what part of the bible..?

[Enterprise-D]

I'd appreciate your best shot...

Who's standards do you require...How Low or High would your rate your chosen standards. I'll let you decided .

Standards of humanism. Certainly not anything sanctioned by christianity's poor excuse of elitist drone rules.

The only 'suppression' the bible speaks of are of a people that had promised to follow god and entered into a legal binding covenant of honor and protection.

???

This is not your best shot is it? The question is not how what goes wrong in a system but the balance of a perfect system. We are establishing morral ground not an immoral one.

You et al are attempting to establish a cookie cutter society based on christian rules. This is not acceptable.

compromising your morals is one of the fastest ways of loosing them. See the Catholic church as well as many other throw scripture away without regard to the one who made that law shows they're thinking outside of God's wishes.

Rubbish. Foisting your so called morals on others is a sign of dictatorship.

You're talking Fiction...I speak only of testimony.

Conveniently, the best witness to this so called testimony is long dead according to your own lone book of testimony.

Further you hold this tome as truth. It is therefore intellectually dishonest to cherry-pick it. David existed according to your bible, as did Jonathan. I'm not the one who

I guess you've never seen the results of years sodomy can inflict on the rectal walls...I assure you that the muscle that was meant to act as a valve to the inner intestine is a ONE way path. I'd hate to describe on the forum the results of being incapable of closing that valve which is normally an involuntary action.

Well, so far it has had no effect on me. My doctor has also given me a consistent bill of health on my regular physicals. I assure you that you are incorrect and out of line.

Intresting...STD's are spread how? Through sexual contact. An exposure to blood and semen and vaginal fluid that occurs in both hetrosexual and homosexual contact...

Not solely. Careless medical practice and shared drug use also assist the spred of these same diseases.

What century? That would be the one where we found out contraceptive like condoms prevent the spread of AIDS. Where do you come from...where this is no true?

Condoms do not entirely prevent the spread of AIDS. They help greatly however. However, you did not address my rebuttal. Marriage is nowhere near as useful as a condom in preventing the spread of STDs. Your original argument is a campaign of fear.

I KNOW because I was.

Very good. So maybe you can understand that you cannot assume anything that you've never experienced.

Based on...what? The current divorce rate which you mention above? You're Contradicting yourself. What would possibily make a homosexual relationship more powerfull...Flowerpower perhaps?

I never said it. You have. You attributed tangible collateral as the reason for a relationship. Not love...as your own bible maintains. You attempt to put forward that reproduction is humanity's raison d'etre...and this saddens me. If we're here simply to create more humans, we're nothing more than a virus.

It looks like you need that reminder more than me. Your argument is going to be stuck invariably on this reality. My position is to represent the perfect system not the imperfect system of infidelity that you are using as an example.

You are not dealing with reality then. You are postulating a utopia fuelled by christian rules. These rules cannot be assumed to be applicable to every one of the near seven billion humans on the planet. This is sanctimonious and frankly impractical.

Only if she'll be norm and not the exception.
That was not a good attempt at a good point Enterprise. I think I'll have the opportunity to show you.


Only if he becomes the standard and not the exception. You see you're thriving so much in this worlds standard of "normal" that you see the bad and the exceptions as a position of strenght when indeed there not.

Ah, but I have shown exceptions. You have given an absolute that "man" is the protector and "woman" is the charge. This is chauvinist crap of centuries old.

That's a wonderful idea but in a nation (America) and truely a world which YOU CAN NOT DENY sees women as inferior to men and pays themless and offers them parental over males just for being a women...a world that has yet to see a female US President...A world which women do not get equal pay even now in many First World Countries shows just how rare justice and FAIR occurs in this far from perfect world.

Why would you need to see a female US President to accept that gender roles are changing forever? I agree that women have a ways to go, however, they are in a much better position than say just 20 years ago...Carly Fiorina, Hilary Clinton, Oprah, Martha Stewart, the Queen of England...would you like some more examples?

You're right, I cannot deny that prejudices exist...but...your quaint idea that gender roles are impossible to overcome is outdated.

It is your own predjudices that defy such a future. Your predjudice is against morality it against fairness. Why even have marriage in your world? What is the point? Do you know?

Clearly you do not realise that marriage is a personal commitment between individuals. Who are you, indeed who is anyone, to deign that two of the same sex cannot commit to each other? Your reasons for marriage is a shield against STDs and starting a baby factory. If these are the sole reasons you got for commiting to someone, I feel sympathy for you.

And, I am a proud supporter of fairness. I do not however support the "fairness" being ruled by christianity, islam or any of these illogical fads.

 

[Saquist]

Standards of humanism. Certainly not anything sanctioned by christianity's poor excuse of elitist drone rules.

What standards are those?

You et al are attempting to establish a cookie cutter society based on christian rules. This is not acceptable.

Actually Enterprise you said that not I. My post was about Israel. A nation of people you accepted God's rule.

Rubbish. Foisting your so called morals on others is a sign of dictatorship.

It's not rubbish it's reality. Moral decay and at the same time people leaving religion, morals, and ethics behind.




Conveniently, the best witness to this so called testimony is long dead according to your own lone book of testimony.

Further you hold this tome as truth. It is therefore intellectually dishonest to cherry-pick it. David existed according to your bible, as did Jonathan. I'm not the one who

You're not making an sense that I can understand here can you repeat this.

Well, so far it has had no effect on me. My doctor has also given me a consistent bill of health on my regular physicals. I assure you that you are incorrect and out of line.

HAAAA!!!

I'm not I have two nurses in the family and almost all the older women in the family have assisted in nursing homes...and I live in the worlds largest trauma city. This must be a really hard fact for you to swallow. No pun intended. I would say wait for...while you're young and fresh your muscle don't break down as easy but the future will have a different story...muscles atrophy and I assure you what you will go through will not be normal or dignified.

Not solely. Careless medical practice and shared drug use also assist the spred of these same diseases.

You're not disagreeing so you must be agreeing so that's at least on for SaQ

Condoms do not entirely prevent the spread of AIDS. They help greatly however. However, you did not address my rebuttal. Marriage is nowhere near as useful as a condom in preventing the spread of STDs. Your original argument is a campaign of fear.

So you're saying that two people that never have sex with anyone else are still endager of sexualy transmitted diease? What does the virus do? Infection by hormones?

Very good. So maybe you can understand that you cannot assume anything that you've never experienced.

sure I can assumptions are easy.

I never said it. You have. You attributed tangible collateral as the reason for a relationship. Not love...as your own bible maintains. You attempt to put forward that reproduction is humanity's raison d'etre...and this saddens me. If we're here simply to create more humans, we're nothing more than a virus.

I don'tt believe I've ever read anywhere in the bible that says you should get marrried for loves sake. And if that saddens you then that's too bad. Children are a remarkable experience you'll miss out on...They are not viruses and neither are you.

You are not dealing with reality then. You are postulating a utopia fuelled by christian rules. These rules cannot be assumed to be applicable to every one of the near seven billion humans on the planet. This is sanctimonious and frankly impractical.

Obviously I'm refering to the future, one that is outlined by the bible. It is the hope I have. I relate it as a reality because to me it's onlly a matter of time.

You believe in a Star Trek Future. I don't think we'll ever get there. I think we're racing toward self destruct at light speeds. There no hope left in this world that I can see.

Ah, but I have shown exceptions. You have given an absolute that "man" is the protector and "woman" is the charge. This is chauvinist crap of centuries old.

you're Right...we shouldn't expect a husband to protect his wife...that very chauvinist. Women should protect themselves or get themselve karate lessons....

Why would you need to see a female US President to accept that gender roles are changing forever? I agree that women have a ways to go, however, they are in a much better position than say just 20 years ago...Carly Fiorina, Hilary Clinton, Oprah, Martha Stewart, the Queen of England...would you like some more examples?

Sure why not maybe if you present those examples to the Biilions of women world wild that aren't getting paid equally are seen as equals they'll thank you follow your lead.

You're right, I cannot deny that prejudices exist...but...your quaint idea that gender roles are impossible to overcome is outdated.

I never said that but you did.
I believe women are equal to men in intellect and can accomplish anything they want. I aslo recognize that God has placed an organized system in place. And it didn't refer to all women accross the world only women that chose to follow God.

Clearly you do not realise that marriage is a personal commitment between individuals. Who are you, indeed who is anyone, to deign that two of the same sex cannot commit to each other? Your reasons for marriage is a shield against STDs and starting a baby factory. If these are the sole reasons you got for commiting to someone, I feel sympathy for you.

Marriage has always been righteously religiously affliated with God.
Now...if you want to be married you should be man and women according to thousands of years of prescendent.

Nothing prevents to men or to women from making a commitment to each. it happens every day sometimes verbal sometimes simply understood between friends. But there not marrages. They bond. You can get married to another man and pretend that this is a marriage but it's not. Redefining it for your own purposes may suit you but it's still not a marriage.

That's why Gay marriage doesn't offend me at all . The bible says that a third cord is required for marriage and that is God's blessing which came from his direction to become fruitfull and fill thee Earth. I thank you for your sympath but since it's not sanctioned by God it simple isn't a marraiage, it's a bonding.

And, I am a proud supporter of fairness. I do not however support the "fairness" being ruled by christianity, islam or any of these illogical fads.

No one says you have to. But even Star Trek shows reverence not only to the laws of lands they visit but to the beliefs of the people. They don't go out of they're way to label people as "illogical fads", "out dated", "quaint." and "chuavanist"

You don't say these things because you're "fair" you say them because you've nothing but contempt for the culture, my culture. You don't seek any understand you dictate what I believe and get it horribly wrong, which is further insulting. Apparently insulting has become that which proud supporters of fairness do to show their objectivity ...or fairness.

 

[Enterprise-D]

What standards are those?

Those that are less discriminatory and less elitist than the bible's.

Actually Enterprise you said that not I. My post was about Israel. A nation of people you accepted God's rule.

Then this was irrelevant.

It's not rubbish it's reality. Moral decay and at the same time people leaving religion, morals, and ethics behind.

Actually you're trying to link an effect to a cause where there are none. There may be a parallel move, but there is no way you can prove that the eschewing of religion is directly responsible for moral decline.

A side note: I actually suspect that the opposite is true...the overlordship that religion inflicted on the planet is causing a natural rebellious stage.

You're not making an sense that I can understand here can you repeat this.

Sorry I notice that part of my reply was chopped off. What I was saying Saquist, is that

1. You are putting all your faith in testimony...a testimony that you have no way of knowing to be accurate or even feasible, since anyone who can verify it one way or the other have been dead for centuries.

2. You are saying that this book of testimony does not include relationships of the same sex. David and Jonathan was an example of the complete opposite.

HAAAA!!!

I'm not I have two nurses in the family and almost all the older women in the family have assisted in nursing homes...and I live in the worlds largest trauma city. This must be a really hard fact for you to swallow. No pun intended. I would say wait for...while you're young and fresh your muscle don't break down as easy but the future will have a different story...muscles atrophy and I assure you what you will go through will not be normal or dignified.

Saquist...nursing homes house people who are old and feeble. Muscles atrophy in any event. It's called old age.

FURTHER Saquist, your two nurses and assorted relatives, I'm certain have not sought to give you any usable statistics of the long term effects of anal sex. You are merely trying to create a causal link that is not there, and lend credence to it by citing relation to nurses of unspecified specialities.

There are no proven long term muscular effects. I won't go into the gross details as to why, but I will not suffer anything. That should be the punto finale on that, since it's off topic anyway.

You're not disagreeing so you must be agreeing so that's at least on for SaQ

This is exactly the problem. You theists only see in black and white.

So you're saying that two people that never have sex with anyone else are still endager of sexualy transmitted diease? What does the virus do? Infection by hormones?

What I'm saying is that marriage will never be a foolproof method of ensuring that two people remain faithful to each other sexually. Never.

sure I can assumptions are easy.

Once you understand...

I don'tt believe I've ever read anywhere in the bible that says you should get marrried for loves sake. And if that saddens you then that's too bad. Children are a remarkable experience you'll miss out on...They are not viruses and neither are you.

Really? Wow...so your god just wants us to be viruses. Lovely. We're just here to make more humans. For what? To continually stroke his vast ego?

I'm sorry, but in that case Saquist I consider myself vastly superior morally to the bible, and any character contained therein (I always have in any event, I've just been justified more). I can encompass in my mind that two people will want to commit to each other solely because they love each other...and expect no collateral or product, merely each others presence.

Children btw are lovely...however, I don't want any of my own. It's selfish to create children for the sake of creating them if you aren't ready or willing to take the responsibility.

Obviously I'm refering to the future, one that is outlined by the bible. It is the hope I have. I relate it as a reality because to me it's onlly a matter of time.

You believe in a Star Trek Future. I don't think we'll ever get there. I think we're racing toward self destruct at light speeds. There no hope left in this world that I can see.

You do realise that a "Star Trek" future is devoid of religions for humans right? You do realise that the Bajorans have countless problems stemming from their deeply religious roots right? And that Major Kira had a serious problem finding out her "gods" were scannable aliens right?

At any rate, I think our future will be fine, unfortunately only after religion is eradicated. I say unfortunately because it'll either take a painfully long time, or it'll be a ridiculously violent extraction.

you're Right...we shouldn't expect a husband to protect his wife...that very chauvinist. Women should protect themselves or get themselve karate lessons....

Saquist, you're being unnecessarily collimated. I'm telling you that your absolute definition is centuries old. Personally, if a friend is in danger I'd do what I can to protect him or her. You are portraying an image to your reader of the manly man and the cowering wife.

And actually women should be capable of protecting themselves! It's the nature of the world today. Please recall that protection does not always have to be offensive. There are defensive methods as well.

Sure why not maybe if you present those examples to the Biilions of women world wild that aren't getting paid equally are seen as equals they'll thank you follow your lead.

Sorry, but maybe you live in a different environment than I do. I actually work in a large insurance company with many more women than men...and quite a number of the highest positions are occupied by women (invariably so). Who are very highly paid too.

Of course Saquist, I said that discrimination does indeed exist, however, your absolute is not valid.

I never said that but you did.
I believe women are equal to men in intellect and can accomplish anything they want. I aslo recognize that God has placed an organized system in place. And it didn't refer to all women accross the world only women that chose to follow God.

God is a male chauvinist. Invented by male chauvinists.

Marriage has always been righteously religiously affliated with God.
Now...if you want to be married you should be man and women according to thousands of years of prescendent.

Why? Because it's how it's done?

Nothing prevents to men or to women from making a commitment to each. it happens every day sometimes verbal sometimes simply understood between friends. But there not marrages. They bond. You can get married to another man and pretend that this is a marriage but it's not. Redefining it for your own purposes may suit you but it's still not a marriage.

Saquist, I'm sorry, but a rose by any other name...You conservatives don't seem to realise that civil unions is merely a renaming of marriage, which is a human invention. The renaming was just to keep you quiet.

That's why Gay marriage doesn't offend me at all . The bible says that a third cord is required for marriage and that is God's blessing which came from his direction to become fruitfull and fill thee Earth. I thank you for your sympath but since it's not sanctioned by God it simple isn't a marraiage, it's a bonding.

Right...the simple problem with this is that you believe that a god exists for such a sanctioning. I'm reasonably certain that there is no omnipotent being who is concerned with the petty mewlings of two humans in heat.

No one says you have to. But even Star Trek shows reverence not only to the laws of lands they visit but to the beliefs of the people. They don't go out of they're way to label people as "illogical fads", "out dated", "quaint." and "chuavanist"

This is the Prime Directive, and it applies to races outside the bounds of human territory...on a TV show. We here in Reality-Land of humans however are unlimited by the power of free speech. I can definitely tell you my opinion of your beliefs.

You don't say these things because you're "fair" you say them because you've nothing but contempt for the culture, my culture. You don't seek any understand you dictate what I believe and get it horribly wrong, which is further insulting. Apparently insulting has become that which proud supporters of fairness do to show their objectivity ...or fairness.

Oh I understand religion perfectly. I understand it's organised discrimination and its intent to cookie cut the world's population in its own likeness. And this isn't limited to christianity alone.

Religions are the organizations that aren't fair. Calling uncle like you have and branding me with "contempt for your culture" does not mitigate the overpowering politicking negatives associated with the Vatican and other religious powers on the earth.

 

[Orleander]

so if they are hanging gay men and stoning adulterers in Iran, aren't they just doing God's work? A Christain God's work at that.

 

[John99]

Bingo. And people wonder why I don't follow Christianity. LoL.

Dont take these thing too literally, you have to remember small\smaller groups were killed, slaughtered, annihilated, ridiculed, destroyed. The idea behind stuff like that was to reproduce to survive, they are telling you we need bodies to protect ourselves from those who want to rob and kill us etc.

 

[GeoffP]

so if they are hanging gay men and stoning adulterers in Iran, aren't they just doing God's work? A Christain God's work at that.

In the NT, Jesus rejects that perspective.

 

[Orleander]

well, if I'm Jewish the NT means diddly to me.

 

[Enterprise-D]

In the NT, Jesus rejects that perspective.

It appears to be irrelevant to many christians in any event.

 

[Saquist]

Those that are less discriminatory and less elitist than the bible's.

Like what...

Then this was irrelevant.

actually it wasn't...you just took it out of context.

Actually you're trying to link an effect to a cause where there are none. There may be a parallel move, but there is no way you can prove that the eschewing of religion is directly responsible for moral decline.

Sure I can and they're are many examples...thousands of examples. The only thing I absolutely can not prove is that people without religion are always immoral because it's an absolute that's not true. But the decline of religion and practicing good morals are linked since most religions practice good morals or as you call ..."elitist" practices.

A side note: I actually suspect that the opposite is true...the overlordship that religion inflicted on the planet is causing a natural rebellious stage.

What I suspect is that the heavy hand of religious fanatics has been slipping in Western and western European lands. It's not the opposite it's a direct result, cause and effect.

Sorry I notice that part of my reply was chopped off. What I was saying Saquist, is that

1. You are putting all your faith in testimony...a testimony that you have no way of knowing to be accurate or even feasible, since anyone who can verify it one way or the other have been dead for centuries.

Okay, you can't prove the state that "I'm putting all my faith in testimony.
You also can't prove that I haven't proven them to be accurate or feasible. I have to flag those as claims.

I can only concure with you latter statement that yes indeed these people have been dead for centuries.

2. You are saying that this book of testimony does not include relationships of the same sex. David and Jonathan was an example of the complete opposite.

What's your point...they didn't get married and they didn't have a sexual relationship.

Saquist...nursing homes house people who are old and feeble. Muscles atrophy in any event. It's called old age.

Then you really do know what you're looking forward to.

FURTHER Saquist, your two nurses and assorted relatives, I'm certain have not sought to give you any usable statistics of the long term effects of anal sex. You are merely trying to create a causal link that is not there, and lend credence to it by citing relation to nurses of unspecified specialities.

Ohhhh...a casual link... He just happens to be homosexual and has dialated rectum that could pass a grape fruit? Yeah...right. Hang on to that...

There are no proven long term muscular effects. I won't go into the gross details as to why, but I will not suffer anything. That should be the punto finale on that, since it's off topic anyway.

You took us there...and you can't rule out that it will happen to you. You can ignore it....but denial is just denial. I should find you some pictures.

This is exactly the problem. You theists only see in black and white.

I'm not a theist.

What I'm saying is that marriage will never be a foolproof method of ensuring that two people remain faithful to each other sexually. Never.

This is a foregone conclusion. whose speaking in absolutes now?

Really? Wow...so your god just wants us to be viruses. Lovely. We're just here to make more humans. For what? To continually stroke his vast ego?

I didn't say that, you did. If you want to believe your own exageration then who am I to stand in the way?

I'm sorry, but in that case Saquist I consider myself vastly superior morally to the bible, and any character contained therein (I always have in any event, I've just been justified more). I can encompass in my mind that two people will want to commit to each other solely because they love each other...and expect no collateral or product, merely each others presence.

That's a laudable perspective.

Children btw are lovely...however, I don't want any of my own. It's selfish to create children for the sake of creating them if you aren't ready or willing to take the responsibility.

I concur. As well as the Bible.

You do realise that a "Star Trek" future is devoid of religions for humans right? You do realise that the Bajorans have countless problems stemming from their deeply religious roots right? And that Major Kira had a serious problem finding out her "gods" were scannable aliens right?

Negative:
Sisko's Father is Christian religion still exist. Perhaps this is what you want so badly...but I don't think the eradication of people who have ideology toward religion is a very high point of morality. I actually think it's quite low.

At any rate, I think our future will be fine, unfortunately only after religion is eradicated. I say unfortunately because it'll either take a painfully long time, or it'll be a ridiculously violent extraction.

Hitler....

Saquist, you're being unnecessarily collimated. I'm telling you that your absolute definition is centuries old. Personally, if a friend is in danger I'd do what I can to protect him or her. You are portraying an image to your reader of the manly man and the cowering wife.

No that's you...I never said that.
I said that it's the job of man in Christian culture to protect his family. You added cowering and chauvanist...and womenly charges...

And actually women should be capable of protecting themselves! It's the nature of the world today. Please recall that protection does not always have to be offensive. There are defensive methods as well.

what's your point?

Sorry, but maybe you live in a different environment than I do. I actually work in a large insurance company with many more women than men...and quite a number of the highest positions are occupied by women (invariably so). Who are very highly paid too.

Yes I was speaking of a world wide perspective not a perspective that includes observer bias. Thus my statement was of women every where. It's wonderful those women you work with have found equality to their male counter parts.

Of course Saquist, I said that discrimination does indeed exist, however, your absolute is not valid.

I gave no absolute, you did. I stated a fact and facts are always valid.

God is a male chauvinist. Invented by male chauvinists.

I'm sure you think so.

Why? Because it's how it's done?

Because marriage really belongs (in my opinion to people with religion. As we talk about this subject hundreds of people are getting a divorce. and hundreds of people are living with each other with out marriage and have given a commitment to each other...but their still not married. Just so happens marriage is becoming a thing of the past...no one wants it but Gay people...because they can't get it...

Saquist, I'm sorry, but a rose by any other name...You conservatives don't seem to realise that civil unions is merely a renaming of marriage, which is a human invention. The renaming was just to keep you quiet.

That's how I know that your perspective is lacking. Marriages are not the same as civil unions. Civil unions are granted by the state.

Right...the simple problem with this is that you believe that a god exists for such a sanctioning. I'm reasonably certain that there is no omnipotent being who is concerned with the petty mewlings of two humans in heat.

I know you to be wrong not just "reasonably certain."


This is the Prime Directive, and it applies to races outside the bounds of human territory...on a TV show. We here in Reality-Land of humans however are unlimited by the power of free speech. I can definitely tell you my opinion of your beliefs.

No...It's called diplomacy, that which you lack in any discernalbe amounts. It's a filter between the brain and mouth that tends to preserve relations instead of burn them.

Oh I understand religion perfectly. I understand it's organised discrimination and its intent to cookie cut the world's population in its own likeness. And this isn't limited to christianity alone.

I would point out ....You're the only one discriminating against organized people and looking forward to the eradication of the religious.

Religions are the organizations that aren't fair. Calling uncle like you have and branding me with "contempt for your culture" does not mitigate the overpowering politicking negatives associated with the Vatican and other religious powers on the earth.

I'm not associated with the Vatican and your all encompassing swath of discrimination against religions really speaks for it'self. Are you sure you're not an elitist? You're discriminating on the basis of an ideology...plotting against a large amount of people on the basis of their ideology and defining individuals based on sterotypes you've created. You're unconcerned with other perspectives and you're seeking exhalt your own political views over a people by force.

I don't ...think you're a very good person. You don't seem very moral...diplomatic, reasonable, or honest to me. I think you don't allow room for anyone else's perspective but your own. That's makes for a very scary person.

Why are you so angry at the world?

 

[Saquist]

so if they are hanging gay men and stoning adulterers in Iran, aren't they just doing God's work? A Christain God's work at that.

No their not...God did not institute the New Law Covenant exemplifing love for your neighbor AND your enemy for them to go out into world passing judgement on the nations. Iran is executing it's Law's as it's country has been established. This has nothing to do with God. If God wanted to pass judgement on these people he would do so but that is not the arranagement he set in place to allow each nation to decide for it's self it's governement..

It's called the appointed times of the nations in the Bible. A time of non interference.

 

[Non-Logical-Idea-Guy]

The vast majority of homosexuals are genetically predisposed to be that way.

As far as I'm aware, geneticists haven''t discovered a "gay gene" or will you tell us otherwise? If you believe that it is ok, but don't state it like it is fact if it isn't yet proved.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Ohhhh...a casual link... He just happens to be homosexual and has dialated rectum that could pass a grape fruit? Yeah...right. Hang on to that...

This is SO funny lol

- One guy.
- Who is a magical "he" that appeared in your story suddenly.
- Who might have been engaging in other unmentionable practices.
- Who you haven't actually said was in the nursing home, being taken care of by a relative who TOLD you about a patient's condition, contrary to confidentiality policies.

You took us there...and you can't rule out that it will happen to you. You can ignore it....but denial is just denial. I should find you some pictures.

I can use google just as well as you can.

I'm not a theist.

A christian is also a theist.

This is a foregone conclusion. whose speaking in absolutes now?

Well, admittedly you caught me with that one...however your absolute that marriage is a protector against infidelity is much more incredulous.

I didn't say that, you did. If you want to believe your own exageration then who am I to stand in the way?

No, what you did say is that the reason for marriage is not love according to the omission in the bible. That makes us little more than viruses in my opinion.

That's a laudable perspective.

Thank you. I wish you remembered that before you attempted to demonize me later on in your response.

Negative:
Sisko's Father is Christian religion still exist. Perhaps this is what you want so badly...but I don't think the eradication of people who have ideology toward religion is a very high point of morality. I actually think it's quite low.

Incorrect. Nowhere in any episode was there any mention of that. And even if i missed it...he's one old coot in a population of nine billion. They only respect other cultures' religion as a necessary developmental stage.

Hitler....

A lineage of Popes.

No that's you...I never said that.
I said that it's the job of man in Christian culture to protect his family. You added cowering and chauvanist...and womenly charges...

True...but that's the image you portrayed what with the fine vase and all.

Yes I was speaking of a world wide perspective not a perspective that includes observer bias. Thus my statement was of women every where. It's wonderful those women you work with have found equality to their male counter parts.

Let me cut out a lot of this argument, we both agree that women are still discriminated against, but witness a different degree. Nuff said.

I'm sure you think so.

I'm pretty sure it's true.

Because marriage really belongs (in my opinion to people with religion. As we talk about this subject hundreds of people are getting a divorce. and hundreds of people are living with each other with out marriage and have given a commitment to each other...but their still not married. Just so happens marriage is becoming a thing of the past...no one wants it but Gay people...because they can't get it...

This is the most high-handed thing I ever heard. The issue with gay marriage is about having the same choices as the rest of citizens. Why should gay people be at a disadvantage because of a genetic difference?

Further, and quite honestly, I don't want to be married either lol. But I agree with the fact that all humans should be given the same freedom of choice.

That's how I know that your perspective is lacking. Marriages are not the same as civil unions. Civil unions are granted by the state.

And you think a marriage can't be anulled by the state? They're human inventions Saquist. The romanticism and extra layer in marriage is added by unnecessary human interference.

I know you to be wrong not just "reasonably certain."

Unluckily, you cannot know this logically.

No...It's called diplomacy, that which you lack in any discernalbe amounts. It's a filter between the brain and mouth that tends to preserve relations instead of burn them.

I'm not a diplomat. And I was a little better at handling TW than you were if I recall...

I would point out ....You're the only one discriminating against organized people and looking forward to the eradication of the religious.

No dear, they're free to worship whatever fantasy they like. My problem is when their lifestyle infringes on mine.

I'm not associated with the Vatican and your all encompassing swath of discrimination against religions really speaks for it'self. Are you sure you're not an elitist? You're discriminating on the basis of an ideology...plotting against a large amount of people on the basis of their ideology and defining individuals based on sterotypes you've created. You're unconcerned with other perspectives and you're seeking exhalt your own political views over a people by force.

I don't ...think you're a very good person. You don't seem very moral...diplomatic, reasonable, or honest to me. I think you don't allow room for anyone else's perspective but your own. That's makes for a very scary person.

Why are you so angry at the world?

Demonizing me I see...attributing the very qualities I see in organized religion to me. Tsk, Saquist I expected better...

 

[Saquist]

This is SO funny lol

- One guy.
- Who is a magical "he" that appeared in your story suddenly.
- Who might have been engaging in other unmentionable practices.
- Who you haven't actually said was in the nursing home, being taken care of by a relative who TOLD you about a patient's condition, contrary to confidentiality policies.

Yes SUDDENLY.....It CAME OUT OF NOWHERE....
Auntie will tell you it's not the first and it won't be the last.

I can use google just as well as you can.

then do so...

A christian is also a theist.

If you say so...I can't take you as an autority though.

Well, admittedly you caught me with that one...however your absolute that marriage is a protector against infidelity is much more incredulous.

I stated a purpose you ...took it as an absolute.
It's not the same.

No, what you did say is that the reason for marriage is not love according to the omission in the bible. That makes us little more than viruses in my opinion.

Yes that certainly is your slant on it alright.

I said "I'm not aware of love being spoken of as the purpose of marriage in the bible" Which is far different from saying ..."The bible says our alonely purpose is breed like rabbits." I stated an ommition...you stated another mis context.

Thank you. I wish you remembered that before you attempted to demonize me later on in your response.

I'm nothing if not objective. I've made it my purpose in life..(along with other things)

Incorrect. Nowhere in any episode was there any mention of that. And even if i missed it...he's one old coot in a population of nine billion. They only respect other cultures' religion as a necessary developmental stage.

Paradise Lost I believe...Sisko said his father quotes the bible and gives the quote...but there are at least three episodes Joseph showed up in...Remeber Sisko is found of quoting.

A lineage of Popes.

and Stalin...

True...but that's the image you portrayed what with the fine vase and all.

My words are merely words and can imply only what they mean.

Let me cut out a lot of this argument, we both agree that women are still discriminated against, but witness a different degree. Nuff said.

I concur.

I'm pretty sure it's true.

Not very absolute of you...

This is the most high-handed thing I ever heard. The issue with gay marriage is about having the same choices as the rest of citizens. Why should gay people be at a disadvantage because of a genetic difference?

This is culture Enterprise you yourself said "There's no difference between marriage and civil unions" you said it was all in our minds." If that's true go get a civil union...It won't bother me I promise and solomonly swear.

Further, and quite honestly, I don't want to be married either lol. But I agree with the fact that all humans should be given the same freedom of choice.

Gender differences are not always given the same choices. Two men are not the same as two women....Not only is that an obvious statement it will always be true...There are times to equal and other times we must recognize the obvious difference between man and woman. A man can never take the place of a woman...that will also forever be true. He'll never give birth, he'll never suckle young...(not legally anyway) He'll never never have a period. Marriage is man and woman. No one is saying you can't be together (except Iran) they just don't want to grant marriage to something that can never be marriage. Don't you understand what marriage is? It's not a prize to be one...it's state of being one and being completed a bond that once God brings together can never be yoked appart.

Can't you be offensive to God without using one of his most sacred gifts to mankind? This not a civil rights issue. It is culture and you're seeking to redine your culture by redfining ours in the most blasphemous way possible...and you don't care but you want Christians to give up...up might as well be burning a cross on the front lawn....

To take somthing you hold sacred (if there is anything Gays hold sacred) and wave it around like a cheap toy and then toss it into a Dogs mouth for him to chew on. Don't you see the more an issue you make it the more Christians stand against it...

You insist on coming to church...and people start leaving them in record numbers...It's not just Homosexuals in a "sacred" place if you can call a church sacred anymore. They sense the hypocracy...false hoods and lies...while their churches are becoming a political domain Gays and Abortion are spoken of acceptingly in church walls...obvious sins aren't sins anymore...

Morals are changing...

God's purposes are supposed to be forever...God dosen't change. he's the same. You can't appreciate Enterprise as a Gay evolutionist but its how he works Good never accepts evil...

And you think a marriage can't be anulled by the state? They're human inventions Saquist. The romanticism and extra layer in marriage is added by unnecessary human interference.

Huh?

Unluckily, you cannot know this logically.

You can't logicaly know that I don't know.

I'm not a diplomat. And I was a little better at handling TW than you were if I recall...

hmmm...TW...(certainly the best of times)
Oh I so enjoyed wailing on him....Yeah I was through with diplomacy and switched over to more...sinister manipulative tactics.

No dear, they're free to worship whatever fantasy they like. My problem is when their lifestyle infringes on mine.

You're hot on me aren't you?:bugeye:

Demonizing me I see...attributing the very qualities I see in organized religion to me. Tsk, Saquist I expected better...

Mirrors only reflect images.
Eradicate,
Fantasy... you should expect no better than this...

Despite our disagreements and your hatred of me and everything I stand for I think you're better than this angry Gay man. It's so cliche...
You're obviously more than that but during this entire "DISCUSSION" you've seeked to define yourself by insulting me personally.(not that I really care) But Isn't this a bully? Isn't it clear by now Enterprise D you're not going to change my mind by hitting me below the belt.

 

[nova900]

As far as I'm aware, geneticists haven''t discovered a "gay gene" or will you tell us otherwise? If you believe that it is ok, but don't state it like it is fact if it isn't yet proved.

Yes, that's right.No definite proof yet, and I did not state it was the "sole" factor in determining if someone will be gay or mention a "gay gene".

The evidence so far by researchers shows there is strong evidence that suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate, and that body of evidence increases all the time.Unless I'm wrong genetics are tied to biological processes, correct?


Even older studies indicate such.
Simon LeVay, "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men," Science, Vol 253, No 5023 (August 30, 1991), pp 1034-1037, and Dean Hamer et al, Science, Vol 261 (1993), pp 321-327 have come to conclusions that clearly show a biological link in the sexual orientation of people.

An excerpt from this source:

"Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

Most gay people just did not wake up one day and decide to become gay and if they were open to such behaviour there would have to be something within them other than just a "learned behaviour" that would account for this.

I'm not gay but I have worked at places ,lived in cities like Toronto with a large gay population and after knowing many gay people I believe most of them could no more be heterosexual than I could just decide to think of a man as anything other than a buddy or comrade.
Most of them told me they have had those feelings for the same sex even when very young, and in the case of my cousin who was brought up in very heterosexual enviroment,it definetely was not a "learned behaviour".

As far as stating something as fact....I see people on this forum do it all the time. They state something as fact as the body of evidence currently indicates.

 

[nova900]

God's purposes are supposed to be forever...God dosen't change. he's the same. You can't appreciate Enterprise as a Gay evolutionist but its how he works Good never accepts evil...

The biblical God Yahweh did definetely change as was demonstrated in Gods' nature in the NT conflicting with his nature in the OT.
How many people were ordered stoned to death in the NT versus the Old..hmm?

 

[Saquist]

The biblical God Yahweh did definetely change as was demonstrated in Gods' nature in the NT conflicting with his nature in the OT.
How many people were ordered stoned to death in the NT versus the Old..hmm?

This is somewhat confusing of you to say.
In the one hand God did not order anyone stoned to death. The law existed for the government as a capital punishment for turning against God and breaking the Oath the Israelites had with Jehovah (Yah weh, God) That is Oath is called the Old Covenant to God. These people had promised to right by God.

But we know they would constantly engage in practices in idol worship and go to false God by marrying outside the nation to women and men that brought their false religion with them. This was back and forth throughout Israels history.

But the New Covanant marks a change...but not in God himself but his his change in plan since the Jewish people could not remain faithfull and ultimately rejected his Savior being so stuck in their ways and failing to follow God's example they were cut off.

The New Covenant recognizes that God's people wouldn't be limited to a natioin but would be an international group. This was supposed to be Isreal's purpose to take the truth of God to the entire world but they broke their Oath and finally broke all loyalty to God be putting to death his Son. Those that would follow would have no use of any one nation.

 

[Adstar]

so if they are hanging gay men and stoning adulterers in Iran, aren't they just doing God's work? A Christain God's work at that.

No. They are selectively deciding to follow the laws that where deemed important in the Quran and carrying out punishments that the Quran states must be done in cases where those laws are broken.

For Christians carrying out punishment has been taken out of our hands by the teachings of the Messiah Jesus. But it is still sin to engage in adultery and sodomy. adultery and sodomy are still sin but the consequences of sin are no longer immediate in relation to the sentence for those sins. Sinners have their entire lives (minus and instant) to repent of their sins and accept the Messiah Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Photizo]

the consequences of sin are no longer immediate in relation to the sentence for those sins

Under the Old Covenant, how often do you think consequence in relation to the sentencing was immediate for any infraction of God's Law--especially when you consider the human heart's inability to keep the Law? For example, check out Deut. 13: 6-11...how often do you think that was obeyed? Consider Joseph's desire to put Mary away privately...I use that not as an example of lawbreaking per se, neither he nor mary were culpable... but, to show the tendancy/proclivity of the human heart to act in accordance with what it deems the greater good. Consider also how easily most turned away from Jesus upon being confronted with His hard sayings recorded in John 6...Given this, I suspect it was the case that there were very few consequences/sentences actually carried out in accordance with the dictates of the Law.

Thankfully, and in accordance with God's Grace, they had the sacrificial system in place to cover both sins of comission AND omission until Christ's sacrifice when all sin of both Jew and Gentile was done away with. Unfortunately, then as now many either neglect the sacrifice altogether or simply go through the motions with no understanding/faith.

 

[Adstar]

Under the Old Covenant, how often do you think consequence in relation to the sentencing was immediate for any infraction of God's Law--especially when you consider the human heart's inability to keep the Law? For example, check out Deut. 13: 6-11...how often do you think that was obeyed? Consider Joseph's desire to put Mary away privately...I use that not as an example of lawbreaking per se, neither he nor mary were culpable... but, to show the tendancy/proclivity of the human heart to act in accordance with what it deems the greater good. Consider also how easily most turned away from Jesus upon being confronted with His hard sayings recorded in John 6...Given this, I suspect it was the case that there were very few consequences/sentences actually carried out in accordance with the dictates of the Law.

Thankfully, and in accordance with God's Grace, they had the sacrificial system in place to cover both sins of comission AND omission until Christ's sacrifice when all sin of both Jew and Gentile was done away with. Unfortunately, then as now many either neglect the sacrifice altogether or simply go through the motions with no understanding/faith.

Deut. 13: 6-11
6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, 7 of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, 8 you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; 9 but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11 So all Israel shall hear and fear, and not again do such wickedness as this among you.



Wether or not the Jews kept the law and carried out the punishment or failed to keep the law because of favouritism or looking the other way because of family ties has nothing to do with this issue at all.

True Law adherent Jews of the time would have carried out the call of God in this passage and stoned the transgressor.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Photizo]

True Law adherent Jews of the time would have carried out the call of God in this passage and stoned the transgressor.

Of course they would have...however, my question to you was: "Under the Old Covenant, how often do you think consequence in relation to the sentencing was immediate for any infraction of God's Law"...?