Obvious Christian-baiting

[Abbey Marie]

I'm sure we have all noticed that there's been a lot of thinly veiled Christian-baiting going on here lately. People trying to "trick" Christians into admitting some sort of illogical beliefs, or to expose hypocritical behavior.

Here's a note to those involved: Your attempts are transparent, they do not engender honest debate, and they are not achieving the desired goals. Finally, we expect anti-Christian attitudes to gain in popularity, even here in America, so it's not surprising, really.

"Just so you know". ;)

Carry on.

[Lightning Waltz]

I'm sure we have all noticed that there's been a lot of thinly veiled Christian-baiting going on here lately. People trying to "trick" Christians into admitting some sort of illogical beliefs, or to expose hypocritical behavior.

Here's a note to those involved: Your attempts are transparent, they do not engender honest debate, and they are not achieving the desired goals. Finally, we expect anti-Christian attitudes to gain in popularity, even here in America, so it's not surprising, really.

"Just so you know". ;)

Carry on.

Thank goodness people don't "bait" homosexuals, muslims, liberals, etc...on this board...

[Chessplayer]

I'm sure we have all noticed that there's been a lot of thinly veiled Christian-baiting going on here lately. People trying to "trick" Christians into admitting some sort of illogical beliefs, or to expose hypocritical behavior.

Here's a note to those involved: Your attempts are transparent, they do not engender honest debate, and they are not achieving the desired goals. Finally, we expect anti-Christian attitudes to gain in popularity, even here in America, so it's not surprising, really.

"Just so you know". ;)

Carry on.

Why would these anti-christian attitudes gain in popularity?

[JohnDoe]

I'm sure we have all noticed that there's been a lot of thinly veiled Christian-baiting going on here lately. People trying to "trick" Christians into admitting some sort of illogical beliefs, or to expose hypocritical behavior.

Here's a note to those involved: Your attempts are transparent, they do not engender honest debate, and they are not achieving the desired goals. Finally, we expect anti-Christian attitudes to gain in popularity, even here in America, so it's not surprising, really.

"Just so you know". ;)

Carry on.I have no idea who you are talking about with your comments, but heh! YOU got spunk, girl!

[glockmail]

Thank goodness people don't "bait" homosexuals, muslims, liberals, etc...on this board... I wouldn't consider direct questions aimed at thier core beliefs "baiting" as Abbey described. Would you?

[Lightning Waltz]

I wouldn't consider direct questions aimed at thier core beliefs "baiting" as Abbey described. Would you?

I wouldn't consider what Abbey described as "baiting", period. But, if one is baiting, then the other is.

[Gunny]

I wouldn't consider what Abbey described as "baiting", period. But, if one is baiting, then the other is.

I disagree. No one is trying to bait homosexuals, muslims, liberals, etc. They and their arguments get ATTACKED face up. There is definitely a difference between that and trying to win dishonest games of semantics.

[diuretic]

If it is happening then it's ultimately pointless. I've thought about this a lot. I'm an atheist and I have been for many years. It's not a badge for me. I don't speak about it in company and I have a few friends who are religious people but it just doesn't come up. I have to admit that at times I look at them and think, "how can you believe?", but I don't make an issue of it.

I don't want to turn anyone away from their religion. I will discuss religious issues on forums though but I hope I can do it without offending. I am lucky to live in a reasonably secular society where religion is considered a personal thing and it doesn't intrude greatly into politics, although that seems to be changing, unfortunately.

I sometimes envy those of faith. If you believe in God and an afterlife then you must be very comforted. I don't and there's nothing I can do about it. I believe that there's no afterlife and frankly it's pretty bleak to think that way. But then I decide that it's best to enjoy it while you can. It also makes me think a lot about the purpose or meaning of life. I'm pretty sure there isn't one. There are things we can do to be good people - good spouses/lovers, good friends, good parents, good sons and daughters and so on, but none of that is about the meaning of life, it's about living the right life.

Anyway to each their own.

[Lightning Waltz]

I disagree. No one is trying to bait homosexuals, muslims, liberals, etc. They and their arguments get ATTACKED face up. There is definitely a difference between that and trying to win dishonest games of semantics.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=4766

Speaking of "dishonest games of semantics"...

[glockmail]

I wouldn't consider what Abbey described as "baiting", period. But, if one is baiting, then the other is. Bullshit.

[Lightning Waltz]

Bullshit.

Bullshit bullshit.

[glockmail]

Bullshit bullshit. Embellishing your debating skills, I see. :pee:

[Lightning Waltz]

Embellishing your debating skills, I see. :pee:

No, just responding in kind, to you.

[5stringJeff]

If it is happening then it's ultimately pointless. I've thought about this a lot. I'm an atheist and I have been for many years. It's not a badge for me. I don't speak about it in company and I have a few friends who are religious people but it just doesn't come up. I have to admit that at times I look at them and think, "how can you believe?", but I don't make an issue of it.

I don't want to turn anyone away from their religion. I will discuss religious issues on forums though but I hope I can do it without offending. I am lucky to live in a reasonably secular society where religion is considered a personal thing and it doesn't intrude greatly into politics, although that seems to be changing, unfortunately.

I sometimes envy those of faith. If you believe in God and an afterlife then you must be very comforted. I don't and there's nothing I can do about it. I believe that there's no afterlife and frankly it's pretty bleak to think that way. But then I decide that it's best to enjoy it while you can. It also makes me think a lot about the purpose or meaning of life. I'm pretty sure there isn't one. There are things we can do to be good people - good spouses/lovers, good friends, good parents, good sons and daughters and so on, but none of that is about the meaning of life, it's about living the right life.

Anyway to each their own.

I think you are describing what someone else (can't remember who) called the difference between atheists and 'A'theists.

[Hagbard Celine]

I'm sure we have all noticed that there's been a lot of thinly veiled Christian-baiting going on here lately. People trying to "trick" Christians into admitting some sort of illogical beliefs, or to expose hypocritical behavior.

Here's a note to those involved: Your attempts are transparent, they do not engender honest debate, and they are not achieving the desired goals. Finally, we expect anti-Christian attitudes to gain in popularity, even here in America, so it's not surprising, really.

"Just so you know". ;)

Carry on.

Oh really? And what is "Question for pond scum "evolution" believers" if not thinly-veiled baiting? What a joke. Pppbbbt.

[Abbey Marie]

Oh really? And what is "Question for pond scum "evolution" believers" if not thinly-veiled baiting? What a joke. Pppbbbt.

Calling me a joke again, ey? I am losing count of how many times today you have done so. At what point do you think it will change anyone's opinion to your pov, as opposed to just making you look mean-spirited and bitter? Here's a hint- ain't happening.

As to the wisp of content in your post, what is "thinly-veiled" about -Cp's thread? It's about as up front as about it's purpose as a thread could be.

[Hagbard Celine]

Fine.

[glockmail]

.....Pppbbbt. WTF is that? A fart noise? LOL!

[Abbey Marie]

WTF is that? A fart noise? LOL!

Gee thanks, now I'm going to think of it that way! I just took it as a kind of "pfffft" sound. :lalala:

[Yurt]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=4766

Speaking of "dishonest games of semantics"...

Do you even know what "baiting" means? Or semantics for that matter? It does not appears so for OCA's post was straight up and no one is unsure of OCA's position. Nice try, Abbey is right on with this. Just because you think so, does not make it so....

[Lightning Waltz]

Do you even know what "baiting" means? Or semantics for that matter? It does not appears so for OCA's post was straight up and no one is unsure of OCA's position. Nice try, Abbey is right on with this. Just because you think so, does not make it so....

Right back at you, big guy...

The amount of ignorance that went into the writing of your post, could fill warehouses.

[Yurt]

Right back at you, big guy...

The amount of ignorance that went into the writing of your post, could fill warehouses.

LOL, all you have is some insult, but nothing actually wrong with my post :laugh2:

why don't you just go on the yo mama show and make yo mama proud

[Lightning Waltz]

LOL, all you have is some insult, but nothing actually wrong with my post :laugh2:

why don't you just go on the yo mama show and make yo mama proud

And, right back at you again...

Pot, meet kettle...

[manu1959]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=4766

Speaking of "dishonest games of semantics"...

i thought the basis of the evoltuion argument is that life spontaeously developed from the primordial ooze .... aka pond scum? ...... is there a new therory....or i mean... set of indisputable facts?

[Gunny]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=4766

Speaking of "dishonest games of semantics"...

I don't see where the thread you linked supports your accusation. Please DO explain.

[Yurt]

And, right back at you again...

Pot, meet kettle...

So you are saying OCA's post was not straight up? Since all you can do is dodge and insult but not actually address what I called you on, I will give you another chance :coffee:

[Gunny]

Right back at you, big guy...

The amount of ignorance that went into the writing of your post, could fill warehouses.

The amount of empty space that goes into the baselessness of your accusation is infinite.

[Lightning Waltz]

I don't see where the thread you linked supports your accusation. Please DO explain.

Until OCA defines his terms of Normal and Natural, he is playing "dishonest games of semantics". I've asked him to do so twice, without substantive response.

[Lightning Waltz]

i thought the basis of the evoltuion argument is that life spontaeously developed from the primordial ooze .... aka pond scum? ...... is there a new therory....or i mean... set of indisputable facts?

You responded to the wrong post.
BTW, I liked your last quip. A scientific theory is based upon indisputable facts, but the theory itself, is still a theory. Confusing unless you've actually studied the sceintific model.

[diuretic]

I think you are describing what someone else (can't remember who) called the difference between atheists and 'A'theists.

I thought about this a lot. Point taken.

[-Cp]

Abbey,

Those without any Moral Compass in their life will always try and poke holes in those that claim to have one in order to hopefull catch them in seomthing so they can feel better about not having one....

[Lightning Waltz]

Those without any Moral Compass in their life will always try and poke holes in those that claim to have one in order to hopefull catch them in seomthing so they can feel better about not having one....

See http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=4763

Claims of a higher morality by believers are weak.

[Abbey Marie]

Abbey,

Those without any Moral Compass in their life will always try and poke holes in those that claim to have one in order to hopefull catch them in seomthing so they can feel better about not having one....

I think that makes sense. I trust that all these threads about Christianity mean that *something* is subconsciously pushing them towards it.

[Lightning Waltz]

I think that makes sense. I trust that all these threads about Christianity mean that *something* is subconsciously pushing them towards it.

:lol:

And all these threads about homosexuality must mean that *something* is subconsciously pushing them towards it.

[glockmail]

:lol:

And all these threads about homosexuality must mean that *something* is subconsciously pushing them towards it.


But I thought being queer was not a choice? :poke:

[Lightning Waltz]

But I thought being queer was not a choice? :poke:

Not according to you...

EDIT: BTW, here is what I did say about the whole "homosexuality is a choice" question.


I think that everyone is kind of on a sliding scale. Some people are "hardwired" 100% straight and couldn't be gay if they wanted to be. Some people are "hardwired" 100% gay and couldn't be straight if they wanted to be. Most people are some mix. 95/5, 50/50, 5/95, whatever... From there, people can, and have acted against their natures to varying degrees of sucess.

[Abbey Marie]

But I thought being queer was not a choice? :poke:

Dang, you are on a roll lately; you made me drag it out again:

http://users.telenet.be/honeybee1/basket.gif

[OCA]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=4766

Speaking of "dishonest games of semantics"...

What was dishonest about it slick?

[JohnDoe]

Abbey,

Those without any Moral Compass in their life will always try and poke holes in those that claim to have one in order to hopefull catch them in seomthing so they can feel better about not having one....

Well, you contradict God's word on this....

God seared right from wrong in to EVERYONE'S heart....

One does NOT have to be a Christian or religious to have a ''moral compass'', to know right from wrong!

Are you disagreeing with God? :poke:

[glockmail]

Well, you contradict God's word on this....

God seared right from wrong in to EVERYONE'S heart....

One does NOT have to be a Christian or religious to have a ''moral compass'', to know right from wrong!

Are you disagreeing with God? :poke:

Perhaps He did, but nuture has no effect on this? Maybe you should meet bin Laden.

[Hagbard Celine]

Perhaps He did, but nuture has no effect on this? Maybe you should meet bin Laden.

Bin Laden thinks he is doing God's will. His moral compass is telling him to kill infidels.

[-Cp]

Well, you contradict God's word on this....

God seared right from wrong in to EVERYONE'S heart....

One does NOT have to be a Christian or religious to have a ''moral compass'', to know right from wrong!

Are you disagreeing with God? :poke:


He did? Really?

[glockmail]

Bin Laden thinks he is doing God's will. His moral compass is telling him to kill infidels. That is clearly in conflict with Jesus' thinking, and since Islam claims Him as "the greates prophet", bin Laden has clearly been influenced by his nurture to ignore what is "stamped on his heart".

[JohnDoe]

He did? Really?

yes, He did.

If memory serves, it was when Moses came down from the mountain after a long departure, his people and other pagans with them had gone nuts in his absence, were sinning all over the place....

[Abbey Marie]

Well, you contradict God's word on this....

God seared right from wrong in to EVERYONE'S heart....

One does NOT have to be a Christian or religious to have a ''moral compass'', to know right from wrong!

Are you disagreeing with God? :poke:

In general, I would agree with this. Of course, lots of things can make the message incomprehensible to some. Sociopaths, etc.

[JohnDoe]

That is clearly in conflict with Jesus' thinking, and since Islam claims Him as "the greates prophet", bin Laden has clearly been influenced by his nurture to ignore what is "stamped on his heart".

Well, one can EASILY make a case that Jesus would NEVER accept us starting this war in Iraq and the killing of all those ''collateral damage'' people. That Jesus would have willed us to turn the other cheek, walk an exta mile with our adversary by our own free will or love thy enemy as thyself so that it would be like "burning coals" on the heads of our enemies.

Just because right from wrong is seered in to us, does not mean we follow it, we still have free will. Why else would there be Christian murderers, or rapists, or liars or thieves?

We all fall short of the glory of God.

[JohnDoe]

In general, I would agree with this. Of course, lots of things can make the message incomprehensible to some. Sociopaths, etc.

As I have said Abbey, (btw, that is my little kitty girl's name...we love her!)

We all have free will to go against this inner knowledge of right from wrong.

As an example, during the crusades we, (Christians) fell grace ourselves...similar to Bin Laden's actions.

[Gunny]

Until OCA defines his terms of Normal and Natural, he is playing "dishonest games of semantics". I've asked him to do so twice, without substantive response.

Howso? The premise of his thread is that HE asked rahul to define "normal and natural." There's nothing dishonest about it, unless of course, you are admitting that your asking the same question of OCA is "a game of dishonest semantics."

Rahul's or your definitions of "normal and natural" do not rely on OCA's definition, do they?

[Abbey Marie]

As I have said Abbey, (btw, that is my little kitty girl's name...we love her!)

We all have free will to go against this inner knowledge of right from wrong.

As an example, during the crusades we, (Christians) fell grace ourselves...similar to Bin Laden's actions.

Yes, free will is the reason we can go against our awareness of right and wrong, but I was talking of those whose wiring is too screwed up to even know such a concept. Two different sides of the equation, but either can explain bad behavior.

Cat lover and great taste in names- two plusses in my book!

[manu1959]

As I have said Abbey, (btw, that is my little kitty girl's name...we love her!)

We all have free will to go against this inner knowledge of right from wrong.

As an example, during the crusades we, (Christians) fell grace ourselves...similar to Bin Laden's actions.

and similar to the Moorish invasion of Spain that caused the crusades....like that?

[JohnDoe]

and similar to the Moorish invasion of Spain that caused the crusades....like that?
yes.... we ALL fall short, this is not a Chrisian, or muslim, etc exclusive! ;)

[Lightning Waltz]

Howso? The premise of his thread is that HE asked rahul to define "normal and natural."

Premise of the thread is asking rahul to define "normal and natural?

Bullshit.

If anything the premise of the thread is that HE is claiming that homosexuality is not natural and normal.

Here is the entire first post. There is no implied question of what natural and normal mean...


Gandhi please explain how homosexuality is natural and normal AMONG HUMAN BEINGS with the ability to think critically.

[Gunny]

Premise of the thread is asking rahul to define "normal and natural?

Bullshit.

Really? You linked it. I refer you OCA's question in the first post of the thread to substantiate my statement.

If anything the premise of the thread is that HE is claiming that homosexuality is not natural and normal.

Here is the entire first post. There is no implied question of what natural and normal mean...

I must be missing your point. It looks like it says EXACTLY what I said it does. Perhpas I'm just not reading OCA's mind and presuming to know what he means?

[Lightning Waltz]

I must be missing your point. It looks like it says EXACTLY what I said it does. Perhpas I'm just not reading OCA's mind and presuming to know what he means?

Perhaps you are just reading into what you want to believe (or what suits your argument at the moment, anyway).

That's what it looks like to me, anyway.

[JohnDoe]

Yes, free will is the reason we can go against our awareness of right and wrong, but I was talking of those whose wiring is too screwed up to even know such a concept. Two different sides of the equation, but either can explain bad behavior.

Cat lover and great taste in names- two plusses in my book!

Of course! There are people that are pure psycopaths, people that are pure evil it seems....but I would venture to say that they were not "wired" that way....at least for the most of them. Circumstances, lousy parenting, or no parenting, never shown love or affection in childhood, abused as an infant or child, bullyied by others, lack of self esteem, etc can make a person evil....but I believe this is manmade, combined with free will.

I haven't met an athiest that just did not believe that killing or stealing from another, or even cheating on a spouse is plain wrong....the core of "right from wrong" is in us all. (Again, there will be exceptions)

[glockmail]

Well, one can EASILY make a case that Jesus would NEVER accept us starting this war in Iraq and the killing of all those ''collateral damage'' people. That Jesus would have willed us to turn the other cheek, .....


As I recall, God only gave us two cheeks.

[OCA]

Premise of the thread is asking rahul to define "normal and natural?

Bullshit.

If anything the premise of the thread is that HE is claiming that homosexuality is not natural and normal.

Here is the entire first post. There is no implied question of what natural and normal mean...

So Waltz do you think homosexuality is natural and normal? And no, natural and normal are not fluid, they are set in stone....by society. Don't think so? Check out some vote results from states that have voted on queer marriage and by proxy homosexuality itself.

[OCA]

You see people libs will not ever answer a straight question, they can't because it would damage their argument...so instead they try to muddle the topic and question by asking stupid things such as define normal and natural.

Basically what we have here with Waltz is DP's version of Bubba asking "depends on what the meaning of is is".

I think the lib animal in its natural habitat is a fascinating thing to watch but do not get too close because its bite kills all cognitive brain functions.

[glockmail]

....

I think the lib animal in its natural habitat is a fascinating thing to watch but do not get too close because its bite kills all cognitive brain functions.... and keep them away from your kids. :laugh2:

[Lightning Waltz]

So Waltz do you think homosexuality is natural and normal? And no, natural and normal are not fluid, they are set in stone....by society. Don't think so? Check out some vote results from states that have voted on queer marriage and by proxy homosexuality itself.

Until you define your terms, how could I say?

This is the THIRD TIME I would be asking...but feel free to keep avoiding the quesiton in the other thread.

[Lightning Waltz]

Basically what we have here with Waltz is DP's version of Bubba asking "depends on what the meaning of is is".

That afraid to define your terms? Probably because you know that any answer you give can easily be falsified.

[OCA]

Until you define your terms, how could I say?

This is the THIRD TIME I would be asking...but feel free to keep avoiding the quesiton in the other thread.

Your question is an attempt to divert, there is only one normal and natural in everything, not just regarding homosexuality. I suspect you know this but answering truthfully might damage your argument.

Its ok, I understand......sort of.

[Gunny]

Perhaps you are just reading into what you want to believe (or what suits your argument at the moment, anyway).

That's what it looks like to me, anyway.

No, I'm reading the words as stated.

[Gunny]

Until you define your terms, how could I say?

This is the THIRD TIME I would be asking...but feel free to keep avoiding the quesiton in the other thread.

And again, I don't see what OCA's definition has to do with yours. You can't post yours until he posts his?

[Lightning Waltz]

And again, I don't see what OCA's definition has to do with yours. You can't post yours until he posts his?

He is stating that homosexuality is not normal or natural. You want me to give my definition and convince him based on that?

Great.

Normal -- not a toaster.
Homosexuals aren't a toaster, so they are normal.

(even a semi-serious one)
Natural -- occurs in nature.
Homosexuality occurs in nature. Homosexuality is natural.

[OCA]

And again, I don't see what OCA's definition has to do with yours. You can't post yours until he posts his?

I ain't playing this kids game, if he can't answer a straightforward easy to understand question then life is gonna be a long, hard road.

[Lightning Waltz]

No, I'm reading the words as stated.

No, you are doing just what I said. He didn't say jack, nor shit, about wanting anyone else to define Natural or Normal for him... Just now, when he said, "Your question is an attempt to divert, there is only one normal and natural in everything, not just regarding homosexuality", he's not asking for a definition. He's stating that there is only one...

Of course, he's too much of a coward to state what that definition is... But he CLEARLY isn't asking for someone else to define it to him.

[Lightning Waltz]

I ain't playing this kids game, if he can't answer a straightforward easy to understand question then life is gonna be a long, hard road.

If you aren't intellectually honest enough to defend your arguments, define your terms and actually have a discussion, then you have no place being on a discussion board. Go preach to the choir. You're obviously not looking for an exchange of ideas.

[OCA]

He is stating that homosexuality is not normal or natural. You want me to give my definition and convince him based on that?

Great.

Normal -- not a toaster.
Homosexuals aren't a toaster, so they are normal.

(even a semi-serious one)
Natural -- occurs in nature.
Homosexuality occurs in nature. Homosexuality is natural.


There, see how easy that is?

Ok the toaster shit...childish. But lets move on to #2.....you forgot that we are seperated from animals by two things....opposable thumbs and CRITICAL THINKING, the latter of which logically tells you that man has part A and woman has part B and that A fits naturally into B but A don't go into A and B don't go into B.

Did you not pass biology 101?

[Gunny]

He is stating that homosexuality is not normal or natural. You want me to give my definition and convince him based on that?

Great.

Normal -- not a toaster.
Homosexuals aren't a toaster, so they are normal.

(even a semi-serious one)
Natural -- occurs in nature.
Homosexuality occurs in nature. Homosexuality is natural.

No, an answer would be:

homosexuality is not normal behavior. Normal behavior is and has been decided on by the moral ethics of societies throughout history, and even when tolerated has never been accepted as normal behavior by the majority of any society. Societies determine what is and is not "normal behavior."

Homosexuality is not natural in that it defies the very biological laws of nature. The male and female have sex for the purpose of procreating and perpetuating the species. Not male and male/female and female. One of each.

[OCA]

If you aren't intellectually honest enough to defend your arguments, define your terms and actually have a discussion, then you have no place being on a discussion board. Go preach to the choir. You're obviously not looking for an exchange of ideas.

Defend my argument? My argument has been defended around a 1000 times by me on this subject alone, go sell your snake oil elsewhere.

[Lightning Waltz]

There, see how easy that is?

Ok the toaster shit...childish. But lets move on to #2.....you forgot that we are seperated from animals by two things....opposable thumbs and CRITICAL THINKING, the latter of which logically tells you that man has part A and woman has part B and that A fits naturally into B but A don't go into A and B don't go into B.

Did you not pass biology 101?

So, what are your definitions, then? (FOURTH time asking....)

[Lightning Waltz]

homosexuality is not normal behavior. Normal behavior is and has been decided on by the moral ethics of societies throughout history, and even when tolerated has never been accepted as normal behavior by the majority of any society. Societies determine what is and is not "normal behavior."

Homosexuality is not natural in that it defies the very biological laws of nature. The male and female have sex for the purpose of procreating and perpetuating the species. Not male and male/female and female. One of each.

YOU are defining the terms. Good for you.

Normal -- based on society. Okay... You try to claim that it has never been accepted, I'm not so sure about that. Socretes argued that the highest form of sex was with a young boy. But, I digress...

There have been a lot of norms throughout history. They have changed quite a bit, as well. Slavery, human sacrifice, vastly different ages of consent, canibalism, war, female castration, etc....have been accepted societal norms. I think you're going to get into trouble with your definition...

Natural -- procreation isn't the only purpose for sex. Or, do you oppose infertial people from getting married?

Do you really believe that the only purpose for sex is procreation? I suppose you're against all forms of birth control, right? Never have sex yourself unless you're "trying", I suppose. Can I ask a personal question? Does your wife or girlfriend get lonely?

Mules...are they the abomination, do you suppose?

[Lightning Waltz]

Defend my argument? My argument has been defended around a 1000 times by me on this subject alone, go sell your snake oil elsewhere.

Still nothing.

RUN FOREST! RUN!

[OCA]

So, what are your definitions, then? (FOURTH time asking....)

Normal=The way things are supposed to be when left untampered with also normal is defined by society as a whole.

Natural=innate attraction and innate senses(of which at birth EVERY human is born with the innate attraction to the opposite sex, that is fact.)

It is natural for birds to fly south in the winter, not north....see how that is?

A kid who has beautiful skin and brown hair but gets his cheeks pierced and a pink mohawk is not normal, see how that works?

[OCA]

Still nothing.

RUN FOREST! RUN!

Yes, if I don't answer in 30 seconds i'm running lol. Could you possibly be more desperate?

[OCA]

Hey Waltz, you know how to look at the "currently active users" screen?

If you don't I could help you, might stop you from making embarrassing posts like that last one.

[Lightning Waltz]

Thanks for finally answering.


Normal=The way things are supposed to be when left untampered with also normal is defined by society as a whole.

Er..."supposed to be" is a value judgement. "Supposed to be" as according to whom?

As for society, see above.


Natural=innate attraction and innate senses(of which at birth EVERY human is born with the innate attraction to the opposite sex, that is fact.)

Prove it.


It is natural for birds to fly south in the winter, not north....see how that is?

It is natural for some animals to exhibit homosexual behavior, as well.


A kid who has beautiful skin and brown hair but gets his cheeks pierced and a pink mohawk is not normal, see how that works?

Depending on the society, it might be unnatural to NOT do those things... Ever opened a Natural Geographic? ...come on...you have to get your jollies some time....

[Lightning Waltz]

Yes, if I don't answer in 30 seconds i'm running lol. Could you possibly be more desperate?

30 seconds...I've been asking for days...

[manu1959]

yes.... we ALL fall short, this is not a Chrisian, or muslim, etc exclusive! ;)

if you attack me first and if i defend myself have i fallen short? am i even allowed to defend myself?

[OCA]

Thanks for finally answering.



Er..."supposed to be" is a value judgement. "Supposed to be" as according to whom?

As for society, see above.



Prove it.



It is natural for some animals to exhibit homosexual behavior, as well.



Depending on the society, it might be unnatural to NOT do those things... Ever opened a Natural Geographic? ...come on...you have to get your jollies some time....


Supposed to be=society sets norms and parameters.

Prove it....are you shitting me? Again I ask, did you fail biology 101?

Animals=tsk tsk tsk, you forgot the critical thinking part again. Animals also shit in public, eat bugs off of each other and lick their own balls.....you do these things too Waltz? Is this shit natural for Waltz to do?

[Lightning Waltz]

Supposed to be=society sets norms and parameters.

So, really, it's just one justification. Society sets the standards. See above.


Prove it....are you shitting me? Again I ask, did you fail biology 101?

Nowhere in Biology 101 was it proven that there is an innate natural attraction to the opposite sex at birth.

Again, prove it?


Animals=tsk tsk tsk, you forgot the critical thinking part again. Animals also shit in public, eat bugs off of each other and lick their own balls.....you do these things too Waltz? Is this shit natural for Waltz to do?

Er...I was responding to YOUR analogy that birds (an animal, just in case you were wondering) fly south for the winter and that is "natural".

So, want to try a different analogy?

[JohnDoe]

if you attack me first and if i defend myself have i fallen short? am i even allowed to defend myself?

Of course you are allowed to defend yourself from someone when they are attacking you!

[JohnDoe]

YOU are defining the terms. Good for you.

Normal -- based on society. Okay... You try to claim that it has never been accepted, I'm not so sure about that. Socretes argued that the highest form of sex was with a young boy. But, I digress...

There have been a lot of norms throughout history. They have changed quite a bit, as well. Slavery, human sacrifice, vastly different ages of consent, canibalism, war, female castration, etc....have been accepted societal norms. I think you're going to get into trouble with your definition...

Natural -- procreation isn't the only purpose for sex. Or, do you oppose infertial people from getting married?

Do you really believe that the only purpose for sex is procreation? I suppose you're against all forms of birth control, right? Never have sex yourself unless you're "trying", I suppose. Can I ask a personal question? Does your wife or girlfriend get lonely?

Mules...are they the abomination, do you suppose?

I think what he is trying to say is that humans and all other animals enjoy sex, and have a desire for sex, for the most part, because we are somehow ''designed'' in this manner so that we procreate. It is not necessarily a concious thought, like: ''Oh boy, let's have sex so we can procreate kind of thing!''.

It is more in line with having orgasms when we have sex, we like it, we want more of it...and for most species, this attraction and enjoyment is with the opposite sex, which keeps our species, and all species... from extinction imo.

[manu1959]

Of course you are allowed to defend yourself from someone when they are attacking you!

the crusades were a counter attack response to the morrish invasion of europe....

[JohnDoe]

the crusades were a counter attack response to the morrish invasion of europe....

when or rather while they are attacking you....it is proper to defend yourself.

just war theory...read up on it... answers.com or wiki have explanation of it...

[manu1959]

when or rather while they are attacking you.

when what? while what? no i was not alive when the moors attacked europe and jerusalem

[JohnDoe]

when what? while what? no i was not alive when the moors attacked europe and jerusalem


Hahaha! lol!

I modified/edited my post to make it clearer! lol

[manu1959]

when or rather while they are attacking you....it is proper to defend yourself.

just war theory...read up on it... answers.com or wiki have explanation of it...

so once they attack you and take your land thus you have lost....you can not ever attempt to take your land back?

[Yurt]

so once they attack you and take your land thus you have lost....you can not ever attempt to take your land back?

no, that law only applies to muslims ;)

[JohnDoe]

so once they attack you and take your land thus you have lost....you can not ever attempt to take your land back?

I am not quite certain what you are trying to ''bait me'' for here....so why don't you get to the point ... tell me what you believe Jesus taught, and we can discuss it from there? :cool:

[manu1959]

I am not quite certain what you are trying to ''bate me'' for here....so why don't you get to the point ... tell me what you believe Jesus taught, and we can discuss it from there? :cool:

not baiting you....i asked a simple question.....as a follow up that i could only defend myself while i was being attacked....

and in the context of our discussion that would imply once the moors took europe the europeans could not ever take it back much less strike into the middle east...

[nevadamedic]

I am not quite certain what you are trying to ''bate me'' for here....so why don't you get to the point ... tell me what you believe Jesus taught, and we can discuss it from there? :cool:

I have never seen Manny bate anyone, he is a lot more mature then that.

[OCA]

So, really, it's just one justification. Society sets the standards. See above.



Nowhere in Biology 101 was it proven that there is an innate natural attraction to the opposite sex at birth.

Again, prove it?



Er...I was responding to YOUR analogy that birds (an animal, just in case you were wondering) fly south for the winter and that is "natural".

So, want to try a different analogy?


Tsk tsk tsk.......muddying and deflecting are poor debating tactics.

My points are crystal clear and as tight as Fort Knox.

Again please try and prove that homosexuality is normal and natural among HUMAN BEINGS.

[Lightning Waltz]

Tsk tsk tsk.......muddying and deflecting are poor debating tactics.

My points are crystal clear and as tight as Fort Knox.

Again please try and prove that homosexuality is normal and natural among HUMAN BEINGS.

The only point that is crystal clear and tight as Fort Knox is the one at the top of your dunce cap. But, because you good enough to FINALLY define your terms, I'll answer your question, based on your terms.

Again, I think your definitions have problems....but, we'll put it to the test.

Normal -- since this is society decided standard. Just as slavery was once deemed socially acceptable, today, gays are not socially acceptable.

Under your definition, gays are not normal. Of course, my response would be, "so what?".

Natural -- I'm still confused on this one. You bring up analogies about birds flying south as natural, but don't like analogies about homosexuality being natural in the animal world, as a whole.

Your definition of "natural" seems to include that people are thinking things and "should know better" than to do what animals do.

So, is "natural" what comes to people through their animal instincts, or is it what they choose to do that doesn't necessarily follow nature? Hard to tell.

You also point to biology of people and make the astounding claim that members of the opposiste sex are attracted to one another at birth (but refuse to back up this claim).

Well, sex wasn't just made for procreation, obviously. So, it's hard to accept your "biology of how people work", argument. And all of your other claims, you haven't backed up.

Frankly, for this one, your definition is so confused that I'm not able to make heads or tails of it. I'm sure that YOU believe that homosexuality isn't natural by your definition...but your definition is so confused, I can't objectively say either way.

[Lightning Waltz]

I think what he is trying to say is that humans and all other animals enjoy sex, and have a desire for sex, for the most part, because we are somehow ''designed'' in this manner so that we procreate. It is not necessarily a concious thought, like: ''Oh boy, let's have sex so we can procreate kind of thing!''.

It is more in line with having orgasms when we have sex, we like it, we want more of it...and for most species, this attraction and enjoyment is with the opposite sex, which keeps our species, and all species... from extinction imo.

Perhaps, but then he states that humans are thinking beings and what is natural isn't necessarily dependant on what animals do.

[JohnDoe]

not baiting you....i asked a simple question.....as a follow up that i could only defend myself while i was being attacked....

and in the context of our discussion that would imply once the moors took europe the europeans could not ever take it back much less strike into the middle east... I don't know enough about this situation to discuss it with any kind of intelligence. I am certain, besides this one scenario there are many other scenarios that could be brought up too in the "What if...or What about...." stage.

I only know what I know... :) That Jesus Christ taught us to turn the cheek to someone who strikes us, to walk the extra mile on our own with our adversaries, to love our enemies, to obey our masters if we were slaves, and even the story of the good Samaritan was a story about loving our fellow human beings even if they seem to be our enemies, we are to help them.

This is quite in contrast with many of the Old Testament stories in the past, it seems....?

I honestly don't totally understand these teachings of Jesus...and I find His requests on this subject quite hard to follow as a human being....my automatic reaction to someone slapping me would be to slap them back.

Jesus says NO, to that.... He says that if we don't strike back, and we continue to be civil, even to our enemies, that THEY will turn from their evil ways.

Why?

Jesus indicates that it will be like "burning coals" on their heads if we continue to do what the Man of Peace tells us...not strike back. I guess He is saying that the enemies human conscious will get to them and change them, in to better men, without violence involved?