On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:31:32 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Until that day, man is whatever
> gives sperm and woman whatever takes it to give birth to a new being.

So, a sterile man isn't a man and a woman who has had a hysterectomy is 
no longer a woman?

And those who are in that situation shouldn't be allowed to be married in 
the eyes of God?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:50:19 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>
> >> The same God that said "go forth and multiply"? So you shouldn't be
> >> able to get married if you can't have children?
> >
> > That's a misunfortunate event for some couples, not like they don't try
> > hard.
>
> You know, I'm going to try really hard not to take that personally,
> because some people are simply physically incapable of having kids.

I know that and they are the ones I'm talking about.  I don't know why you'd
take that personally as I don't know you sufficiently well nor was after
personal insults, Jim.

> Your lack of knowledge about the Mormon faith is pretty deep, it would
> seem.  Do you even know what Mormons believe?

I read the whole wikipedia article some months ago.  Very interesting.
Specially as it seems to be the first Holy Book covered by copyright!  I guess
L. Ron Hubbard got his inspiration...

All in all, specially the inacurate "visions" of native continental america,
it's a very american thing.

> Some say that Judiaism and Christianity are man-made myths.

Yes, like you and Darren, constantly. :)

> Defend that
> they're not and that Mormonism is - prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
> Christ didn't visit North America after he was crucified, but prove that
> he is in fact the Son of God.

Jesus is supposed to come back just at the end of times, why would he be roaming
about America?  Why would he come to the USA out of all places?  Does it have
bigger sins than other places on Earth?

It just doesn't make any sense.  Well, more than any other religion, anyway...

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:16:30 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:50:19 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>>
>> >> The same God that said "go forth and multiply"? So you shouldn't be
>> >> able to get married if you can't have children?
>> >
>> > That's a misunfortunate event for some couples, not like they don't
>> > try hard.
>>
>> You know, I'm going to try really hard not to take that personally,
>> because some people are simply physically incapable of having kids.
> 
> I know that and they are the ones I'm talking about.  I don't know why
> you'd take that personally as I don't know you sufficiently well nor was
> after personal insults, Jim.

Partly I was making a point.  You never know when you're damning specific 
people with generalities.

Personally, I don't care whether you think my marriage to my wife is 
"legitimate in the eyes of God" because we can't have children (mostly 
because I don't believe in your God, as we've discussed before), however 
I'm making the point that if the purpose of marriage is procreation, then 
(a) you exclude normal people like me, and (b) you really should be 
preaching about polygamy, since (1) it's more traditional than monogamy 
through history, and (2) you end up with a hell of a lot more procreation 
as a result.

>> Your lack of knowledge about the Mormon faith is pretty deep, it would
>> seem.  Do you even know what Mormons believe?
> 
> I read the whole wikipedia article some months ago.  Very interesting.
> Specially as it seems to be the first Holy Book covered by copyright!  I
> guess L. Ron Hubbard got his inspiration...

Holy shit, Wikipedia as an authoritative source on the entirely of a 
religion.   My mind boggles.

It's not like the Book of Mormon is hard to find - damned near every 
Marriott property includes a copy in every single room, after all.

> All in all, specially the inacurate "visions" of native continental
> america, it's a very american thing.

Mormonism started in America, but it's hardly an American thing any 
more.  Some Mormons serve missions in Israel, in fact.  I've got 
coworkers who have family serving missions in South America, and my 
wife's ex-husband served his in Finland.  It's everywhere.

As for "inaccurate visions", well, that's a matter of opinion and very 
much in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?  Kinda like the "visions" 
people in the OT had.

>> Some say that Judiaism and Christianity are man-made myths.
> 
> Yes, like you and Darren, constantly. :)

Oh, you noticed? ;-)

>> Defend that
>> they're not and that Mormonism is - prove beyond a shadow of a doubt
>> that Christ didn't visit North America after he was crucified, but
>> prove that he is in fact the Son of God.
> 
> Jesus is supposed to come back just at the end of times, why would he be
> roaming about America?  Why would he come to the USA out of all places? 
> Does it have bigger sins than other places on Earth?
> 
> It just doesn't make any sense.  Well, more than any other religion,
> anyway...

You'd have to ask a true-believing Mormon about that.  Personally, I 
think it's a great "life guide", and most Mormons I know very much more 
follow the golden rule (particularly compared to followers of other 
Christian faiths) and in general are much more tolerant of people with 
differing points of view.

"The Bible" as we know it today has been through a lot of changes over 
the years - books added and removed.  As I understand it, Mormons believe 
that the Book of Mormon is an extension of the Bible and that their text 
is consistent with the rest of the Bible.  I've not studied it 
extensively, but I've had discussions with people who do believe it, 
which I daresay is just a bit more knowledge about it than reading the 
entry on Wikipedia. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > That's a misunfortunate event for some couples, not like they don't try hard.
>
> No, I'm sorry.   It's YAWEH doing it.   Obviously.

Are you sure?  I always thought the one in charge for getting obstacles in front
of you was Satan.  You either overcome them or get around them and continue your
way through another path.  Or you just sit and cry for the rest of your life.

> In any case, what difference does "trying hard" make? Does a gay person who
> "tries hard" to be straight and fail please God?

No, failures please Satan.

If a guy can't find love as a man, perhaps he should just forget sex and find
another path for happiness.  Sex is not an end, just a way.

> > It doesn't change the fact that they were given a role in this world
> > as men and are not fulfilling it.
>
> I'm so glad you have a direct line to God's mind, to know what role he has
> for each and every human on the planet.  Ask him for me where I can get a
> better job?  KTHXBYE.

I don't know my role, let alone yours or anyone else.  But I'm trying my best at
not looking like a third rate actor.

I'm not sure you or Jim accept prayers for any help.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> What's the answer for hermaphrodites who want to marry another human
> being?  Who are they allowed to marry?  Who are they not allowed to marry?
>
> Be specific.

I think I answered before:  they were *given* choice.  Just choose a side.  Or
none.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> That's a misunfortunate event for some couples, not like they don't try hard.
>> No, I'm sorry.   It's YAWEH doing it.   Obviously.
> 
> Are you sure?  I always thought the one in charge for getting obstacles in front
> of you was Satan. 

Nope. You're mistaken. Go re-read Job, for example. Or Genesis.

> I'm not sure you or Jim accept prayers for any help.

I have nothing against you praying to me for help, certainly.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
>> In any case, what difference does "trying hard" make? Does a gay person who
>> "tries hard" to be straight and fail please God?
> 
> No, failures please Satan.

So, when God makes you gay, and you try to be straight but fail, this 
displeases God?  Yet it's Satan putting obstacles in your way?

> If a guy can't find love as a man, perhaps he should just forget sex and find
> another path for happiness.  Sex is not an end, just a way.

Who said anything about sex?  You're telling me God makes some people gay, 
and he wants them not to live the love he put in their hearts? I thought 
Jesus said to love your neighbors and all that stuff?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> Ok, bad joke asides, hermaphrodites are special cases.
>> And the answer to them is...?  :)
>>
>> I mean, that's the point, isn't it? The Bible doesn't special-case them, so
>> on what grounds do you make your decision, if you're denying gay marriage on
>> the grounds that God only creates unambiguously men and women?
> 
> Most gays are not hermaphrodites.
> 
> And I'm not denying gay marriage.  Go, live happily in their nature denial.
> 
Nemesis, simple reality, "gay" exists in all species over a certain 
level of complexity, including deer, dogs, cats, and penguins, etc. 
Every time someone mentions "denying nature" I know they have a weak 
grasp of the science of sexual selection, and are just "assuming" that 
there is some magic part of human (or other animals) natures that are 
somehow devoid of errors, flaws, deviation, or genetic influence. There 
are perfectly *valid* reasons why nature produces such things, including 
in **humans**. In humans, for example, there are clear indications that 
over-production of offspring is countered *directly* by the change in 
hormone levels in *each* pregnancy, which causes a direct and observable 
correlation with how likely it is that the "next" kid they have will be 
homosexual. Its not the only factor, but it seems to be a "strong" 
influence on the odds of them developing same sex attractions.

Another similar issue was found in deer populations, where it was found 
that aggressive females tended to mate less, and successfully raise 
"fewer" offspring, while passive males also mated less, but since male 
and female is "entirely" a result of a few missing genes, which *causes* 
a female body to "morph" into male during development, its functionally 
impossible to produce a species to produce all aggressive males and all 
passive females, instead of constantly trading off between the two, with 
inevitable outsiders, which range from "not quite as male or female as 
optimal", to, "so completely the wrong way around they don't produce 
'any' offspring."

Sexuality is a spectrum, which evolved to "try" to keep most people in 
the middle ground, where the tendency is to be 90% attracted to the 
opposite sex, but where mechanisms also "co-evolved" to limit over 
population, by "lowering" the odds of a viable male or female, if the 
female bearing the offspring produces too large of a population. You get 
someone that is the 8th child, who is mostly ignored and not constantly 
forced to be the right "sex", and *also" by chance happens to land in 
the category of having a too "female" a mind (i.e., like the over 
passive male deer), and your odds of them turning out "normal" just went 
from 98% to like 10%. Still possible, but only by, in that case, 
fighting an uphill battle with a sex drive that keeps telling them that 
they like males 90%, and women 10%, instead of the other way around.

Point is, nature doesn't produce "all male" or "all female" in anything 
much more complex than a moth, and I am not even sure those wouldn't 
exhibit some of the same sort of unstable trait drift (to maintain 
different behavior models for males and females) and population 
controls, which generates homosexual behavior in mammals. You simply 
can't use the same blueprint for 99% of the entire animal, which 
included 99% of what makes it "act" like such an animal, in the most 
general sense, they expect the other 1%, which has to define body form, 
differences in physical function, etc., to also "perfectly" designate 
psychological differences between sexes (despite its total inability to 
get the first part right and "always" get the shape right either).

And, with all due respect, Hermaphrodites have *tended* to have people 
choose "for them" based on how close they where to one or the other, and 
not on their actual DNA. It still, unfortunately, happens in some cases 
like that today, when we should know better. So, if they do end up one 
sex or the other, they may still end up the *wrong* one for their DNA, 
the *wrong* one for their sexual preferences, or *both*.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> It's not that.  According to Christian/Jewish religion, to the tale of Adam and
>>> Eve, God made man and woman and made them so that they complement each other
>>> and turn into one flesh by the institution of marriage.
>> The same God that said "go forth and multiply"? So you shouldn't be able to
>> get married if you can't have children?
> 
> That's a misunfortunate event for some couples, not like they don't try hard.
> 
> Oh, you're talking about 2 guys!  Well, science eventually will get around that.
>  Science already permit many men to pretend they are women, by taking away the
> penis, slashing away a vagina and drinking many hormonal beverages for the
> breasts.  It doesn't change the fact that they were given a role in this world
> as men and are not fulfilling it.
> 
>> We're not talking about religion here. We're talking about fundamental human
>> rights.
> 
> Right.
> 
>> The Mormon god says Africans are decedents of Satan or some such.
>> Does that mean we should reinstitute segregation?
> 
> No, Mormonism is a man-made myth.  OTOH, in the Old Testment YAWEH ordened many
> tribes to be slaghtered by the Jews.  It seems they still listen to an enraged
> YAWEH even to this day.
> 
And, if you trace that name back a bit farther than the fracking Babble, 
you find that Yaweh is the third son of the one true God, who made all 
things. Yaweh was also a warmonger, and assigned to rule over one 
kingdom in the ancient world, at least up until all three of the sons 
screwed up their collective kingdoms and "daddy" took rule of them all 
back. Your point is what exactly? That a large number of people have no 
bloody clue what the pre-history of their own religion is, or deny it, 
but insist that the whole thing is the word of their God and nothing 
prior to Genesis was ever written? Hardly a rousing endorsement for its 
prominence as the one true rule book of life, never mind dominance in 
modern society (which has more to do with persecution complexes, where 
by, by its own rules, every time someone points out that your are an 
idiot, you are justified in your faith, because only persecuted people 
know the "true word of the lord"). Sorry, but I don't think most people 
bought that BS when Christians where 1% of those that rules society, now 
that they are 90%+ of the ruling class, it just makes the ones saying it 
look like whiny idiots, and makes people question if its worth believing 
in the first place.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Clergy here can not do a civil marriage, so that is different. My
>> parents married in the church more than 5 months after their civil
>> marriage. I don't know how (un)common that was in those days.
> 
> That is an interesting difference.

	Isn't it the same in the US? For the government to recognize a
marriage, it has to be registered. Isn't the use of religious figures
just a cultural move that has no legal significance?

(Unmarried person asking)

-- 
"Apple I" (c) Copyright 1767, Sir Isaac Newton.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
>> All in all, specially the inacurate "visions" of native continental
>> america, it's a very american thing.
> 
> Mormonism started in America, but it's hardly an American thing any 
> more.  Some Mormons serve missions in Israel, in fact.  I've got 

	I believe roughly half of Mormons are not in the US. They're very
successful at proselytizing.



-- 
"Apple I" (c) Copyright 1767, Sir Isaac Newton.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	Isn't it the same in the US? For the government to recognize a
> marriage, it has to be registered. Isn't the use of religious figures
> just a cultural move that has no legal significance?

I think the confusion is that most people whose religion lets them marry 
others also go through the paperwork that makes them capable of doing the 
civil part of the work too. I.e., you can step up before a clerk 
(essentially) and say "Marry us" and there's some paperwork. The religious 
leader fills out the same paperwork and has already obtained a license to do 
civil marriages as well.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> That's a misunfortunate event for some couples, not like they don't try hard.
>> No, I'm sorry.   It's YAWEH doing it.   Obviously.
> 
> Are you sure?  I always thought the one in charge for getting obstacles in front
> of you was Satan.

Actually, isn't the entire Jewish faith based on Abraham overcoming a giant 
obstacle put in front of him by God? Namely being asked to sacrifice his son?

And who was it that hardened Pharoh's heart again?

> I don't know my role, let alone yours or anyone else.  But I'm trying my best at
> not looking like a third rate actor.


By the way, here's a completely serious question that isn't intended to 
imply anything at all. I honestly am curious at your answer, without 
prejudgement.

You seem to be someone who thinks being gay is wrong without being rabidly 
homophobic, so I'm wondering how you'd feel...

If you were talking to a strange man, like at a bus stop or a restaurant or 
something, and you realized he's gay and hitting on you. How would you feel? 
What do you think would be your visceral reaction? (If it has already 
happened, what *was* your reaction?)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> I'm not sure you or Jim accept prayers for any help.
> I have nothing against you praying to me for help, certainly.

My sincere apologies. By the time I wrote that, I'd forgotten I'd (jokingly) 
asked you to pray for me. My snide response to your sincere offer to do so 
was completely inappropriate. Please forgive me.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> >> In any case, what difference does "trying hard" make? Does a gay person who
> >> "tries hard" to be straight and fail please God?
> >
> > No, failures please Satan.
>
> So, when God makes you gay, and you try to be straight but fail, this
> displeases God?  Yet it's Satan putting obstacles in your way?

God doesn't make gay people.  He makes man and woman and gives them free will,
including the will to act twisted.

> I thought
> Jesus said to love your neighbors and all that stuff?

Love is not sex, despite what the porn industry says.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Nemesis, simple reality, "gay" exists in all species over a certain
> level of complexity, including deer, dogs, cats, and penguins, etc.
> Every time someone mentions "denying nature" I know they have a weak
> grasp of the science of sexual selection, and are just "assuming" that
> there is some magic part of human (or other animals) natures that are
> somehow devoid of errors, flaws, deviation, or genetic influence.

Obstacles to overcome.  Don't take that literally.  Not all diseases or flaws
can be overcome in a physical sense.  I take that to mean to not let such
obstacles come in your way to happiness (God).  To get around them if not
possible to overcome them.

> Point is, nature doesn't produce "all male" or "all female" in anything
> much more complex than a moth, and I am not even sure those wouldn't
> exhibit some of the same sort of unstable trait drift (to maintain
> different behavior models for males and females) and population
> controls, which generates homosexual behavior in mammals. You simply
> can't use the same blueprint for 99% of the entire animal, which
> included 99% of what makes it "act" like such an animal, in the most
> general sense, they expect the other 1%, which has to define body form,
> differences in physical function, etc., to also "perfectly" designate
> psychological differences between sexes (despite its total inability to
> get the first part right and "always" get the shape right either).

All these percentages and statistics are pretty amusing.  Unfortunately, you're
not referring to just an animal or a simple pile of molecules, but a man, given
a spirit and free will.

> And, with all due respect, Hermaphrodites have *tended* to have people
> choose "for them"

I know.  It doesn't change that they were given choice.

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> >> All in all, specially the inacurate "visions" of native continental
> >> america, it's a very american thing.
> >
> > Mormonism started in America, but it's hardly an American thing any
> > more.  Some Mormons serve missions in Israel, in fact.  I've got
>
>  I believe roughly half of Mormons are not in the US. They're very
> successful at proselytizing.

No problem:  most Christians are not in the Middle-East or Rome either.  It's
still a very middle-eastern religion, just as mormonism is very
north-american...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> God doesn't make gay people.  He makes man and woman and gives them free will,
> including the will to act twisted.

So you think gay people choose to be gay? And persecuted? And treated as 
sub-human?

Why do you think people choose that?

>> I thought
>> Jesus said to love your neighbors and all that stuff?
> 
> Love is not sex, despite what the porn industry says.

So you have no problems with gay men marrying, adopting children, and loving 
each other, and sleeping together, as long as they don't have sex?

That's ... unusual.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> Nemesis, simple reality, "gay" exists in all species over a certain
>> level of complexity, including deer, dogs, cats, and penguins, etc.
>> Every time someone mentions "denying nature" I know they have a weak
>> grasp of the science of sexual selection, and are just "assuming" that
>> there is some magic part of human (or other animals) natures that are
>> somehow devoid of errors, flaws, deviation, or genetic influence.
> 
> Obstacles to overcome.  Don't take that literally.  Not all diseases or flaws
> can be overcome in a physical sense.  I take that to mean to not let such
> obstacles come in your way to happiness (God).  To get around them if not
> possible to overcome them.
> 
In my experience your "way" leads to some of the most unhappy fracking 
people I ever met, and they seem to think its their mission in life to 
make everyone else unhappy too. Also, isn't it odd that, its its just an 
obstacle, the only people claiming to be able to "cure" gayness are the 
same ones that lie about everything else in their faith and lives, but 
that all the "legitimate" studies indicate that you can't make someone 
not be gay?

>> Point is, nature doesn't produce "all male" or "all female" in anything
>> much more complex than a moth, and I am not even sure those wouldn't
>> exhibit some of the same sort of unstable trait drift (to maintain
>> different behavior models for males and females) and population
>> controls, which generates homosexual behavior in mammals. You simply
>> can't use the same blueprint for 99% of the entire animal, which
>> included 99% of what makes it "act" like such an animal, in the most
>> general sense, they expect the other 1%, which has to define body form,
>> differences in physical function, etc., to also "perfectly" designate
>> psychological differences between sexes (despite its total inability to
>> get the first part right and "always" get the shape right either).
> 
> All these percentages and statistics are pretty amusing.  Unfortunately, you're
> not referring to just an animal or a simple pile of molecules, but a man, given
> a spirit and free will.
> 
Snort.. There is nothing that makes man so much more special than 
anything else that they can "successfully" change their own natures on 
such a level, any more than they can imagine themselves into being an 
Elf. That you think there is just shows how little you "do" understand 
about human psychology and physiology, and how, instead, deeply 
dependent you are on made up myths, written by people that also thought 
Rabbits chewed cud.

>> And, with all due respect, Hermaphrodites have *tended* to have people
>> choose "for them"
> 
> I know.  It doesn't change that they were given choice.

How is someone else choosing "for" you a choice? And, more to the point, 
if the choice is then wrong? Show me some study done on real people, not 
imaginary ones, which implies that these people "adjust" 100%, and 
completely, to what ever "sex" someone chose for them? Or, again, that 
any program whose "data" isn't made up bullshit, or disproven by people 
continuing their behaviors, even while claiming to be cured, that shows 
that sexual orientation "is" something you can choose. Points if you can 
find one that I can't refute in 24 hours with a google search, and 
without having to resort to talking to people in the actual field of 
biology. Its not something you can choose, any more than you can "pick" 
whether or not you are allergic to certain foods, or choose to not be 
color blind.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> > nemesis wrote:
> >> I'm not sure you or Jim accept prayers for any help.
> > I have nothing against you praying to me for help, certainly.
>
> My sincere apologies. By the time I wrote that, I'd forgotten I'd (jokingly)
> asked you to pray for me. My snide response to your sincere offer to do so
> was completely inappropriate. Please forgive me.

No problem.  In the end, fighting for the right not to be offended -- or any
rights, really -- eventually leads from many offenses from both sides.  At
least, no deaths here...

I have to apologise too, for requiring you to take into account, for the sake of
arguments, beings and forces that may very well be nothing but poetic license.

I consider you all my friends, even though not knowing you personally.  I always
wish well to people closer to my heart.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> Actually, isn't the entire Jewish faith based on Abraham overcoming a giant
> obstacle put in front of him by God? Namely being asked to sacrifice his son?
>
> And who was it that hardened Pharoh's heart again?

Sometimes you can't ask your employees to do the job for you, you have to do it
yourself. ;)

> If you were talking to a strange man, like at a bus stop or a restaurant or
> something, and you realized he's gay and hitting on you. How would you feel?
> What do you think would be your visceral reaction? (If it has already
> happened, what *was* your reaction?)

I'm a pretty humorous guy, but also quite shy.  I'd probably just ignore him.  I
have to say a hottie on my side wouldn't fare much better to enlicit a reaction
on my part.  I take a long time to know people sufficiently well to even joke
or start a conversation, let alone hitting. :P

If you want to know if I would punch the guy, then no, most likely not.  I like
balance, not conflict.  Or counterbalance. ;)

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>> Actually, isn't the entire Jewish faith based on Abraham overcoming a giant
>> obstacle put in front of him by God? Namely being asked to sacrifice his son?
>>
>> And who was it that hardened Pharoh's heart again?
> 
> Sometimes you can't ask your employees to do the job for you, you have to do it
> yourself. ;)

I'm confused. Satan is God's employee?  I'm not sure I've heard that before.

> 
>> If you were talking to a strange man, like at a bus stop or a restaurant or
>> something, and you realized he's gay and hitting on you. How would you feel?
>> What do you think would be your visceral reaction? (If it has already
>> happened, what *was* your reaction?)
> 
> I'm a pretty humorous guy, but also quite shy.  I'd probably just ignore him.

I'm asking what you'd feel inside. What would be your gut emotional 
reaction?  Just curious... if you don't mind answering.

> If you want to know if I would punch the guy, then no, most likely not.  I like
> balance, not conflict.  Or counterbalance. ;)

No, I'm asking whether you'd be pleased, disgusted, afraid...

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> So you think gay people choose to be gay? And persecuted? And treated as
> sub-human?

Yes, people choose.  Many jews in the middle ages burned because they did not
convert to Christianism.  How many early christians became lion food for
choosing to remain faithful?

You speak like as if gays today suffer way too much, but fact is that our
society is becoming more and more like ancient greek and roman panssexual
cultures and in fact people who think differently are the ones twisted.

> >> I thought
> >> Jesus said to love your neighbors and all that stuff?
> >
> > Love is not sex, despite what the porn industry says.
>
> So you have no problems with gay men marrying, adopting children, and loving
> each other, and sleeping together, as long as they don't have sex?

I didn't say that, just that love is not sex.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> You speak like as if gays today suffer way too much, 

Why would you want them to suffer at all?  That doesn't seem like a very 
kind thing. You speak like throwing Christians to the lions was a good 
thing, and gays should be happy that we only (say) tie them to trucks and 
drag them thru barbed wire fences.

> and in fact people who think differently are the ones twisted.

And by "twisted" you mean "wrong", which is kind of the problem.

>> So you have no problems with gay men marrying, adopting children, and loving
>> each other, and sleeping together, as long as they don't have sex?
> 
> I didn't say that, just that love is not sex.

Yes. You didn't say. That's why I asked.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed,  7 Jan 2009 13:51:56 EST, "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>Yes, people choose.  Many jews in the middle ages burned because they did not
>convert to Christianism.  How many early christians became lion food for
>choosing to remain faithful?

Do people choose to be man or woman, black or white? OK some people may choose
to have a gay lifestyle but others chose to repress it. I wonder which is
healthier. 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:41:51 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>I'm confused. Satan is God's employee?  I'm not sure I've heard that before.

A PR post, someone has to take the flak for all the evil in the world ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:55:41 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Clergy here can not do a civil marriage, so that is different. My
>>> parents married in the church more than 5 months after their civil
>>> marriage. I don't know how (un)common that was in those days.
>> 
>> That is an interesting difference.
> 
> 	Isn't it the same in the US? For the government to recognize a
> marriage, it has to be registered. Isn't the use of religious figures
> just a cultural move that has no legal significance?
> 
> (Unmarried person asking)

I don't believe so - I'd have to ask my brother, who was married in a 
church wedding, but I believe clergy can fill out the paperwork necessary 
for the legal part of the marriage (as Darren said).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:28:07 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> What's the answer for hermaphrodites who want to marry another human
>> being?  Who are they allowed to marry?  Who are they not allowed to
>> marry?
>>
>> Be specific.
> 
> I think I answered before:  they were *given* choice.  Just choose a
> side.  Or none.

So if you happen to be, as you so delicately put it, "a freak" who has 
both sets of organs, then you have more right to choose than someone 
who's just wired differently than their physical attributes?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:59:44 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> All in all, specially the inacurate "visions" of native continental
>>> america, it's a very american thing.
>> 
>> Mormonism started in America, but it's hardly an American thing any
>> more.  Some Mormons serve missions in Israel, in fact.  I've got
> 
> 	I believe roughly half of Mormons are not in the US. They're very
> successful at proselytizing.

Very much so, and those figures wouldn't surprise me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:22:09 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> I'm not sure you or Jim accept prayers for any help.

As you should probably remember from an earlier discussion along these 
lines, I'd be happy to do an incantation for you to increase your 
understanding as reciprocity for yours. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 7 Jan 2009 16:03:11 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:22:09 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure you or Jim accept prayers for any help.
>
>As you should probably remember from an earlier discussion along these 
>lines, I'd be happy to do an incantation for you to increase your 
>understanding as reciprocity for yours. :-)
>

No one asked me and I refuse nothing except blows. I think that I will sulk :P
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:11:22 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 7 Jan 2009 16:03:11 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:22:09 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure you or Jim accept prayers for any help.
>>
>>As you should probably remember from an earlier discussion along these
>>lines, I'd be happy to do an incantation for you to increase your
>>understanding as reciprocity for yours. :-)
>>
>>
> No one asked me and I refuse nothing except blows. I think that I will
> sulk :P

LOL

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Sometimes you can't ask your employees to do the job for you, you have to do it
> > yourself. ;)
>
> I'm confused. Satan is God's employee?  I'm not sure I've heard that before.

Tongue in cheek?

This discussion already became incredibly convoluted (again), but I'll answer
your question.

> >> If you were talking to a strange man, like at a bus stop or a restaurant or
> >> something, and you realized he's gay and hitting on you. How would you feel?
> >> What do you think would be your visceral reaction? (If it has already
> >> happened, what *was* your reaction?)
> >
> > I'm a pretty humorous guy, but also quite shy.  I'd probably just ignore him.
>
> I'm asking what you'd feel inside. What would be your gut emotional
> reaction?  Just curious... if you don't mind answering.
>
> > If you want to know if I would punch the guy, then no, most likely not.  I like
> > balance, not conflict.  Or counterbalance. ;)
>
> No, I'm asking whether you'd be pleased, disgusted, afraid...

Neither of these options.  More like awkward.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> Sometimes you can't ask your employees to do the job for you, you have to do it
>>> yourself. ;)
>> I'm confused. Satan is God's employee?  I'm not sure I've heard that before.
> 
> Tongue in cheek?

No. God tempted Job, hardened Pharoh's heart (hence putting obstacles before 
Moses) and tried to get Abraham to refuse his orders by making them odious.

I haven't any idea what employee you're talking about, but Satan wasn't 
doing any of those things.

>> No, I'm asking whether you'd be pleased, disgusted, afraid...
> Neither of these options.  More like awkward.

Fair enough. Thanks for the answer.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Wed,  7 Jan 2009 13:51:56 EST, "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> Yes, people choose.  Many jews in the middle ages burned because they did not
>> convert to Christianism.  How many early christians became lion food for
>> choosing to remain faithful?
> 
> Do people choose to be man or woman, black or white? OK some people may choose
> to have a gay lifestyle but others chose to repress it. I wonder which is
> healthier. 

Well, one thing is certain, being "forced" to by family, or even 
abandoned/thrown out, according to studies, causes a "drastic" increase 
in drug abuse, high risk sex, and other negatives. Basically, if you 
treat someone like shit for who they are, they feel like shit, and the 
worse you treat them, the more they seek "other" things to distract them 
from your hate. Those that "are" accepted by their families, however, 
show no more risk in any of these factors than a "straight" person in a 
loving family. Odd that, if what they where doing what so "twisted and 
wrong", as some people would suggest, that every other kind of sin would 
logically follow...

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> nemesis wrote:
>>> Actually, isn't the entire Jewish faith based on Abraham overcoming a 
>>> giant
>>> obstacle put in front of him by God? Namely being asked to sacrifice 
>>> his son?
>>>
>>> And who was it that hardened Pharoh's heart again?
>>
>> Sometimes you can't ask your employees to do the job for you, you have 
>> to do it
>> yourself. ;)
> 
> I'm confused. Satan is God's employee?  I'm not sure I've heard that 
> before.
> 
In point of fact yes. In the original OT, Satan was simply the angel 
employed to do sick and evil things to people, as a test of their faith. 
There is however a few "other" middle eastern religions, like 
Zoroastrianism (no it has nothing to do with Zoro), and others, in which 
there was an "anti-god" of sorts, who was in constant battle against the 
powers of good. In one of those, Yahweh, which is considered a synonym 
to the Christian god, for some reason, is actually one of three sons of 
the one real god. All three messed up, and had their kingdoms taken 
away, apparently Yahweh for the reason that he was a war monger. In 
another, one named Ahura-Mazda is said to be fighting an eternal 
conflict with  Ahriman, who is out to devastate the universe by filling 
it with evil. These all co-existed in the same region, at the same time, 
and borrowed from each other, which is why the Jewish based faith has 
tales taken from earlier faiths, like those of the Sumerian people, 
rewritten to "fit" their mythology. Its also how, when Rome suddenly 
needed an excuse to convince "everyone" to follow their new Christian 
religion, they arranged for Satan to invade heaven, got thrown out, and 
take Hades over from the Greek Gods, renaming it Hell, then slapped a 
bit of Mazda vs. Ahriman on top, to make it look like this was all going 
on from the moment the serpent supposedly sold Eve on some apple.

It only looks like a consistent fable, in which Satan was always God's 
adversary, if literally the "only" religious history you ever read is 
the one that claims it. And even then, it contradicts itself, by having 
God, in cases like Job, sending Satan around to piss in people's cereal, 
to see if they will continue believing in him, despite his being a total 
bastard.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> It only looks like a consistent fable, in which Satan was always God's 
> adversary, if literally the "only" religious history you ever read is 
> the one that claims it. And even then, it contradicts itself, by having 
> God, in cases like Job, sending Satan around to piss in people's cereal, 
> to see if they will continue believing in him, despite his being a total 
> bastard.
> 
Oh, and to be clear, this is the interpretation of events Christians had 
on who Satan was, before they started figuring out that it didn't make a 
whole lot of sense, so had to do what they always do, and either change 
a few "minor" words (Good one is how Latin replaced the word for "soul", 
as in the "person", and the word for "that which animates, but does not 
live", with some version of "spirit". Not a big deal, unless you are 
trying to argue about when the soul "exists" in a body, and the ancient 
Hebrew implies it can't unless the body has blood in it, since the 
"soul" lies in the blood...), or adjust the footnotes, so everyone would 
know the "correct" interpretation. lol

Unfortunately, for some really odd reason, a lot of people that "do" 
read the original texts, compare them with other faiths, and study the 
complex histories behind them, kind of end up... a lot less religious. 
Its almost as if "reading" any other books makes the whole thing look 
absurd and silly, or something...

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In point of fact yes. In the original OT, Satan was simply the angel 
> employed to do sick and evil things to people, as a test of their faith. 

That's what I figured, yes, but I didn't think anyone who thinks God is 
loving and kind would admit it.

> It only looks like a consistent fable, in which Satan was always God's 
> adversary, if literally the "only" religious history you ever read is 
> the one that claims it.

Not even then, actually. God's a right bastard in the very first story in 
the Bible, and pretty much keeps it up thru the old testament at least.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
>> It only looks like a consistent fable, in which Satan was always God's 
>> adversary, if literally the "only" religious history you ever read is 
>> the one that claims it.
> 
> Not even then, actually. God's a right bastard in the very first story 
> in the Bible, and pretty much keeps it up thru the old testament at least.
> 

Not exactly rational and sane in the NT either, though maybe he was off 
his meds the day he had a fit and cursed a fig tree for not giving him 
fruit when out of season? lol And the whole mess of the "visions" that 
some wacko added almost 100 years later to produce "revelations"...

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > In point of fact yes. In the original OT, Satan was simply the angel
> > employed to do sick and evil things to people, as a test of their faith.
>
> That's what I figured, yes, but I didn't think anyone who thinks God is
> loving and kind would admit it.

Actually, in the original take, Satan was God's eyewitness of people's sins and
prosecutor.  Lucifer has some strange origin referring to the "Evening Star".
Many myths, legends and tales as told in the Bible are figurative, I don't take
them literally.

God is loving and kind.  To those who live by his Laws, anyway.

Yes, Job lived by His Laws and was a righteous man and yet Satan is accounted
for putting him into trial and prosecution before God under the accusation that
he was only loyal because God would not let nothing bad happen to those of
faith.  Thus, God *allowed* for Satan to tempt Job.  Despite all the tragic
events Satan would put in his way, he remained loyal to God.  He was later
blessed a very long and wealthy life after the events.

That's it, you can see it as a moral fable if you will...

> > It only looks like a consistent fable, in which Satan was always God's
> > adversary, if literally the "only" religious history you ever read is
> > the one that claims it.
>
> Not even then, actually. God's a right bastard in the very first story in
> the Bible, and pretty much keeps it up thru the old testament at least.

The one in which He creates light?  Yeah, cheap bastard...

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Unfortunately, for some really odd reason, a lot of people that "do"
> read the original texts, compare them with other faiths, and study the
> complex histories behind them, kind of end up... a lot less religious.
> Its almost as if "reading" any other books makes the whole thing look
> absurd and silly, or something...

It just shows a different interpretation of similar events many peoples
experienced in the old ages.

BTW, I love J.R.R. Tolkien's mythology.  Some think he created all of it out of
his mind, but I see it more like yet another interpretation of old mythologies,
legends and religious beliefs, including somewhat of Old Testment.  The Creation
is there, except it is far more detailed than in "Fiat Lux" and is made out of
music that turns into a vision of things to come.

God -- here called Eru Iluvatar (the one) -- first created many angelical beings
(Ainur) born out of his thought, each one modelled after a part of his mind.
Thus, each one was slow at first at comprehend their siblings, but by helping
God in the creation of the Music, they were given further understanting of
their brothers, by means of harmony.  Melkor was the most powerful of the Ainur
and began to try out new themes of his own into the Music, which began sounding
chaotic.  Many of the Ainur next to him were led into this new rhythm and many
others stopped, confused and tired.  Eventually, Iluvatar shows them his new
themes were actually just part of something bigger and not even his loudest
chords were able to detract from the character of the Music.  Melkor grews a
secret jealous of Iluvatar and, needless to say, is Satan under other name.

Ea (the universe) is created by the Music and in it, Arda (Earth) which would be
the birthplace for God's sons.  Many Ainur descendend into Earth, Melkor among
them, and became the Powers of the World (Valar), each one occupied by a part
of Arda's substance which was more like their own thematic embilishments during
the Music.  Needless to say, the Valar are like the Titans of Greek mythos and
later Gods.  They labored long to make Arda a habitable place for God's sons,
eventually fighting off the many destructions caused by Melkor's extremes and
jealous.

Loving Tolkien's amazing work -- a reinterpretation and tentative of
conciliation of many different myths, including Christian ones -- does not make
me less religious, though.  Not even historical sources of ancient Mesopotamia.
Like I said, they are different interpretations of old events, that you may
think are made-up man inventions, if you will...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> God is loving and kind.  To those who live by his Laws, anyway.

Sure doesn't seem that way. Ask any serpent today, for example.

> Thus, God *allowed* for Satan to tempt Job.  

You haven't actually read Job, have you?

> The one in which He creates light?  Yeah, cheap bastard...

I count everything up to getting kicked out of Eden as the first story.

In any case, not a whole lot of sense in arguing with the irrational.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Well, one thing is certain, being "forced" to by family, or even
> abandoned/thrown out, according to studies, causes a "drastic" increase
> in drug abuse, high risk sex, and other negatives. Basically, if you
> treat someone like shit for who they are, they feel like shit, and the
> worse you treat them, the more they seek "other" things to distract them
> from your hate.

I take it Papa Hussein should have been more encouraging of his sons
decapitations and tortures. :P

> Those that "are" accepted by their families, however,
> show no more risk in any of these factors than a "straight" person in a
> loving family. Odd that, if what they where doing what so "twisted and
> wrong", as some people would suggest, that every other kind of sin would
> logically follow...

Why other kinds of sin when you already have a pet one? ;)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > God is loving and kind.  To those who live by his Laws, anyway.
>
> Sure doesn't seem that way. Ask any serpent today, for example.

Sure, that makes a lot of twisted sense. ;)

> > Thus, God *allowed* for Satan to tempt Job.
>
> You haven't actually read Job, have you?

"1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that
there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that
feareth God, and escheweth evil? 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said,
Doth Job fear God for nought? 1:10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and
about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed
the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.

1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse
thee to thy face.

1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power;
only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the
presence of the LORD."

> > The one in which He creates light?  Yeah, cheap bastard...
>
> I count everything up to getting kicked out of Eden as the first story.

So, they disobey God and get kicked out of Disney?  Yeah, cheap bastard...

> In any case, not a whole lot of sense in arguing with the irrational.

I agree.

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Henderson [mailto:nos### [at] nospamcom]
> Generally, legal protections only become a significant issue when you
> get
> into immigration status for purposes of residency requirements.

Or in case someone goes to the hospital, or if you die, or if you want to 
buy property, or any of hundreds of other situations...

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

I said "share," not "scare!"

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> Well, one thing is certain, being "forced" to by family, or even
>> abandoned/thrown out, according to studies, causes a "drastic" increase
>> in drug abuse, high risk sex, and other negatives. Basically, if you
>> treat someone like shit for who they are, they feel like shit, and the
>> worse you treat them, the more they seek "other" things to distract them
>> from your hate.
> 
> I take it Papa Hussein should have been more encouraging of his sons
> decapitations and tortures. :P
> 
Huh?? What is it with some people and entirely unrelated and patently 
false comparisons. Oh, right.. I keep forgetting, one of the problems 
"believers" seem to have is that mass murder and torture is exactly 
equivalent to sucking another mans dick, which I suppose must, but the 
same insane definition, make someone that snuck a grape from the grocery 
store the equivalent of Pol Pot.

>> Those that "are" accepted by their families, however,
>> show no more risk in any of these factors than a "straight" person in a
>> loving family. Odd that, if what they where doing what so "twisted and
>> wrong", as some people would suggest, that every other kind of sin would
>> logically follow...
> 
> Why other kinds of sin when you already have a pet one? ;)
> 

Sorry, I don't find your comment the least bit wink worthy. The two 
combined show a entirely black and white, shallow, narrow minded (And 
not just because you refuse to follow the evidence where it leads, 
instead of believing in the words in some book written by people that 
thought the world was a flat disc. Don't bother arguing that one, the 
word used in the ancient version *is* disc, not "ball", which is a 
distinctly different word.), bigot. Tell me, why is it again that, if 
the Bible is right about this stuff, you don't also advocate stoning 
disobedient children to death, or selling your daughter to pay off 
debts, among the other atrocities in the same passages that you get your 
definitions of, "God doesn't like gays", from? Just wondering...

Natural is what is observed to be natural, not what the Babble insists 
must be. You people have been trying the later for 2,000 years as the 
defacto religion in control over much of the world, and thousands of 
years prior, with a track record of being dead wrong on pretty much 
every single thing it has ever "claimed" to be true, except those that 
just happen to coincide with the values and beliefs of people that have 
"other" religions, or none at all. Every time it has spoken as authority 
on something that it disagrees with about how the world works, people 
act, and what to do about it, *Christianity* ends up changing to conform 
to the real world, then makes up excuses for why it didn't actually get 
anything at all wrong, it was just some other "less enlightened sect" 
that got it wrong (even if the sect in question is like.. the original 
one, as in the case of all the times the Catholics have had to back 
peddle on things, and continue to do so.)

But why am I bothering to argue with you about it. As a general rule, 
those who can't see where they "may" be wrong are invariably impervious 
to all arguments, facts, evidence, or even, in some cases, their own 
religions "general" acceptance of something. That is why you get 70-80% 
moderates in Christianity, and some much smaller number of people that 
spend their time calling all the rest of them "false" Christians because 
they chose true morality over vain obsessions over who they think is the 
#1 greatest sinners in the world at the moment. And, its always gays, 
atheist, free thinkers, liberals, hippies, or some other group that 
isn't like them that is the *greatest evil*, even while fracking mass 
murderers sit in a cave some place and thumb their noses at "everything" 
they believe in, not just nit picky BS that a century from now the 
church will be making some non-apology to, for being unnecessarily mean.

I just don't comprehend how some people think...

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Unfortunately, for some really odd reason, a lot of people that "do"
>> read the original texts, compare them with other faiths, and study the
>> complex histories behind them, kind of end up... a lot less religious.
>> Its almost as if "reading" any other books makes the whole thing look
>> absurd and silly, or something...
> 
> It just shows a different interpretation of similar events many peoples
> experienced in the old ages.
> 
No its not. If you knew a damn thing about them, and not just the "all 
faiths are the same" BS some churchs have been bandying about recently, 
it would be obvious that many of them are so fracking contradictory that 
you **can't** say that they are all the same, or talking about the same 
supposed events. No, each "tribe" separate, sometimes by so much that 
they rarely ever met, came up with different explanations, and other 
"later" tribes, who where bigger, more mobile, and usually more 
aggressive, mashed them all together to make up "new" ones. To claim 
otherwise shows a gross misunderstanding of the historical dates when 
various "religions" appeared, and where. You might as well try to argue 
than Scientology was based on Greek Mythology, for all that your claim 
that various "ancient" faiths where all *different interpretation* of 
the Christian faith. Well, in your case, you might be right, but for the 
wrong reasons, the Hebrew faith is a mish mash of stuff from all those 
"other" earlier religions, which it replaced, while throwing out parts 
it couldn't accept, and modern Christianity, a lot of *religious 
scholars* as well as historians, argue was Judaism mashed together with 
everything else available at the time, from more eastern mythology 
(Mithras), to Egyption myths, to Greek, to, you name it. Yeah, your 
right, Tolkien is probably the best example. A completely made up book 
of gibberish, which works as a pretty decent story, but is a result of 
cramming together hundreds of sources, none of which ever intended any 
of their mythologies to become part of a story that replaced them all in 
the minds of modern man. Now, if you can just get past using it as 
analogy and comprehend the *real* consequences of what that actually 
means...

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Natural is what is observed to be natural, not what the Babble insists
> must be.

Like Hussein's natural instincts?

This reminds me of a great quote from Douglas Adams second book in the
"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", where Gag Halfrunt, Zaphod's psychiatrist,
was discussing with Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, who has just exterminated half of
his crew in a disciplinary exercise:  "Well, I believe this is a perfectly
normal behaviour for a vogon, right?  This natural and healthy way of focusing
agressive instincts in acts of senseless violence." :)

What would the world be without any rules?

> But why am I bothering to argue with you about it. As a general rule,
> those who can't see where they "may" be wrong are invariably impervious
> to all arguments, facts, evidence, or even, in some cases, their own
> religions "general" acceptance of something.

I'm not impervious to arguments, facts or evidence and, being a geek with a
passion for science and all nerdy stuff, I have obviously questioned my faith
quite a few times.  But then I think to myself, "WTH, I don't want to be as
lame, weeny and cranky as all those atheists fellows seem to be." ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 11-Jan-09 2:46, nemesis wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> Natural is what is observed to be natural, not what the Babble insists
>> must be.
> 
> Like Hussein's natural instincts?

Can we apply Godwin's law in this case?

> This reminds me of a great quote from Douglas Adams second book in the
> "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", where Gag Halfrunt, Zaphod's psychiatrist,
> was discussing with Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, who has just exterminated half of
> his crew in a disciplinary exercise:  "Well, I believe this is a perfectly
> normal behaviour for a vogon, right?  This natural and healthy way of focusing
> agressive instincts in acts of senseless violence." :)

But Halfrunt was only in it for the money, so he would applaud 
everything any client would say.

> What would the world be without any rules?

Not all rules have the same moral weight. You have those that have been 
the result of long debate taking every point of view into account and 
you have those that are based on some interpretation of a complex story 
that was taken out of context and retold, retranslated and rewritten a 
few times. The latter is often indistinguishable from a personal view of 
someone. In the history of the church there have been men in power that 
were frightened of homosexuals for some reasons, so that has been 
codified. It is up to you to decide if anyone that points at the bible 
to defend his or her hatred of gays is having a point or that the 
passages they point to are taken out of context and possibly not part of 
the original teachings but later additions/selections and that the 
passages they don't point to have indeed no value.

>> But why am I bothering to argue with you about it. As a general rule,
>> those who can't see where they "may" be wrong are invariably impervious
>> to all arguments, facts, evidence, or even, in some cases, their own
>> religions "general" acceptance of something.
> 
> I'm not impervious to arguments, facts or evidence and, being a geek with a
> passion for science and all nerdy stuff, I have obviously questioned my faith
> quite a few times.  But then I think to myself, "WTH, I don't want to be as
> lame, weeny and cranky as all those atheists fellows seem to be." ;)
> 

Thanks ;)
BTW it is funny but the 'true believers' that I know are more of a 
'lame, weeny and cranky' sort than the atheists that I know. A typical 
selection effect I suppose. One tends to think that someone that one 
agrees with is of the same group. Only those that say thinks that makes 
you feel uncomfortable can be identified as belonging to another group. 
As a result you assume that everyone of that group is like that. Which 
in general is not the case of course.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> Natural is what is observed to be natural, not what the Babble insists
>> must be.
> 
> Like Hussein's natural instincts?
> 
Well, if you really want to make the argument that Hussein had some sort 
of genetic based mental illness, you might have the point. But, that 
just goes back to the lame argument you have been making that such 
things are merely "challenges". The irony being, of course, that people 
who "do" have those sorts of illnesses, while in the modern world, can 
sometimes be medicated, cannot be cured, nor can they be taught to 
"control" their illness and "choose" to be sane and rational people. So, 
if everything he did was his "natural" instinct, it would mean he was 
probably not salvageable anyway, which still contradicts your position.

But, I see you opted to gloss over the false equivalence issue by 
changing the subject, which is pretty much what you expect from someone 
who can't defend their original claims *of* equivalence. I'll give you a 
9 of hearts "muddying the waters", and maybe 8 of clubs "red herring", 
from the denialist deck of cards for that one.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message