I've always believed that if God exists in one form or another, that He tries, on countless occasions, to shut His followers the hell up. I bet He's tired of ppl using His name to back their campaigns.

For instance, it is said that God is perfect and that He has made man the it is for His own ends. It is also said that He is perfect, and also that ppl shouldn't surgically change this thing or that about their body because we are as God meant for us to be.

There's also a highly debated argument that God intended for man to mate with women and vice versa, so the act of homosexualaity is a sin and it is not acceptable by Gods' standards.

Well, that brings me to the crux of my thread, what have you 'God fearing' indivisuals, to say to the fact that there is a THIRD SEX?!? It is completely NATURAL and it happens A LOT more often than ppl suspect.

I take those who are third sex oddities, as a DELIBERATE smack in the face from God, to all of those who speak of Him as though they KNOW Him, and who speak FOR Him as though they have the right.

The fact that people can be born with both sexes and that they can have both sex organs which function normally, proves, atleast to me, that God couldn't care one way or the other whom ppl chose to have sex with.

It's all a part of this little thing called, 'FREEWILL'. And also, apart of His plan for human cultivation. Most gay people are born gay, as far as 'my' experience tells me.

Others are gay or bisexual because they want to know what it is like to have sex with a member of the same sex. Over the years, it has become apparent to me that people don't 'CHOOSE' what turns them on, that is, which gender they're aroused by.

That's why there are psychiatrists who devote their careers to the specific study of this fact. They work with rehabilitating or correcting ppl with culturally unacceptable sexual tendencies.

For instance: Foot (which is, for some reason, becoming acceptable and even mainstream) and child fetishes, masochism and such.

With that said, what is also apparent, is the fact that GAY PPL don't/didn't choose what is sexually arousing to them. It's simply not their faults that they cannot become sexually aroused by the opposite sex.

Continued...

Though it is possible to later adopt behaviors which you may find arousing, the choice of what sex is arousing is predetermined, *as far as my experince tells me. I.E. homosexuals are natural and therefore, made the way they are because God wants them that way. If He is indeed, perfect, as His followeres put it.

This became apparent when He allowed one of His 'favorite' humans have sex with a man and not only did he have sex with him, he was the SUBMISSIVE one. That, to me, spells out the fact that like third sex oddities, homosexuals and homosexuality are natural and acceptable as well.

People blatantly misconstrue the meaning of the term, 'sodomy', and then use it against homosexual men, when the fact of the matter is that, sodomy (or rather its Hebrew equivalent, which I can't remember), especially in pre-christian times, did not specifically refer to the ACT of men having sex with men. It was a term meant to describe the use of FORCED sex acts, in general.

Women too can/could be victims of sodomy, which includes rape, and the use of foriegn objects being inserted into orifices used for sex [us. vaginal openings or the anus, or sex acts with animals].

The point is, that it was a 'general' term which was later applied to many things, for instance: denying poor ppl your help, and other comparatively nonsensical things.

Another Continuance...

If you (Christians, and/or any other followers of 'The One True, God') regard persons who are gay, retarded, hermaphroditic, non-whites, etc, as mistakes, freaks of nature, flawed, how then is your god not flawed? Or how do you jusify treating others less than human for having the various qualities that you've deemed flaws?

Isn't your god mocking you by making such glaring and profound oppositions to your claims?

This is really one of the questions that I have no answer for. I agree with you that homosexuals don't choose to be that way. Homosexuality appears in animals as well. Could it be a genetic anomaly that we should find a cure for? If it was, shouldn't it have been erased by evolution long ago? I mean, if homosexuals do not reproduce, the homosexuality gene should have been gone by now. Of course, I don't understand genetics that good so I could be wrong. Besides, parents of homosexuals are most of the time straight.

In any case, it is still troubling that no modern religion predicted this or covered it with anything other than curses and punishments. I think Metalligod has come up with the most convincing argument FOR atheism I've seen so far.

there's a very rare fourth sex too... people born with nonfunctional or without genitals. and then there are even people born with two penises, or two clits, two giners, two bungholes, six nipples, etc. gender, just like race, does not have a clear dividing line. it's often very much a cultural construction.

there are many sexual preferences as well, not just hetero- and homo-... there's bi-, a-, and my favorite, omni/pansexual (people who are turned on by just about EVERYTHING)...

OK first of all you should maybe recognise that you're not so much talking about god himself, but views taken from just one religious system based on what god might be like. The texts that form the basis of Christianity were written by MEN after all, not God himself, so I think your real argument here is with the religion, not God.

And even within Christianity, you have to choose which branch of it you're talking about. If you're American chances are you were brought up as Protestant, but if you think about it the beliefs you have are a result of historical developments and the society you were born into, God didn't plant these ideas directly into your brain.

Lets say you had been born about 500 years ago in Europe, you might have been brought up as a slightly different kind of Protestant, a Lutheran. This branch of Christianty preached a doctrine called predetermination, basically that God has already decided when everyone is born whether they will go to heaven or hell. You don't have any choice in the matter. Now if this was the truth, then maybe that's why he creates homosexuals, they are one example of the people who will go to hell. Doesn't sound too warm and fuzzy as far as spiritual beliefs go, but I've never been too hot for Christianity's belief in man's original sin.

You'll probably feel better if you accept that the religious views you're talking about are ones that human beings just like you came up with in the past. Religion in the end should be about one thing - improving quality of life. If there is something more important in life, please tell me what it is, I'd love to know. That doesn't mean preach to me your own religious values though, thanks. Although it can be scary to lose the certainty of fundamentalist religious beliefs, you might find it much more satisfying to forget what anyone else says and decide for yourself what the meaning of life is. It seems like the conventional views are causing problems for you anyway.

And one last thing, I'm kind of confused by your statement about sodomy. The word comes the Bible, in the book of Genesis a man called Lot decides to move to live in the town of Sodom. After getting there, men from the city surround his house at night and call out to Lot telling him to bring out the men he brought with him so that they can "know" them (in the biblical sense, in other words to fuck them). Lot offers his daughters but the ass-pirates don't want them, lucky for lot some nice angels decided to save his sweet virgin ass, and God got pissed off at the evil men in Sodom (and another town, Gomorrah) so he destroyed both places. There's a bunch of uncertainty about the actual "sin" of Sodom though, because of things like the exact translation of "men", and whatnot.

But look, the Bible is a book of stories, of metaphors, and they were all written by MEN, not angels. Don't take life too seriously one way or the other, because you're not getting out of here alive anyway.

Yeeeehaaw! Calvinism! w00t!

sorry, I'm just happy someone brought that up.

I think you're quite cool by the way, eeexcelent post in the conspiracy forum on the US dollar and stuff.

sorry... double post, I thought of something to contribute.

From what I read, the sodom and thingo story thingo was like:

God is talking with abraham, and Abraham is trying to persuade him not to destroy the cities, working him down from "wont do it if theres 1000 righteous men in them" down to like, 100, 10, or something like that.

Two angels walk into Sodom, start being harrassed, Lot takes them into his house

Then theres the whole thing about offering his daughters.

Basically, the crowd wanted to fuck the angels.

Umm... where was I...

The Angels strike the crowd blind, and tell Lot that the city will be destroyed, and to take his family, flee, and not look back.

Lot's Wife looks back, and is turned into a pillar of salt.

Its worth noting that Lot's two daughters fuck him while he sleeps in a cave later on, because he hadn't fathered a son to continue the line or something.

Charming eh?

Sodomy, Divine Wrath, and Incest, all in the same book!

Cheers falcon http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Good post man. This pretty much sums up my half of my opinions on why I'm a disbeliever. The other half is the half that god is a walking contradiction. Which is pretty much what you said. So yeah, we think alike.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

Homosexuality appears in animals as well.

Yes, indeed it does appear in animals, but not in the way you think. Animals engage in homosexual activity to establish dominance, much like in prison. It would be better to compare animal homosexuality to rape, than to compare it to consentual homosexuality.

quote:Originally posted by SKS_7.62:

Yes, indeed it does appear in animals, but not in the way you think. Animals engage in homosexual activity to establish dominance, much like in prison. It would be better to compare animal homosexuality to rape, than to compare it to consentual homosexuality.

So, it's a "I'm bi for power" kind of thing? http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) I haven't really heard much about the topic, but I've heard that bats have the highest % of homosexuality in animals. It must be because of Batman and Robin :P

^ Hahaha, that's seriously the most funny thing I've read in My God.

quote:Originally posted by SKS_7.62:

Yes, indeed it does appear in animals, but not in the way you think. Animals engage in homosexual activity to establish dominance, much like in prison. It would be better to compare animal homosexuality to rape, than to compare it to consentual homosexuality.

Sorry, that's not entirely true.

Horses, for instance, can be gay, and they have no need to establish dominance. Anyhow, people who are horse breeders often have problems with studs who WON't have sex with any of the mares, but only with the other studs.

Some cats are the same way (no I'm not talking about big cats).

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

OK first of all you should maybe recognise that you're not so much talking about god himself, but views taken from just one religious system based on what god might be like. The texts that form the basis of Christianity were written by MEN after all, not God himself, so I think your real argument here is with the religion, not God.

No, sorry, you've obviously misinterpreted what you've read.

My argument is NOT WITH RELIGION OR GOD, It's with MAN. I do believe that I aimed my questions and comments at, quote, "(Christians, AND/OR ANY OTHER 'FOLLOWERS' of 'The One True, God')"

quote:And even within Christianity, you have to choose which branch of it you're talking about. If you're American chances are you were brought up as Protestant, but if you think about it the beliefs you have are a result of historical developments and the society you were born into, God didn't plant these ideas directly into your brain.

Umm... You've got some serious reading to do if you want to continue this argument, sorry, I don't mean to sound rude, but it's the simple truth.

It does NOT matter, at any interval, on any level, which "branch" I'm talking about. Christianity is Christianity. And again, I do believe that I also directed my assertions towards, again, quote, "(Christians, AND/OR ANY OTHER 'FOLLOWERS' of 'The One True, God')"

Done and done.

The things I've stated applies to ANY 1 WHO BELIEVES IN THE ONE TRUE GOD. No matter which denomination, I'm sorry, but I can't state it any plainer. It's in all of their versions of the bible, so I can't even begin to understand the basis of your claims of what I need or needn't do. When the fact remains that they all share the same principles.

The rest of your post is simply null, I've already addressed everything, and it does NOT apply to ME.

-Thanx everyone who has contributed to this thread by posting

I take the silence of all you 'God fearing' indivisuals as a conceding. Am I right?

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

This is really one of the questions that I have no answer for. I agree with you that homosexuals don't choose to be that way. Homosexuality appears in animals as well. Could it be a genetic anomaly that we should find a cure for? If it was, shouldn't it have been erased by evolution long ago? I mean, if homosexuals do not reproduce, the homosexuality gene should have been gone by now. Of course, I don't understand genetics that good so I could be wrong. Besides, parents of homosexuals are most of the time straight.

In any case, it is still troubling that no modern religion predicted this or covered it with anything other than curses and punishments. I think Metalligod has come up with the most convincing argument FOR atheism I've seen so far.

When I was about 8 or 9, I came up with the theory that maybe full-fledged homosexuals are God's way of controlling the populous. But I was chewed out for coming up with such a, quote, 'typical idio-atheist notion'.....

i have a theory for homosexuality in the animal kingdom...

very simple, very elegant, not a hell of a whole lot of evidence supporting it...

most animals that engage in gayness are social animals. a male tiger very rarely flirts with another male tiger, as they are highly solitary and highly territorial.

wolves, bats, monkeys, dolphins, chimps, etc., can afford to be faggy cuz members of the same sex do not usually constitute a threat to their survival. they work cooperatively.

since ALL sex is a manifestation of dominance and submission, faggotry may just be a way of strengthening social ties, solidifying rank in a non-dangerous way, and thus increasing the pack's level of teamwork... and even thusser, increasing their chances of survival.

it may also be a way to keep the subordinate wolves, or what have you, from becoming too depressed because the alpha male is bogarting all of the poonani.

so, gayness is an evolutionary adaptation to promote team spirit {YAY! GOOOO GAY!), and prevent massive blueballs because of bastards like brad pitt (who's hogging all the prime jennifer aniston and angelina jolie grade A pussy).

see how elegant that is?

now come over here, you big sexy man, you. let's be friends!

edit: lesbianism doesn't really need any explanation, but for the sake of thoroughness... who wouldn't want to fuck a female? they're hot.

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 04-11-2005).]

quote:When I was about 8 or 9, I came up with the theory that maybe full-fledged homosexuals are God's way of controlling the populous. But I was chewed out for coming up with such a, quote, 'typical idio-atheist notion'.....

Actually it's not a bad theory at all, it's called Malthusian checks. John Malthus wrote about population theory in the 18th century, and considered it in terms of how supply and demand interact (he was an economist). He said that a population has a certain amount of resources available to it, and it will experience upward population growth until it reaches an equilibrium where the best level of humans are alive for that level of resources. But the problem is that populations increase geometrically, while agriculture increases arithmetically, so if populations keep on growing and growing, eventually there will be more people than food. This is where the "checks" come in. The full theory gets complicated, but basically he said that things like famine, disease, violence etc will increase to kill off the excess people and return the population levels to equilibrium. Homosexuality is one of those potential checks, because they don't have any children. The theory goes that levels of homosexuality aren't tolerated by social groups in small populations that have plenty of resources available, because they need plenty of offspring, but when a society has grown and has plenty of people, then levels of homosexuality increase. Might help explain why large gay communities always live in big cities (although the idea of small "all gay" cities is pretty funny, I wonder what they would look like). Interesting theory anyway.

quote:Originally posted by SKS_7.62:

Yes, indeed it does appear in animals, but not in the way you think. Animals engage in homosexual activity to establish dominance, much like in prison. It would be better to compare animal homosexuality to rape, than to compare it to consentual homosexuality.

What about bonnobos? the do it like 14 times a day with both sexes. It can't be all to assert dominance.

imperfect, that's an interesting theory.

there's one point i'd like to clarify... every year for the past 5 or 6,000 years there HAS been more people than food. every single year there is more farming to try to keep up.

the problem of exponential population growth versus the slow growth of food sources has been known for quite some time... it's why food charity organizations and efforts never make any real headway, and why food is concentrated among the wealthy while the poor are allowed to starve. those who control the means of production understand full well the futility of feeding the hungry.

it's the fundamental paradox of civilization. at once both its greatest flaw and the driving force of its engine.

in a given year, we have the capability of producing x amount of food. the following year, we have the ability to produce x + y where y is new land acquired and irrigated, or an increased crop growth because of rains, new technology, etc...

however, the population in any previous year is n. in the subsequent year, it is n + m, where m is the rate of growth multiplied by n. that's a big difference.

while agriculture depends on many variables that produce slow, constant growth, reproduction does not. as you've said.

because this pop. growth is exponential, what this means is that there comes a point, pragmatically, where the growth of food sources eventually equals a static, finite supply. it just can't keep up.

among any species on earth that discovers a large, but finite food supply, and experiences a population explosion as a result... the effect on its numbers after the depletion of that source is devastating. usually, the species is left with a lower population number than before discovering the food source. this is a very well documented phenomena among many animals - locusts, field mice, frogs, crabs, etc.

what does it mean for humans? if we reach our population limit respective to the growth food supply, expect numbers to go from about 7 billion people to 1 million or so.

how can this be possible, you say? humans are much smarter and can always practice agriculture.... agriculture itself is the fuel behind our population explosion, not the actual food it produces. agriculture is a resource, and it has grown to mean many things - religion, state societies, the division of labor, kings, emperors, governments, science, spaceships, etc...

if we follow the trajectory of all other species that explode in number like we have, these things are what will 'run out.' already we see it beginning, with the realization among many that this ever-increasingly complex 'civilized' life is qualitatively not, by definition, better than a simpler life of mere subsistence... in many cases, it is much, much worse.

in conclusion, agriculture and all of its extensions (civilization) are psychological resources - the unique food supply of the human species. if our psychology can no longer keep pace with the reality of our bloated populations, that resource will utterly collapse onto itself. madness will be our starvation, and this age will end not in fire or flood, but spiritual emptiness.

or not. just a crazy idea i felt like throwing out there...

da-dump-padump-bump... bump! hope you had fun following me down the rabbit hole! take care now, thank you, come again!



[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 04-12-2005).]

Alot of higher animals use

sexual affection (with both sexes)

for pleasure and to strengthen

social bonds.

Dolphins and primates do it alot.

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

Alot of higher animals use

sexual affection (with both sexes)

for pleasure and to strengthen

social bonds.

Dolphins and primates do it alot.

I was gonna say that, but I felt like I had already been doing a bunch of cyber rambling.

:edit:Ranting*

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 04-13-2005).]

Gay people don't choose to be gay? Never, asslock.

It would be interesting if geneticists do actually find a "gay gene" (but I know it doesn't work like that, behaviour is usually determined by many genes working together). It isn't crazy to suggest this, since most homosexuals say that they have felt gay their entire lives. If so, then perhaps homosexual behaviour is an inbuilt genetic mechanism to control population growth. It's possible that most human populations throughout history have had a similar proportion of "potential" homosexuals, but in times when growth is necessary it isn't tolerated socially, and people who would freely choose to be gay instead have to marry and have children. Then when populations are larger, the potential homosexuals are allowed to follow their desires, and in doing so keep the population in check by lowering the levels of offspring.

An example of how nature is bringing our vastly overgrown populations back into balance is the outbreak of certain types of diseases. Aids is a perfect example, since it forces us to practise safe sex until we are married. It's also possible that the increased levels of international aggression are another such method. You could look at the increased practise of genocide in economically troubled areas. Most of the practises of major genocide have been in the poorer areas of eastern Europe and most of Africa, where there are way more people than available resources. Wealthier nations tend not to go to war with each other, consider the fact that no two countries that have McDonalds in them have ever gone to war with each other. It should be pretty interesting to see what happens when the world supplies of oil run out, which according to some theorists might be very soon (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net). The predictions are that it will set off a lot of international wars as realpolitik kicks in and morality goes out the window as countries fight for survival. The consequence will be a fall in the global population one way or the other, in a dark sense it's quite elegant.

To be fair, both of the World Wars can't be brought down to such simple roots, because they have complex causes. But the increased psychological urge towards aggression could be a major influence. And it's not unreasonable to suggest that these factors can influence people psychologically on a nationwide scale. Freud had a theory that when populations witness death occurring on a massive scale (such as post-war), an inbuilt psychological urge kicks in to start fucking like rabbits. Just look at the baby boomer generation if you want evidence.

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 04-13-2005).]

I didn't respond to this because I somehow missed it before.

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:



My argument is NOT WITH RELIGION OR GOD, It's with MAN. I do believe that I aimed my questions and comments at, quote, "(Christians, AND/OR ANY OTHER 'FOLLOWERS' of 'The One True, God')"

(...)



Umm... You've got some serious reading to do if you want to continue this argument, sorry, I don't mean to sound rude, but it's the simple truth.

It does NOT matter, at any interval, on any level, which "branch" I'm talking about. Christianity is Christianity. And again, I do believe that I also directed my assertions towards, again, quote, "(Christians, AND/OR ANY OTHER 'FOLLOWERS' of 'The One True, God')"

Done and done.

The things I've stated applies to ANY 1 WHO BELIEVES IN THE ONE TRUE GOD. No matter which denomination, I'm sorry, but I can't state it any plainer. It's in all of their versions of the bible, so I can't even begin to understand the basis of your claims of what I need or needn't do. When the fact remains that they all share the same principles.

[/B]

OK I've had to sit back and think about this for a second, because what you're saying is quite confused. Either you're talking specifically about Christianity or not, which isn't clear from both:

- "Christians, AND/OR ANY OTHER 'FOLLOWERS' of 'The One True, God'" (emphasis my own)

- "No matter which denomination"

I can only assume that you are talking about all religions, if not then look up the meaning of "denomination". If so, although Islam is strongly against it, there are other religions which don't say anything about it. Buddhism springs to mind, as does Hinduism, neither of their holy scriptures make any condemnation of homosexuality. In fact in Hinduism, the Kama Sutra (which is about sexual expression as a form of divine worship, not a "how to" manual for positions in bed) presents a whole chapter on gay men, which are referred to as the "third sex". So are you talking about Christianity or all religions in general? Specify.

My head actually hurt when I read that your argument is with man, and not religion or god. If it's nothing to do with religion, then what are you talking about? Homosexuality is only condemned in certain religious scripture, it isn't carved out on mountaintops.

You talk about this being directed to anyone who believes in the "one true god". Again, my head hurts. I believe in the one true god, but I am not a part of any religious denomination, my understanding of "the divine" comes from within. I myself might believe homosexuality is good, or bad, I have no external source to define it for me. And if I were Christian, to take an example because I know much less about Islam, the condemnation is made based on how the Bible was arbitrarily constructed by a bunch of men many centuries ago. It actually says very little about homosexuality, Jesus himself said almost nothing. In fact the only clear condemnations of homosexuality come from the Old Testament, but the thing is they come from Leviticus. The laws in Leviticus were compiled nearly 4000 years ago, and many of the things it contains are no longer remotely relevent. It has been said that if all the laws in Leviticus were to be followed, the majority of Christians would be excommunicated (or even executed). It talks about stuff like how it should be sinful and illegal to have sex when a woman is mentruating. I ask you, what relevence at ALL does this have to do with a personal understanding of "the one true god"?

The reason that homosexuality is so strictly condemned by Christianity has to do with social conservatives being in charge of Church policy, and have hardly anything to do with the scripture. If your arguments are not directed at religion, and not directed at scripture, then what the HELL are they directed at, because these are the only places where it is condemned? If I have misunderstood what I have read, it's because you weren't clear. So clarify, please.

imperfect, there was a bleak report just the other day that the price per barrel of oil may remain high for the next 2 years.

it's been high for quite some time now, a key indicator that the point of peak oil production may already have been passed. if so, that figure of 2 years may just be a euphemism for 'never'.

fits right in with the possibility of a sudden and catastrophic depletion of resources, if we don't change course.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1327584.htm

sorry this is off-topic.

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 04-13-2005).]

Eil, it's been a while since I read up on peak oil, I think it was peakoil.net (the one with plenty of technical information) but when I did it scared the shit out of me. The recent developments in the price of oil have been a cause of some concern, I disagree with the people who simplistically say that the war in Iraq was "all about oil", but given the recklessness of it, one possible interpretation that occurred to me was that the people in the American government have a pretty good idea of just how bad the oil situation is about to get, and this was a strong enough incentive to take the risky action of invading.

Even if we do "change course" some time soon, which is depressingly unlikely given the shortsitedness of governments who only make drastic changes after the problem has erupted, it's going to take a hell of a lot of creativity to get us out of this resource quandary. The thing is even if we decide to convert wholescale to another source of energy, if we try to do this after we run out of oil, it won't be so easy, since we'll need to use a lot of energy to make the conversion. The only thing that gives me comfort is that it's highly likely that large energy and utility companies have been buying up a few inventions over the last century to maintain their monopolies. I wish I had the link, or more details off the top of my head, but just one example is something I was reading about a well known inventor who supposedly made an engine powered off some kind of fuel that could power a steamboat for three days non stop on one load of fuel, and was about the size of a computer monitor. The GE corporation bought the patent to it, and it was never seen again. There are countless stories like this one, with things like Michelin buying multiple patents to inventions for tires that could run forever without having to be replaced. Even if a lot of these stories are bogus, it is probable that at least a few of them are true, and if so then as soon as we run into a major energy crisis they will get unshelved. Anyone ever heard about one of those stories?

Metalligod:

1. Hermaphrodites and eunuchs are not brand new sexes; just mutations created by either a lack or a combination of both sexual organs.

2. The decision (or lack thereof) to be a homosexual does little to change homosexuality's status as a perversion of reproductive tendencies, much like the lack of a choice to be retarded doesn't mean retardation is not an abnormality.

3. The reason sodomy is usually applied to males is because sodomy is the only form of penetration homosexual men can achieve.

4. Perhaps God created us in an image he conceived, rather than a reflection of who he was.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Metalligod:

2. The decision (or lack thereof) to be a homosexual does little to change homosexuality's status as a perversion of reproductive tendencies, much like the lack of a choice to be retarded doesn't mean retardation is not an abnormality.

4. Perhaps God created us in an image he conceived, rather than a reflection of who he was.

God, especially the Christian conception of Him,

IS

THE

GREATEST

ABNORMALITY.

By your own logic, Jesus is a perversion of what it means to be born, live, and die.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

OK I've had to sit back and think about this for a second, because what you're saying is quite confused.

?

quote:I can only assume that you are talking about all religions, if not then look up the meaning of "denomination".

I don't know how or why you'd come up with such an idea, I CANNOT state this any plainer, so could some one help me out?

I'm talking about PEOPLE WHO ARE CHRISTIANS, and also, PEOPLE WHO ARE "NOT" CHRISTIAN, BUT STILL BELIEVE IN THE CHRISTIAN GOD, WHO IS KNOWN AS 'THE ONE TRUE GOD'. THAT MEANS: MUSLIMS, CATHOLICS, MORMONS, BAPTISTS, PROTESTANTS, LUTHERANS, EPISCOPALIANS, "JUDAISM" <(THE MAIN RELIGION, it's almost like, the mother of Christianity), ETC.

I can't begin to understand what's so incomprehendable about ANYTHING I've said. Again, I'm not trying to be rude, but the apparent misunderstanding is do to your lack of knowledge on this matter.

The definition of, 'denomination', is quite clear:

Main Entry: de·nom·i·na·tion

Pronunciation: di-"nä-m&-'nA-sh&n

Function: noun

Date: 15th century

3 : NAME, DESIGNATION; especially : a general name for a "CATEGORY"



Main Entry: cat·e·go·ry

Pronunciation: 'ka-t&-"gOr-E, -"gor-

Function: noun

Date: 1588

1 : ANY of SEVERAL fundamental and distinct CLASSES to which entities or CONCEPTS belong

2 : a DIVISION WITHIN a SYSTEM of CLASSIFICATION

I.E. Christianity has MANY branches, and what I said applies to them ALL. There are also religions linked to Christianity, these religions are rooted in the belief of ONE TRUE DEITY who is to be called, 'THE GOD OF ALL GODS', ergo, THE ONE TRUE GOD (singular).

You simply need to be more informed on the matter if you can't understand what I've said thus far. The list of religions that I made have most of the same concepts, characters (entities), and whatnot. Some of them are branches of the ones (classes) that preceded them.

quote:My head actually hurt when I read that your argument is with man, and not religion or god. If it's nothing to do with religion, then what are you talking about?

I am talking ABOUT religion, however, my argument is NOT about the religion itself, it's about THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE RELIGION(s). Are you getting any of this? The people who made the religion(s) have turned their words into God's words.

I asked them if their god is mocking them by allowing, creating, making possible, things, events, etc, that totally invalidates their earlier claims. Is God telling these people 'to shut the hell up', or to stop speaking for Him, by creating these profound antipodals to their arguments.

quote:You talk about this being directed to anyone who believes in the "one true god". Again, my head hurts. I believe in the one true god, but I am not a part of any religious denomination, my understanding of "the divine" comes from within.

Ok, that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I also stated and implied that I was directing my comments towards those of, quote, "use His name to back their campaigns". I.E. their religious beliefs, political agendas, moral beliefs, etc.

Back when I started posting here in the My God, forum one would be chewed up, spat out, raped to death, and stoned for making the mistakes you've made so far. Plz be this gentle with n00bies who come here to actually learn shit, when you get to the point that you know more about religion than you'll ever need to know.

quote:I myself might believe homosexuality is good, or bad, I have no external source to define it for me. And if I were Christian, to take an example because I know much less about Islam, the condemnation is made based on how the Bible was arbitrarily constructed by a bunch of men many centuries ago.

That's the whole point. Cheesus Crust, I'm ecstatic that you understand now....or do you...?

The rest of what you said does not require a reply, as it was never a point of my argument, nor does it pertain to ANY of the points I've made.

-I'll admit that I've become known as somewhat of an asshole to those who frequent this site, [esp] in this forum. Mainly because of my volatile temper, which is triggered by my having become annoyed about something. With that in mind, I'll do my damnedest to remain respectful, though it's hard to do so when I'm not being understood, inspite of my greatest efforts to be understood, and I also HATE having to explain myself incessantly; but I now know that it comes with the territory. So if you take something that I say as rude, believe me, I'm not trying to be, I have NO PROBLEM admiting when I am, just ask around...

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Metalligod:

1. Hermaphrodites and eunuchs are not brand new sexes; just mutations created by either a lack or a combination of both sexual organs.

2. The decision (or lack thereof) to be a homosexual does little to change homosexuality's status as a perversion of reproductive tendencies, much like the lack of a choice to be retarded doesn't mean retardation is not an abnormality.

3. The reason sodomy is usually applied to males is because sodomy is the only form of penetration homosexual men can achieve.

4. Perhaps God created us in an image he conceived, rather than a reflection of who he was.

Tyrant

1.I never indicated that it was or that I believed it/they was/were.

2. So what, what's your point? I never said/indicated otherwise.

3. Wrong on both accounts. Times change, and likewise technology does, you should think about that before making such assertions. And also, like I said, the ORIGINAL use for the term, sodomy, was NOT about homosexual sex, it was about painful/non-traditional sex atcs beformed on men, WOMEN and animals. The most historically recent uses for the term is to do centuries of usage by dignitaries who thought that sex between homosexual males was/is wrong/sinful/whatever.

The word sodomy was already synonymous with sinful activities BEFORE its uasge towards homosexual men. The idea to add homosexual activities to the list was simply an ingeniously, infamous technique of disuading indivisuals from partaking in such acts because whatever is added to the deffinition of sodomy, is, as I've said before, automatically taken as sin. I actually dedicated a bundle of information to this little tidbit in the opening posts to this very thread. -See page 1, post 2, paragraph 3

4. ?

edit:your:

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 04-15-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

I'll admit that I've become known as somewhat of an asshole to those who frequent this site, [esp] in this forum. Mainly because of my volatile temper, which is triggered by my having become annoyed about something.

I think it's more likely triggered by some kind of mental deficiency, which would also explain you lack of ability to manage anything resembling intelligent debate.

the green potato will judge you all

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

I think it's more likely triggered by some kind of mental deficiency, which would also explain you lack of ability to manage anything resembling intelligent debate.

Die slowly, you immature, shit-brained monkey. You can't understand simple shit even when it is explained in its most simplest form. You're an asshole who knows nothing about the topics it chooses to voice an oppinion on.

Don't take it out on me because you lack the mental prowess of a toad, you remedial son of a bitch. I fuckin spell shit out time and time again for you and your dumbass still can't figure out what was/is being said. You should most assuredly hurl yourself off of a cliff, survive, get anally raped to death, get revived, and then viciously mawed to death by rabid dogs.

I hope you go out suffering and I hope that you live an afterlife of pure, unadulterated torture, maming, and despare.

Your life isn't worth the shit paper it was written on, or the excrement used as ink, to write on it.

You'd dare to even concieve of the THOUGHT of challenging what I say, ppt, you, who can't even correctly word a sentence? How saddening...

Don't take it out on me because your feeble mind can't understand shit after it has been incessantly explained to you. You talk out of your ass and expect everyone to take what you say as intelligible or remotely sensible, when it is OBVIOUSLY not.

You don't know about religion and you are therefore, not qualified to make the assertions you've made, end of story. I'm talking about Christians and the god known as, 'The One True God', and your dumbass is talking about BUDDHA and Krishna, and Hindus & shit like that.

"So deep, is the depth of your stupidity". Your sheer ignorance insults, pains, and angers me into a state of melancholy. The fact is that, you, being a True Asshole, are only capable of talking shit, and I am therefore done spoon-feeding you information which you are too blear-witted to understand. You are no longer worth my time, after this, you won't exist to me.

-Die in Flames, you Fucking Dolt, just Die

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 04-16-2005).]

Ha ha ha...

It gave me a good laugh to be called stupid by you

You're a joke.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Ha ha ha...

It gave me a good laugh to be called stupid by you

You're a joke.

Metalligod isn't actually stupid, they just flip off the handle in arguments...if you can look past all the insults and rambling, there is a decent argument under it all.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

[B] Metalligod isn't actually stupid, they just flip off the handle in arguments...

O, so now you wanna call me crazy, eh?!? Are ya tryin to say that I have like, multiple personalities or something? (Kiddering)

No, seriously, I don't fly off the handle until someone first decides to insult me. I tried on countless occasions to help that fool understand what was being said by stating things as plainly as possible. I even suggested that he do more research on the topics that he decides to voice his oppinions on.

It's a necessary trait for intellectual bedates, to be able to backup what you say or to atleast be very knowledgable on the discussion at hand. No one wants to hear from someone whom continually makes assertions that they have not or cannot back-up with any other proof or resources.

He's actually lucky to be going through this situation with me, because I remember a time, not long-ago, if someone were to come to this forum saying the things that he's said without backing them up or giving anyone an inkling of the fact that he doesn't know enough about the situation(s) he's spoken out on, he would be proverbially mawed by the other members who frequent this forum.....

Do you remember those times, Hex?

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

No, seriously, I don't fly off the handle until someone first decides to insult me.

Bullshit. You flew off the handle when I challenged your muddled attempt to make your point. But what you just said is basically "he started it first", I'm not four years old so I'll let it slide.

quote:I tried on countless occasions to help that fool understand what was being said by stating things as plainly as possible. I even suggested that he do more research on the topics that he decides to voice his oppinions on. It's a necessary trait for intellectual bedates, to be able to backup what you say or to atleast be very knowledgable on the discussion at hand. No one wants to hear from someone whom continually makes assertions that they have not or cannot back-up with any other proof or resources.

I asked you for clarification, something you didn't do, you just regurgitated what you had said before making liberal use of the bold tag. You still haven't answered my question, perhaps you didn't understand it. I'll sum up the case you made, as it appears to me.

This is what I think you meant to say:

God is perfect, and God made man in his image, so how can there be imperfect human beings?

This is what you said:

- It is said that God is perfect

- It is said that God made man for his own personal reasons

- It is said that people shouldn't change their own body surgically

- It is said that a man should not have sex with another man, only another woman

- Therefore why do hermaphrodites exist?

OK I'll get to the other issues with your arguement later, and before I address the points I just listed I'll get two things out of the way.

First - You suggested I have limited knowledge of religion, based on what I said about Christianity. If so, tell me what is incorrect about what I said, and be specific. If you want to have a more detailed discussion on comparative theology then I assure you I am fully capable, but this is beside the point of my main problem with your thread. My problem is with the lack of clarity in your arguements, which I will get to in a second.

Second - You say that I need to provide references to support my points, because this is neccessary for "intellectual bedates" (lol). However I see you providing no points to support any of your arguements, is there a reason why I should and you shouldn't? Apart from you being an inbred hyprocrite that is.

OK now back to your confused arguement. First of all, it is self defeating if we just consider the second point. You didn't say that God made man in his image, just for his own reasons. As long as we are talking in general theological terms, your arguement can still go on within these boundaries, and speculation about God's motives is appropriate. The problem is you introduce homosexuality as something God forbids. The only place that God supposedly says this is a sin is in specific religious texts. Therefore your later claim that your arguement is "NOT WITH RELIGION" is invalid, because it is only a specific set of religions that say homosexuality is a sin. Incidentally, when your arguements are weak and nonsensical, liberal use of bold and caps won't somehow give it legitimacy.

Do you understand what I am saying about your arguement? The point is very, very simple. One of the central pillars of your arguement is that homosexuality is a sin, and this idea is a religious proscription, only made by a number of religious texts that can be singled out. If there is a contradiction between what they say about god, and what we observe in the real world, then the problem lies in the textual innacuracy, not the people who take it as "gospel truth" as it were.

Your attack on my knowledge of various religions (despite not being true, although I'm resigned to the fact that you will inanely say that I must prove that to you) is irrelevent, since the problem I'm pointing out has to do with the internal contradiction of your first post. What you end up saying is:

-Religions say God made man

-Religions say God is perfect

-CERTAIN religions say we should not alter out bodies

-CERTAIN religions say homosexuality is a sin

-Homosexuals exist for biological reasons, hermaphrodites are born

-Therefore God is insulting people by creating abominations, although this point has nothing to do with religion

There are plenty of other holes I can pick in what you have said, but this post is getting longish, and I'm certain you'll reply with caps locked insults and circular rhetoric, so I'll save them for a later post in this thread.

P.S. You're an idiot.

quote:Bullshit. You flew off the handle when I challenged your muddled attempt to make your point. But what you just said is basically "he started it first", I'm not four years old so I'll let it slide.

I'll be kind enough to recognize this bitch, whom obviously isn't intellectually up to par with a human fetus.

You assinine piece of shit, I flew off the handle when you said to me, quote, "I think it's more likely triggered by some kind of mental deficiency, which would also explain you lack of ability (lol) to manage anything resembling intelligent debate."

Prior to that, I merely displayed my frustration with your incompitance and I even went as far as asking others to help you understand this simple concept, which you were to feeble-minded to grasp on your own.

And the comment you made about not being 4, was a simple cop-out. You didn't want to go there because you knew that the facts of that argument were/are not in your favor. Lets be honest, or are you simply not capable of such a thing, you whinning cock-fairy?

quote:I asked you for clarification, something you didn't do, you just regurgitated what you had said before making liberal use of the bold tag. You still haven't answered my question, perhaps you didn't understand it. I'll sum up the case you made, as it appears to me.

Like I said b4, I tried on countless occasions to break things down 4 u, but you were simply incapable of comprehending such a simple thing. That's not my fault, that's the sole fault of you, and your mother & father, who just happens to be mother and son...

quote:This is what you said:

- It is said that God is perfect

- It is said that God made man for his own personal reasons

- It is said that people shouldn't change their own body surgically

- It is said that a man should not have sex with another man, only another woman

- Therefore why do hermaphrodites exist?

O god, you are sad; you're infinitely more laughable and saddening than I first gauged you to be.

Only a pure-bred idiot (A.K.A.-YOU) could come up with such a delusional and unintelligent interpretation of what I've said.

I pointed out the fact that religious indivisuals who believe in God believe the various things that I pointed out. I later countered those arguments/beliefs .i.e. the things I pointed out, with NATURAL occurences that simply negate those beliefs.

That's a simple tactic I learned in the 3rd grade; you state the arguments made by your opponent(s) and then you counter them, that's apart of this little thing I brought up, called a DEBATE (or bedate *dyslexia*)

How you came up with, "therefore hermaphrodites exist?", is beyond my understanding. It's become increasingly difficult to spoon-feed you information that you lack, so I gave up. No one else had this hard of a time understand the simplicity of my words, that says a lot about who your are. As I've suggested/stated before, if you knew more about the topic things would be much easier for you to grasp.

I'm not going to take the time out of my day to teach you something like this because you're too dumb and/or lazy to learn this on your own. I'm not going to take the time out of my day to post something, and then explain every little, tiny detail to you; for the sake of upholding a conversation with you.

quote:OK I'll get to the other issues with your arguement later, and before I address the points I just listed I'll get two things out of the way.

First - You suggested I have limited knowledge of religion, based on what I said about Christianity. If so, tell me what is incorrect about what I said, and be specific. If you want to have a more detailed discussion on comparative theology then I assure you I am fully capable, but this is beside the point of my main problem with your thread. My problem is with the lack of clarity in your arguements, which I will get to in a second.

I did not suggest for you to have limited knowledge on religion you dunce. Why would I suggest such a thing? Maybe you meant that I hinted at the fact that you lack knowledge on this matter, and not that I suggested that you get a limmited knowledge. I hope that's what you meant.

Next thing, my saying that you lack knowledge on this issue, doesn't necessasrily mean that I believe you lack knowledge on religion, although that was apart of it. What I was also saying, is that you lack knowledge on the words I put forth, as well as the concepts. I've already proven this, so there's no need to argue... atlease not on my end.

And bitch, don't fuckin tell me what to do, you twat. You ask or request that I do something, I don't respond well to commands. Find the errors on your own, they're blatant and outright stupid, well, I guess that's the problem. I just basically described everything you've said, so you'll probably have trouble sorting though the bullshit.

quote:Second - You say that I need to provide references to support my points, because this is neccessary for "intellectual bedates" (lol). However I see you providing no points to support any of your arguements, is there a reason why I should and you shouldn't? Apart from you being an inbred hyprocrite that is.

Yeah, the fact that you're an inbred HYPROCRITE(hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) does not excuse you from having to do what the rest of us do.

Now, what I said in my posts were things that DOES/DID NOT REQUIRE BACKING. Saying that people say this or that about God, doesn't require backing, these are things that have been said time and time again by people on this very site. The things I stated can be proven by each indivisual who reads my words. I'm sure, with this being a RELIGIOUS forum and all, that ppl have heard others say that God was/is perfect, or that homosexuals are abominations, and such.

You are a desperate and sad fool, all of your attemps to silence me or find a fault in what I've said has proven futile. The things I've said are evident, go to Spurious, anti-gay posts are made there all the time and sometimes ppl use religion to back their claims.

My argument is not with religion it is with those in makind of follow them. Their beliefs and stories are flawed, as are their principals.

quote:OK now back to your confused arguement. First of all, it is self defeating if we just consider the second point. You didn't say that God made man in his image, just for his own reasons.

[b]You're the only one who's confused, and I mean that LITERALLY.

And, what the fuck are you talking about, what's self-defeating? When did I say that I said, 'God made man in His image'. If that's what you're suggesting, and if not, why the hell'd you bring it up since it's something that I didn't say? You're hopelss.

quote:As long as we are talking in general theological terms, your arguement can still go on within these boundaries, and speculation about God's motives is appropriate. The problem is you introduce homosexuality as something God forbids.

That's why you need to learn to fuckin read. Bitch, I DID NOT INTRO-FUCKING-DUCE HOMOSEXUALLITY AS SOMETHING GOD FORBIDS.

You've just proven to me and the rest of the world that you're a Grade-A Dumbass. Just curl up and fuckin die plz. Do the world a favor. There's no need for me to evaluate the rest of the shit you've said, you're simply not worth it.

[b]WORLD, HE'S UNINTELLIGENT AND INCAPABLE OF LEARNING, AVOID THIS COCKMASTER AT ALL COSTS.

:edit:retroactive corrections:

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 04-20-2005).]