₦airaland Forum

@okey

I'll be back soon enough to deal with you properly. You seem to require some spanking from your godless (note the 'less') overlords. But to start

That is not atheism. Lack of belief, not belief. Which do you think is the default position, belief or disbelief. Which do you think needs to defend its position, or 'apologize' if $hit goes wrong? You also may need to look into the word belief

And have you heard of theism apologists before? Or deist apologetics. These groups do have beliefs (unlike atheists) but have very little to defend. They don't fly into buildings solely because they believe in god(s). It's mostly because their usually extremely silly religion requests it (in this case promising 72 virgins). Religions come with doctrine, dogma, not your belief (or lack of) of god.

And particularly for atheism which is a lack of belief, do you think those who don't believe in astrology need apologetics? Or those who don't believe in santa?

okeyxyz: Seriously Bros!! You need to cut-down on the amount of garri you drink, I believe it's inhibiting your reasoning abilities. If it was @logicboy who said the above,i'd just laugh and walk by, but not you. I don't believe the @wiegraf I know is this slow to hold this kind of thought.

What part of "atheist apologetics" don't you understand? You react as if it is an abomination, an unnatural subject. What is so abhorrent about the word "apologetics"(I believe you have no problem with "Atheist" ) that it cannot be ascribed to an atheist??

Well, then, considering you claim to have superior reasoning skills, this despite being xtian, asides from all that's been mentioned explain what atheists have to defend. Also, explain how atheism is a religion pls

Mr_Anony: Lol, don't be lazy my friend, those are actual academic debates you would want to look into if you really have a sincere interest in high quality debates instead of just looking for one more chance to mock christianity.

I have provided for you debates between arguably the best brains in christian and atheist apologetics.

Yes, I was only looking to mock.
What in the world are 'atheist apologetics'? Wonders shall never end! The devil is a liar!
I doubt I'll have enough time for both, which do you think is more important?


'Atheist apologetics'. Wow. 7ft dwarf. Rational xtian. Etc etc



Edit: oh yes, no vex I'll reply that 'post' on the 'hang teh gays' thread later today. Time no too dey. Of course I think it so, so wrong

^^^

What's wrong with you? They're too long...

These are some famous, ground breaking debates.


To familiarize ourselves with the debaters, lets start with bananas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4n



*Note that current popular bananas are actually engineered, by humans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana#Modern_cultivation





And the crocoduck


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0DdgSDan9c

Ihedinobi: Lol. See? You get the problem now, don't you? Your "objectively verifiable science" would mean just as much to her as God's miracles mean to you. You aren't more intellectually advanced for rejecting things you do not understand.

And what on earth is "religious truth"?

There's nothing to understand there, except trolls that have somehow lasted millenia. Some sweet talking priests just hit the jackpot, is all. Found out how to make 1+1=3 to those grappling with mortality, etc.


More random: By the way, you seem to demonstrating a few of the things in this article. More quotes

"Successful religions typically begin as cults, which then increase in power and inclusiveness until they achieve tolerance outside the circle of believers. At the core of each religion is a creation myth, which explains how the world began and how the chosen people -- those subscribing to the belief system -- arrived at its center. Often a mystery, a set of secret instructions and formulas, is available to members who have worked their way to a higher state of enlightenment. The medieval Jewish cabala, the trigradal system of Freemasonry, and the carvings on Australian aboriginal spirit sticks are examples of such arcana. Power radiates from the center, gathering converts and binding followers to the group. Sacred places are designated, where the gods can be importuned, rites observed, and miracles witnessed."

"The understanding and control of life is another source of religious power. Doctrine draws on the same creative springs as science and the arts, its aim being the extraction of order from the mysteries and tumult of the material world. To explain the meaning of life it spins mythic narratives of the tribal history, populating the cosmos with protective spirits and gods. The existence of the supernatural, if accepted, testifies to the existence of that other world so desperately desired.

Religion is also mightily empowered by its principal ally, tribalism. The shamans and priests implore us, in somber cadence, Trust in the sacred rituals, become part of the immortal force, you are one of us. As your life unfolds, each step has mystic significance that we who love you will mark with a solemn rite of passage, the last to be performed when you enter that second world, free of pain and fear."



I wouldn't know what religious truth is. Maybe like immaculate conceptions?

Let me help you there. Even though I've not read it, I probably will when I do


"There has been a lot of tittle-tattle lately as well as so many discordant tunes on the propriety or otherwise of jets and gifts to pastors and men of God.

The debates have been loud and raucous with so many people speaking from a position of little or no information. A lot of emotive vibes and outrage, for or against the perceived or real manipulations by men who supposedly have been given charge over the souls of millions, has become public fodder. Everyone appears to be venting their spleen wherever you turn.

Hosea 4:7-9
New King James Version (NKJV)
7
“The more they increased,
The more they sinned against Me;
I will change their glory into shame.
8
They eat up the sin of My people;
They set their heart on their iniquity.
9
And it shall be: like people, like priest.
So I will punish them for their ways,
And reward them for their deeds.

But what exactly should we do or say? Supporters of ostentatious and obviously manipulative men of the cloak are quick to put the critics in check by quoting “touch not mine anointed” lines ostensibly to show that men of “God” are above reproach and as such “lesser” men have no right whatsoever to criticize or condemn perceived wrong doings of these high men of “God.”

But is this the case? Are these men truly above reproach? Is it biblical for the “under shepherd” to feed fat on the flock while the flock groans and hopes for a better day? All these we shall examine in this piece. Let me appeal that this treatise may exceed the usual length allowed for articles on this blog as it comes laden with supporting Bible passages, but I assure you, it will be worth your while. Take a sip of water and follow me patiently.

And plead with your boss at work to learn from it as well if he frowns at you. Who knows, your boss may have unwittingly contributed to purchasing a Limo, Hummer or Private Jet for his Pastor lately. Christianity was first brought to the shores of Nigeria by the European missionaries in the early 1800s. When they came, they built hospitals and schools.

In fact, many Nigerians aged late thirties and above, were products of missionary schools, which were either free or came with negligible or paltry school fees. The early missionaries and churches in Nigeria were predicated on love and social services to their immediate communities. Many people in the age range I quoted above got quality education and even health care, courtesy of missionaries and churches.

But fast forward to the present day. Church members are coerced to part with money they barely have, with either a promise of God blessing them in return or with stern warnings of perpetual poverty or even threatened with the danger of hell if they refuse to give “cheerfully”. God’s blessing in church today is now for sale and even your offering must be spoken to, so that it can bring forth plenty harvest.

(remember our local priests “babalawo” have a culture of asking clients to rub their bodies with monies and ask for whatever they wish for).

As a matter of fact, a particular church I know, a few years ago had a special offering called ‘dominion jet offering’, where adherents were made to donate towards the “ministry’s” jet only for the jet to be converted for the use of the self styled Bishop later. *My lips are sealed*

In the course of my research, I discovered that a teacher’s son in a secondary school of one of these various prosperity promising centers, who lives in the church enclave, could not afford to send his son to the school, as a teacher and also amember of the church. His son was rather sent to school in a nearby town.

The modern Nigerian church tasks it’s members to donate towards various projects such as universities and elitist secondary schools, but curiously, the poorer members of such prosperity centers can neither send their wards or kids to such schools, neither do the churches have a program to cater for the poor amongst their flock.

Unlike the early missionaries who accommodated both the rich and poor in their schools, it is no longer business as usual for the poor. You either sow and get rich so that your children can also benefit from the schools built by the church you attend or find a lesser alternative, while hoping for a better day! The Church has become a class conscious body.

The passage in Act 4:34-35 which Reads: “(34) Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, (35) and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.” has been totally ignored.

In Nigeria’s contrivances of prosperity churches, it is survival of the fittest, elimination of the “poor” or unfit. How wonderful, won’t you say? No longer are we our brother’s keeper. Like 50 Cent, we have resolved in churches to get rich or die trying.

We have been told that prosperity is a sign of God’s favor to his own people, but after reading and studying the lives of great men of God– men who brought great revivals in their time– I had to ask if Jonathan Edwards, a man who preached and thousands wept to the altar in one day, yet he wasn’t rich, or Smith Wiggleswort, a plumber whom God used to heal many sick and raised a lot of dead men, yet wasn’t stupendously rich, were missing a trick.

Tozer, John Wesley etc were great men of God, who neither built castles nor owned the choicest properties in their time, but they made such differences in the body of Christ so much so that till this day, their works still speak for them. Unlike our spirito-christian magicians, these men lived simple lives, but turned many around towards righteous and holy living. Their time was termed the period of the great revival in history.

Severally we have been reprimanded to “touch not mine anointed” but is this the correct application of this scripture? In which context was this phrase used? It is found in Psalm 105:15 and was repeated in 1Chronicles 16:22. That passage was written to praise the works of God when he took out Israel out of Egypt and saved them from harm, even though they were few. It was never about a pastor or a leader, it was written to praise God in taking care of a called out people. Anointed vessels are men who allow God to do his bidding through them.

Note that those people who must do his bidding must be “called out” and what is the “church”? It simply means “the called out ones”. Therefore that Passage can also mean “touch not the church”. Do NOT be deceived, it was never written to protect or immune “penterascality” or ‘pastopreneurs’ from criticism. It was written as a mark or seal of God’s protection upon his chosen ones.

The concept of giving and speaking to your money to work for you is another strange doctrine that has been introduced to make unsuspecting and unlearned Christians to part with their money without question.

Several times they have called this subtle extortion mechanism: ‘seed’, claiming the passage of seed time and harvest in Genesis 8:22. But God was not using seed figuratively. It was a definite and correct use. In fact he said; the summer, winter etc shall not cease. You don’t pay for God’s blessings. Obed edom was blessed in 2 Samuel 6:10-12 not because he paid God aspecial seed but because the presence of God dwelt within him and his household.

Unlike the short-cut pay and receive theology of our modern day pastors, God’s blessings dwell securely in his presence. It is better to live holy and have God on your side, than give plenty, while continuing in sin.

There is nothing wrong in showering your pastors with gifts, but let’s look at some biblical examples of men that God used mightily. Were they louts, who busied themselves with soliciting gifts or were they men who had reasonable sources of income? Amos was a great prophet but hear him in Amos 7:14-15:

14 Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah, I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son; but I was an herdman, and agatherer of sycomore fruit:

15 And the Lord took me as I followed the flock, and the Lord said unto me, ‘Go, prophesy unto my people Israel’.

And let’s look at Paul, one of the greatest apostles who ever lived. Acts 18:1-3:

18 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;

2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome and came unto them.

3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.
He was a tent maker. He HAD A JOB. He was no lout neither was he a beggar or a manipulator. His hands provided for his needs.

I wish to bring a few scriptures to light in Philippians 3:18-19 18

(For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:
19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
and 2 Timothy 3:1-2 3:

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy.

It is very clear that we are approaching the last days and like Jesus said, “shall I find faith on earth”? It a question we all should ponder on. Ask yourself, what is the purpose of your Christian faith? Is it to serve God or marmon? Is amassing worldly cash and acquiring worldly goods the reason Christ died on the cross? Do not get me wrong, being prosperous in not a sin, but it is written in 2Timothy 2:4:

No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.
And in Colosians 2:9, we read:

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead, bodily. If God is genuinely sought, he will be found. Having the presence of God dwelling in you is a guarantee of his fulness. The rate at which wrong doctrines are taught and imbibed is alarming and this is a pointer to alarming biblical illiteracy levels among Christians. As God said, ‘like people like priests’.
1Peter 4:17 17:

“For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begins with us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?”. What is the gospel of God? I doubt if it means amassing wealth or accumulating worldly goods. Pastors must be careful in fleecing the flock as it is written that The souls of those in their care will be required of them.

Our peculiar situation shows clearly that there are fundamental flaws in the teachings of the church as written in our opening scripture. Hosea, as quoted above, suggests that as the priests (pastors, bishops, archbishops, General overseers etc) are increasing, so is iniquity and sin on the rise. Looking at Nigeria today, we have a church in almost every corner, yet the crime and immorality rates are rising exponentially.

It is time for the men of GOD to face their true calling which is preaching the gospel. But if they persist in milking the flock, God said he will use even stones, to achieve his aims, if men refuse to do his bidding. Study the scriptures and be diligent. Do not let a man created in ‘like-passions’ pull a wool over your eyes in the name of God. A lie can travel very fast in time, but in one swift moment, the truth will pursue, overtake and annihilate it. There is too much hot air emanating from our pulpits, but where is the fire of revival?"

Ihedinobi: Well, you want to preach the gospel of scientific virgin birth in our hinterlands or not? And to old-timers?

Oh, I get it now. But who says I want go convert some woman for village. Na her sabi

Semi-random

"FOR many, the urge to believe in transcendental existence and immortality is overpowering. Transcendentalism, especially when reinforced by religious faith, is psychically full and rich; it feels somehow right. By comparison, empiricism seems sterile and inadequate. In the quest for ultimate meaning the transcendentalist route is much easier to follow. That is why, even as empiricism is winning the mind, transcendentalism continues to win the heart. Science has always defeated religious dogma point by point when differences between the two were meticulously assessed. But to no avail. In the United States 16 million people belong to the Southern Baptist denomination, the largest favoring a literal interpretation of the Christian Bible, but the American Humanist Association, the leading organization devoted to secular and deistic humanism, has only 5,000 members.

Still, if history and science have taught us anything, it is that passion and desire are not the same as truth. The human mind evolved to believe in gods. It did not evolve to believe in biology. Acceptance of the supernatural conveyed a great advantage throughout prehistory, when the brain was evolving. Thus it is in sharp contrast to the science of biology, which was developed as a product of the modern age and is not underwritten by genetic algorithms. The uncomfortable truth is that the two beliefs are not factually compatible. As a result, those who hunger for both intellectual and religious truth face disquieting choices."

The bolded bit will lead to your surrendering your soul, soon.

Logicboy03: I've learnt that you have to drag these ogres out and make them to make enough foolish comments so that other potential ogres learn not to be as foolish.

Even on that thread with Anony, Anony's minions stopped supporting him after the realised that his position was contrary to the facts of biological studies (which I made very clear in each of about 8 posts)

Well

Logicboy03:

Repeating debunked points, Vedaxcool?


The decline in chrisitianity in America is common knowledge. Asking for evidence would be like asking for evidence that Obama is black or water is wet It is widely known as a fact.


Anyways, I wont put up statistics to see how much more you defend your ignorant point. Do you really think that everyone else on the thread was foolish and you were the only smart one?

Only a foolish muslim like you would be arrogant enough to advice chrisitians on chrisitianity

I'm not sure why you bother with this particular ogre. I admire your patience, I might try to emulate you.
Just not today
Or tomorrow
Or in the foreseeable future

Ihedinobi: Lol. Priceless. You sniff at miracles cos you think it's not "objectively verifiable". Wish you could go to one village in Abia State and explain that Mama Adaku's dear daughter need not mess around to get that baby bump. Think you're up to it?

I'm not sure which bush you want enter with this post right here. But yes, the bold is very accurate.

fellis: Lol, abundant in nature? Some animals engage in homosexual acts but that doesn't make it abundant.

Again, I got this from your link:

A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species. Homosexual behavior is best known from social species. According to geneticist Simon Levay in 1996, "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity


Also, mental problems can be found in animals, so their engaging in homosexual behaviour could be a sign of a mental illness.

Erm, yes, can you contrast what you've bolded out (the last bit), to what I've bolded out (the rest)? You're also aware that we are a social species, yes?

In the bit you bolded, he is saying that it is not common to find completely homosexual animals. This is a no-brainer, animals cannot reason and are programmed to mate, so of course they'll engage in heterosexual activities. And like I said, homosexual activity is not just only pleasurable to them, it also reinforces social bonds, etc (regardless of how icky that may sound, ugh). For crying out loud they say it's a 'nearly universal phenomenon'.

As for the mental illness bit, see my previous post.

fellis: This is the definition of natural:


nat·u·ral [náchərəl, náchrəl]
adjective

1. conforming with nature: in accordance with the usual course of nature


Now what is the normal course of nature?
It is for organisms or species to develop and improve traits that ensure that they do not die off or go extinct. That is why the carnivores have canines, that is why the hover-fly has mimicry, that is why chameleons and geckos change their colors and that is why male and female sëx organs which aid reproduction, were developed. Since the beginning of life, living things have consistently developed traits that aid their survival, not their extinction.
When I used the word 'natural' I am not talking about every single thing that goes on in the animal kingdom, I am referring to the aspects of nature that follow the course which nature has set for living things and that course is for these living things to CONTINUE to exist, not for them to die off.
Only heterosexuality is normal, homosexuality isn't. What purpose does homosexuality serve? What is to be gained form it?
Gay men usually end up with anal incontinence after some time due to the gaysex they have.
Anal incontinence.
Because the human anus is not adapted for sëx, unlike the vägina that is very elastic and can retain it's prior shape after sëx and even after childbirth.

http://www.dictionary.com/d/?q=natural&o=0&l=dir

1. of, existing in, or formed by nature


www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

a : being in accordance with or determined by
nature
b : having or constituting a classification based
on features existing in nature


Again, homosexuality occurs in nature abundantly, even if not exclusively. It is NATURAL. And you assume there is no purpose it, I've already told you there are, even in other species. Look up bonobos, and note that bonobos and chimps are our closest relatives. As has already been said by @kay, nature has made it pleasurable for some, why? Also, note as well, nature favors populations with varieties. The larger the gene pool, the better. The more diverse the population, the more likely it would survive threats. This applies socially as well.

What you view through your goggles as defects are viewed very positively by others. In fact, you could say some of these 'defects' would be objectively positive. Or are you saying homosexuals don't contribute to the world?

As for but.t hurt, yes I've noticed as well how heterosexual sex is completely harmless. Really? Heck with bu.tt sex at least you needed worry about unwanted pregnancies. And of course heteros never engage in but.t se.x as well

fellis: Nobody is using any trick here. Everything wrong with gays. How can a person want to carry out an action that causes them irrepairable bodily harm and still think that they are normal?

See above

fellis: What do you mean by it's very likely?
What makes it VERY likely?
Other species have their own adaptive behaviours that are different from the mammals in the Wiki link. Those mammals in my link carry out infanticide because that is the adaptive behaviour that suits their species, not these other species that you speak of.

What makes it very likely is that other similar species don't engage in it yet they do just fine.

My obvious point here being not every 'natural' thing is helpful/good. We also have nice good brains to help us filter the bits of nature that really aren't necessary without waiting for natural selection to weed them out. Meh

fellis: Your reasoning capacity/abilities are different from those of animals.
You do not understand how animals think so stop trying to see thing from their point of view.

They, for the most part, don't think. Their behavior is instinctive, just like when they engage in teh gay se.x. So, if you cannot see from their point of view, how can you tell they're wrong to engage in teh gay or that they are mentally ill? I fail to see how this bit helps your case

fellis: Natural= following course of nature = developing traits that ensure survival = reproduction and multiplication ≠ homosexuality ≠ traits that lead to a destroyed anus.

And teh gay is the greatest blight on survival, completely against the course of nature. Absolutely nothing gained from it except destroyed but.ts. So says fellis. Bu.tts that aren't even yours no less...

Mr_Anony: It appears you are happily missing my point. I have not denied "altruism" in animals or in man, what I have consistently hammered on is this question: How does "survival of the fittest" give birth to self-sacrifice? i.e. how does a game whose rule is survival end up producing a morality that values giving up one's life above his survival? And please don't tell me it is so that the genes of it's species can carry on because there are cases of one species giving up it's survival to preserve another species. My argument is simple: Self-sacrifice does not logically follow from self-preservation. If you think it does, then please explain how so.

And like I say in that post, I hope I don't have to explain the process again? It's rather long and many articles discuss it. It is very simple, so you must excuse logicb and I if we find you disingenuous at the moment.

You have a much higher chance of surviving in a group than alone. Natural selection has rewarded these groups, the genes have spread. All across biology you can see packs and what not where this behavior is observed (cooperation, hierarchies, castes etc* ). They are successful against the elements, so they spread.


For altruism involving one ending ones on life, it is still written in genetically. The groups with altruists of that nature were probably able to survive challenges that wiped out other more immediately selfish groups. Asides from true altruism, there's also the gain kinsman relationships, achieved via empathy as well. Mother does all to protect her child, willingly dying. Her child will still carry some of her dna. Same with relatives or even members of the same tribe. There are probably even symbiotic relationships between species that might have roots in altruism in some form or the other. I'll have to check that up.

As for saving another species (interesting), regardless, it could be nature 'misfiring', it does that frequently. Like those bugs that wander into those incandescent light traps mistaking them for starlight. Side effects of their programming, their behavior. To elaborate, a major force in many animal species is empathy, which could lead to seemingly senseless acts as far as survival of the fittest is concerned. Consider the direction empathy is going with us, it will eventually lead us to protecting all species (heck, we'll probably grow meat from stem cells or something, of course we're still working on just protecting ourselves atm). So it's not surprising to see true altruism (not related to any sort of immediate gain, or kinship, just helpful to life in general) in other animals.

How to build a moral code around self-preservation? It involves necessary cooperation. Ethical codes are construed to establish rules for cooperation, no? You are only looking at the immediate survival of the individual, which is shortsighted and has probably failed many species, packs etc. Even in 9ja it is failing us, miserably; self-preservation, greed, tribalism, religious divides, etc. You're ignoring the survival of the clan, species and eventually, all life. These require cooperation and altruism. It requires sacrifices. Your bad luck if you're one of the sacrifices. You're also ignoring something else we've pointed out, we have conscious intelligence. Armed with that and a purpose, you can see where we can take altruism. We make our own purposes btw, just like a 'god' would have made his.

Mr_Anony: You can either begin to take my argument seriously and provide appropriate logical answers or you can simply repeat your mantra once more, I couldn't care less at this point.
This is the same question I have been trying to get logicboy03 to consider but I can see it is futile getting him to grasp it so I have left him to himself to shout "debunked and "epic fail" for as long as he likes.

By the way, I apologize for snapping at you. I have read my comment again and I think I took it a bit too far. Forgive me. Let us argue with a bit of maturity now.

Take your argument seriously? Who is the one ignoring other obvious factors here?

And I don't care about insults. I'm not mature so I won't make any promises to behave as well



Man these long posts. Off to work I hope


*ah, most 9ja is probably happy serfs, yes, I said it

Ihedinobi: Gee, you sure don't like miracles, do you?

Lemme ask you, is it strange that we can make virgins today pregnant?

Isn't that obvious? I should accept a virgin became pregnant without any evidence whatsoever because? What kind of stuff do you think I smoke?

No it's not strange, thanks to the very nicely objectively verifiable science.

fellis: My other post was hidden.

Lol, abundant in nature? Some animals engage in homosexual acts but that doesn't make it abundant.
Again, I got this from your link:

Also, mental problems can be found in animals, so their engaging in homosexual behaviour could be a sign of a mental disorder.

Bot got your post?

Is homosexual behavior a sign of mental disorder in humans? Wow. They don't like having the same sort of s.ex you do, therefore they are mentally ill? Like said above, some guys enjoy eating water melons (that kind), others don't. Which group are mentally ill?




Edit: not to mention what sort of baseless leap is that? You just make a connection out of the blue and now it's somehow a fact?

Kay 17: Sexual identity is basically a social construct, heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are still sex, justifiable and appealing to the participants on the basis of pleasure. For those that agree against the 'unnatural" lesbian sex, have to face the contradiction that Nature rewards the act with pleasure.

As far as societies go, sex is given a subjective definition and some societies not only tolerate homosexuality, but also allot some social function to it.

Like the Christians do, espousing some sort of absolute rule about sex is unrealistic. Besides, christianity stands for cultural references of the past century.

This more or else sums a lot of what I've been saying, plus some. Frankly, I feel bad I couldn't put it as succinctly.

Random: I was thinking about this. I remember romans/greeks had some jobs where they actively searched out homosexuals for the positions. That's downright discrimination! I didn't get the job. Why? Cause I'm not gay?! I suppose it's sort of similar (but not the same) to how in some eastern societies being a masseuse is reserved for the blind. Note I say similar, not the same.

Mr_Anony: Oh well, if se[color=#000000]xu[/color]al intercourse between a 40 year old and a 14 year old is not peadophilia to you, then we really don't have much of an argument.

Anyway, yeah we can continue later, maybe over the weekend when I'm free (unless I can make out time to procrastinate sooner. lol)

Age of consent in much of the world is ~14. But this case, even if legal, has to be taken in the context of the guy's age, he would obviously classify as a predator. You go out of your way to stress they both consent, and I'm assuming her earlier sexual experience were with peers, not predators. In which case I'm obviously looking at her parents/guardians. You've deliberately presented a case that is not clear cut. Use prebuscent teen versus old man, sexual experience or not, consent or not, then I can give you a straight answer; she's simply far too young to know what she's doing, and the repercussions to both her physical and mental health could be disastrous.

But yes, this case is still disturbing obviously because of the 40 year old dude. If with her peer I would have to let them go, with a stern warning

We'll finish this later... I didn't even get to finish my work damit

fellis: There are also biological differences between the brains of schizophrenics and mentally healthy people.
Does that make schizophrenics normal?

There are biological differences between a red head's hair and that of the general population, does that make redheads abnormal.

You're also using a cheap trick similar to what anony used. Schizophrenic people are often disabled, it's a debilitating condition if left unchecked. No such thing with having teh gay, except maybe dealing with bigots.

fellis:
Seriously?
That's your proof that it is normal?
Animals do it and so if humans do it then it must be normal?

Yes it is.

You are the one claiming that we are biologically hard wired in one way thus using those organs in any other way is not natural. I give a link which shows homosexuality is indeed natural in the animal kingdom, it's practiced by many species, then suddenly biology is not accepted as evidence? So what is normal, what fellis decides?

They don't do it just for fun you know? Read up on bonobos and how they use sex to negotiate, bond, etc. Read up on elephants and dolphins as well. But even if they did, these are animals, they have no reasoning abilities per se. They aren't going around thinking "maybe I should be gay today", they are for the most part purely instinctive beings. They cannot make a conscious choice to be gay, yet they are. So this does not qualify as natural?

Homosexuality is abundant in nature, that makes it normal in nature

fellis: Animals do a lot of things wiegraf. Are you saying that regardless of which of these things people do their actions should be considered normal because animals also do the same thing?
I got this from your link

This behavior not only reduces intraspecific competition between the incumbent's offspring and those of other males and increases the parental investment afforded to their own young, but also allows females to become sexually receptive sooner. This is because females of this species, as well as many other mammals, do not ovulate during the period in which they lactate. It then becomes easier to see how this behavior could have evolved. If a male kills a female's young, she stops lactating and is able to become pregnant again. As males are in a constant struggle to protect their group, those that express infanticidal behavior will contribute a larger portion to future gene pools

Infanticide DOES tend to favor the procreation and longevity of species. And no, we humans are not supposed to do it because it happens in nature. The behaviour patterns that favour the said procreation and longevity of species vary from organism to organism, but in the end, regardless of what behaviours are displayed, the intention is for existence to continue.

The bold, why do you think I'd say that then post this link? You are the one saying homosexuality is not biologically natural, therefore it must be bad, not me. I'm showing you that biologically natural isn't always desirable, so basing your argument on nature is a rather obvious double edged sword.

Straw men a plenty? How do you come to your conclusions from reading that? How do you know they won't be just fine without infanticide? In fact, it's very likely they'd be just fine, as tones of other species, like us (for the most part) are doing fine without it.

From what I can see there it's just the alpha male being selfish and insisting on having his own kids. If one shows up, kill your husband, kill your kids, then has kids with you, I fail to see where the net gain is there. There could always be adoption for instance. Or your husband need not have been killed in the first place, etc


Again, you say we shouldn't blindly follow nature, fine. Then you base your argument against homosexuality on it not being natural. Pick one, do we or do we not follow nature? You say we should cherry pick. If we do, what makes you fellis the arbiter of what's let in and what's not (you seem to think you are). Gay people can help with the problem of orphans for instance. We also frankly need to check our population growth. Yet somehow you think you know what's natural for our species.

fellis: Not at all.
Just saying that we should stop lying to ourselves and pretending that we don't know that homosexuality is abnormal.

It is not. That is your opinion. It happens elsewhere in the animal kingdom, with or without your approval. It is natural

fellis:
Seriously?
That's your proof that it is normal?
Animals do it and so if humans do it then it must be normal?
Animals do a lot of things wiegraf. Are you saying that regardless of which of these things people do their actions should be considered normal because animals also do the same thing?



I got this from your link

This behavior not only reduces intraspecific competition between the incumbent's offspring and those of other males and increases the parental investment afforded to their own young, but also allows females to become sexually receptive sooner. This is because females of this species, as well as many other mammals, do not ovulate during the period in which they lactate. It then becomes easier to see how this behavior could have evolved. If a male kills a female's young, she stops lactating and is able to become pregnant again. As males are in a constant struggle to protect their group, those that express infanticidal behavior will contribute a larger portion to future gene pools

Infanticide DOES tend to favor the procreation and longevity of species. And no, we humans are not supposed to do it because it happens in nature. The behaviour patterns that favour the said procreation and longevity of species vary from organism to organism, but in the end, regardless of what behaviours are displayed, the intention is for existence to continue.




Not at all.
Just saying that we should stop lying to ourselves and pretending that we don't know that homosexuality is abnormal.

I'll deal with you tomorrow. Don't have the time now. Needless to say though that's some rather poor reasoning. Later

Mr_Anony: Lol, let me put things in perspective for you a bit.... Scenario: A 40 year old man has sex with a 14 year old girl who prior to that instance was already very sexually active.

Please give cogent non-religious reasons why and how one of the parties in this arrangement is harmed.

If no one was harmed, how is this comparable to pedophilia?

I have to get to work anony, we'll continue this later brah

Mr_Anony: Why are the contents of my prayers such an issue for you? Is it any of your business who and what I pray for?

Lol, secondly you seem to somehow think that homo[color=#000000]sexu[/color]ality is a natural way of being. You are equating it with being born black fro instance. Well my friend, to legitimately make that comparison, you must show that homo[color=#000000]sexu[/color]als are born that way. I hold that homos[color=#000000]exua[/color]lity is a sin. It is the action and the lust.

Bolded, sins? Really? Just like how it was more or else a sin to be black to mormons? And the rest of the world is supposed to take you seriously because? Are you of the opinion muslims should condescend/pray for you because you're a kaffir? You might be looking forward to that but I'd rather they kept me out of their thoughts, thank you very much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Biological_differences_in_gay_men_and_lesbians
There may be no smoking gun, but there are notable differences, especially in brain physiology. Regardless, choice or no, it is condescending silly holier than thou crap brah, with sometimes insidious consequences (but we can ignore those, for now). You can pray for them all you want, it's a free world. Or you think I haven't noticed? I will pray to Pikkiwokki to cure you from your xtianity as well. That's how it works, no?

fellis: Because it is unnatural.
Males and females have complimentary sex organs that are meant to aid reproduction and to procreate the species. And that is what evolution tends to favor; procreation and longevity of species.
That is the natural order of things.
How does homösexuality follow this natural order again?

There are also the many examples of homosexuality in nature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

There's a lot of other things done in nature that we might consider picking up since they are 'natural', for instance we could consider infanticide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_%28zoology%29


But I think more troublesome as far as rights are concerned, are you implying that everyone must procreate just because you say so?

Mr_Anony: Would you consider peadophilia normal?

It could have biological basis. If it does, then for the pedophile, that is normal, as that is what his physiology is programmed to do. Pedophilia though, is extremely harmful to one of the parties involved. You are comparing something that actively harms children to something done (and is considered pleasurable/desirable to all parties involved) by consenting adults?

This from the person who usually complains when someone appeals to emotions. You pick one of the most reviled groups of humans to garner emotional points, just so you could get your desired answer. Ignoring the fact that the conditions are completely different. One is totally harmless, the other one of the most harmful things one could do to a child. That is a particularly low and disgusting tactic anony.

Mr_Anony: It is because I love them that I pray for them. I have hom[color=#000000]osexu[/color]al friends too (actually, two les[color=#000000]bi[/color]an friends who are getting "married" soon) and I love them dearly but then sin is sin. And what is cool is that we can have this conversation about their se[color=#000000]xua[/color]l preference and I can still preach to them and we always agree to disagree but the point is that they know i love them and they know where I stand.
I still maintain that we should pray for them.

Did they ask for your prayers? Did they indicate in any way that they wanted you to pray their gay away? If not, I would suggest you respect them and keep them out of your prayers. Think of the golden rule, not the shallow version. Do you want them to pray your straight away? Actually, since straight is popular, lets try this; would you want a racist to pray your black away?

fellis: I am not trolling; homösexuality is not normal. Think what you will.

Why is it not normal? Give me cogent non-religious reasons.

fellis: Gay people are not normal.
I think those people on this thread that are in support of hömosexuality are actually homosexuals themselves.

ok

But I hope you trolling, else you're a disgusting bigot.

Ihedinobi: I don't know, maybe it's cos you still have a mirror reflection...... hmmm.......

Maybe. Point is that despite telling myself that, everyone else tells me it is false. So, mary was a virgin, yet she gave birth. This before the advent of science that could accomplish such as feat. Do you see where the problem is? Was it aliens that planted the baby in there, or god? And more importantly, why do you believe that this happened just because it's in a book of rather haphazardly put together stories? Does it boil down to you saying "because it says so"?

Mr_Anony: Lol, not mad, bored. I don't see the sense in repeating a position over and over again if you wouldn't engage it with some seriousness.

I confuse. I should be the one telling you this. Did you see me deny anywhere that 'survival of the fittest' was not a factor? You, on the other hand, refuse to accept the obvious biological need for cooperation and altruism. *sarcasm* I can only wonder why */sarcasm*. Examples of not the process per se but of the results:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=altruism+in+animals&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=fcuiUKuJJsjDswbVp4DwAw&ved=0CB0QgQMwAA

The process need not be explained again, I hope.


And what about these:

Mr_Anony: I am not interested in a merry-go-round argument, your pal logicboy has filled the slot for stupid arguments for this weekend.

Mr_Anony: As I said, I have no interest in your foolishness at this time

There's nothing wrong with calling me foo.lish, unless you somehow want to claim you are above such and don't want to look like a hypocrite.

And is it me, or did you subtly endorse slavery earlier on?

@anony, which christ-like places have you been visiting lately?

Ihedinobi: Man, your dad must really be SOMETHING

I know, right? Despite the fact my mom has convinced both of us I am incredibly awesome, for some reason everyone else disagrees

Smartie gurl: wat da heck! Hell Noooo

If you aren't interested in joining in, then it's clearly not your business. So why do you want to 'do' something?

Smartie gurl: jeez! U serious abt dat?

That should be obvious, don't you think? There are voluntary homos as well. In any which case, I fail to see why you think something should be 'done' to adults who engage in activities that do not harm you in any way. Or do you want to get involved?