and as such it should not be taken lightly even by atheists
3. how can Xians accept that people are baptized without their approval, and doing nothing to let them know they can cancel it ruins the meaning and sacred of the baptem.



(Edited by poi on 08-17-2005 01:04)

Poi.

You accuse me of being intolerant, but you must see how you come off in your post. And many others I add as well. Calling posters bad names. Using words like ignorant, stupid, crazy, bigot, hypocrite, prick, false xian,etc. only valdiates the attitude or characteristic of the godless mind. And its only because I don't agree with your way of thinking that you resort to name calling. Didn't you ever graduate to the view that you can calmly discuss without being verbally abusve? You seem intolerant yourself of me. Does using bad words make you feel bigger, stronger and more in power. It must give you great satisfacation. Why not try to change Christians opinions of non-believers?

No human person can change the concept of belief of a Christian baptism. Its been going on for 2000 centuries and will never change. People will go on baptizing their children as infants, teens or adults long after you have passed. So, accept it. Like we have to accept that some will never believe in the Savior.

quote:

---

ou take the issue of Christians vs Homosexual as very personal.

---

Really? Please show me where I said this - I really don't appreciate others putting words in my mouth, or telling me what and how I think. I take the issue of anything vs Homosexuality seriously - my people were (and are) obviously more tolerant along these lines, and Homosexuality is an ingrained part of Nature (which according to your faith, was created by God - so, God apparently doesn't have a problem with homosexuality - but your system of Faith does).

quote:

---

What you don't understand, you put a face of bigtory, hyprocrasy on those who defend the natural law of God. You call us righteous do gooders who should keep their nose in their own affairs.

---

Natural "law" of God, Jade? Can yu perhaps show this to me? Or do you mean Nature? If so, Homosexuality is a natural part of Nature (and accordingly, your god's natural "law").

And nowhere in the Bible, does it explicitly say that Homosexuality is wrong - it is certainly not one of the Ten Commandments "Thou shall not lay down with your Brother."

You seem to be pretty messed up inside. You have my infinite sorrow, to be so lost.

That still doesn't excuse your narrow-mindedness, nor your inability to grasp reality.

quote:

---

No human person can change the concept of belief of a Christian baptism. Its been going on for 2000 centuries and will never change. People will go on baptizing their children as infants, teens or adults long after you have passed. So, accept it. Like we have to accept that some will never believe in the Savior.

---

*Yawn*

There is one saying, that proves always to be true, Jade - "And this too, shall pass..."

Even the Aborigines had to bow before this one saying - after more than 60,000+ years.

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-17-2005 04:08)

jade: Get down of your high horse. I only called you prick after you spit your venom at homosexuals. Treating that sexual orientation as if it was a disease that needs to be cured or some kind possession by a demon. Did I used birds name with you before your outburst towards homosexuals ? Frankly when I first read it, I didn't knew what to think about it. I really wondered if you were sincere or trying a new form of humour. I've heard some people not understanding homosexuality, but you're the first one I hear calling it a disease or an unpure behaviour. I thought that kind speech was of the past.

I have many friends who are xian and I respect them.

They are safe, confident and comfortable in their faith and have no need to spout the hatred, ignorance and stupidity we hear from you.

As for you uninformed claim people don't get beaten or killed in the name of xianity anymore...just last year there were several people beaten to death in the states and one in Canada...for being homosexual (one wasn't but some god-fearing ass decided he was).

You and the televangelists portray all that is wrong with religion. You are exactly the sort of person they prey upon. It matters not if you don't watch or listen to those bible thumpers, you are still the weak-minded sort to whom they appeal.

2000 centuries? Really Jade. 2000 centuries ago this was certainly a happier world, as your faith had not yet been invented.

You are a sad and sorry example of a human being I must say.

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:

---

how can Xians accept that people are baptized without their approval

---

For any who may not already know, I think it got started when people began to think their babies would go to hell if they died before accepting christ, since we are all "born in sin". It's a stupid idea to begin with.

Jade--you bring it on yourself dear. Lighten up. They think I'm nuts too, but they don't call me names. At least none that I take any offense to.

quote:

---

I've heard some people not understanding homosexuality, but you're the first one I hear calling it a disease or an unpure behaviour. I thought that kind speech was of the past.

---

That's nothing. You should hear my mother in law when she starts "rebuking the demons" in me and her son. She'd make even Jesus himself blush LOL. I fork the evil eye and hiss at her just to piss her off.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

I've heard some people not understanding homosexuality, but you're the first one I hear calling it a disease or an unpure behaviour.

---

Hear that kind of shit (and far worse) every day over here, Poi.

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.

Having gone back to read further -

quote:

---

I just felt you came off a bit pushy with, "Asked and answered".

---

However you wish to take it, this statement very simply illustrated the fact that you asked a question, were given a simple answer, and rather than address the answer, you attacked something else.

quote:

---

I guess once a point is made here, no one wishes that it be questioned.

---

And simply reading the posts here will show that this view is very far off.

quote:

---

I'm sorry I got a bit defensive with you DL.

---

This is unexpected, and I appreicate the thought.

quote:

---

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.

---

This is becuase of many things.

1) nobody has clearly defined here what exactly the scope of the 'love' in this conversation is, so there isn't a clear boundry to argue

2) no evidence of any kind has been offered to suggest that animals cannot love - you made the assertion, and that is all.

Your assertion is not going to make people 'budge' on the idea.

quote:

---

I can quote web pag after page all day all if people like. And when it's relevant I will.

---

Obviously throwing out meritless quotes will acheive nothing. Nobody has suggested this course of action.

quote:

---

But here, and most resarch does not swing the answer..

---

Again, you cite research, but offer nothing to back up your assertion.

quote:

---

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?

---

And very few things will ever achieve "a 100% scientific factual agreement". That's not the point. THe only point, really, is that you seem to simply scorn the idea that animals may engage in homosexual behavior, or form homosexual relationships.
It is a fact that animals can be readily observed engaging in homosexual acts, and have been found, in somce cases, to form homosexual relationships.

If you have some evidence available to you that refutes this, then by all means, share it.

But simply saying that it isn't true, or that we don't know enough, isn't going to make people change their mind, when evidence to support it has been presented.

quote:

---

Since the scientific community's "jury" is still out on this one,

---

On what do you base this??

quote:

---

then how is it that the majority cites the opposite to be true? I, again, can only associate this to their beliefs.

---

The only sources I have ever seen that do not support the idea of animals forming homosexual relationships are opinion peices based on religious belief and pure conjecture.

Again - if you something else, share it.

And to the point - I have seen video documentaries on both the Bono apes and Ginnea pigs (that also seem to "enjoy" the same sex) - indeed they were engaged in sexual intercourse with the same sex. It is pretty difficult to refute video evidence - one has to discredit the video itself or be able to established that the animals were somehow influenced through human intent. And the more video footage from different sources that show the same types of homosexual activity, the harder it is to discredit the video itself. As for staged scenes, the more one takes a look at who is doing the documentaries, and under what conditions (especially those filmed in the wild), it becomes harder to point to what may be human interference.

Then comes the part of attempting to interprete the actions of the animals in question. Maybe they are instinctually reacting to certain phermones and that is prompting their activity - after all, research into the area of pheremones, especially where animals of the higher kindgdoms are concerned (including humans) is a relatively new science.

But if we reduce Homosexual activity to its base meaning - which is sex with the same sex - and let us further refine it in the case of animals to be intercourse between same sex animals, then the hard evidence is overwhelming (and among scientific circles, recognized) that in some species of animal, this type of activity is commonplace.

DL, very cordial. Even a bit of C. Criticism. Thanks.

Maybe this deserves it's own thread?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:But if we reduce Homosexual activity to its base meaning - which is sex
with the same sex - and let us further refine it in the case of animals to be intercourse between same sex animals, then the hard evidence is overwhelming (and among scientific circles, recognized) that in some
species of animal, this type of activity is commonplace.

---

This I can agree with, BUT an animals behavior is again a behavior displayed by [b]animals[/]b, and perceived by humans. can you fathom the difference?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The behavious os OBSERVED by humans as it is taking place. It is not a matter of perception at all.

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:

---

can you fathom the difference?

---

Obviously I can. Can you?

I have pointed (as mentioned above) to the observances - I purposely left out perception.

As DL has pointed out before, my "smartass remarks" are unbecoming of a poster who wants to be taken seriously.
I again got outta hand there, with my "can you fathom". I'm trying to keep them out of my responses, but it might take some time.

Human behavior is a science more researched than animal behavior. And applying that knowledge when observing animals, is only a "comparative possibility", not a true factual representation. Because we can not ASK the animals if we are right with our assertions, we can only ASSUME our observations to be correct.

Here's one link, which has some good ideas about the scientific dangers surrounding this issue.
http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

" The term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, for in animals the investigator can ascertain only motor behavior. As soon as he interprets the animal's motivation he is applying human psychodynamics--a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach. "

" Not that there's anything wrong with that. "

(Edited by Zynx on 08-23-2005 16:41)

Well, if that if what you are relying upon, small wonder you present a xian-centric face.

That article writer is clearly determined to prove the right-wing xian viewpoint and so has no credibility what-so-ever!

I mentioned earlier in thse pages that 'same-sex' activity would be a more accurate description than homosexual activity between animals.

In fact 'same-sex' activity can also be applied to homo sap.

But to try to continue to educate you, when the activity is observed taking place, that is fact, not opinion or 'perception'.

I cannot fathom why you are being so obtuse on this matter of observation and trying to suggest it is not what it is, unless it is to further your xian viewpoint.

You really do appear foolish with this insistence.

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 mentioned earlier in thse pages that 'same-sex' activity would be a more accurate description than homosexual activity between animals.

---

Of course, 'homosexual' means literally 'same-sex' so that consession is wholly unnecessary.

Zynx - it seems to me you have your reasoning entirely backwards.

We are talking about the very basic fact that animals do indeed angage in homosexual behavior. Regardless of connotation, perception, or anything else - we see it happen. We see both purely sexual behavior, like two male cats or dogs locked up in a house together, nailing each other for kicks 9or whatever other reason there may be), and we see things like swans in boston forming 'lesbian' relationships - mating for long term with other females, and we've seen the same apparent behavior between male dolphins.

However, it seems that you are trying to apply a particular human characteristic to the behavior - which, you are right, we *can't* entirely explain or understand at the moment - based soley on what your perception of the human version of the behavior is, and using that forced connotation to say that it doesn't happen the "we" think.

Do you see how that kind of logic is completely backwards?

I hate to be petty, but..."ho·mo·sex·u·al Listen: [ hm-sksh-l, -m- ]
adj.

Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex".

Note the use of the word 'persons'.

Otherwise, you is dead on!

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

"'Homosexuality' in the animal kingdom is simply something we don't have enough knowledge about to know whether or not it is true"

So, now we dont know what the "natural law" is then?
Oy, this is not going well for the gay-bashing christians at all, is it?
- Just give it up, it's not affecting you anyway.
There are enough "serious" sins out there to fight and defeat, not to waste time with this pointless crap of an argument.
You remind me of the Chicago mafia and the probation years, where the cops prefered to go after minor crimes rather that attack the real problems, because they where afraid, plain and simple.

So, is that the problem here - fear?

(^-^)b

diogenesis - Yes, but the literal translated meaning, and the human-perception-influenced dictionary definition are two different things

Especially as each dictionary will provide different definitions, since dictionaries are based mostly on word usage rather than original meaning.

Just to be petty some more

(Edited by DL-44 on 08-23-2005 20:32)

Once it's proven that nature is irrational, one cannot use it as an argument against homosexuality as an expression of love for another human being any more.
You must instead "prove" that it's somehow inappropiate or 'evil' to love someone of the same sex.
Note that I wrote "love" and not "f#ck" - sex is not required, but often follows feelings of love because of the natural associations thereof.
If two people love eachother, sex eventually comes into play, and therein lies the problem, as it's very difficult to claim that love - honest feelings of good will towards someone else - is somehow against Gods law.
If you are a stonecold emotionless robot, you don't belong with the human race to begin with, and if are not, you must surely understand the argument, whatever you may think of it.
Personally, I've never loved a guy, but I'm not sure that this is a good thing.
It simply means that I've never liked anyone of the same sex enough to even consider such a thing, and that's almost kinda sad, thinking that all my male pals are superficial relations in some sense, which I might have or loose without much sorrow.
- I think I might be just a tad bit emotionless, but some aren't, and why should I mess with that?
- Good for them if they find someone watching their back to such a degree, especially in this crappy world.

(^-^)b

Hmmm... this thread is supposed to be about the Christian paradox:

quote:

---

And therein is the paradox. America is simultaneously the most professedly Christian of the developed nations and the least Christian in its behavior.

---

How do homosexual animals relate to this? Are American animals more homosexual than animals from other countries?

quote:

---

Zynx - it seems to me you have your reasoning entirely backwards.We are talking about the very basic fact that animals do indeed angage in homosexual behavior. Regardless of connotation, perception, or anything else - we see it happen. We see both purely sexual behavior, like two male cats or dogs locked up in a house together, nailing each other for kicks 9or whatever other reason there may be), and we see things like swans in boston forming 'lesbian' relationships - mating for long term with other females, and we've seen the same apparent behavior between male dolphins.However, it seems that you are trying to apply a particular human characteristic to the behavior - which, you are right, we *can't* entirely explain or understand at the moment - based soley on what your perception of the human version of the behavior is, and using that forced connotation to say that it doesn't happen the "we" think.Do you see how that kind of logic is completely backwards?

---

Ohhhhhhhhhh. Thank you for clearly that up. Seems I am debating from the "apples" side, and others from the "oranges" side. I see I see.

Well then I would ask you, do you think the creation of the terminology "homosexual" was by man interpreting an animals sexual behavior? Meaning is the idea of being "homsexual", based on the behavior of animals, or man?

And while animals exhibit the ACT of having sex with the same sex, this does not mean they are, in man's terms, "gay". Yes the ACTS themselves are attributable to homosexual sex, but that does not mean that mans idea of homosexual sex, and an animals idea of homosexual sex are one in the same. I can't even imagine an animal understanidng what WE mean by being homosexual, which again harbors back to emotions animals have and don't have.

"which again harbors back to emotions animals have and don't have"

I initiated the "gay animal" aspect to show that the often referred to "natural law" is a complete hoax.
- There is none.
You prove it further, by showing that those types of arguments are useless, since animals view things very differently from humans, just as you say in the above quote.
So, what's the argument?
It's unatural? It's natural? What?

And it's still a waste of time to argue the issue either way.

(^-^)b

Getting back on track again - I wanted to address this

quote:

---

These days no one is pressured, ridiculed, beaten, killed in the name of Christianity in the days of old.

---

with this Broadcaster in Trouble For Comments

Anyone remember Pat Robertson? Well - let us take a look at what this nut is suggesting (and remember - he was a contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 1988)

quote:

---

Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson has called for the United States to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him "a terrific danger" bent on exporting Communism and Islamic extremism across the Americas.

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson told viewers on his "The 700 Club" show Monday. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war." Watch video of Robertson's comments

---

quote:

---

Robertson's comments Monday were the latest in a string of controversial remarks in recent years by the religious broadcaster and founder of the Christian Coalition.

Last October, during the heat of the presidential race, Robertson told CNN that during a meeting with President Bush before the invasion of Iraq, the president told him he did not believe there would be casualties. The White House strongly denied the claim.

In May, during an ABC interview, Robertson ignited a firestorm with his response to a question about whether activist judges were more of a threat to America than terrorists.

"If they look over the course of 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," he said.

Defending his remarks in a letter to Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Robertson insisted he was not being cavalier about the 9/11 attacks. But he also refused to apologize, saying Supreme Court rulings on abortion, religious expression in the public square, pornography and same-sex marriage "are all of themselves graver dangers in the decades to come than the terrorists which our great nation has defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq."

In October 2003, Robertson, criticizing the State Department during an interview on "The 700 Club," said "maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up," referring to the nickname for the department's headquarters in Washington.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher called the remark "despicable."

In July 2003, Robertson asked his audience to pray for three justices to retire from the Supreme Court so they could be replaced with more conservative jurists. "One justice is 83 years old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition," he said.

---

I think that the danger and threat from Xian extremists is very real, and should not be taken lightly.

Imagine what might have happened, had this kook gotten elected President.

quote:

---

I initiated the "gay animal" aspect to show that the often referred to "natural law" is a complete hoax. There is none. You prove it further, by showing that those types of arguments are useless, since animals view things very differently from humans, just as you say in the above quote. So, what's the argument? It's unatural? It's natural? What? And it's still a waste of time to argue the issue either way.

---

I am not debating the issue of "natural" or not. I was not asked that, nor did I explain my position on that idea.

I was debating the notion that just because we see animals act the way that they do, does not mean that their reasons are the same reasons as man. In that animals, while they do share many emotions that man has, does not mean that they think, respond, or feel, the same way we do, when they act as they do.


Sorry, Webshaman, good points!

"I am not debating the issue of "natural" or not. I was not asked that, nor did I explain my position on that idea."

Well, thanks for the helping argument anyway.
It finally helped turn a friend of mine over to the "good side".
- Live long and prosper. (^-^)y

(^-^)b

quote:

---

Well, thanks for the helping argument anyway.

---

Ok, I'm going to get hell for this, so I'll make it short.
What is "natural" to an animal in his world, is NOT always "natural" in mans world.

Nuts Zynx, if it is behavioural, it is natural, could be nought else.

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:

---

Nuts Zynx, if it is behavioural, it is natural, could be nought else.

---

Diogenes, the "animal kingdom" has many, "natural" acts. The "human world", has many natural acts. They are not one-in-the-same. Many "natural" acts within the "animal kingdom" are animalisticly "natural". Many "natural" acts within the "animal kingdom", are not "natural" to man's idea of "natural".

Unless you think, "Infantcide" is "natural", for humans?

zynx - your circular logic and refusal to actually deal with the points made to you is rather tiresome.
It is completey pointless to continue a conversation in such a manner.

if, at some point, you feel like dealing with the points made (as opposed to simply changing your angle whenever a point is made), feel free...

(Edited by DL-44 on 08-24-2005 03:54)

Agreed. No interest in allowing him/herself to be confused by facts or reality.

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

What do both of you require for a response to be acceptable in your mind(s)? I'm trying to figure out what if any change I need to make here.

First;

quote:

---

I am not debating the issue of "natural" or not. I was not asked that, nor did I explain my position on that idea.

---

Then this response.

quote:

---

Well, thanks for the helping argument anyway.

---

The issue of natural, or not, acts within the animal world, was left on the table.

Then this point made;

quote:

---

Nuts Zynx, if it is behavioural, it is natural, could be nought else.

---

My point.

quote:

---

Unless you think, "Infantcide" is "natural", for humans?

---

Now where did I go wrong in your mind(s)?

"Unless you think, 'Infantcide' is 'natural', for humans?"

No I dont, because it doesn't fit with our situation and survival needs, nor does incest.
It would cause genetical damages and make it harder to sustain a working community.
Homosexuality however have no obvious negative drawbacks, and does happen across a wide range of species, that have very little, if anything at all, in common.
This negates the belief that it would be related to specific conditions typical for any particular species.
It's assumed to be "natural" for humans because it's natural for a great number of species, some closely related to man.
Even if the support for this assumption can be regarded as "weak", the assumption that it would be "unatural" remains completely unsupported by anything - except by a belief taken out of thin air..

(^-^)b

I must disagree Amikael.

Infanticide is not uncommon among animals.

A mother may eat her offspring if she feels they are threatened. I have heard it theorized they may believe they should benefit front he protein rather than some predator. Though to think they analyze it that thoroughly would be unlikely.

In humans there may be many instinctual reasons for infanticide.

IE: Not enough food to sustain both a mother and child in times gone by. The mother, being a useful member of the tribe and expected to produce more offspring when needed, would be spared.

Incest too is a survival trait, it is only relatively recently the genetic concerns were understood.

In many past and current societies, incest is a cultural norm. One might recall the Hawiian culture which enjoyed a rich and happy culture, until the xians got there, which included incest.

It could also be seen as a survival trait in early societies which not only did not know better, but had a small population from which to choose mates.

Of course you are right in concluding 'conditions' do not lead to homosexuality. The practice has been with us since time immemorial and long before some religious nut decided he had the right to stick his nose in other people's lives.

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

doublepost..

(Edited by amikael on 08-25-2005 20:07)

Tripplepost - this thing flipped out on me..

(Edited by amikael on 08-25-2005 20:09)

"In humans there may be many instinctual reasons for infanticide."
- and I wrote
"it doesn't fit with our situation and survival needs, nor does incest."
Infact, a version of the mad-cow desease strikes cannibals, and that is generally regarded as the main reason why this practice was abandoned by humans.
Eating your own proteins and dna tends to spawn prions..

(^-^)b

It may not fit with your view of our 'situation and survival needs', but it has in the past and I suggest it takes place today in some societies for the same reasons, prions not withstanding.

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

Evolution decides whats natural anyway, and it has removed the practice bit by bit due to these 'problems', so I guess it's all pretty self-explanatory.

(^-^)b

quote:

---

Infanticide is not uncommon among animals.

---

I agree Diogenes, but it is uncommon among humans.

Can we now all agree that what MAN perceives as, "natural", within the "animal kingdom", is NOT "natural" to us? No?

Better do a little research there Zynx. In parts of Asia they still expose female children and there are other current societies which, for a variety of reasons, still indulge in the practice of infanticide.

Early xians sometimes sacrificed their children to their god as well.

In fact the bible demanded 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:

---

Can we now all agree that what MAN perceives as, "natural", within the "animal kingdom", is NOT "natural" to us? No?

---

based on....the statement you just made...? Is that what is supposed to suddenly make us agree??

No, we cannot make that over generalized blanket statement, as nothing is black and white here.

As has been discussed in the few previous posts, and as diogenesis explains nicely, it is *all* about circumstance.

In the modern world (which you must be reminded does not include all of the world simpyl by being in this time period), such things as infanticide are uncommon and viewed as purely uncivilized, barbarious, etc.

However, it has been common practice throughout the world in various time periods and various circumstances.

In ancient Rome, it was expected that if a child were born not to the liking of the father, it would be abandoned in the street (at birth). "not to the liking" could mean it was disformed, not the right gender, wasn't attractive enough, looked weak, or any other significant or ludicrously trivial thing that the father might not like.
In fact, up until the age of 12 years, the father still had the perfectly natural, accepted, legal option of killing the child for little or no real reason.

This was seen as both natural and good.

In connecticut, where I live, during the 17th and 18th centuries (at least...not sure when the law changed) a parent had the right - with the permission of the courts - kill a child up to the age of 16 for disobedience.

Now these are far away from the primitive picture dio paints with his statements - which are very valid and important to understand - and come from what were seen as very highly civilized areas in two very different time periods and and very different parts of the world, and with two very different religious views.

Then you have many circumstances of tribal arrangements, again throughout some very different time periods and geographical circumstances, where the leader will take exception for various reasons to the birth of child and require the death of the infant.

We have circumstances throughout these same varied time periods and locations where a mother cannot care for a child, and kills it to spare either it or herself, or her other children, or where a father will perform this act for the good of the family, or what have you.

The point, in a nutshell, is that while the modern view might be that the death of a newborn child is a horrible thing, history, psychology, and mere observance tells us that your assertion that is not natural for humans is quite incorrect. It would seem that it is all too natural, in fact.

It seems to me that what is natural is just that, regardless of being animal or human. However, differences can be established between instinctual and learned behavior. In all animals (to include humans), sex and the enjoyment of sex, are an instinctual way of life. In fact, until religions starting sprouting up suggesting how evil it was, homosexuality was commonplace among mankind. Religion is one of these un-instinctual learned behaviors, meaning that it cannot be considered natural.

Animals are capable themselves of having unnatural behavior, such as learning to sit and rollover. The fact that homosexuality arises among animals in the wild, shows that this is a natural occurance. Would it be possible for me to get an answer to this: If the religion did not say that homosexuality was wrong, would you still believe it is? And if so, why? Just curious to see an answer.

Some definitions:
natural
instinct
homosexual

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

A gay-male couple from the Manhattan, NY zoo:


I'm not joking Homosexuality in Animals

quote:

---

Homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 species

---

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

(Edited by Raeubu on 08-26-2005 09:15)

quote:

---

Can we now all agree that what MAN perceives as, "natural", within the "animal kingdom", is NOT "natural" to us? No?

---

I think both Diogenes and DL have pointed out the huge flaws in your reasoning, Zynx.

I am not certain 'reasoning' is the applicable word in this instance.

Perhaps one may be forgiven for concluding Zynx is arguing towards a pre-arrived conclusion and is unwilling to be distracted by fact and reality from arriving back at his starting point.

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

Personally, I don't believe we should equate ouselves with the animals regarding sexual human ehavior. What separates us from the animals is our rationalistic behavior in how we relate to each other as humans. Though scientist use many animals in research to conduct the sciences, we must know that we are a more intelligent spieces in determining life issues. Same gender animals, rodents, insects, etc. exhibiting same sex tendencies are not answerable to anyone therefore can act contrary to nature in its development in their short life span. Man should not. Simply said, dogs will be dogs and cats will be cats. They will try to mate and suffer no consequences. They don't know any better but we do. Even in this mortal life if one who chooses to act against their own physical human nature they take on many hardships in human society. And human, in their fullest capabilites, if they choose to act they should do so according to their physical human nature. We are more esteemed in creation and are way above acting like animals and should not take on animal characteristics by choice. We as dignitifed humans must act according to a natural human dignified behavior. Though some humans act in animalistic ways in regard to murders, rapes, same sex acts. sexual perversions, etc., they do so becauses they have separated themselves from a dignified human characteristic. What comples one who acts against his own human nature??????
Male abosorbing female tendencies or women absorbing male tendencies?????? It does not stem from the physical body nature but the mind. Therefore the mind must be corrected not the body. Regardless on what side your are on in this issue, we all know the sexuality of the human person male or female in its chemical nature operates according to its natural functions. For example, women have menstrual cycles and experience a monthly emotional and physical state. Their breast get tender and they swell, etc. This process is part of the "be fruitful and multiply" Most women desire to have a child. Men do not and should not have that female emotional characateristic in the communion of family. Two men or women coming together in this society in a leglaized marriage affects all society and cripples it. I am affected so I have a right to vote against it or voice my opinion against it.

Acts are termed human when they are proper to man as a man; when they are elicited by man, but not proper to him as a rational man they are called unnatured acts of man.
Homomosexual unions simply do not conform to the definition of marriage. They will never be true marriages. In human history and experience, a man and a woman come together to form a permanent life-giving union and at the same time to become a family, the first cell of human society. Civil law cannot legitimately redefine this human reality. We as Christians are morally obligated to see that civil laws reflect the proper moral order. We have experienced in the history of our country the imposing of laws that were enacted by the legislature and confirmed by the Supreme Court which at the same time were clearly immoral and unjust to us as Christians. Slavery presents is an example of a law that was simply unjust. It contradicted the truth of right reason about human dignity and the natural moral order. The same self-evident truth is present in legalized abortion. While abortion may be legal in the United States, it is still immoral to take the life of an unborn child. Just because something is legal does not make it moral. The moral law has a higher claim on the Christian conscience than does civil law does. Respecting the dignity of homosexual persons does not conflict with upholding God's intent for marriage in which sexual relations have their proper and exclusive place for us. Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth and also oppose as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. There is no separation between one's faith and life either in public or private life. All Christians should, with a well-formed conscience, act on their beliefs. They should be a community of conscience within society. We, by our Christian moral ethic hould proclaim and vote against homosexual union. We should contribute to society's welfare and test its public life by the standards of right reason of our spiritual truths.

(Edited by jade on 08-26-2005 20:59)

We in this society are not all christians, and we have laws that are setup to protect us from you and your ilk, and I do feel that we need protection, who would try and impose your limited views on those who do not share your subset of what is moral and what is not.

As you attempt to influency law to effect your moral ideals all I can do is feel sad for you. It signifies that you and those who would support this are not secure enough of faith to let your religion stand on its own. Instead of letting your religion exist as a matter of faith and of personal servitude you will try to boster its failures to influency through common law.

You and your kind scare me, very, very unstable.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

What comples one who acts against his own human nature??????

---

And as we have demonstrated repeatedly, such things are *not* against human nature. they *are* human nature.

quote:

---

herefore can act contrary to nature in its development in their short life span. Man should not. Simply said, dogs will be dogs and cats will be cats.

---

So....animals in anture, acting naturally.....is somehow *against* nature....
That's about as twisted as logic can be...

quote:

---

Two men or women coming together in this society in a leglaized marriage affects all society and cripples it.

---

And if you can come out with even one REASONABLE explanation of it affects society, and how it "cripples" society, and how *you* are personally affected (aside from your own personal offense) by the marriage of two men or two women, you might begin to get somewhere with your argument.

So far I have heard no such thing from you or anyone else.

Can you do this?

Ok, missed a few points -

quote:

---

Homomosexual unions simply do not conform to the definition of marriage. They will never be true marriages.

---

1) which definition? Whose definition? There are many meanings for the word, and I don't see what makes you qualified to impose your personal limitations on the meaning.

2) the definition of a word is based entirely on how the word is used.

quote:

---

In human history and experience, a man and a woman come together to form a permanent life-giving union and at the same time to become a family, the first cell of human society.

---

This is by no means universal.

quote:

---

Civil law cannot legitimately redefine this human reality.

---

Civil law reflects the "human reality".
Human reality includes homosexual relationships, regardless of you opnion of such relationships.

quote:

---

We as Christians are morally obligated to see that civil laws reflect the proper moral order.

---

And we as reasonable people are morally obligated to see that civil laws reflect what is reasonable and just, and are not goverened by your mythology.

quote:

---

We have experienced in the history of our country the imposing of laws that were enacted by the legislature and confirmed by the Supreme Court which at the same time were clearly immoral and unjust to us as Christians. Slavery presents is an example of a law that was simply unjust. It contradicted the truth of right reason about human dignity and the natural moral order.

---

And the men who enacted these laws, who enforced these laws, who fought bloody battles to continue these laws, and who owned slaves by the thousands were self proclaimed devout christians. They also enforced laws that would allow a person to be killed for saying such things as "there is no god".

quote:

---

The same self-evident truth is present in legalized abortion. While abortion may be legal in the United States, it is still immoral to take the life of an unborn child.

---

In your opinion. Obviously there are enough people who feel you are wrong that the law supports a woman's choice.

quote:

---

Just because something is legal does not make it moral. The moral law has a higher claim on the Christian conscience than does civil law does.

---

One more reason to be happy we're not all christians.

One more reason to be happy that our nation recognized the need for freedom of religion, and the right to not have YOUR opnion foisted on US as law.

quote:

---

Respecting the dignity of homosexual persons does not conflict with upholding God's intent for marriage in which sexual relations have their proper and exclusive place for us. Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth and also oppose as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. There is no separation between one's faith and life either in public or private life. All Christians should, with a well-formed conscience, act on their beliefs. They should be a community of conscience within society. We, by our Christian moral ethic hould proclaim and vote against homosexual union. We should contribute to society's welfare and test its public life by the standards of right reason of our spiritual truths.

---

You should keep your personal views out of legislation altogether.
I am quite sure that god can take care of those he feels are sinning. I'd suggest you leave it to the higher power whose righteousness and wisdom you profess so adamantly.

As I said above - if you can come up with even *one* REASONABLE explanation of how two men being married affects your life in any *real* way, you might have a start.

I'll await your explanation eaglerly...

And she has the nerve to define her self as 'rational'.

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:

---

Jade: We, by our Christian moral ethic hould proclaim and vote against homosexual union.

---

Bollocks!

*sigh* You just don't get it do you Jade? Not that I am about to try to fruitlessly explain it...again.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 08-26-2005 22:09)

I'm biting my tongue, too, ramasax. But it ain't easy.

All I'm going to say is:

Jade, Moral law is personal. Civil law is for everybody--including people who don't share your opinions about morals. As a Christian, if someone comes to you, of their OWN FREE WILL and asks for your advice about homosexuality, or abortion, or whatever, because they have a personal problem with it themselves, then you are free to say whatever you want. If they WANT it. But it is wrong to impose it on the unwilling by law, or try to make everybody think the same way. It is oppression, no different from slavery in the long run. Only instead of slavery of the whole person, it's slavery of free will.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Interesting thoughts you all have, even if some of you "pile on", rather than offer your own thoughts.

I am not xian. I consider myself non-religious. I look for the best that religions can offer, when I need help in getting through the tough times in life., but that's about it. I am not debating this issue with any religious goal, as others are. Sometimes what 2 different people think, does not mean that they are both follow any sort of religion. I think many of you are divided on many issues, and that the only way you can decently argue against someone else, is to put them into categories, based simply on what they agree with, without ever asking that person. e.g. In this last election, I was against Bush, but that did not mean that I was pro-Kerry. Same here. If I disagree that "acts" within the animal kingdom, mirror man's acts, does not make them "natural", DOES NOT mean I am xian.

That being said, many animal acts, are also acts man does, and has done in the past, but that does not make them, "natural" to man. And stating the obvious history of man's past acts, does not validate them as "natural", simply because they mirror acts within the animal world. And that includes any primitive tribes existing today. They were decisions that were wrong. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. And not because any GOD told me so.

Man decides to annihilate/wipe off the face of the earth, an entire group of humans, an act not seen in the animal kingdom, so that's unnatural, but since animal and man both commit "infantcide", then that IS natural?

Man and animal "reasoning" are not one in the same.

quote:

---

Man decides to annihilate/wipe off the face of the earth, an entire group of humans, an act not seen in the animal kingdom, so that's unnatural

---

Again this is incorrect.

All animals, humans included, instinctually harm other species that are seen as a threat. When the threat is considerable, so is the harm issued.

We see this in ant colonies to a very fascinating extent, actually. We see it in apes, in wild cats, etc

Zynx - perhaps we can make this easier on everyone, and give us your definition of "natural" behavior.

quote:

---

Man decides to annihilate/wipe off the face of the earth, an entire group of humans, an act not seen in the animal kingdom, so that's unnatural

---

quote:

---

Again this is incorrect. All animals, humans included, instinctually harm other species that are
seen as a threat. When the threat is considerable, so is the harm issued.

---

Wrong! You are talking about the "instinct" for an animal to defend itself against intruders. Animals, and ants, do not "decide" one day to "seek out", with a "want" to kill another species.

quote:

---

perhaps we can make this easier on everyone, and give us your definition of "natural" behavior.

---

I thought things were not black & white, DL? It's just not logical to compare man's acts with an animal's acts, or vice-versa. And overall, and common sense applies here, we are not comparable creatures.

One idea; MORALS! Man has them, and animals do not.

quote:

---

I thought things were not black & white, DL? It's just not logical to compare man's acts with an animal's acts, or vice-versa. And overall, and common sense applies here, we are not comparable creatures.

---

Things are not black and white, but so far all you have done is tell us that what we are talking about is *not* natural.

SO how about explaining what criteria you use to determine if something is natural?

quote:

---

Wrong! You are talking about the "instinct" for an animal to defend itself against intruders. Animals, and ants, do not "decide" one day to "seek out", with a "want" to kill another species.

---

No. You are wrong. I am assuming we are still referring to the issue of humans killing off other humanoid species (if that's not the case, forgive me...).

This is exactly the kind of instinctual behavior observed in animals - kiliing/chasing off a species who is infringing on your resources.

We most certainly do see animals seeking out such 'intruders', and we see them attack, kill, chase off - essentially wage war. We see this in many species, and it is not a simple 'defend myself against an overt attacker' kind of action. We see organization, purpose, we see them seeking each other out!

Off the top of my head I can speak for chimpanzees and ants exhibiting this behavior, in the same manner in which the homosapiens would have attecked/killed/chased off the neanderthal and others.

quote:

---

One idea; MORALS! Man has them, and animals do not.

---

That's a subject that, I think, would require its own thread to get into....



(Edited by DL-44 on 08-27-2005 03:29)

Cordial disagreements. Danka DL.

quote:

---

, but so far all you have done is tell us that what we are talking about is *not* natural.

---

No, I am talking about the idea that comparing an "Animal's" acts, is not comparable to "Man's" acts. It is mentally not congruent!

quote:

---

So how about explaining what criteria you use to determine if something is natural?

---

Again you are not giving me a criteria to deal with. We teach others how to save man. We combat man's afflictions(diseases). We think differently than animals.

quote:

---

No. You are wrong. I am assuming we are still referring to the issue of humans killing off other humanoid species (if that's not the case, forgive me...)

---

No need to be forgiven. It was just a misunderstanding, during a debate. I was defending the issue that humans killing off other humans, does NOT harbor the same reasons, as "animals" kiling other animals, WHEN, an animal is defending themselves.

quote:

---

, we see them seeking each other out!

---

NO! When they are "seeking" they are doing so out of "instinct", for food, sunlight, water, or for many other "instinctual" ideas. They do not do so, simply because they disagree with that species.

quote:

---

Off the top of my head I can speak for chimpanzees and ants exhibiting this behavior, in the same manner in which the homosapiens would have attecked/killed/chased off the neanderthal and others.

---

Funny you should say such things. While man has evolved we have(Due to intelligence), expounded upon our ideals of good and bad, right and wrong. Animals have not, dare I say, can not deal with the idea of RIGHT & WRONG. "Infantcide", is an idea that is abhored by today's humanity standards. Within the animal kingdom, this idea can not involve WITH morals, so it still exists today, just as it has for many, many, years.

quote:

---

That's a subject that, I think, would require its own thread to get into....

---

I agree, but UNDERSTANDING ideas is an INTELLECTUAL enrichment we ALL must embrace! No?

quote:

---

NO! When they are "seeking" they are doing so out of "instinct", for food, sunlight, water, or for many other "instinctual" ideas. They do not do so, simply because they disagree with that species.

---

I'm sorry, but this is *absolutely* wrong. You'll have to do some looking into it, I don't have anything handy to post with any more specificity.

quote:

---

"Infantcide", is an idea that is abhored by today's humanity standards.

---

According to who?
The "standards" you speak of are entirely dependent on time/place/context/indivdual perception.

As I spoke about above, this view is by no means unviersal, and the acceptance of such things has covered a great many times and places, including some that persist today.

It is impossible to define such a thing as "today's humanity standards"

It is also impossible, therefore, to speak of such things in terms of what is "natuiral", as natural has nothing to do with current societal constructs that humans use to emulate their own concept of a higher consciousness. It personifies, in a rather ironic manner, the idea that "I think, therefore I am".



(Edited by DL-44 on 08-27-2005 05:27)

quote:

---

Therefore the mind must be corrected not the body.

---

Repeat after me:

the mind must be corrected
the mind must be corrected
the mind must be corrected

Ahhh...where's a good inquisition when you need one eh Jade.

For the sake of discussion Zynx, let's say the nature's of man and animal cannot be comperd to each other. With this thought in place, could you explain the what is and isn't classified as natural in terms of man's behavior?

quote:

---

NO! When they are "seeking" they are doing so out of "instinct", for food, sunlight, water, or for many other "instinctual" ideas. They do not do so, simply because they disagree with that species.

---

In every case I can think of, when a group of people turn to genocide or war with another group of people, they don't do it simply because they have different idealogies, they do it because they see a threat against their way of life in the idealogies of others. In the case of serial killers, that kill out of fun, they are *naturally* shunned and scorned by others in mankind.

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

Zynx, either put up, or shut up. I'm frankly getting very tired of your empty rhetoric - DL asked you how you define "natural behavior"

quote:

---

Zynx - perhaps we can make this easier on everyone, and give us your definition of "natural" behavior.

---

- and I ask you, if it is found in Nature, then what is it other than natural?

Now, either answer the questions, or shut up.

Your silly little "tirades" are both illogical, unreasoned, and worst of all, makes you look like the fool that you apparently are, especially when you use them to avoid answering questions.

I won't comment on Jade's...hard to say what she posted is called. It is just so wrong, on so many levels - one can directly compare it to radical Muslem rhetoric.

Zynx reminds me a great deal of Gid's mindless roundabout. How do peple get that way?

Surely, t'aint natural?

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

It is a defense mechanism.

The problem with this one, is that they actually know they are using it. It is not that they are simply stiupid, but they decide to act stupid to escape having to deal with an issue in a correct and logical way when they are not currently equipped to deal with it.

It is a sign of a very lazy person who have built into they thinking that they have to be correct, no matter the case.

Dan @ Code Town

"if you can come out with even one REASONABLE explanation of it affects society"

I agree with that statment - considering all the fuzz, christians must consider this issue to be tremendously important, and it would be nice to understand why that is?
Especially considering the fact that there are other immoral things going on, which, frankly, are much more disturbing and evil, which are wholeheartedly supported by christians.

(^-^)b

WM, you got 2 things going there, an actual reason, and a misguided insult.
Looking into your explaination of the "defense mechanism" I must agree with you that there is merit to it. I know you meant it as a joke/chide, but it can be true. If Christians wish to only view things from one side, one point of view, one field of reference, they are misguiding themselves. To properly understand a subject Christians must understand differing views, even if they conflict with our beliefs.

"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

Hehe...Gid is explaining to WM what WM is saying?

Oh, this is good...*gets out popcorn*

Zynx--Listen, I don't see what the problem is with comparing what is natural to humans to what is natural for animals. Yes, we have morals, and animals don't. But what are morals other than the desire to fight what feels natural and what one feels is PERSONALLY unacceptable behavior--for whatever reason, be it religious or otherwise? I am not following your reasoning at all. It makes no sense.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Um, Gid? WM was not joking, chiding nor insulting. Merely 'telling it like it is'.

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

In the Bible, Jesus does say that you have to fight your nature, but was he talking about man or animals nature? hmmm...

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

quote:

---

So how about explaining what criteria you use to determine if something is natural?

---

1) Actions by man-----------------------------(actions not capable by animals)------------------------Natural to man.
2) Actions by animals-------------------------(actions not capable by man)----------------------------Natural to animals.

quote:

---

NO! When they are "seeking" they are doing so out of "instinct", for food, sunlight, water, or for many other "instinctual" ideas. They do not do so, simply because they disagree with that species.I'm sorry, but this is *absolutely* wrong. You'll have to do some looking into it, I don't have anything handy to post with any more specificity.

---

Is this a final observation? That an animal's actions, do not mentally differ in anyway, than man's actions?

quote:

---

"Infantcide", is an idea that is abhored by today's humanity standards.

---

quote:

---

"According to who?

---

Ok, standards was the wrong word. Look at this way. Infantcide is nor more abhorant to animals now, than it was then. The same can not be said of man. Such ideas as are viewed as primitive actions. Who decided that? Man did.

quote:

---

1) Actions by man-----------------------------(actions not capable by animals)------------------------Natural to man.

---

Soooo....pissing is not natural to Man?

Driving is Natural to Man? Really? I thought it had to be learned.

I disagree strongly with that definition.

quote:

---

Soooo....pissing is not natural to Man? Driving is Natural to Man? Really? I thought it had to be learned.

---

" Don't be so obtuse. "

(Edited by Zynx on 08-29-2005 19:59)

So....try as I might, I simpyl don't see anything that makes any kind of point that I can respond to in that post zynx...

For this to go anywhere, you will really need to clarify what it is you are trying to say, as it seems right now that you really don't have a clear point or direction.

How about some examples of your criteria for natural behavior, and perhaps a statement on exactly what the point behind it is?

quote:

---

So....try as I might, I simply don't see anything that makes any kind of point that I can respond to in that post zynx...For this to go anywhere, you will really need to clarify what it is you are trying to say, as it seems right now that you really don't have a clear point or direction.How about some examples of your criteria for natural behavior, and perhaps a statement on exactly what the point behind it is?

---

I said this in the past. Determining what is natural to man, by observing animals, is scientifically plain silliness.

Unless you think, like I asked, that there is absolutely, nothing mentally different with man's decision making process, and an animals. Do you believe such things? I ask this, because as much as I have posted against the contrary of that thinking, I find it harder to imagine the equally opposite idea, others seem to support. That is, that man reacts with the same reasons as animals do.

As for some examples, I'd start with, Humans are different from animals in that;
We can speak
We can write
We have a sense of personal history
We have s sense of the history of other cultures
We have theories about what makes the world tick (e.g., believe in God, Evolution, or alien visitors)
We devise schemes of how the world ?should be' (e.g., have legal systems and cultural ideals ? ?everyone is equal', ?only a man and a woman can be married,'etc.)

quote:

---

That is, that man reacts with the same reasons as animals do.

---

Mans INITIAL reaction to situations usually are animalistic. Mamas still throw many babies in the dump out of fear for one thing or another, just as other mamas are fiercely protective. But man has the ability to think and modify his behavior to the good or to the bad if he so chooses where animals don't.

As for your list, what makes you think that animals wouldn't do those things if they could think? And what has the ability to think have to do with issues like homosexuality, since that is what brought on this whole thing about natural behavior?

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

Mans INITIAL reaction to situations usually are animalistic. Mamas still throw many babies in the dump out of fear for one thing or another, just as other mamas are fiercely protective.

---

While some situations are, not all of man's reactions START with primitive animalistic thoughts.

quote:

---

But man has the ability to think and modify his behavior to the good or to the bad if he so chooses where animals don't.

---

Agreed wholeheartedly!

quote:

---

As for your list, what makes you think that animals wouldn't do those things if they could think?

---

I don't. Nor is anyone capable of knowing that. I'd like to think that animals, one day, could evolve into creatures that could speak, and write.

quote:

---

And what has the ability to think have to do with issues like homosexuality, since that is what brought on this whole thing about natural behavior?

---

Ok, I'd like to bring back the Bonobo monkeys, which were mentioned here earlier. People showcase these monkeys as being "homosexual". I did more research and found that they exhibit this behavior, for more reasons, than just sexual gratification. Fear, jealousy, and anger, will also prompt a bonobo monkey, to run, and then sexually gratify him or herself, and sometimes with others, and in total visibility of other bonobo's.

Man does not display his homosexual behavior in the same manner as these animals do. And if man did, it would be disgusting to many, which explains that, " man has the ability to think and modify his behavior to the good or to the bad if he so chooses where animals don't.

Natural for them, not natural for us.

I give up.

it is honestly not worth my effort at this point zynx - the more you talk, the more obscure or unrelated to the questions your point becomes.

the more I clarify my point, the more you redirect to something else...


ciao =)

And don't forget to tell the "Jaguars", and the "Ants", that were still on for dinner tomorrow! But this time, tell them both to leave behind their "humans". Last time, they both crapped on the carpet. "Humans" can be so annoying. Bye.

Paradox indeed; http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristianParadox.html and we have seen examples of this, right here on our very own pages.

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:

---

Ok. then there are billions of stupid people out there. Right?

---

quote:

---

First of all - YES!

---

So this is your BELIEF?

quote:

---

The point being: Just because a lot of people believe something, doesn't make it true. Hitler had the support of almost of all of Germany, Austria, Italy, and more. Does that make him right?

---

" According to who? The "standards" you speak of are entirely dependent on time/place/context/indivdual perception. As I spoke about above, this view is by no means universal, and the acceptance of such things has covered a great many times and places, including some that persist today. "

Your a funny hypocrite DL.

quote:

---

Homomosexual unions simply do not conform to the definition of marriage. They will never be true marriages.

---

Then have your term "marriage", but let's not deny the same state/governmental benefits, simply because of a simply "language" error.

quote:

---

In human history and experience, a man and a woman come together to;
1) form a permanent life-giving union
2) and at the same time to become a family.
Civil law cannot legitimately redefine this human reality.

---

Yet it does. Homosexual parents, and their children, are a union. Just not a xian union
Homosexual parents, and their children are a "family", including much LOVE.

quote:

---

The first cell of human society

---

Ok, again you can have the 'first" cell, just so you let those who are gay and wish to build a family, give them the "second" cell. R we Ok with that?

quote:

---

We as Christians are morally obligated to see that civil laws reflect the proper moral order.

---

quote:

---

Slavery presents is an example of a law that was simply unjust.

---

Yet it was a xian moral.

quote:

---

It contradicted the truth of right reason about human dignity and the natural moral order.

---

Wrong! You can't have it both ways. "Proper moral order", is a "Xian moral order". So you can't take credit for both creating it, and enouncing it.

quote:

---

While abortion may be legal in the United States, it is still immoral to take the life of an unborn child.

---

Don't be so short-sighted. If you look at the world on this issue, the United states actually follows much of the rest of the world, hence it is more acceptable to this WORLD, than simply you/xians.

quote:

---

We, by our Christian moral ethics should proclaim and vote against homosexual union. We should
contribute to society's welfare and test its public life by the standards of right reason of our spiritual truths.

---

Spiritual truth? So the xian standard of priests sexually defiling little boys, is more about testing public life by the standards of reason? OH PLEASE GOD, have this person explain this one! I wait with baited breath!
Pun intended!

quote:

---

Your a funny hypocrite DL.

---

And you're a sad idiot.

quote:

---

Just because something is legal does not make it moral.

---

I guess that would depend on "your morals". The death penalty is quite "moral" to me. So is "abortion". Ask me why or how, and I'll guarantee that my "morals" simply disagree with yours, but that does not make my morals, "wrong". Let alone "legal".

quote:

---

One more reason to be happy that our nation recognized the need for freedom of religion,

---

Yet I do like the truth that this country started with xian ideals to START with. Instead of Islam, or Judaoism, but I can agree that we have moved on from our xian roots. It's a nice solid base to work with, but let's not stay in those dark ages, and create our laws built on such out-dated ideals.

quote:

---

And you're a sad idiot.

---

DL, you're disgruntled. Your RHETORICAL debating ways, is quite child-like. But in a FUNNY way.

quote:

---

Two men or women coming together in this society in a legalized marriage affects all society and cripples it. I am affected so I have a right to vote against it or voice my opinion against it.

---

Cripples it? So you are including the damage heterosexual marriages, has done to this country? Do you consider that everything heterosexual couple, has NOT, nor has NEVER had, an adverse effect on society? So to you it's ALL GOOD!?!?!?!?!

quote:

---

Yet I do like the truth that this country started with xian ideals to START with. Instead of Islam, or Judaoism, but I can agree that we have moved on from our xian roots. It's a nice solid base to work with, but let's not stay in those dark ages, and create our laws built on such out-dated ideals.

---

This country (meaning America) never started with xian ideals. My forefathers were NOT xians, and neither were the neighboring tribes.

In fact, I don't know of any tribe in America that had xian ideals before the missionaries came to the new world.

America did not start with the Pilgrims, contrary to what some might want to believe.

America started with dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals.

^ That was mostly before my people came to America

quote:

---

This country (meaning America) never started with xian ideals. My forefathers were NOT xians, and neither were the neighboring tribes.In fact, I don't know of any tribe in America that had xian ideals before the missionaries came to the new world.America did not start with the Pilgrims, contrary to what some might want to believe.

---

I don't consider "America", starting that early. Around the time, just before, during, and after the DEC was signed, is my starting point idea.

Then maybe you should refer to The United States of America.

My people, and many of the other tribes of Native American Indians, were in America first, and definitely had a big impact on the budding USA.

With respect WS, have you heard of Kennebunk Man?

His discovery threw the "Native" population of Washington, and some adjoining states, into a fit of panic.

Seems the chap had red hair and other charatcteristics, including copper tools, completely inconsistent with the Asian origins of your people.

Oh, the other thing was; he predated the arrival of your people by some 10,000 years.

Another similiar find was made here in Victoria a few years ago, but we are so afraid of offending our native population it was immediately re-buried and hushed up.

How do I know then? Talked with one of the workers on the site who wasn't impressed by orders to keep his mouth shut.

In any event, there was nothing to make one think either one was a xian.

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:

---

Then maybe you should refer to The United States of America.

---

I'll keep that in mind.

quote:

---

My people, and many of the other tribes of Native American Indians, were in America first,

---

What first? First person, or as a people, or society? No offense to your heritage, either. Just asking.

quote:

---

For the sake of discussion Zynx, let's say the nature's of man and animal cannot be comperd to each other. With this thought in place, could you explain the what is and isn't classified as natural in terms of man's behavior?

---

We do display some similiar behaviors, but not for the same reasons. And that would be a long list I'm sure, but here is a few ideas, that show how we differ from them.
We can speak
We can write
We have a sense of personal history
We have s sense of the history of other cultures
We have theories about what makes the world tick (e.g., believe in God, Evolution, or alien visitors)
We devise schemes of how the world ?should be' (e.g., have legal systems and cultural ideals ? ?everyone is equal', ?only a man and a woman can be married

quote:

---

In every case I can think of, when a group of people turn to genocide or war with another group of people, they don't do it simply because they have different idealogies, they do it because they see a threat against their way of life in the idealogies of others.

---

Ok, but how can animals, think on such a level that man does? Their brains are just not capable of such thought. Yes we call them ARMY ants, for their organization which is seen, not unlike an actual army. But I wouldn't give them acknowledgement for actually being intellectual on the same level as of man's armies.

quote:

---

Zynx--It makes no sense.

---

Ok, look at this way.

Say your walking down a hallway. On the left is a mural of the biological makeup of man. On the right is a mural of the biological makeup of animals. Now as you walk further down, on the left is a mural of what is behaviorially natural to man. On the right is a mural of what is behaviorially natural for animals. Do we share similiar behavior(s)? Yes. Does that mean that if man behaves in the same manner as animals, that he does so for all of the same reasons that animals do? No.

That notion, is bereft of science.

My comments on the original article are not surprisingly similar to Fig's. Much of the article preview is correct, sadly. American's spirituality runs quite deep but their understanding of it is remarkably shallow. As the prophet wrote, "my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge".

You will find true Xians on the political right as well as the left and everything in between.

If you had to name the number one false god of the American people, I think it would have to be money.

That being said, I do think the article preview goes too far in this:

quote:

---

And therein is the paradox. America is simultaneously the most professedly Christian of the developed nations and the least Christian in its behavior.

---

Our prosperity allows many good and true Xians to do a great many good works for others both here and abroad.

I think it is also important to note that Christian behavior cannot be solely defined by feeding the poor. The key goal of Xianity is to bring the message of the gospel to all peoples with the loving behavior being the proof that the messengers are genuine.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I dunno Bug, looks pretty accurate to me.

Look at your president...all god this and jesus that and off camera and mic he swears like a trooper and calls a grieving mother a fucking bitch (Sheehan).

Then there are all the good xians quoted on the "Scary Site" thread.

There may be a few good souls like youself out there spreading the word, but I think the other kind have control of the levers of power.

I think too the article was basing it's conclusion on public perception.

Perception, as you may know, is reality to many.

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:

---

Bugimus: If you had to name the number one false god of the American people, I think it would have to be money.

---

Couldn't agree more Bugs.

"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

With that in mind, consider from a global perspective. We are one of the most wealthy nations in the world, and the $19,000 and below we consider poverty is more than 96% of the world's people have. We are the rich...and as a society we downplay the sin of greed far too often.

And it is quickly becoming the chief architect of our demise.

quote:

---

There may be a few good souls like youself out there spreading the word, but I think the other kind have control of the levers of power.

---

Absolutely right, but there are far more "good souls" than the "other kind". Certainly more than a few as you allude to.

The "other kind" are far fewer in numbers, they simply exert more influence, and thus are followed by the media. Their actions determine the perception of the whole, and in many cases poison the minds of undereducated "good souls".

quote:

---

Perception, as you may know, is reality to many.

---

It is readily apparent.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

Yet I do like the truth that this country started with xian ideals to START with. Instead of Islam, or Judaoism, but I can agree that we have moved on from our xian roots. It's a nice solid base to work with, but let's not stay in those dark ages, and create our laws built on such out-dated ideals.

---

My answer was soley to this post - which is not a truth, as one can see.

quote:

---

With respect WS, have you heard of Kennebunk Man?

His discovery threw the "Native" population of Washington, and some adjoining states, into a fit of panic.

---

quote:

---

Oh, the other thing was; he predated the arrival of your people by some 10,000 years.

---

First of all, yes I have heard of him, Dio. Second, that has nothing to do with my tribe. I am also aware that it is vry likely that Humans from France journeyed over the ice to the Americas during the last ice age and mixed with the Northern Eastern Indian Tribes there (DNA testing has shown that this is possible). Third, do you know when my people came to America? Really? I'd be fascinated to know when this was.

The Vikings were in America before the other later coming Europeans.

So what?

That has nothing, whatsoever to do with what I posted. My people were in America before the Pilgrims came. The first winter almost killed them. Later, the relations between the Eastern Indians and the European settlers began to deteriorate (for various reasons) and that shaped the coming land-to-be.

The country didn't "start" with just Xian ideals - that was my point. And the role of the Eastern Native American Indians is also largely underplayed, if even mentioned at all in the History books. But it is there, and it did occur.

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

...but there are far more "good souls" than the "other kind".

---

Dio, I think this is the case. Of course, I can't prove that so I also sincerely hope it is the case From where I sit, I see a great many good and caring people who carry the name of Christ well. They are not perfect by any stretch but they are good and decent people.

I am just now getting to the "Scary Site" quotes. I plan to post a reply to that.

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

Look at your president...all god this and jesus that and off camera and mic he
swears like a trooper and calls a grieving mother a fucking bitch (Sheehan).

---

Sheehan is not only a grieving mother. She has become, either knowingly or not, an instrument of the political left wing machine. She has said far far worse things about the president than his calling her a f*cking bitch off camera. In my view, that kind of banter is will within normal game play for political struggling.

Perhaps there are other examples would illustrate your point better than that one?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

As for the xian founding; http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

WS, the point about Kennebunk was the evidence that there were red-headed and likely realtively white-skinned people here BEFORE your Asian ancestors struggled across the ice floes.

So, your tribe or not, you spring from a common root and you were not the first here.

I agree you beat the Pilgrims by a considerable margin, that "Native" americans had sophisticated societies and that without the aid of the locals the ill-equipped and prepared Brits would have perished.

I further agree the assistance thus rendered has been considerably down-played by the history writers.

So much easier to portray one's genocide as justifiable, if the other side doesn't have a friendly face.

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:

---

WS, the point about Kennebunk was the evidence that there were red-headed and likely realtively white-skinned people here BEFORE your Asian ancestors struggled across the ice floes.

So, your tribe or not, you spring from a common root and you were not the first here.

---

I am already aware of this, and that has no bearing on the point I was making [sic]that Native American Indians were in the Americas before the Pilgrims and Founders of the US and therefore contributed to its Founding[/sic].

*shrug*

quote:

---

, " It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. "

---

Good saying. I like it much.

"man behaves in the same manner as animals, that he does so for all of the same reasons that animals do?"

Do you separate humans from "animals" as a group, or from a specific species, and if so, which one?
See, this is where you miss the point all the time.
Mans natural behavior indicates that he/she is an animal too, and therefor you can't really separate humans from nature, as you would like to have it.
Your whole point of view is 'off', nobody here understands where you are going with it.
You might be right, you might be wrong, but your arguments are so confusing in this respect that I can't decide which.
- According to you then, why is man NOT an animal?

(^-^)b

quote:

---

quote:, " It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. "

---

i read: god is not forgiving and hates rich people ...

ah whatever ... this is all so absurd anyway ...

"the eye of the needle" refers to a smaller door in the city wall for passage into the city after dark when the larger city gates were closed for security. a camel could go through, but first he had to kneel down and his burdens be removed.

get it?

Wow, had some catching up to do:

Zynx, your posts are getting harder and harder to follow, and you have been resorting to childish comebacks as opposed to explaining your position. We get it, you don't think man and animal's natures can be compared, so do you have any educated reasoning for this?:

quote:

---

We do display some similiar behaviors, but not for the same reasons. And that would be a long list I'm sure, but here is a few ideas, that show how we differ from them.
We can speak
We can write
We have a sense of personal history
We have s sense of the history of other cultures
We have theories about what makes the world tick (e.g., believe in God, Evolution, or alien visitors)
We devise schemes of how the world ?should be' (e.g., have legal systems and cultural ideals ? ?everyone is equal', ?only a man and a woman can be married

---

Cool, everything you are listing is learned characteristics, these are not natural. These are what seperates us from other species. If the human ability to learn was taken away, we would be just like any other animal, nature and all.

quote:

---

Yet I do like the truth that this country started with xian ideals to START with. Instead of Islam, or Judaoism, but I can agree that we have moved on from our xian roots. It's a nice solid base to work with, but let's not stay in those dark ages, and create our laws built on such out-dated ideals.

---

I'm wondering what the reason for putting xian ideals over Islam and Judaism was? I mean honestly, it seems that in the making of our government, the founding fathers allowed themselves to pull as far away from their beliefs as they would comfortably allow. It has some xian leanings, but not xian based. I don't remember having to pay the 10% tax every Sunday or following this Law: And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched Mark 9:43. How about the fact that G-Dub feels he is doing the right thing to spread christian ideals to the world, but in the process has limited freedom of speech in the Patriot Act. Free Speech, something that we were given by the xian founders. Overall, it seems to me that this country was founded on strong Machievellian ideals.

In response to the Christian Paradox, many christians don't even no how to act christian, let alone the many that label themselves this for the hell of it. The USA overall is currently overrun by ignorant individuals that can't grasp the fact of individuality or what is actually happening in our country, let alone the dismal state it is in. It is these ignorant individuals that feel they have to be labeled democrat or republican, furthermore enhancing the duopoly that has a stranglehold on our country. It is this same train of thought that leads individuals to label themselves christian, because they think they are in a "christian" society. It's like saying that I am an English major if all I do is take math classes. Seriously, the ignorance of others will be the death of us all.

On another note, for future reference, I am from Kennewick, WA...not KenneBUNK, WA. So, FYI, he is the Kennewick Man.

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

outcyder: http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm

quote:

---

There are some differences in the transmitted Greek. The needle in Matthew and Mark is a rafic. In Luke it is a belone. But both are synonyms for needles used in sewing, but Luke's is more likely to be used by a surgeon than a seamstress.

Another possible solution comes from the possibility of a Greek misprint. The suggestion is that the Greek word kamilos ('camel') should really be kamêlos, meaning 'cable, rope', as some late New Testament manuscripts1 actually have here. Hence it is easier to thread a needle with a rope rather than a strand of cotton than for a rich man to enter the kingdom.

---

Even if it were mistranslation, the camel has to crawl through a gate on its knees, only after removing all of its baggage. The passage may not carry exactly the same weight this way, but the message is the same.

money -> greed -> corruption

You don't have to believe in a God to understand that universal truth.

Get it?

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 09-01-2005 09:43)

quote:

---

Raeubu: I'm wondering what the reason for putting xian ideals over Islam and Judaism was? I mean honestly, it seems that in the making of our government, the founding fathers allowed themselves to pull as far away from their beliefs as they would comfortably allow.

---

Native Americans aside, this "Christian nation' thing is a myth and needs to be nipped in the bud, so to speak.

Most of the founding fathers were not actually Christian, but simply deists and agnostics. Some of them, like Jefferson, were actually quite harsh with regard to the Christian religion as evidenced below.

quote:

---

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

---

John Adams also signed the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, which in article 11 states:

quote:

---

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

---

The founding fathers of the US were all quite aware of the dangers of a nation founded on a religion, and Madison, who objected to both tax-exempt status for Churches and state appointed chaplains in Congress, summed it up best:

quote:

---

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

---

There are some quotes from the founding fathers that are often employed by those perpetraing this myth but the passages themselves state "Christian nation" as in majority Christian which was and probably still is true, but not in the sense of actual founding and principles. Many others take the reference of the word "God" out of context in assuming they were referring to one specific religion.

The US founded on a philosophy and system of ethics basically in the realm of "live and let live". The most important principle is derived from that of property, the most important property being one's own body. You are a sovereign and you are free to live your life as you choose so long as you respect other's ppoperty and sovereignty.

Well, that was how it was planned anyway...

quote:

---

It is these ignorant individuals that feel they have to be labeled democrat or republican, furthermore enhancing the duopoly that has a stranglehold on our country.

---

Agreed. I like your line of thinking.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

Kennewick, WA

---

I think that "KenneBUNK" was a play on words...but I could be wrong *shrug*

You are correct, the body in question is known as "The Kenniwick Man". There are also remains of a White Tribe in South America that has been recently found. White Skin, Red hair. There is also the remains of such found in a valley in China.
Since those with Red Hair are more susceptable to Skin Cancer from overexposure to Stong Sunlight, I suspect that these finds are of a Race that came from the North, or from those adapted to a climate that has less Sunlight.

BTW - I used to live in Kennewick (Tri-Cities) - I actually went to College there.

oh ... thanks for explaining the needle thing

although ... the "money -> bad" thinking is only a poor man's grief imo

half of the rich people have earned their riches by obtaining knowlage (learning) and putting it to use .. they are usually the ones who contribute to the society much more than poor people ... technology, jobs, charity etc
since we can't have a ideal society where everyone's absolutely equal ... equally hardworking, honest, smart, well paid etc it's good (and extremely important) to have people who make the society go forward ... since most of us are lazy slobs (i dont exclude myself)

those who don't even try to think creatively and wait for the god to help them are much more to blame...

why did the nazis hate jews? they were jealous because jews were rich (also hardworking and clever but that they failed to notice)

oh ... btw i'm poor ... and lazy ... :P

quote:

---

I think that "KenneBUNK" was a play on words

---

That was probably just a mistake. Kennebunk and Kennebunkport are towns in Maine (the first G. Bush spent vacations there while in office) and the poster may have just confused it with Kennewick.

quote:

---

That was probably just a mistake. Kennebunk and Kennebunkport are towns in Maine (the first G. Bush spent vacations there while in office) and the poster may have just confused it with Kennewick.

---

Ahhh...that would explain why he then made it in reference to my post - thinking that it applied to Native American Indians on the East Coast, instead of the West Coast.

I was kind of wondering why Dio would post such...maybe you are right.

Dio?

(Edited by WebShaman on 09-01-2005 18:52)

Ramasax - got it - thanks

Mea Culpa. Did confuse bunk with wick. No excuse.

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:

---

half of the rich people have earned their riches by obtaining knowlage (learning) and putting it to use .. they are usually the ones who contribute to the society much more than poor people ... technology, jobs, charity etc

---

This is true of people who have to work to get rich. The problem comes in when money is passed down from generation to generation. People tend to spoil their kids. This is not ALWAYS the case though. And it is understandable to want to give your kids things you never had.

My husband and I make pretty decent money, and we are tempted to give her everything we never had growing up. But we don't. She has to earn her way just like we did. It sounds cruel in a way I guess, and it hurts me mighty bad sometimes when other kids have things (like cell phones) that she doesn't, and to have to say "no, unless you can give me a good reason that you need one right now". But she is better off in the long run.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

omg ... ffs ... i wrote "knowlage" again! ... i just keep making that mistake ... this is so stupid... i'm not a native english speaker but i like to think that i can speak english ... oh well ... stupid fingers! ^^

Arthurio - what is your native language? And how long/in what context have you been speaking english?

I ask only because your english is excellent for it not being your native language.

It is better than what is sadly becoming a majority of native enlgish speakers...

(although I *did* spot that 'knowlage' with a shudder... )

I think computer keyboards have a built in typo function, hdden deep down in their electronic guts.

My brain knows how to spell the letters correctly (well, most of the time ) - apparently, my fingers don't.

Stupid computer!

What is more important, spelling or content? Where english is a second language for somone, it seems a tad petty to focus on either spelling or grammer.

At the same time if ESL folks want help with their english, let us be unstinting.

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

He pointed out his own mistake, dio.

I'm simply pointing out that his english is in fact very good

quote:

---

Arthurio - what is your native language? And how long/in what context have you been speaking english?

I ask only because your english is excellent for it not being your native language.

It is better than what is sadly becoming a majority of native enlgish speakers...

(although I *did* spot that 'knowlage' with a shudder... )

---

hmm ... thx ...

my native language is estonian ... (Estonia is south from Finland) ... and the teachers have been trying to teach me english for roughly 10 years now ... since 2. grade ... i'm in highschool now ... last year ... i didn't like english for the first few years ... but then my parents bought me a computer ... and i think it's been going uphill from there ... i've never had any real practice ... (besides internet) ... and oh ... actually i've been taught by a real american for the past 2 years ... although i think watching movies without subtitles has done a much better job...(i've seen hundreds, literally) ... he's too ... american ... but nice guy tho ... everyone likes him ...

most of the young people can speak english around here ... kinda ... and some other languages as well like german and russian ... i've been taking those too (like i had a choice) ... but i can't tell a single sentence ... i don't really like em ^^ (actually some people speak finnish, swedish, french, japanese etc) ... i've seen over a 1000 episodes of anime (all in japanese with english subtitles) ... and i know only a few words ... i don't get it how people can learn japanese from anime ...

ok well ... bye-bye ... i'll shut up now...

quote:

---

Arthurio: ... he's too ... american ... but nice guy tho ... everyone likes him ...

---

As an American, that comment makes too much sense. I'm in Iraq right now and see how other soldiers interact with those that aren't, and it is shameful. And no need to shut up, you write better english than most americans do.

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

(Edited by Raeubu on 09-04-2005 23:06)

quote:

---

Zynx, your posts are getting harder and harder to follow, and you have been resorting to childish comebacks as opposed to explaining your position.

---

Yes I have and that's where frustration comes into play. Mine. Yes my fault. Yet I think too many people are assuming ideas or questions that I have not defended nor asked, based simply on what I post, yet they seem to have my answers already sorted out. example; Just because I was anti-Bush, did not mean I was pro-Kerry. But I'm working on my bad responses.

quote:

---

We get it, you don't think man and animal's natures can be compared, so do you have any educated reasoning for this?

---

First I would ask if you believe in adam & eve? I don't.

quote:

---

I'm wondering what the reason for putting xian ideals over Islam and Judaism was? I mean honestly, it seems that in the making of our government, the founding fathers allowed themselves to pull as far away
from their beliefs as they would comfortably allow.

---

I thought it was known that I was wrong to say such a thing? Which WS showed me why. I thought that was over with?

quote:

---

Do you separate humans from "animals" as a group, or from a specific species, and if so, which one?

---

A specific species. My investigations have shown it is hominid/hominin, depending on your choice of science defintions.

quote:

---

Mans natural behavior indicates that he/she is an animal too, and therefore you can't really separate humans from nature, as you would like to have it.

---

IS an animal or was an animal? While our roots come from nature, we have expanded our minds, beyond the animal way of thinking. Don't you agree?

quote:

---

- According to you then, why is man NOT an animal?

---

According to you. Here is where you have chosen an idea, and now I need to defend it. Again, anti Bush = pro-Kerry.

But for the sake of a debate, man is NOT an animal in may ways, as I have posted already. Let alone man's brain does not process "input" in the same manner as an animal does. Man can reason with other wyas of thought, that an animal can not. I don't know how else to say this, but man is master over beast.

If anyone would like, try and defend the opposite issues here, and show me why everyone thinks that there is NO difference between man and beast. Anyone?

" You are no match for Lord Gorlok! "

(Edited by Zynx on 09-09-2005 02:43)

Man is made of DNA - animals are made of DNA. Take away the support systems, and man acts remarkably like an animal - see New Orleans in recent history.

The make-up of the brain is remarkably similar to the make-up of brains in animals, with the exception of a few evolved areas (see new research results due to the Human Genome Project, and the new results from having mapped the genes of the Chimpanzee) and size.

We share the same basic needs.

There was an experiment done by a Doctor pair, with their children (not that the Doctor pair did get sentenced to prison for this), where they kept their son and daughter isolated from human contact, together in a room, for years - they both exhibited only animal-type actions.

Zynx, how do you think humans learn to talk, to drive, to do all the things that you think "human" is, that seperates Mankind from animals? We learn them from our Family circles, from our societies, and from our learning systems.

A newborn has very little of these things inborn. As it grows and matures, it is heavily reliant on these processes to become that which we consider "human" - taken away, and you have the Human Animal.

The Human Animal is still very much a part of us. It is still there, deep inside. Take away that which allows us to repress it, and it surfaces all too quickly.

quote:

---

Man is made of DNA - animals are made of DNA. Take away the support systems, and man acts remarkably like an animal - see New Orleans in recent history.

---

N.O. is a sad comparison WS. I have never ever said that we don't SHARE animal responses. Yet I consider that MAN can, and does evolve faster, than any animal. That is a small, yet factual proof, of our intelligence, comparable to animals. Sharing DNA does not make us MORE animal, it actually makes us MORE THAN an animal.

quote:

---

The make-up of the brain is remarkably similar to the make-up of brains in animals, with the exception of a few evolved areas (see new research results due to the Human Genome Project, and the new results from having mapped the genes of the Chimpanzee) and size.

---

First off science has shown that evolution in mans brain is not about size or weight. Second I find it quite arrogant of you to discount " a few evolved areas". Those areas contain a wealth of intelligence, that no animal has. Man has evolved over a few thousand years of working with tools and such, yet the apes/chimps still use those rudimentary tools. This clearly shows that a humans brain has evolved past an apes.

quote:

---

Zynx, how do you think humans learn to talk, to drive, to do all the things that you think "human" is, that seperates Mankind from animals? We learn them from our Family circles, from our societies, and from our learning systems.

---

Yes we do. And the IDEAS you mention separate us from the animals. Talking? I think you mean "communications". They differ greatly, between MAN and ANIMAL. Driving? Clearly a HUMAN perception.

quote:

---

The Human Animal is still very much a part of us. It is still there, deep inside. Take away that which allows us to repress it, and it surfaces all too quickly.

---

Under your hypothesys, yes, man will revert to his early emotions, and thinking.

Does MAN share many of the same animal behaviors? Yes.

Does that mean MAN is MORE of an animal, than anything else? No.

Just my opinion(s).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" You are no match for Lord Gorlok! "

quote:

---

N.O. is a sad comparison WS. I have never ever said that we don't SHARE animal responses. Yet I consider that MAN can, and does evolve faster, than any animal. That is a small, yet factual proof, of our intelligence, comparable to animals. Sharing DNA does not make us MORE animal, it actually makes us MORE THAN an animal.

---

Man clearly does not evolve faster than any animal. You need to get your facts straight on this. The human animal doesn't produce fast enough, to evolve faster than a lot of insect species, rodents, etc, not to mention one-celled animals.

New Orleans is a recent event that shows what happens to humans when their support systems fail, and they are reduced to that which we all truly are, the human animal. Accept it.

Sharing DNA with animals does not make us "more" than an animal. That makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever. If we didn't share any of the same DNA with animals, that might support your opinion. Or if our DNA was based on another basis than other animals, that might support your opinion. But the actual sharing of DNA shows that we are also animals - the human animal.

quote:

---

Second I find it quite arrogant of you to discount " a few evolved areas". Those areas contain a wealth of intelligence, that no animal has.

---

This is unproven. It would seem that certain Whale species and Octopus species seem to be very intelligent, as well, and capable of learning quite complex things. You need to be very, very careful when speaking of intelligence, and comparing it. You say "those areas" conatian a "wealth of intelligence" that no animal has. Again, you need to be very careful here. You are admitting (and Science is moving in on) the DNA areas that seem to promote Intelligence. That means that we may be able to promote the same type of intelligence in other species. Are they then not animals, anymore? Are you seriously suggesting, that just because some areas of DNA promote a human-type of intelligence, that such makes any species that has it no longer animals?

You entirely ignore the hard fact that when Man is seperated from his learning systems, that he is reduced to the animal that he is. You offer no explanation, nothing. You just ignore it.

quote:

---

Does MAN share many of the same animal behaviors?

---

Man shares them all, not just many. All animals share the same basic needs.

quote:

---

Does that mean MAN is MORE of an animal, than anything else? No.

---

This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. We are not discussing if man is more or less of an animal. We are talking about if man is an animal, or not.

Man is just an animal, albeit a thinking one. Evidence supports this. Your stance, however, has no evidence supporting it. It is opinion and belief.

Science agrees with me on this - the Human Animal even has an animal name - Homo Sapiens. Guess what Animal "family" we are a part of and organized into.

Good points WS. DId I come off a bit pompous? Trying not to.

I'm gonna read it again, before I have anymore opposing opinions.

And yes, I will post where I find them.

Thank you for having opinions about my opinions, and being cordial.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" You are no match for Lord Gorlok! "

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Man is just an animal, albeit a thinking one. Evidence supports this.
Your stance, however, has no evidence supporting it. It is opinion and belief.

---

I agree that evidence supports that we are most certainly animal, but one cannot conclude that we are *only* animal. Saying that human is *only* an animal is also opinion and belief.

Zynx, I don't think pointing to high intelligence indicates that humans are not animals. As WS points out, there are animals on this planet with very high intelligence.

I believe that what separates human from animal is the ability to think outside of ourselves. I think it's the ability to ask why, to ponder our existence, to distinguish right from wrong, and to long for immortality.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

I agree that evidence supports that we are most certainly animal, but one cannot conclude that we are *only* animal. Saying that human is *only* an animal is also opinion and belief.

---

I would like to see your scientific evidence to the contrary, please.

It is no different than in the existence of God debates. Science has areas it can address and others it simply cannot. Science proves that human beings are indeed animals. Science does not disprove the existence of something more. I think it's important to be clear on these distinctions, right?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

As far as Science is concerned, there is no evidence (that I know of, anyway), that Humans are more than just animals.

If we decide to go outside of the realm of Science, then we can attach whatever we wish to the label human.

So yes, I feel it is important to be clear on these distinctions.

Science is limited in what it can do for us. What do you mean *if* we decide to go outside the realm of science? How can we not? If we did that, we would ignore art, philosophy, religion, etc. Science is an incredible boon for us to know and understand our physical existence but I know you recognize there is "more than this". I'm specifically thinking about your heritage and the knowledge of the spirit world it holds dear.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Yes, but that "spirit world" cannot be scientifically proven, Bugs. So while I hold it dear (and I do, believe me), I cannot prove it to anyone.

These are distinctions that need to be clear (and the ones that I mentioned and have referred to).

Is a "soul" or a "spirit" scientifically measurable? Can such be proven to exist, scientifically?

And conversely, can it be proven scientifically that animals do not have them?

You know I believe in a "Supernature" that contains our Nature (re : everything) within it - that is beyond our science to explain or explore and measure, currently. But scientifically I cannot prove this.

I can hope that maybe one day, it will be possible. Or not, as the case may be.

quote:

---

Is a "soul" or a "spirit" scientifically measurable? Can such be proven to exist, scientifically?

And conversely, can it be proven scientifically that animals do not have them?

You know I believe in a "Supernature" that contains our Nature (re : everything) within it - that is beyond our science to explain or explore and measure, currently. But scientifically I cannot prove this.

I can hope that maybe one day, it will be possible. Or not, as the case may be.

---

Web

Your a paradox.

Your spiritual culture believe animals have spirits and souls for a purpose yet do not recognize humans which are more highly intelligent have souls and spirits for a purpose.

What is the reason why a wolf would have a soul or spirit. Give us all here a lesson in Indian mysticism.

No Jade, you are mis-understanding me (maybe on purpose?) - I do think that all things have spirits. I just cannot prove this, scientifically, one way or the other.

Do you understand this?

quote:

---

I do think that all things have spirits.

---

I am asking you for details....like why do you think all things have spirits. Not why it cannot be proven. Why does your indian culture believe this way? Who started this belief? It had to originate somewhere. Where?

Please enlighten me.

I see where man has it's beginnings, and DNA of animals. I see this more and more I research anything. I didn't do my investigating as thourough as I could have.

When I started in this thread, I was dealing with this idea that, what is seen in the animal world, mirrors man. I can now see that. But no one seems to want to see the many other things man is capable of, that is not seen in the animal world.

These capabilities leap beyond animal beginnings. Previously mentioned actions of man, are not simple ideas. They are amazingly different from anything animal-like.

So while I do now see that man is undeniably animal, it does not mean we are only that.

As for the recent idea of spirit/soul or not, I don't see that having any bearing on man's superiority on this planet. Mystically it might explain things, but after all is said and done, man is on top of the food chain.

exept when he is alone in nature.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

Where it started? With the First People. Back then, Man, Animal, and All Things could speak with one another. My People believe that Man and Animal belong to the People.

There are a number of old stories that describe how these things then came to be how they are now. Most describe fallings out, feyds, jealousy, and such.

I personally see "spirits" as energy fields. I believe these energy fields haven't yet been discovered or measured by science yet. I'm not sure if one can actually "speak" in that sense, with these energy fields, but I do think one can communicate with them (influence).

When one is in a trance state, and one is in the invisible world, I think the brain "translates" such communication (influnces) into a form that we can readily grasp.

(Edited by WebShaman on 09-29-2005 07:37)

Web
Well.... that didn't really answer my question. I wanted maybe some more detailed history on why you believe. It seems you believe they way you do because its just out there in your culture back when somebody started a myth. You seem to not be relating by personal experience, just on what other people have handed down to you by stories.
So your belief has no base or foundation.

Sounds familiar on what you accuse Xians in how they believe.

I "believe" because I have encountered them. Experienced them.

WS, that is the same answer the xians give and is no more supportable.

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

No Dio. I have directly experienced such. I don't consider this the same. You may, but that is unimportant to me. I know what I experienced, and I don't particularly care how you see it.

Well, under what conditions did you enjoy this experience?

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

A couple of times in my dreams, a couple of times in trance, once in a time of great danger.

Many Christians say they have directly experienced the holy spirit.
WebShaman says he has directly experienced spirits in nature.

I don't see the difference.

WebShaman, you may not consider your answer to be the same as the answer the Christians give, yet it is.

quote:

---

I have directly experienced such. I don't consider this the same. You may, but that is unimportant to me. I know what I experienced, and I don't particularly care how you see it.

---

Sounds very much like many of the Christian responses we have seen on many of these threads.

quote:

---

couple of times in my dreams, a couple of times in trance, once in a time of great danger.

---

Well....would you like to share the experience of the encounters, dreams, etc with us? Or, does it have to be a secret tribe tabu kind of thing you cannot relate?

I dream of stuff too and it seems real but it doesn't mean anything unless I want to pin point it to an experience. Or I go off on a meditative daydreaming state every now and then where I forget where I am at.. What makes yours different from mine in the way of my spiritual beliefs?

Well, the dreams are easy - I can control my dreams, so dreaming is a particular pleasure of mine - flying, having adventures - a lot of fun. Sometimes it is fun to just drift along, to see where the dream will take me.

Occasionally, I will have what is called a "waking Dream" - where color, smell, and feel is very, very vivid - it is not possible to tell the dream apart from reality. And control of the Dream in this state, although possible, doesn't always obey the normal laws of dreams (being that you can shape it as you will) - sometimes, though you can shape pieces of it, it seems to have a life and will of its own, that resists such measures - that is the presence of a spirit (or spirits), that is counteracting your will, so I have been told.

Here one can meet spirits, sometimes.

I used to induce these states much easier with a Sensory Deprivation Tank - do you know what that is? Since it removes most of the sensory perception of the body, the brain becomes "starved" for input - and makes reaching very vivid dream-states easy.

Sometimes spirits take the form of animals, sometimes of objects, blobs, patterns, etc. It is a very strange feeling that one gets in their presence - the feeling of sentience. Sometimes they cause the dreamscape, if you will, to react very strangely.

Trances are deep meditative states. There are different levels of Trances, and many incredible things have been scientifically recorded being done by those in Trances. I never really reached any of the really deep levels - that takes years of training and dedication, I am told.

Here the spirits were much better defined (I am told, the mind is able to better concentrate on them in Trance). Though I never took drugs to enter such Trances, I am told there are some drugs that can be used to do so.

I never met any spirits while under the influence of marijuana, speed, mushrooms or LSD.

I'm not interested in discussing the time I was in great danger. That is personal, and belongs to me.

I haven't been active in Trances or in attempting to reach the "Waking Dreams" anymore, since the time of great danger.

quote:

---

Sounds very much like many of the Christian responses we have seen on many of these threads.

---

You may consider it however you choose. But consider this, please - are the memories that you have of events, real? Did those events really happen?

The difference between what I am letting you know, and what they claim, are fundamental, IMHO - I was asked, I did not force you to hear my words. My words are based on real experiences that I have had - you may judge them as you see fit, but that will not change the fact that such has happened to me, that I experienced them.

Spirits, and experiencing them first hand, is not the same as the "Holy Spirit" - not at all. Feeling the "Holy Spirit" is a feeling of great Rapture - I know, I was once a very religous xian and I have experienced it. I can tell you, it is not the same. The feeling in the presence of a spirit is not a feeling of great Rapture, it is a feeling of prickling on the back of your neck - like a superstitous one, that goes right down to your animal core. A feeling off being observed by a sentience, in the presence of one. Some are friendly (well, that is how they "feel" - hard to explain), some are indifferent, and a few are hostile. Some are frollicky, some are mischevious. Some are dangerous. One can interact with spirits (and they in turn, react to what one does). One cannot interact with the Holy Spirit like that.

Again, I do not expect (nor do I need) you to pay any heed to my words or experiences. I am answering that which was asked of me, and pointing out differences in comparisons made.

(Edited by WebShaman on 09-29-2005 21:34)

quote:

---

I "believe" because I have encountered them. Experienced them.

---

thanks for sharing - if you shared it before i must have missed it - it helps me to better understand your points - though your logic still baffles me at times. (i don't play that game very well)

Sorry WS, sounds a whole lot like haluccinations to me.

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

Sooo...your memories are hallucinations, as well?

Well, amybe you are right. Certainly within the realm of possibility.

Well, technically, yes.

But the same can, and has been said about reality as well. One big shared hallucination, or maybe not shared.

All of that doesn't really matter. I have seen things that I "know" do not really exist. Fine. I have memories of things that I could have sworn happened, that did not really happen. Fine. The mind is a complex organ, I have no idea of all the things that are going on in there.

Diogenes, it could be that for you. And it could be something very different to WS. The same exact experience can be interpreted innumerable ways to different people and that is life and the nature of human intelligence.

There is absolutely no problem with this.

The problem comes up when a person decides that their delusions are the only real ones and that everyone must follow them, or face some kind of repercussion.

When you come down to the finality of it, all of our ideas and dreams are not worth anything. Time will go on, and we will all eventually be blotted out.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

The problem comes up when a person decides that their delusions are the only real ones and that everyone must follow them, or face some kind of repercussion.

---

Yes, a very good point.

Now, believe in the spirits, or I'm going to have ta scalp tha lot O yers...

quote:

---

When you come down to the finality of it, all of our ideas and dreams are not worth anything. Time will go on, and we will all eventually be blotted out.

---

I once had a boss who used to say; "In the overall scheme of things fuck all matters." So any time he got on my case about something I would say... 'in the overall.....' =)

quote:

---

"In the overall scheme of things fuck all matters."

---

To which I say, "Every tapestry is made up of threads. Without the threads, no muster or tapestry."

(Edited by WebShaman on 10-02-2005 11:21)

I told ya so; http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16745821%255E30417,00.html

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

Interesting article. Thanks for posting.

This part really stuck out

quote:

---

He suggests most Western nations would become more religious only if the theory of evolution could be overturned and the existence of God proved scientifically. Likewise, the theory of evolution would not enjoy majority support in the US unless there were a marked decline in religious belief.

---

I've been thinking about the Religious Right in America for awhile now. I think I am beiginning to see what I think is a broad, planned attack across the boards - in Government, in the Schools, and in the World.

We all know what has happened in the Muslim world, because of such fanatical thinking. The Taliban, Iran, and Al Qaida (among others).

Do we really want to repeat this with xianity?

WS, it certainly appears there is a voluble group who would dearly love to have fundamentalist xianity rule, at least, the US.

Perhaps we should encourage all such thinkers to spend a year in Afghanistan or some other brutal fundamentalist regime?

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

Wouldn't matter.

Such people would never see the paralell - *their* god is a loving god, *their* religion is the right religion, etc.

I have to agree with DL, here. It really wouldn't make any difference - other than perhaps fueling the faith in one's own god more.

I agree with both of you, it just pleases my sense of justice to imagine them surviving such circumstances.

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:

---

Wouldn't matter. Such people would never see the paralell - *their* god is a loving god, *their* religion is the right religion, etc.

---

Forget about "such people", and their ideals. I only hope that such an attempt would show others that Islam supports itself with ancient non-muslim, ways of thinking.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

quote:

---

Forget about "such people", and their ideals.

---

Hard to forget "such people", when they are making the laws, and blowing themselves up in crowded locals, isn't it?

quote:

---

Zynx said:

Forget about "such people", and their ideals. I only hope that such an attempt would show others that Islam supports itself with ancient non-muslim, ways of thinking.

---

well....'such people' are what we were talking about...

I have no idea what you are trying to say in regard to Islam...

quote:

---

I have no idea what you are trying to say in regard to Islam..

---

I'm glad that someone else is having a hard time understanding what he said about Islam
because

quote:

---

I only hope that such an attempt would show others that Islam supports itself with ancient non-muslim, ways of thinking.

---

makes no sense, whatsoever, to me.

Anyone else want to take a shot at it?

(Edited by WebShaman on 10-05-2005 16:38)

Nope, he is either trying to be enigmatic or is just plain stupid.

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:

---

WebShaman said:

Spirits, and experiencing them first hand, is not the same as the "Holy Spirit" - not at all. Feeling the "Holy Spirit" is a feeling of great Rapture - I know, I was once a very religous xian and I have experienced it.

---

First of all, I thank you for sharing your views about your beliefs, WS. I found it very enlightening and it helps me to understand where you're coming from better. What you say about the Holy Spirit here is incorrect Xianity in my understanding. I assume you're referring to what in the Xian world would be called "charismatic". Many "pentecostal" churches believe that the Holy Spirit can cause a Xian to become "caught up" in the Spirit in sort of a state of ecstasy. Often times it is accompanied by convulsions and speaking in strange tongues or what is thought to be angelic or heavenly language.

I do not believe this kind of experience with the Holy Spirit is from God. I believe it is a practice borrowed from early pagan religions when the church was still young. I think Paul was dealing with this issue in the letters he wrote to the Corinthian church where there were many different religions present in that city.

So I find it particularly interesting that you believe this is how Xianity views interacting with the Holy Spirit.

My understanding of true interaction with the Holy Spirit is one that directly and consistently produces the following traits and actions from a believing Xian: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

quote:

---

WarMage said:

When you come down to the finality of it, all of our ideas and dreams are not worth anything. Time will go on, and we will all eventually be blotted out.

---

This taken to its logical conclusion is what is called nihilism. If you really believe that is true then one can say in the words of one celebrated atheist:

quote:

---

Unless you assume a God, the question of life's purpose is meaningless.

---

Forget that I'm a Xian for the moment. I will tell you that I do assume "God". I begin with that. When we get to the specific God I believe is there, I accept the claims of Xianity but if I had never heard of Christ, I would still believe in a transcendent being. I was thinking about this very thing early this morning. I was thinking back to my earliest memories as a child and how I "knew" of a higher power. I do not offer that as any sort of proof but simply to share my thoughts.

I'm curious to know how the atheists here came to be so. Did you start off thinking there was a god or did you never think there was? I would love to hear about that.

quote:

---

Zynx said:

Forget about "such people", and their ideals. I only hope that such an attempt would show others that Islam supports itself with ancient non-muslim, ways of thinking.

---

I really have no clue as to what you're talking about either, Zynx. But when I first read this sentence the only thing that popped into my mind was how a few of the more horrific practices in the Muslim world can really be traced back to Arab culture and not the Muslim religion. By any chance could that be what you're talking about?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

We all know what has happened in the Muslim world, because of such fanatical thinking. The Taliban, Iran, and Al Qaida (among others).

---

Please be careful to not ignore history on this one. Xianity and Judaism have undergone reformations over the years that challenged and dealt with the fundamentalist/fanatical question. The Muslim religion has yet to do this. It is something that I hope will happen sooner rather than later.

The Judeo-Christian tradition upon which much of our American experience is based is really a unique entity. American Xianity is very much different that European Xianity for instance. Take a look at how the European Xians treated the Jews over the centuries whereas American Xians are the best friends Jews have ever had.

While there is certainly a fringe element in this country among the religious right, I don't think you guys fully understand most Xians and otherwise religious people in this country. There are a great many educated and decent people that are not always as vocal as the radicals who I think you underestimate.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Your posts are very very defensive.

First you guess what I mean, while assuming the worst, and then you blame me for it.

Your all just a bit too paranoid don't ya think?

quote:

---

Perhaps we should encourage all such thinkers to spend a year in Afghanistan or some other brutal fundamentalist regime?

---

quote:

---

I only hope that such an attempt would show others that Islam supports itself with ancient non-muslim, ways of thinking.

---

Meaning that if this did happen, I would hope that at the very least, people would see how archaic the islamic fundamentalists live.

Better?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

Better? Not enough for me. I'm just really trying to understand what you mean, that's all.

What do you mean by archaic? Do you mean primitive? Impoverished? What?

At one time in history, the 7th century, the Muslim world was a center of learning, art, and high culture. They were even relatively tolerant of the Xian and Jewish minorities.

Many of the Islamic fundamentalists that are at the heart of blowing up innocent civilians are highly eduacted and come from very rich families. Bin Laden's family immensely wealthy and several of the 9/11 bombers came from very well off backgrounds as well.

So I'm still a bit unclear on your exact point.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Better? Not enough for me. I'm just really trying to understand what you mean, that's all. What do you mean by archaic? Do you mean primitive? Impoverished? What?

---

Archaic, meaning they deal with reality based on ancient ways of thinking. Sentences in a I.F.R. are riddled with the lack of human rights, and even common sense. Unless you are just as archaic as they R, to think that cutting off the hands of those who rob, is a law that WORKS. Let alone in this day & age.

quote:

---

Many of the Islamic fundamentalists that are at the heart of blowing up innocent civilians are highly educated and come from very rich families.

---

You discount the FACT, that I.F's will forever believe that humans fall into 2 categories. Muslim or UN-Muslim. Not Muslim against NON-Muslim. Again, this is not a great stretch of the original teachings of islam itself.

quote:

---

Bin Laden's family immensely wealthy and several of the 9/11 bombers came from very well off backgrounds as well. So I'm still a bit unclear on your exact point.

---

To instill the belief of killing innocents, will bring you closer to ALLAH, is NOT an Islamic belief, nor is it an intelligent decision. Being, "Very well Off", will not change that FACT!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

speaking of defensive....

I'm sorry, but I have tried and tried....I just *don't* get what your point actually is.
That goes for the majority of the things you post.

I don't know what else to say at this point...

~shrug~

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

quote:
WarMage said:

When you come down to the finality of it, all of our ideas and dreams are not worth anything. Time will go on, and we will all eventually be blotted out.


This taken to its logical conclusion is what is called nihilism. If you really believe that is true then one can say in the words of one celebrated atheist:

quote:Unless you assume a God, the question of life's purpose is meaningless.

---

What warmage said does in any logical sense lead to nihilism!
This way of thinking goes right along with the 'god hole' theory. Some people have one...some people don't.

You assume your god, and therefore everything else by necessity follows that.

To remove god from the picture does not remove meaning.

You may recall that I have very often stated that our lives have only one actual purpose: to recreate and die. Like every other species of plant or animal.

It is important to distinguish here the vast difference between meaning and purpose. The two are not interchangeable.

To acknowledge that life is devoid of the purpose some of us might wish were there is not to despair of living a life of meaning. It is not to 'believe in nothing' or to live a life without care, without love, without effort and consideration.
The meaning of life is what you make it.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

Xianity and Judaism have undergone reformations over the years that challenged and dealt with the fundamentalist/fanatical question.

---

That does not by any stretch eliminate the reemergence of the same fanatacism that has plagued christianity throughout its history.
These reformations you speak of began right at the beginning, and have never stopped. To sugest that such intolerant fanatacism is done and gone because the religious institution has 'undergone reformations' is frightening. The famous reformation of the 16th century was hardly the first or last. We see a great many people and groups here in the US who would absolutely push into a strict theocracy, which would be no better than the arabic cultures we condemn as inhumane.

quote:

---

Zynx said:

You discount the FACT, that I.F's will forever believe that humans fall into 2 categories. Muslim or UN-Muslim.

---

If I'm understanding you correctly, then I agree that they do. Islamic fundamentalists believe that there is one true religion and you have those who follow it and those who don't. I'm not discounting that as a fact at all.

quote:

---

Zynx said:

To instill the belief of killing innocents, will bring you closer to ALLAH, is NOT an Islamic belief...

---

We need to be clearer about this. There are Islamic clerics who have specifically sanctioned the killing of innocents as a part of the faith. Bin Laden received "clearance", so to speak, for his acts of terror against civilians from a very radical branch of Islam that happens to be quite strong in Saudi Arabia. So it is, in fact, an Islamic belief of *some* Muslim clerics and their followers.

So if you do not think it is an Islamic belief, then what are you saying it is? Are you saying it is an illegitimate belief based on the Quran?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

So I find it particularly interesting that you believe this is how Xianity views interacting with the Holy Spirit.

---

This has been my experiences with the Xian Faith. I have seen such practices in most of the churches that I used to attend to.

quote:

---

My understanding of true interaction with the Holy Spirit is one that directly and consistently produces the following traits and actions from a believing Xian: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

---

I find this rather interesting, because it is what is also put forward by Buddhists, Moslems, other religions, and also a state that one attains through meditation.

Many Athiests that I know have these traits - and they are definitely not connected in any way to a "Holy Spirit" Bugs.

It is also not something that I personally experienced as a Xian.

You will also recall the times when you have asked me about Meaning and Purpose. I explained back then that one could have both, without needing a god or a religion.

Bugs:

quote:

---

There are a great many educated and decent people that are not always as vocal as the radicals who I think you underestimate.

---

I'd like to see this group of educated and decent people being a LOT more vocal. When that brain-dead Rat Robertson called for the assassination of ??? (name escapes) I saw but ONE *moderate* religous leader denounce him and it wasn't much of a rebuke at that. There may have been more who denounced Robertson but it really doesn't matter... my point is; why are the 'moderates' not organizing and standing up against the far right? I find it rather odd.

quote:

---

speaking of defensive....

---

I'm only defensive of your insinuations.

quote:

---

I'm sorry, but I have tried and tried....I just *don't* get what your point actually is. That goes for the majority of the things you post. I don't know what else to say at this point...~shrug~

---

If ya don't get my jist, then don't post insinuations. Unless you feel the need to be the Ozone hammer, and I'm the nail. If so, then hammer away chum. Maybe we can both learn something from each other?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

quote:

---

If I'm understanding you correctly, then I agree that they do. Islamic fundamentalists believe that there is one true religion and you have those who follow it and those who don't. I'm not discounting that as a fact at all.

---

Yes U R. Although that seems to be a rare happenstance around here. Of course it's my fault I'm so misunderstood, but I appreciate your patience with my lack of being a better communicator.

quote:

---

We need to be clearer about this. There are Islamic clerics who have specifically sanctioned the killing of innocents as a part of the faith. Bin Laden received "clearance", so to speak, for his acts of terror against civilians from a very radical branch of Islam that happens to be quite strong in Saudi Arabia. So it is, in fact, an Islamic belief of *some* Muslim clerics and their followers.So if you do not think it is an Islamic belief, then what are you saying it is? Are you saying it is an illegitimate belief based on the Quran?

---

Bug, I really wanted to distance myself from the possibility that such thnking is in the Quran, but it seems that I can not deny that fact. I wanted to believe that such thinking was solely the property of the fundamentalists. So what I feared seems to be true. That Islam itself is corrupt. I lived with my uncle for 6 + years, an indian muslim from South Africa. I always heard from him that it was clerics like the one you mentioned, and others who legitimize the killing of innocents, are bastardizing the Quran.

I guess I was wrong. I think I am now totally against this book, the Quran. It is now clear that this book expresses such fundamentalist principles. Yet now I think that a "good" muslim, is a "blind" muslim.

I think I need to go back to the "drawing board" on this one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

quote:

---

Zynx said:

I'm only defensive of your insinuations.

---

What insinuations would those be?

quote:

---

Zynx said:

Unless you feel the need to be the Ozone hammer, and I'm the nail.

---

Good god, man, what the fuck are you talking about?????

Zynx,

There are moderate Muslim theologians who do not support killing in the name of Islam.

It is mainly the thinking of fundamentalists who have interpreted the Quran in that way.

As far as I can tell, this is a particular branch of Islam that has gained in strength over the last several decades. I believe it has existed for centuries but it was kept in check by stronger factions such as the Ottomans.

I would like to believe your uncle was correct in saying these radical clerics are bastardizing the religion. Unfortunately, most Muslims are not allowed the option of interpretting the Quran so liberally. Islamic law is very strict in that regard.

I mentioned above the lack of reformation in Islam. I was talking about this very thing. There are verses in the Bible that one can interpret to mean to commit violence against unbelievers. But there are liberal factions and conservative factions within the Xian world. There is broad opinions on these issues and not every Xian walks in lock step on a great many issues.

This is simply not the case in the Muslim world. The moderates have a very weak voice and following and I'm not even sure there are many liberals at all. I think Turkey is one of the few (perhaps the only?) countries where a secular government was imposed and as a result, you find more of the moderate clerics there.

So I'm not sure you should conclude that Islam itself is corrupt. I don't think it needs to be that way. I think it's a matter of a more moderate interpretation becoming the norm and winning out over the militant fundamentalists. If this happens, it will take many years to play out with many more deaths and suffering I'm sorry to say. But it is the only way out of this mess that I can see.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Zynx, I've known DL-44 for quite a while now. I really don't think he's trying to give you a hard time. I think he's just having trouble, as am I, in getting a clear meaning from your posts. Perhaps you can just take a little extra time to say what you want.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Zynx,

There are a number of very civilized and polite people here, fortunately I am not so constrained.

I believe you may not be emotionally mature enough to take part in this...or any other forum aimed at anyone over the age of 16.

Your posts are often...usually; disjointed, incomplete as to thought or sentence structure, incomprehensible, off topic, irellevant and or just plain silly.

Then, when somone has the temeity to question your deathless prose with a simple 'Huh? Whuzzat mean?", you get defensive and accuse people of attacking you or otherwise trying to muzzle you.

Your own words muzzle you, no one here can very often figure out what you are trying to say and I must say, they have shown remarkable courtesy and patience in your case.

Perhaps you will find this plain talk easier to comprehend?

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:

---

Nope, he is either trying to be enigmatic or is just plain stupid.

---

This is the end result of someone not understanding what I post.

It's not that I'm defensive, it's that I am forced to be defensive, with people willing to pop off against a post they don't undestand, and I end up looking like some foolish half-ling, with a - 10 intelligence!

I could post something about a tree, and if I'm misunderstood, the rants continue, until the ends result is that I'm anti-tree hugging nazi, who want to burn the world down!

Can you see how I am the one forced to defend, NOT what I post, but rather what others now think of me, simply based on what others thought I meant, and so on, and so on?

It's like I'm stuck in a frickin' web!

I'm sorry I don't present a thesis during a discussion. I'm sorry I'm not as thurough as other. I'm sorry I don't google every single thought I have, before I post it.

DL, I guess I'm just sorry.

No one need change their ways, I still have to learn some here.

Enjoyable Ozone is. It's like I'm in a room with professors.

DIO, criticism accepted.

Bugs, I'd like to re-read your last post, and come back when I have finished my thesis on the idea.

Always I good read with you folks.

This is harder than I thought. Oops I thought!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

quote:

---

Zynx said:

Can you see how I am the one forced to defend, NOT what I post, but rather what others now think of me, simply based on what others thought I meant, and so on, and so on?

---

No. Because nobody seems to understand what the hell you are trying to say in the first place. And many of us have tried *very* hard to figure it out, and to make sure you are not simply excluded from conversation.
But every time you come back, you do so either with a giant chip on your shoulder, or off on a tangent that spirals off with no trail to follow...

You seem to want to make this a matter of perception - but when a group as diverse as the one we have here seems to be unanimously not getting what you are saying....perhaps it's time to reevaluate what you are saying and how.

This is a group of people who disagree about almost everything.

But we all seem to agree that you don't make sense a great deal of the time.

~shrug~

quote:

---

This is a group of people who disagree about almost everything.

---

Truer words were never said! Amen!

quote:

---

But we all seem to agree that you don't make sense a great deal of the time.

---

And that is the bottom line.

Ok. Thank you both.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

James02=Gideon
Sorry, I got tired of the facade. Gideon is a cool name and all, but it isn't mine.

D-man, when I was re-registering my name the form said this site is for ages 13 or older. Although this particular forum may, at times, go completely over the heads of a few.

Zynx, I want you to do something for me. When you type a response, re-read it for content and coherency. I have incoherent thoughts, and have been doing that more recently, and a few Asylumites on here will agree that it will help.

So while we are on the subject of Islam, has anyone else had troubles finding out what Islam is really about? I read a book that was supposed to explain principals about it and all I got was some propaganda and a story about the foundation. Anyone know a good source for info?

"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

http://www.religioustolerance.org/islam.htm

always a good place to start...

Read the Koran. It is THE book when it comes to Islam.

After all, if one were to ask "what book should I read that explains xianity?" - what would you answer?

WebShaman: This one without a doubt.

Now *that's* a fitting title if ever there was one =)

I'm still chuckling...

Oh Yah. Staight through the meat to te bone!

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

Romans, or John. Romans is more of an argument piece, while I would recommend John for a new believer.

I'm sure that reading the Koran would give me an understanding of what Islam is. But, I was hoping more for a short verson with some explainations of key beliefs, unfortunately I don't have the time, or the drive, (right now) to read the Koran. Can anyone help me? I would go to some Christian sites that explain Islam (because I have found some), but I would think they are a little biased.

"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

James02-Gideon: You should try that book.

Sorry I had to suggest that one. Anyhow, I'm pretty sure you'll find some valuable and concise informations in it.

quote:

---

NoJive said:

I'd like to see this group of educated and decent people being a LOT more vocal. When that brain-dead Rat Robertson called for the assassination of ??? (name escapes) I saw but ONE *moderate* religous leader denounce him and it wasn't much of a rebuke at that. There may have been more who denounced Robertson but it really doesn't matter... my point is; why are the 'moderates' not organizing and standing up against the far right? I find it rather odd.

---

I've figured it's a rule of thumb in both religious and secular organizations that the "good" people are usually too busy to take up leadership positions. Often times it is because they are too busy being the "good" people they are. Unfortunately, this leaves a gap that is too easily and enthusiastically filled by the very vocal and cerebrally challenged.

I cringe when I hear Pat Robertson make those types of pronouncements. The left wing should do the same when their fringe makes similar ones; like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. writing that "Perhaps it was Barbour?s memo that caused Katrina, at the last moment, to spare New Orleans and save its worst flailings for the Mississippi coast." ( "For They That Sow the Wind Shall Reap the Whirlwind" )

Usually about the best it gets is a distancing from those fringe members but rarely an outright denunciation. This just seems to be the way the game is played from what I can tell.

[edit]
James, the link DL-44 provided is a very good place to get information. Perhaps you could start with that.
[/edit]

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 10-12-2005 02:53)