View Full Version : america and australia 'gayest' countries
research as shown that 17% of australians and americans are in homosexual relationships
it puts them top of the world league
also 47% of australians said they faked orgasms atleast once
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_822042.html?menu=news.latestheadlines
cant find the research paper so i dont know what the uk's rating is :p
downquark1
25-09-2003, 20:41
also 47% said they faked orgasms in australia atleast once I didn't know 47% of americans holidayed in Australia
Originally posted by downquark1
I didn't know 47% of americans holidayed in Australia
well said sir :p
I ended up faking orgasm's with an ex.
downquark1
25-09-2003, 20:47
also 47% of australians said they faked orgasms atleast once
Considering that it is usually women who fake orgasms (or so I'm told;) ), and 50% of any nation are women, this is quite funny.:p
Forgive me if I've just stated the obvious, my head is a bit clayed with a cold.
I doubt this. You're telling me almost 1 in 5 have homosexual relationships? No.
downquark1
25-09-2003, 21:30
Originally posted by Jerrek
I doubt this. You're telling me almost 1 in 5 have homosexual relationships? No.
Why not?
My theory is that by excepting Homosexual actvity and not forcing gays into hetrosexual marriages, this will cause them to become extinct in the future - unless they have surragote children.
Originally posted by Jerrek
I doubt this. You're telling me almost 1 in 5 have homosexual relationships? No.
And you're basing your answer on what? Personal research or your homophobia?
Originally posted by Bifta
And you're basing your answer on what? Personal research or your homophobia?
Any statistic promoted by homosexual pressure groups is open to question. Let's not forget, they dreamed up the statistic that one-in-three people is gay about 10-15 years ago, and got ever so upset when some unbiased scientific research subsequently suggested it was more like one in 30.
And let's not bandy words like 'homophobia' about the forum; it's just an emotionally-charged and rather childish accusation designed to intimidate people into accepting the contrary point of view. It is possible to believe there's something not right about homosexuality without being scared of gay people.
Originally posted by towny
It is possible to believe there's something not right about homosexuality without being scared of gay people.
what do you mean not right ?
just because its not a man and a women doesent mean its wrong then again i have nothing against homosexuality........
Originally posted by kronas
what do you mean not right ?
just because its not a man and a women doesent mean its wrong then again i have nothing against homosexuality........
Well ... let me turn that on its head. You tell me why it is right.
downquark1
25-09-2003, 22:33
Originally posted by morris
why do you use gay as a insult then? (gaycube) Don't start that again:spin: :spin:
Downquark1 cowers in fear
Originally posted by towny
Well ... let me turn that on its head. You tell me why it is right.
there is nothing wrong with it im merely stating that tolerance should be shown in certain situations and this is one of them
Originally posted by morris
why do you use gay as a insult then? (gaycube)
seen as the humor doesent rub off some people........
its a joke used since .com get used to it :rolleyes:
Originally posted by kronas
there is nothing wrong with it im merely stating that tolerance should be shown in certain situations and this is one of them
But there's a difference between believing something is wrong and being intolerant.
And you still haven't said why there's nothing wrong with it.
downquark1
25-09-2003, 22:42
Originally posted by towny
Well ... let me turn that on its head. You tell me why it is right. Being a 'free' country something is right until proven otherwise.
downquark1
25-09-2003, 22:43
seen as the humor doesent rub off some people........
its a joke used since .com get used to it Let me in on the joke. Are you calling kids gay or just the colour purple, of course my cube is black. But anyway :notopic:
Originally posted by downquark1
Being a 'free' country something is right until proven otherwise.
But I didn't mean in a narrow, legal sense. And in any case, plenty of countries have a legal system which tells you what you can do, not what you can't.
In a moral and biological sense, why is it right? I don't think the answer 'because it isn't wrong' will do.
Originally posted by towny
And you still haven't said why there's nothing wrong with it.
there is nothing wrong with homosexuality because it does not harm a hetrosexual though you could argue the disease risk is alot higher in homosexuality but there are also risks with hetrosexual sex......
gay people are humans they have a right to live as they please if it be a more feminine or the alternate for the female side approach........
Lord Nikon
25-09-2003, 22:53
Originally posted by Jerrek
I doubt this. You're telling me almost 1 in 5 have homosexual relationships? No.
Take a look at 4 friends.... if they are all straight... that means you are the one...
downquark1
25-09-2003, 22:55
In a moral and biological sense, why is it right? I don't think the answer 'because it isn't wrong' will do. In the biological sense you are right it is an anomaly, but so is having a large nose. If you start looking in biology terms there is no right or wrong, just what exists and what doesn't. As I've mentioned before if the anomalous genes aren't passed on it will be likely they will become extinct, or we will all become bisexual.:erm:
Originally posted by kronas
there is nothing wrong with homosexuality because it does not harm a hetrosexual though you could argue the disease risk is alot higher in homosexuality but there are also risks with hetrosexual sex......
gay people are humans they have a right to live as they please if it be a more feminine or the alternate for the female side approach........
OK, good answer - you say something is right because it does not harm someone else. I can certainly go so far as to say the fact that it harms no-one else is in its favour, but aren't there other considerations?
To take one possible example: if you come from an entirely humanistic perspective, that we are all just highly evolved self-replicating chemicals, whose sole purpose is to reproduce, how can homosexuality be right when it promotes behaviour that by its nature prevents the passing of DNA from one generation to the next?
Originally posted by towny
OK, good answer - you say something is right because it does not harm someone else. I can certainly go so far as to say the fact that it harms no-one else is in its favour, but aren't there other considerations?
To take one possible example: if you come from an entirely humanistic perspective, that we are all just highly evolved self-replicating chemicals, whose sole purpose is to reproduce, how can homosexuality be right when it promotes behaviour that by its nature prevents the passing of DNA from one generation to the next?
But it doesn't prevent it does it? Makes it less likely yes. But then again, so do contraceptives.
downquark1
25-09-2003, 23:00
To take one possible example: if you come from an entirely humanistic perspective, that we are all just highly evolved self-replicating chemicals, whose sole purpose is to reproduce, how can homosexuality be right when it promotes behaviour that by its nature prevents the passing of DNA from one generation to the next? The reason it has been passed on is because of homophobic opinion forcing them into hetrosexual marriages. If something doesn't work it disappears, but human 'intelligence' has prevented this.
Originally posted by downquark1
The reason it has been passed on is because of homophobic opinion forcing them into hetrosexual marriages. If something doesn't work it disappears, but human 'intelligence' has prevented this.
That is assuming that homosexuality is all in the genes of course, which it may, or may not be.
But I think Towny was talking about passing on DNA regardless of whether homosexuality is in the genes.
downquark1
25-09-2003, 23:14
Originally posted by danielf
That is assuming that homosexuality is all in the genes of course, which it may, or may not be.
But I think Towny was talking about passing on DNA regardless of whether homosexuality is in the genes. I'm saying it is not right in biological terms, but if it wasn't for homphobia it would be a lot less wide spread.
Originally posted by downquark1
I'm saying it is not right in biological terms, but if it wasn't for homphobia it would be a lot less wide spread.
Yes, I certainly agree that in a homophobic society homosexual people are more likely to reproduce.
Originally posted by towny
To take one possible example: if you come from an entirely humanistic perspective, that we are all just highly evolved self-replicating chemicals, whose sole purpose is to reproduce, how can homosexuality be right when it promotes behaviour that by its nature prevents the passing of DNA from one generation to the next?
i dont think everyone is going to turn gay :p
i see your point though i still believe that we can all live together in peace yes humans need to reproduce and that will still happen i dont think reproduction will be 'wiped out'
I am not arguing the ethics of homosexuality. I'm just thinking that the 1:5 ratio is a bit off. Quite a bit actually.
And please stop with the homophobic reason. It is silly.
downquark1
25-09-2003, 23:28
Originally posted by kronas
i dont think everyone is going to turn gay :p
i see your point though i still believe that we can all live together in peace yes humans need to reproduce and that will still happen i dont think reproduction will be 'wiped out' As I've said if we ignore the problem it will go away;). But I think if it was known generally homosexuals would protest.
philip.j.fry
25-09-2003, 23:30
Originally posted by kronas
gay people are humans they have a right to live as they please if it be a more feminine or the alternate for the female side approach........
I think you're confusing homosexuality with transgender.
Originally posted by Jerrek
I am not arguing the ethics of homosexuality. I'm just thinking that the 1:5 ratio is a bit off. Quite a bit actually.
And please stop with the homophobic reason. It is silly.
I think you're right. 1/5 is ridiculous. The fact that the article says 'research has shown' doesn't mean it's true. It sounds like a load of bo**ocks to me.
Originally posted by philip.j.fry
I think you're confusing homosexuality with transgender.
no i meant some homosexuals have diffarent lifestyles not there clothing (strictly).......
i think some oppose to that though.......
Originally posted by downquark1
As I've said if we ignore the problem it will go away;).
Firstly, thank you for pointing out that I and people like me are a 'problem', secondly, nice theory but it doesn't work like that DQ.
Genes are not passed on directly, from one generation to another, otherwise you would be genetically identical to your father (a sobering thought, for me at least :eek: ).
The way genetic evolution works is not fully understood, it has not been proven that 'gay' genes would just disappear, especially in a population of 3+ billion humans, well not for a few million years, if ever.
I'm afraid that this little 'problem' is here to stay. Unless you guys decide like Hitler, that you should help evolution along and send us all to concentration camps (no pun interned) and gas us all!:rolleyes:
Oh, and a note for Kronie, I would have thought that the chances of you catching anything from a 'gay' would be the same if not less than from a hetrosexual. I and all of my 'gay' friends take great care in what we do, which is very different to many of my 'straight' friends that go out, cop off and use nothing, sometimes in foreign countrys :rolleyes:
In fact, lets lay some cards on the table. I know that you CAN'T catch anything from me, becaue I have had regular sexual health checkups since I was sexualy active. I am clean as a whistle, how many of the straight people on here can say that they know they are?:)
Originally posted by dellwear
Oh, and a note for Kronie, I would have thought that the chances of you catching anything from a 'gay' would be the same if not less than from a hetrosexual. I and all of my 'gay' friends take great care in what we do, which is very different to many of my 'straight' friends that go out, cop off and use nothing, sometimes in foreign countrys :rolleyes:
In fact, lets lay some cards on the table. I know that you CAN'T catch anything from me, becaue I have had regular sexual health checkups since I was sexualy active. I am clean as a whistle, how many of the straight people on here can say that they know they are?:)
im on your side :rolleyes:
yes sorry im not quite sure if there is a diffarence i certainly didnt mean to offend you :)
Originally posted by towny
Any statistic promoted by homosexual pressure groups is open to question. Let's not forget, they dreamed up the statistic that one-in-three people is gay about 10-15 years ago, and got ever so upset when some unbiased scientific research subsequently suggested it was more like one in 30.
And let's not bandy words like 'homophobia' about the forum; it's just an emotionally-charged and rather childish accusation designed to intimidate people into accepting the contrary point of view. It is possible to believe there's something not right about homosexuality without being scared of gay people.
Can I just point out that homophobia is not just an irrational fear of homosexuality and homosexuals it is actually also contempt shown for both, behaviour normally reserved for the more religious on this forum, the ones that fear what they don't understand and tell everyone how it's wrong because their vicar/pastor/priest/preacher/bible told them so ....
Originally posted by Jerrek
I am not arguing the ethics of homosexuality. I'm just thinking that the 1:5 ratio is a bit off. Quite a bit actually.
And please stop with the homophobic reason. It is silly.
Ah so you're saying I might be wrong .. fair enough, so me being wrong infers that you think homosexuality is perfectly acceptable?
Lord Nikon
26-09-2003, 00:18
My philosophy on sexuality is simple.... To each their own.
Personally I am heterosexual, but I have no problem with people who are bi / homosexual, this is their choice. Love can take many forms, attraction too, as long as people are happy with the decisions they make, and the direction their lives follow, then good luck to them, there are many of us who would envy their happiness.
We shouldn't condemn people for their sexual preference, as long as it is between consenting adults. and I MUST stress the word consenting.
I would also point out that biblically, god created man in HIS own image.... this could be interpreted as narcissism / borderline homosexuality. It wasn't until later that Eve was created. Then it depicts eve as being the one who tempted Adam into eating the apple.
It is only a matter of society interpreting homosexuality as "abnormal" in current views.... In roman times it was embraced, as in other cultures throughout history.
People have the right to choose what they want.. and as long as both parties are happy with this, I see no wrong in it.
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
My philosophy on sexuality is simple.... To each their own.
Personally I am heterosexual, but I have no problem with people who are bi / homosexual, this is their choice. Love can take many forms, attraction too, as long as people are happy with the decisions they make, and the direction their lives follow, then good luck to them, there are many of us who would envy their happiness.
We shouldn't condemn people for their sexual preference, as long as it is between consenting adults. and I MUST stress the word consenting.
It is only a matter of society interpreting homosexuality as "abnormal" in current views.... In roman times it was embraced, as in other cultures throughout history.
People have the right to choose what they want.. and as long as both parties are happy with this, I see no wrong in it.
that is correct i also agree and think this couldnt have put it better myself :)
dialanothernumb
26-09-2003, 00:29
Originally posted by Bifta
Can I just point out that homophobia is not just an irrational fear of homosexuality and homosexuals it is actually also contempt shown for both, behaviour normally reserved for the more religious on this forum, the ones that fear what they don't understand and tell everyone how it's wrong because their vicar/pastor/priest/preacher/bible told them so ....
Homophobe means fear of man/men in reality. You could be queer as a coot or as straight as er.. Rock Hudson... anyway and still be afraid of men
I think homophobe as a label of behaviour is totally insulting and in its own way prejudiced... If someone is saying something intolerant, they're intolerant... if it's something you agree with, they're agreeable.
Okay, so I'm a bloke. I'm in a room with another bloke, a woman and a brick. I fancy the woman, I like the man but I just can't imaging showing any feeling towards a brick, and can't understand how anyone else could. I'm a brickophobe? No
Having talked to gay friends (M and F) I can see their love for their partners, varies from situation to situation and mirrors heteros in every way, but before I talked with these guys, I could not fathom how this all manifested, bit like the brick
Lord Nikon
26-09-2003, 00:32
hey kronas.. you wanna check your medications? you just agreed with something I said :D
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
hey kronas.. you wanna check your medications? you just agreed with something I said :D
my medication is fine same as always i just agree with people who are sensible ;) :p
having seen infront of me as well as from a distance homosexual kissing (man on man girl on girl) it didnt bother me i did not move or flinch i was comfortable tolerance is something some people lack they were just doing what hetrosexual people do but with the same sex as them...........
dialanothernumb
26-09-2003, 00:38
Originally posted by kronas
my medication is fine same as always i just agree with people who are sensible ;) :p
having seen infront of me as well as from a distance homosexual kissing (man on man girl on girl) it didnt bother me i did not move or flinch i was comfertable tolerance is something some people lack they were just doing what hetrosexual people do but with the same sex as them...........
Sorry, but.... girl on girl and you didn't flinch.... not a bit of you...? Your medication is a high dose then?
Originally posted by dialanothernumb
Sorry, but.... girl on girl and you didn't flinch.... not a bit of you...? Your medication is a high dose then?
come on they were what i term a little too male looking 'butch' :rolleyes:
dialanothernumb
26-09-2003, 00:45
Joking aside, though it is a serious point. There are aspects of same sex relationships even us heteros can understand immediately, just so long as there's a context that is familiar. If you lash out with the phrase homophobe the shutters go up on even this little chink of understanding so, never use the word!! (note to self : probably got that message, Dial, back off!!)
Originally posted by kronas
come on they were what i term a little too male looking 'butch' :rolleyes:
But you fancy that bitch Bovril Latrine, she looks like a boy. K, come on, you can't fool us, we know you :p
Ah so you're saying I might be wrong .. fair enough, so me being wrong infers that you think homosexuality is perfectly acceptable?
That is not the point of the discussion. The discussion was concerning the ratios of homosexual to heterosexuals. My personal beliefs is of no importance.
Homophobic refers to, "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."
Originally posted by dellwear
But you fancy that bitch Bovril Latrine, she looks like a boy. K, come on, you can't fool us, we know you :p
OI!!! shes 100% female :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
and its avril lavigne
*dellwear is on kronas hitlist :p
Originally posted by kronas
OI!!! shes 100% female :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
and its avril lavigne
*dellwear is on kronas hitlist :p
Is that like UDTs little black book???:p :p :D
Edit - she's got a bigger dick than all of us put together, just look at her ties!! :D
Originally posted by dellwear
Is that like UDTs little black book???:p :p :D
Edit - she's got a bigger dick than all of us put together, just look at her ties!! :D
check your pm's women :p
Originally posted by Jerrek
That is not the point of the discussion. The discussion was concerning the ratios of homosexual to heterosexuals. My personal beliefs is of no importance.
Homophobic refers to, "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."
ho·moà ƒÆ’‚·phoÃà †â€™ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚·bià ‚·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-fb-)
n.
Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
Behavior based on such a feeling.
And I agree, your personal beliefs are of absolutely no importance whatsoever ;) I was merely curious, you don't actually have to answer the question if you choose not to.
I daren't check mine, all this PMing scares me, is it going to be a PM bomb or somthing?;)
Originally posted by dellwear
is it going to be a PM bomb or somthing?;)
Bizarre, I was just reading a section of a book called 'Provo's: The IRA and Sinn Fein' covering the Brighton Bomb where Maggie (the c*nt) narrowly avoided meeting her maker and I look up and see this .. ok, so the likelyhood is only I find it bizarre ...
downquark1
26-09-2003, 08:49
Firstly, thank you for pointing out that I and people like me are a 'problem', secondly, nice theory but it doesn't work like that DQ.
Genes are not passed on directly, from one generation to another, otherwise you would be genetically identical to your father (a sobering thought, for me at least ).
The way genetic evolution works is not fully understood, it has not been proven that 'gay' genes would just disappear, especially in a population of 3+ billion humans, well not for a few million years, if ever. I meant it is only a 'problem' in biological terms because it prevents reproduction (I am refering to all animals not just humans). I don't see it as a social problem, I have every support for homosexuallity - I was merely taking my harsh scientific reality stance. And yes I was refering to millions of years.
Originally posted by Bifta
Can I just point out that homophobia is not just an irrational fear of homosexuality and homosexuals it is actually also contempt shown for both, behaviour normally reserved for the more religious on this forum, the ones that fear what they don't understand and tell everyone how it's wrong because their vicar/pastor/priest/preacher/bible told them so ....
Oh come on. I refuse to accept that you believe that. If you have paid any attention at all to the posts I have made on other subjects you can't possibly believe I am somehow brainwashed or cowering in a corner like a fearful medieval peasant. I believe what I do based, yes, on faith, but also on almost 15 years of study, thought and discussion like this. I was having this very debate at university more than 10 years ago.
I'll lay it on the line just so no-one thinks I'm hiding anything. I believe homosexual practice is wrong. It is a behaviour other than what we were created for. But then, as you already know, I believe heterosexual activity outside of marriage is also wrong. Right and wrong is a very black-and-white thing with God; one bad thing is not worse than another. Something is either good or bad. The 'urges' that people have to do one thing or the other are a result of 'sin'; this is a fundamental human disease. I have them, although not in a homosexual sense. My friends have them (and at least one of them is gay), everyone has them.
I accept this as reality. I read it in the Bible; I look around at the world and see that it is so. But I am not afraid of people on the street just because they are sinners in one way or another. I do not think any differently at all about dellwear now I know he is gay. I am certainly not afraid of him or contemptuous of him, or anyone else who is gay.
As I said earlier, your use of the word 'homophobia' simply serves to prove that it is an attempt to ridicule an opinion other than your own. If you truly believe that your opinion is right, why can you not let it stand on its own merit? Why do you attempt to pull down the opposite view with cheap insults? Are you scared that your opinion is not so self-evidently correct as you want to believe?
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
I would also point out that biblically, god created man in HIS own image.... this could be interpreted as narcissism / borderline homosexuality. It wasn't until later that Eve was created. Then it depicts eve as being the one who tempted Adam into eating the apple.
Now now, you didn't think I'd let you get away with extremely selective Bible quoting did you?
1. To interpret God's act of creating man as 'narcissism / borderline homosexuality' is imposing human prejudices onto God - essentially suggesting that we created God in our image. If you hold Genesis to have any authority at all (and I assume you do as you are quoting it) you have to accept what it says: that God created man in his image.
2. Being omniscient, God knows what we need before we do. But desiring a meaningful relationship with us, he wants us to ask for what we need anyway- he meets us on our level. So he created Adam, showed him all the animals he created, and waited for Adam to realise he could not have a relationship of equals with any of them. At that point, God did what he knew he would do all along, and completed the human race by making Eve.
3. Yes, Eve was tempted, but Adam's was the greater sin. Eve was deceived; Adam made a choice to follow his wife instead of his God. The idea that the Bible has a downer on women is a complete myth. Many of the people depicted in the Bible did, but that is different.
4. And so to the issue of selective quoting. The Bible is littered with discussion on all kinds of moral issues, homosexuality included. I do not propose to start reeling off quotes here, just take my word for it, in both old and new testaments there is absolutely no doubt at all that homosexual practice is seen as wrong.
It is only a matter of society interpreting homosexuality as "abnormal" in current views.... In roman times it was embraced, as in other cultures throughout history.
People have the right to choose what they want.. and as long as both parties are happy with this, I see no wrong in it.
As I said above, God lays out what he sees as right and what he sees as wrong. Then we have a lifetime of free choice in which we can either do it his way, or our way.
Lord Nikon
26-09-2003, 11:50
Originally posted by towny
Now now, you didn't think I'd let you get away with extremely selective Bible quoting did you?
Not for a moment :D
1. To interpret God's act of creating man as 'narcissism / borderline homosexuality' is imposing human prejudices onto God - essentially suggesting that we created God in our image. If you hold Genesis to have any authority at all (and I assume you do as you are quoting it) you have to accept what it says: that God created man in his image.
Anything which suggests reflection in one direction, also supports reflection in the other.
If we are created in his image, it also follows that he is an image of ourselves.
biblically God has appeared in many forms, are we naive or arrogant enough to say we ARE created in his image? or is it more likely that if / when he stated we were created in his image, the statement was not simply made to make us feel more self important?
2. Being omniscient, God knows what we need before we do. But desiring a meaningful relationship with us, he wants us to ask for what we need anyway- he meets us on our level. So he created Adam, showed him all the animals he created, and waited for Adam to realise he could not have a relationship of equals with any of them. At that point, God did what he knew he would do all along, and completed the human race by making Eve.
speculation, but I am not gonna argue the point, just remember that bibles were only written in the past 4-500 years really, they were also translated from latin, and at each point human frailty could easily have been used to "tailor" them to human ideals, as with any series of stories which have spent ANY time being passed down by word of mouth.
3. Yes, Eve was tempted, but Adam's was the greater sin. Eve was deceived; Adam made a choice to follow his wife instead of his God. The idea that the Bible has a downer on women is a complete myth. Many of the people depicted in the Bible did, but that is different.
If God is omnipotent / omniscient and knows about all before it happens, then how come he didn't see this coming?
I would see this chapter more as a coming of age issue.
a parent protects their child, and gives them as much as possible, this child is in a "Garden of eden" where needs are taken care of for them, but there comes a time when they need to strike out on their own.
4. And so to the issue of selective quoting. The Bible is littered with discussion on all kinds of moral issues, homosexuality included. I do not propose to start reeling off quotes here, just take my word for it, in both old and new testaments there is absolutely no doubt at all that homosexual practice is seen as wrong.
ok.. yet in the vatican homosexuality ran rampant until earlier this century, as did the practise of castrating choirboys so their voices wouldn't break...
you have to remember we set a lot of store by a story which was passed down by word of mouth for a LONG time, then translated into written text, then translated again etc, and at each step, some ideals can be misinterpreted.
As I said above, God lays out what he sees as right and what he sees as wrong. Then we have a lifetime of free choice in which we can either do it his way, or our way.
and the choice of whether or not to follow his teachings is a personal one.
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
Not for a moment :D
I thought not ... ;) :D
Anything which suggests reflection in one direction, also supports reflection in the other.
If we are created in his image, it also follows that he is an image of ourselves.
This would be correct if it were not for what the Bible calls 'the Fall'. We are corrupted by sin and no longer an accurate representation of God's nature.
biblically God has appeared in many forms, are we naive or arrogant enough to say we ARE created in his image? or is it more likely that if / when he stated we were created in his image, the statement was not simply made to make us feel more self important?
You are appealing to the Bible to support the idea that 'God has appeared in many forms', but then you ignore the Bible by questioning whether we are created in his image. The Bible is explicit on this point: "And God created man in his image; in the image of God he created him. He created them male and female." (Genesis chapter 1, verse 27 - and I don't mean to make a habit of quoting scripture in this forum! ;) ) As for self importance - this runs contrary to the concept of a selfless, giving way of life that God expects his people to follow.
speculation, but I am not gonna argue the point, just remember that bibles were only written in the past 4-500 years really, they were also translated from latin, and at each point human frailty could easily have been used to "tailor" them to human ideals, as with any series of stories which have spent ANY time being passed down by word of mouth.
The oldest surviving Bible manuscripts are at least 2,000 years old and confirm that, despite popular misconception, they have not been altered as they have passed down the generations. Furthermore, the entire Bible we have today was translated from the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The English-speaking people of the world have not had to rely on a translation from the Vulgate (the Latin Bible) since the 17th century.
If God is omnipotent / omniscient and knows about all before it happens, then how come he didn't see this coming?
I would see this chapter more as a coming of age issue.
a parent protects their child, and gives them as much as possible, this child is in a "Garden of eden" where needs are taken care of for them, but there comes a time when they need to strike out on their own.
God is all seeing and all knowing, and he did see it coming. Jesus is sometimes referred to in the Bible as 'the lamb slain from the foundation of the world'. This is because although his crucifixion occurred at a certain point in time, God had always known it would be necessary.
ok.. yet in the vatican homosexuality ran rampant until earlier this century, as did the practise of castrating choirboys so their voices wouldn't break...
The behaviour of the Roman Catholic Church, which I do not consider to be a Christian organisation, is something I cannot defend.
you have to remember we set a lot of store by a story which was passed down by word of mouth for a LONG time, then translated into written text, then translated again etc, and at each step, some ideals can be misinterpreted.
See above - the idea of inaccuracies introduced by constant re-telling and re-translation is an urban myth.
and the choice of whether or not to follow his teachings is a personal one.
I agree completely. Enforced religion is a very bad thing. My parents tried it on me as a teen and I decided to be an atheist instead. Some years later I made a personal decision. I can thoroughly recommend this way of life, but I will never try to coerce or force anyone. :)
Theodoric
26-09-2003, 19:23
A quote from the link:
"The company said more than 150,000 people took part in the online survey, which is now in its seventh year."
That says it all. So, let's get this straight; 14% of Americans and Australians who have an Internet connection, who have found the survey site, who can be bothered to answer the survey and many of whom are probably lying in their teeth say that they have had a homosexual relationship."
Totally meaningless, not worth the paper that it's not written on and should have been immediately thrown into the nearest waste paper basket. Apart from that, I'm sure that it was an excellent piece of scientific work. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by downquark1
[B]I meant it is only a 'problem' in biological terms because it prevents reproduction (I am refering to all animals not just humans).
Actually I've heard a theory that homosexuals *could* serve a valid purpose in "reproduction".
In a traditional "tribal" style of familial arrangement (ie that which has existed for the majority of the existance of the human race), there is a limit to the number of people (due to availability of food, land etc), thus a limit to the number of breeding females.
Consequently some males would be without mates. However they are useful to *protect* the offspring of those who have bred because the greater the number of males the greater the tribe's "fighting capacity".
Therefore it is actually a positive survival characteristic for the tribe to be able to a) breed more fighters and b) not have them competing with the other males for the limited supply of females.
Atomic22
26-09-2003, 19:36
i always thought the ratio of irons in australia was a lot more than 1:5 , i would of said more like 2:5 , america probably 1:4 ratio
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.