HOME | DD
G-manluver — No more arguments about this
Published: 2008-03-30 23:57:12 +0000 UTC; Views: 14226; Favourites: 848; Downloads: 77
Redirect to original
Description
please read this if you're going to even attempt to argue meI'm fucking sick and tired of arguing this offline and on.
I don't give a shit what the "Bible" says, the Bible doesn't determine the meaning of the word animal.
GET THE HELL OVER IT!
Being an animal is based of biological properties, NOT BEHAVIOR, SPIRITUALITY OR INTELLIGENCE! In other words stop using the lame arguements: Humans have souls, cause wars, are smarter, have morals and any other bullshit related to our behavior.
THAT HAS NOTHING AND I REPEAT NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMANS BEING ANIMALS, DIMWIT!!!
Why can't you just look up what animal means instead of arguing using an outdated book?
Really would you argue that elephants aren't indangered because an outdated text says their population is fine? FUCK NO! So why argue the meaning of a word by using old text?
Meanings of words change over time, the definition of animal is one of those words and no amount of arguing with G-manluver will make your argument right.
You're wrong, humans are animals, you're wrong, too bad, so sad, use a dictionary, you're wrong!
The end!
PS: you can argue it here but again no amount of arguing will me with change the proper definition of animal
. Just sit back, relax and live with the thought that you aren't a plant or fugi at the least!EDIT: apparently my stamp is the most popular one of the day D:. wow this did much better than presumed.
EDIT 2: I said get over it! So GET OVER IT. your faith is incapable of changing known information so quit with the "God made us special" crap because if you can't prove it (meaning first you'd have to prove God exist, than get him to prove he created humans than get him to prove he made them into a unique seperate lifeform from all other species) than you have no argument. simple right?
Related content
Comments: 582
See, I don't think human beings are all that intelligent. If you give the average human a logic problem such as "remove the threat of violence from this situation", most of them would say "kill what's threatening you". Well guess what? These people just ADDED violence to the situation and fucked up the whole equation. That's like someone telling you to remove the "x" from an equation, so he/she adds another x to the equation. Oh yeah, that's perfect logic! The dominant species in action.
Human beings are not scientists and mathematicians, they are artists. They have the ability to look at something and see what it COULD be, rather than what it is; but as far as logic dictates, the ability to look at a tree and believe whole-heartedly that it's a car is not intelligent.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
quite so, humans I will agree aren't as smart as they assume. Hell I'm getting really tired of arguing with ones that have no logic whatsoever.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
well, we ain't plants, fungus, or bacteria--well, maybe we are that last one, we do act like disease
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
hehe, I know someone else noted that. But we are biologically animals even if we act like a virus sometimes lol.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
But, animal is such a general term.
Humans are mammals :]
-shot-
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I love being an animal! though being a plant would be interesting......
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So true. So true. I feel like one of the few human beings that takes pride in being an animal (and not in a strange sort of furry way).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well I take pride in it too. really being an animal is not a bad thing like some religious folks seem to think. It doesn't mean were stupid or without morals, just means we belong to a large group of living things that share physical traits with us.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Indeed. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
agreed, plus saying a dog is an animal doesn't make it any less of a dog so why would humans be less of humans if we said they were animals? strange logic is strange indeed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, that's true. I just never understood this human paranoia of being a part of the world...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wahey! Well said! It's like people who tell me that fish isn't meat. It's like, "Yes it is ... it's not exactly a vegetable is it? You're eating from an animal ... it's fish meat."
And, of course, people who mistake the word "mammal" for "animal" and then declare that crabs and things aren't animals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
what i love about that is way back when, 400 years ago or something, the god believing people of old thought the capybara (i just KNOW i spelled that wrong) was a fish. i laughed for days when i heard that. its kind of sad, really.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
yeah, animal does have a secondary definition which means mammals only but that's just it, the main definition says they are.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well of course.
I hate people who use the bible for everything.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
yeah, I hate that too. Seriously its an old book
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well, we certainly have no higher purpose than animals do. Humans differ from other animals in that we have the wonderful ability to find all sorts of ways to pass the time between feeding and breeding.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I LOVE THAT QUOTE!!!!!!!!!! FUNNY LIKE I DON'T KNOW WHAT!!!!!!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
true, but other animals play and make stuff like humans.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Just not as complex. (Other) Animals never made telescopes or played with plastic electronic gizmos.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
very true, humans have more complex lifestyles even though on the inside were the same complexity as most primates.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I know the majority of people out there misinterpret the Bible, but please do not insult the book. It's not the book's fault that people like to bend it's meanings, or take them too far...
Don't dis the Bible
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
May I ask where I dis the Bible? Really I didn't at any point in any comment I wrote here
I said it was an outdated text, which any text that is as old as the bible is would be!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You say "outdated" and "old text" like it's completely worthless...I'm not sure if you meant it that way, but that's how it sounded to me
Anyhow... on your arguement on the whole definition of animals thing:
The Bible does not define the word animal anywhere, as far as I'm concerned. I read the Bible everyday, and I never saw a text saying and animal is this-in-that while a human is that-or-another. I would have to do some research then if there is a text that says that
And the thing about humans having 'souls'...humans and animals ARE souls...you can tell the people whom argue with you to read Genisis 1: 20-21; there it refers to animals as 'souls'. The definition of soul is life, simply put.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
it was written by arabs 2000 plus years ago. sorry to say, thats outdated in my book.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And yet this 'outdated' book is the most in-demand book worldwide....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
wonderful. it IS outdated, though.........
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We still deal with people right? Family, friends, coworkers....the Bible gives the best advice. Most definetly not outdated...
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
the Bible gives the best advice
Subjective.
Isn't the bible that book that makes homosexuality out to be a sin?
There is a LOT of stuff in the bible that really wouldn't be good advice in this day and age. Thats why its outdated; the beliefs and theories they held 2000 years ago have long since been proven innaccurate. They didn't have the technology and science we have these days to find these things out in the detail we do now. Now we know better, about a LOT of things.
The bible teached forgiveness, love etc which is all good, and Im not saying there aren't some relevent bits in it still to this day. But a lot of it is really not relevent to our modern life.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, according to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin.
But did the Bible give orders to 'smite' all homosexuals? No. The Bible says that the '
I'd like to know, what other Bible teaching is supposedly irrelevant today? I know there are some things in the Hebrew Scriptures that doesn't fit (like the sacrifices), but the Greek Scriptures amends that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"The Bible says that the '
And thats not enough for you to agree its an outdated thing?
Any book that preaches that love is detestable is not one we should be following too closely.....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Woah woah...define homosexuality. According to Merriam-Webster homosexuality is the "erotic activity with another of the same sex" . What does love have to do with it? If two people just loved each other, they would just be really good friends wouldn't they? Homosexuality is when sex is involved.
In a society where sex anytime, anyplace with anyone is ok, well then yeah the Bible would be considered 'old-fashioned'.
Excuse my morals
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Are you saying homosexuals can't love? Are you honestly saying that homosexuality is JUST about sex, and not, y'know, about the tendancy to be able to fall IN LOVE with a person of the same sex?
Im straight, but I could probably have sex with a girl as a bit of fun. Im totally incapable of LOVING a girl though. Huge difference. I couldn't actually fall in love with a woman, because Im straight.
Gay people don't just have sex with their own gender, they fall in love with them, like you would with the opposite gender.
So if two straight people are in love and also fucking each other, thats a-ok, thats a '
I really REALLY hope I've got the wrong end of the stick here.....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I never said that they can't love. They are people, and they can love. Love is a beautiful thing and everyone should experience it.
But love does not equal sex. You can love someone and not have sex with them; and there are people who have sex without having to love the person.
What I'm saying, in order for a person to be technically considered a 'homosexual' is that they have sex with someone of the same gender. Sex is the factor, not love.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So you're ok for two guys to love one another as a couple, but not to show that love in any kind of sexual way at all? Only straight couples are allowed to have sex, gay couples just have to sit and stare longingly at one another?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In order for a couple to be considered 'homosexual' in the technical sense of the word, they would have to be sexaully involved with one another. If they were two guys or two gals that just loved each other, they would be just two guys or two gals that loved each other.
Do you really need to have sex with someone to show that you love them?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, it just means you have a sexual ATTRACTION to the other gender, you don't actually have to follow through with anything sexual, just like you don't have to have sex to be considered straight.
Im pretty sure I knew I was straight, even before I ever had sex for the first time.
I love my best friend, who is female. I also love my mother. I don't want to have sex with them.
I love my father and my brother, but I don't want to have sex with them or be in a rromantic relationship with them. There is a huge difference between a guy or girl you love, and someone you love in a romantic way with an aim to be a couple with.
If you don't have a sexual attraction to someone, then it IS just a friendship. I have lots of male friends I adore, but nothing more as there isn't that 'spark' there. I also, obviously, have known men I adore just as much, but in a different way. Thats the difference between friends and mates/partners/lovers.
I think gay people would be pretty fucking offended by your assumption that they're not gay unless they've actually done the deed. What about gay people who are still virgins but know full well that its their own gender that get them off? Are they not truely gay until they've actually fucked someone?
Even before you have your first sexual experience, you know what gender and things it is that turn you on. If its consistantly your own gender, chances are you're gay. You don't need to actually go out and fuck someone to know that.
I knew at a young age that it was boys that interested me, not my own gender. But I didn't have sex until years later.
A sexual orientation is about what gender excites you, turns you on, what gender you feel you could be capable of loving romantically for the rest of your life.
As I've said, I could have sex with a woman as a laugh, but I couldn't love a woman in the same way I've loved the men I've had relationships with. By your definition, that makes me gay (or bi) since I could probably actually fuck a woman, which is all you seem to define homosexuality by, but I couldn't love a woman.
The love makes the difference to me, not the sex.
It isn't all about sex.
Besides which, what about a straight couple doing it anally? Theres little difference there from a gay couple doing the same thing. So its not about the actual sexual act, its about the people doing it that you don't like, thats pretty clear, and all that hatred and bigotry sent toward gay people just because of that invisible man floating about in space again. The bible has a hell of a lot to answer for, because all the gay haters use it as their excuse.
Besides which, homosexuality has been proven to be natural, and beyond a person's control. Any book which demonises something someone can't HELP is pretty fucking sucky in my mind.
Besides which, you didn't answer the question: is it ok for two men to have a sexual attraction to one another, AS LONG as they don't touch or express that in any physical way?
Do you really need to have sex with someone to show that you love them?
Uh, no, you don't HAVE to, but its called 'love making' for a reason. Perhaps you just have a view of sex as something dirty and animalistic, but its actually capable of being a very beautiful thing between two people who love each other. Its an expression of your love for that person. Presumably you feel the need to have sex with your partner, as a mutual expression of love? A gay couple has as much right to do this too.
And besides which, even if it WAS purely a basic, animalistic, beastly desire to just fuck one another's brains out, so what? As long as both parties are consenting, where on earth is the problem?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ok, first off, it's not MY definition of homosexual. It's the dictionary's.
These aren't my rules, I did not put these restrictions on sex. The Bible places restrictions on sex. Why? For our own good. For the same reason the government places restrictions on driving, and restrictions on serving food and what not; for the health and safety of the people.
I don't view sex as something 'evil' or 'animalistic'. It's something very natural, otherwise why do we have reproductive organs in the first place? The Bible says that sex is restricted to a husband and wife. Because the purpose of sex is to make children, looking at it literally or scientifically. 'Making love' is just a phrase or a saying, sure love could be involved but is that always the case? Not really
So looking at sex as an act of reproduction, and not as an act of love, is what the Bible is restricting. What's the danger of having sex with multiple partners? Contracting an STD or having an unplanned pregnancy. Why do you have to be married to have sex? If they end up having a kid, wouldn't it be in the kid's best interest to be raised by both parents, who are mature, responsible and loyal? And why is it wrong to have sex with someone of the same gender, or have anal/oral sex with anyone? Because it's disrespectful to the human body.
So its not like the Bible says only gay people can't have sex, and all straight couples can do whatever they want. It gives guidance to EVERYONE.
Ok, now what you said about sexual orientation and sexual attraction...Personally, I don't think that you are born knowing what sexual orientation you are because how is a kid supposed to know what sex is anyway? A kid doesn't know anything when their born, they have to be taught how to eat, how to go to the bathroom, and what not. Like you said, you don't need to have sex to know what sexual orientation you are. A person's sexual orientation is a decision they make on their own, when they're capable of making their own decisions. Sure there is research done supporting the idea that being homosexual is natural among humans, but none of its conclusive so no one can say for sure.
You're right, sexual attraction is not the same as sex itself. But couldn't a sexual attraction lead to sex? Sure it may or may not, but there is that possibility.
Of course love isn't all about sex. It shouldn't be about sex, because what kind of a base for a relationship is that? Not a very good one.
And it is true what you said about gay haters. Unfortunatly, these 'anti-gay' activists use the Bible as an excuse to attack the homosexual community. There is no place in the Bible that supports these haters in doing what they do. It's defintly not their place to act on 'behalf of God' to attack these people.
I believe in the Bible, but I'm not one to go with 'torches and pitchforks' to attack people who disobey what the Bible says. I believe everyone has a choice and I will respect other's choices, just as much as I hope they respect mine.
The way you talk about my opinion, its like your saying that I'm saying 'I'm right, and everyone should do things my way'. I hope that's not what you meant, but it sounds that way to me.
I'm no supreme ruler, It's not like I have the final say in everything; I'm not trying to 'convert' people to my way of thinking. Everyone has free will, and thus everyone has a choice. And my choice, is to follow the Bible.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"The Bible places restrictions on sex. Why? For our own good. For the same reason the government places restrictions on driving, and restrictions on serving food and what not; for the health and safety of the people."
The problem with this attitude is that it assumes that consenting adults are not intelligent enough to make their own decisions, and leads to the nanny state. I do agree with rules that stop people harming other people, but not in rules where the only people affected is one's self. No one should be allowed to tell me what I can smoke, drink, or who I can have sex with and how, as long as Im not harming anyone else then it has NOTHING to do with them.
Im an adult, and it should be my choice about these things.
"And why is it wrong to have sex with someone of the same gender, or have anal/oral sex with anyone? Because it's disrespectful to the human body."
How?
Says who? The body is an object, a shell in which the actual person lives. The body cannot think, it does not have feelings, it cannot be 'disrespected'. The PERSON owns the body, and he or she is the one with the ability to decide what is and isn't disrespecting it.
Some people think tattoos and piercings are disrespecting the body. I don't. I think they're celebrating it.
Some people think swearing is disrespectful, I don't. I think its self expression.
The very idea of something being 'disrespected' is totally subjective, as the above examples show.
What one person considers disrespectful, another considers wonderful and celebratory.
Being disrespected is something you feel inside you, an inanimate object cannot feel that. We, as sentiant humans, make the decision on what is disrespectful.
A car cannot feel disrespected, but its owner can claim the car has been 'disrespected' if HE feels it has. Same with the body; its the owner of it that decides what is and isn't disrespectful.
So if two people are perfectly happy about the idea of homosexual sex, then who, exactly, is the one deciding this is disrespectful? Someone else? Someone its got ansolutely NOTHING to do with? Yeah, that seems about right when discussing fundamentalist religious types.
I would like you to answer me what is has to do with anyone else what two consenting gay men do in the privacy of their own home? Honestly, answer me why it is so important that other people get involved in a couple's sex life?
"So its not like the Bible says only gay people can't have sex, and all straight couples can do whatever they want. It gives guidance to EVERYONE."
Except that guidance is horribly skewed and biased.
Straight people are allowed to express their love via sex, or sexual contact (which is defined as something as menial as kissing, up to and including full sex), but gay people aren't. Sounds totally fair.
"Ok, now what you said about sexual orientation and sexual attraction...Personally, I don't think that you are born knowing what sexual orientation you are because how is a kid supposed to know what sex is anyway?"
I think you're thinking about kids a lot younger than I was.
Of course when you're born you don't know much of anything.
But when you're 10, 11, whatever (it obviously differs for different people) you may well start to do. And you know at that age whether its women you like to look at, or men.
You know whether you're going to have posters of female popastars and movie stars on your wall, or males ones.
You may not even understand WHY you feel that way, or what it is, but the fact remains that you have a leaning to one particular gender long before you have your first sexual experience. You don't have sex then go 'oh, wow, I guess Im straight then!'
"A person's sexual orientation is a decision they make on their own, when they're capable of making their own decisions."
Sexual orientation is not a decision. Its not a choice.
I never ever sat down and thought 'hmmm....would I rather go out with boys or girls.....I just can't decide!! Oh......boys! Yes!'
I didn't have to think about it, it was just natural.
If homosexuality is a choice that someone can consciously make, then.....you do it.
For 5 minutes, just attempt to be attracted to the same sex. Can't do it, can you?
"Sure there is research done supporting the idea that being homosexual is natural among humans, but none of its conclusive so no one can say for sure."
Theres a g-spot in the arse that isn't there for decoration
"I believe everyone has a choice and I will respect other's choices, just as much as I hope they respect mine."
Im not sure you really grasp what respect means.
By saying, as you did earlier, that homosexual love making is disrespectful to the body, and that sexual orientation is a choice, you've kinda disrespected any gay person who might be reading this, right off the bat.
"The way you talk about my opinion, its like your saying that I'm saying 'I'm right, and everyone should do things my way'. I hope that's not what you meant, but it sounds that way to me."
No, I just think you're using an extremely outdated text which, with regards to homosexuality at least, is virtually irrelevent in today's world.
A lot has been discovered about people's sexual orientations in 2000 years. To cling firmly to a book written in a time before that progress had been made is rather foolish.
Yes, the bible does have some relevent things in it, things we should probably follow, but a lot of it, like the prejudice against homosexuality, is not something we really need in this day and age.
What good would it do us as a society to, say, ban homosexual sex or make it a crime?
I still fail to see what the way two people have sex has to do with anyone but those two people.
"Everyone has free will, and thus everyone has a choice. And my choice, is to follow the Bible."
Which is fine, but you have to accept that it is a very old book, written a long time ago before we know a shit-load of the things we do now, and that a lot of it has been proven either innacurate or else irrelevent.
If you want to follow it regardless of this, thats fine, as long as you're not harming anyone else. But you have to be prepared to some questioning as to why you'd still want to follow something written in a vastly different society to our own, long before a lot of advancements were made.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But sex doesn't involve one person. It involves two at the least. And just because someone is 'intelligent' doesn't mean they'll do the right thing.
Isn't a person a 'living body'? So how doesn't the body feel pain?
Now we have to remember that the Bible isn't just a book of morals. It's a book from God given to humanity. Who has greater authority to decide what's right or wrong for the human body than the one who designed the human body in the first place? Now then the question becomes whether there is a God, and that is a debate that has been argued for a long time and our debate may never end. So again, its everyone own's conscious decision.
If someone who is gay feels offended by what I've said, I'm sorry. But should anyone really take to heart what someone they don't know said over the internet? Not really. I'm not TRYING to attack anyone, I'm trying to defend what I believe.
In terms of homosexuality, the Bible is not outdated. Homosexuality did exist in biblical times believe it or not. It's just human society that decided to accept it. God, however, does not. It's the act that's detestable, not the people. Just how a parent feels hurt when their kid does something bad, is how God feels with us. And just like a parent who doesn't stop loving their kid dispite what they do, God is the same way. And just as a parent gives rules to the kid, God gives us rules too. And if a kid gets out of line, what would a parent do? Wouldn't they discipline them? Well, same goes for God.
And yes, the Bible is an old text and some people believe it irrelevant. But just because something is old, doesn't mean it's useless.
But after all we've said to each other, I think we can both agree that everyone has the right to make their own choice. What people do and what people believe in up to them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"But sex doesn't involve one person. It involves two at the least. And just because someone is 'intelligent' doesn't mean they'll do the right thing."
And if those two people are consenting, where is the problem?
Also, who is better qualified to decide what is right for me than me?
'The right thing' is totally subjective. A few thousand years agho, the 'right thing' was to burn people as witches. I make my own decisions, based on what is right for me, I don't need people who don't even know me to make them for me.
"Isn't a person a 'living body'? So how doesn't the body feel pain?"
You are your brain. Your body is a vessel to cart that brain around in. Its your brain that sends pain signals out, without a functioning brain, the body feels NOTHING.
"In terms of homosexuality, the Bible is not outdated. Homosexuality did exist in biblical times believe it or not. It's just human society that decided to accept it."
Exactly. We have evolved and developed new opinions. We now know homosexuality is natural, something they didn't know back then, and we know that homosexuality is not a choice, something they also didn't know back then. So now we're cool with homosexuality because we know its natural and beyond someone's control.
I wouldn't want to live in a world, or worship a god, who implyed people are sinners for something they can't help. Its like calling someone a sinner because of their skin colour.
"It's the act that's detestable, not the people."
Thats a cheap way of trying desperately to not look homophobic,.
An act is not a conscious thing, it cannot think. Its a human that brings an 'act' to life. Implying you blame the act and not the people is just a get out clause for when people, quite rightly, accuse fundamentalist christians of being homophobes.
"Just how a parent feels hurt when their kid does something bad, is how God feels with us. And just like a parent who doesn't stop loving their kid dispite what they do, God is the same way."
Except I don't end up chucking my kids into the pits of 'hell' if they don't do exactly as I say.
"And just as a parent gives rules to the kid, God gives us rules too. And if a kid gets out of line, what would a parent do? Wouldn't they discipline them? Well, same goes for God."
How does god discipline these filthy, immoral homosexuals then?
"And yes, the Bible is an old text and some people believe it irrelevant. But just because something is old, doesn't mean it's useless."
It kinda does if said thing is supposed to be a guide to living one's life.
Life, society, beliefs, technology, its all VASTLY different to how it was 2000 years ago. We have more advanced science, we know more, we alter our beliefs based on what we know. To follow teachings for 2000 years ago, strictly, implies you think we reached the pinnacle of our human advancements at that period. A period when people were still crucified. We didn't. We have a come a long way, and we have disproved some things they held up as truth in the bible. Sure, there are a few snippets here and there which are still relevent and useful, but most of it is at best a fairytale we can glean some moral lessons from here and there.
Lets not forget this book told us a senior citizen built an ark and managed to round up 2 of every single animal on earth.
Yeah.....elaborate fairy tale with a moral, thats all I personally see the bible as.
Doesn't mean its useless, just that it is no longer a very accurate guide to life and should be taken with a truck load of salt.
"But after all we've said to each other, I think we can both agree that everyone has the right to make their own choice. What people do and what people believe in up to them"
Indeed. But lets remember it was you who came to a deviation which obviously went against your beliefs, and started spouting your beliefs. Thats why all this started in the first place.
Its fine to have beliefs, but not to go and try and force them on people who clearly have opposing ones.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"You are your brain. Your body is a vessel to cart that brain around in. Its your brain that sends pain signals out, without a functioning brain, the body feels NOTHING."
The body has to recieve the message in the first place now doesn't it? Without a functioning body the brain can't do much. If a part of the body isn't working (like the kidneys) wouldn't the entire body, including the brain, suffer?
"We now know homosexuality is natural, something they didn't know back then, and we know that homosexuality is not a choice, something they also didn't know back then. So now we're cool with homosexuality because we know its natural and beyond someone's control."
The scientific proof for homosexuality as something natural in the pychological standpoint is purely speculative, not conclusive.
Isn't it common knowledge that a male's reproductive organs compliment the female's reproductive organs? A man's reproduvtive organ is not physically compatible with another male's reproductive organ (same goes for the female with female). So how is homosexuality a 'natural' thing?
"An act is not a conscious thing, it cannot think. Its a human that brings an 'act' to life. Implying you blame the act and not the people is just a get out clause for when people, quite rightly, accuse fundamentalist christians of being homophobes."
How is an act not a concious thing? I can consciously open a book, I can consciously type. People are conscious of their actions.
Oh people can't help it if they smoke...people can't help it if they drink...people can't help it if they have sex. Is it absolutely impossible for someone to control themselves? It may be difficult, but it can be done.
Another thing, people are not just identified by their actions. Their actions are only part of who they are. It's what they do, not who they are that is wrong. And sexuality is only PART of who they are.
"Except I don't end up chucking my kids into the pits of 'hell' if they don't do exactly as I say."
'Hell' is figurative, not a literal place. And that's not the '
"Life, society, beliefs, technology, its all VASTLY different to how it was 2000 years ago."
Is it so different? People eat, sleep, and drink just like they did back then. They had the same physical and emotional needs as we do know. Sure technology makes some things easier, but has the quality of life improved that we don't need help from anyone? Aren't we still humans that make mistakes?
"Indeed. But lets remember it was you who came to a deviation which obviously went against your beliefs, and started spouting your beliefs. Thats why all this started in the first place."
I came to this deviation because G-manluver is my friend. And all I said in my initial comment was that if she would please not disrespect the Bible. I was asking for a favor, I wasn't trying to change the way she was thinking or to start an arguement. We cleared up that misunderstanding between the both of us.
I did not come here to attack people who don't believe in the bible. Attacking and defending are two different things. I've never said that 'everyone has to follow the Bible, because I said so blah blah blah'; I'm not telling you what to do, I'm not telling anyone what they should do. I'm not forcing my views on anyone, and ignoring the other point of view. If I was ignoring what you were saying, would the conversation have lasted this long?
I'm taking a stand for my views, I'm not trying to change everyone else's.
Obviously this argument can go one for a long time, since we're each arguing something 'subjective'.
So the last thing I will say is this: in order to really understand the biblical standpoint, you would have to research the bible firsthand; Knowing and understanding what it says is different from believing what it says or assuming what it says.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"The body has to recieve the message in the first place now doesn't it? Without a functioning body the brain can't do much. If a part of the body isn't working (like the kidneys) wouldn't the entire body, including the brain, suffer?"
I don't think you are getting what Im saying. The body is controlled by the brain. Think of the body as a car, and the brain as the driver. The driver controls everything that car does. Sure, the car can move, but not unless the driver wants it to. The pain the body feels is sent by, you guessed it, the brain.
Yes, the body can mulfunction independantly of the brain, but it cannot FUNCTION independantly of the brain.
The whole point of this was you implying that a body somehow has the emotional ability to feel disrespected. My point was that only the brain has the ability to recognise and know what disrespect is. The body doesn't.
Therefore, only the brain can decide if it is being disrespected, and thats where we as individuals with invidual beliefs come in.
"Isn't it common knowledge that a male's reproductive organs compliment the female's reproductive organs?"
Its also common knowledge that there is a g-spot in up the arse which serves no purpose other than being there for pleasure. Its also common knowledge that homosexuality occurs in the animal world, I'd say thats about as natural as you can get.
Homosexuality in animals is defined when a male animal has ample access to females with which to mate, yet consistantly chooses to mate with males instead.
There are SO many cases of animals doing this, and not far from where I live we have a gay swan couple, two males who have mated for life and been together for years, as a male and female swan would in 'conventional' nature.
"How is an act not a concious thing? I can consciously open a book, I can consciously type. People are conscious of their actions."
Yes, YOU can open a book, YOU as a person make that decision. The act itself is nothing without a human to follow it through. Saying you hate the act of homosexuality is rubbish, since the act of homosexuality is little more than a thought without two humans to carry it out. An 'act' or a deed or an activity needs a human to perform it.
"Oh people can't help it if they smoke...people can't help it if they drink...people can't help it if they have sex. Is it absolutely impossible for someone to control themselves?"
I don't see what this has to do with anything really.
Of course people can control themselves. But if something is legal, enjoyable, not harming anyone else and performed between two consenting adults, why SHOULD one deny oneself things? Where is the harm? What harm, exactly, is two gay guys making love in the privacy of their own home doing to you or anyone else?
"It's what they do, not who they are that is wrong. And sexuality is only PART of who they are."
Your actions define who you are.
If you kill people, you are a murderer. If you fuck kids, you're a pedophile, if you draw pictures, you're an artist.
But if you sit around just talking about killing people, you're not a murderer. You only become one once you perform the act. Therefore, your actions have a HELL of a bearing on who you are as a person.
No, they're not the be all and end all, but to say you hate homosexual sex but have no problems with homosexuals.......do you understand how crazy that sounds?
Again, I say: who people have sex with and how is NOTHING to do with you. What makes you think you have the right to judge it? If my boyfriend fucks me up the arse, is that ok? As long as Im not a male, his dick can go there, right, even though its JUST as 'unnatural'? Its completely stupid. Sexuality and the act of sex is between you and your partner, its nothing to do with anyone else.
Im interest in what you feel is the solution to this?
The way I see it, gays would have 3 options to be considered acceptable to 'god':
Convert to straight. In my personal opinion, impossible. I couldn't just 'convert' to gay if I felt like it, so Im pretty sure it works the other way too
Live a life as a straight person. This is a big fat lie and involves decieving many people. Not very christian.
Abstain completely from sex. Yeah...thats totally fair.
"The '
Which is why I have no love for the christian idea of god. If that 'god' would condemn someone to exclusion based on who they happen to fall in love with, thats a pretty shitty god.
"Is it so different? People eat, sleep, and drink just like they did back then. They had the same physical and emotional needs as we do know. Sure technology makes some things easier, but has the quality of life improved that we don't need help from anyone? Aren't we still humans that make mistakes?"
Uh....yeah. Its pretty damn different.
Science has enabled us to know WHY we do things now, HOW we do things. We now know someone rolling on the floor shaking and foaming is probably having an epileptic fit, not that he's posessed by the devil. We now know that stringing someone up to a cross and leaving them there to die isn't an acceptable form of punishment.
Yes, we eat, sleep and drink, but how much of the bible is giving us guidance on what to eat and how to sleep? The bible mostly spouts about the way we should live our lives, the morals we should have, and that is something that has REALLY changed in the last 2000 years.
Shit, look at the progress made in the western world in only a fraction of that time! Black people have gone from being slaves to being equal, because we got smarter and learned that there was absolutely no difference between them and us, and it wasn't acceptable to treat them like there was. Women used to be second class citizens, now they're equal. There is SO much social change that has happened over even the last 200 years, let alone 2000, and people's beliefs change accordingly.
The bible telling us to live our lives as people did 2000 years ago in the desert is not relevent. Sure, things like not killing, respecting your mother and father etc thats still relevent. But a hell of a lot isn't.
"I came to this deviation because G-manluver is my friend. And all I said in my initial comment was that if she would please not disrespect the Bible. I was asking for a favor, I wasn't trying to change the way she was thinking or to start an arguement. We cleared up that misunderstanding between the both of us."
I fail to see how this deviation is disrespecting the bible. Its DISAGREEING with it, but that doesn't equal disrespect.
"So the last thing I will say is this: in order to really understand the biblical standpoint, you would have to research the bible firsthand; Knowing and understanding what it says is different from believing what it says or assuming what it says."
I have read the bible. A long time ago, we were forced to in school (which is always a great teaching method, I feel).
Admittedly, its not fresh in my mind, but if we took it literally, we wouldn't be allowed to:
eat shellfish
wear gold jewellry
Pay interest
wear poly/cotton blend clothes
Excersize
Marry someone who is divorced
Work on saturday
Women would not be allowed to talk in church
Im not saying shun the bible completely, Im just saying there are definately parts of it that are outdated/outright fabricated, and it often does more harm than good when people try to stick rigidly to instructions that aren't very relevent to today.
At best, use the bible as a guide to modern life, but to stick rigidly to it isn't wise, in my mind.
If we'd done that, there are so many advancements we wouldn't have made by now.
Religion cannot exist without rejecting new ideas, unfortunately.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
personally, i don't agree with you or your book. that's just me in my athiestness.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I didn't write the Bible. It was written by 40 different men from different backgrounds (from a King to a Doctor)inspired by God over the course of 16 centuries...
The advice found in the Bible has been repeated and imitated in self-help/self-esteem books written in the present. It is not outdated for our era...in fact, if people took to heart the advice of the Bible, we would be a lot better off.
I respect you and your views, and I am not trying to convince you otherwise. I'm just defending what I believe.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
so am i. no disrespect intended. can you believe i sound so civilized right after i get and reply to hate mail from some idiot? i replied to you right after. sheesh.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ah I see I see, I wasn't trying to insult the holy book by saying it was outdated, I just meant terminology would be outdated since it was translated into english quite a while back and words have changed meaning since then
Sorry if I offended you or anyone else with that statement
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>