Spleen Squeezin's

So I would be right in assuming the same passages condemn transexuality too?

(Reply) (Thread)

"Trans" meaning----?

If you mean crossdressing, that's another issue entirely.

If you mean going out and going under the knife....
That's an issue of self-mutilation.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Neither. Just the innate thought that I was born in the wrong gender. It's a feeling I've had since I was in kindergarten more or less, so it isn't 'sexual' to me.

I've chosen not to undergo the knife due to social stigma and general ickyness at surgery. I hate any type of cutting.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

People get all sorts of odd feelings about their "inner nature." I've dealt with people who believe that they were meant to be born as a wild animal of one type or other, and still others who believe that they are astrally incarnated fairies.
And there are plenty of people out there who have by one means or another convinced themselves that they are Napoleon Bonaparte, or aliens from another planet.
At some point, you have to believe the material evidence of your own body, over any internal "feeling" or desire.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Funny you should mention that, I have XX cells in my body *chuckle*

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

XX, or XXY? There is a difference. And if the cells truly are XX, in a male body, it might be something to have checked out - it's potentially quite dangerous.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Both and neither, I'm quite safe. I was twins in the womb and I absorbed my twin, which must have been female. The female cells show up in my whiteblood cells. I haven't had enough testing to see if it's elsewhere, but I haven't had any issues yet and I'm 24.

It's called chimeraism and is much more common than people think, it's also quite creepy if you think about it too much. I found out about it when I had a surgery done and they did some heavy blood-testing and noticed wackyness.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Not to objectify you, but wow! That's fascinating! I've never heard of anything like that before. Do you have some references to where I can find out more?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Just do a google search, there's plenty out there.

They even had a chimera on CSI, though he was a chimera to an extent that's never existed in RL as far as I know though =P

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Well, "Chimera" tosses up a bunch of fantasy stuff, "Chimerism" pulls up 8 pages, most of them just people mentioning it in passing, in the same breath as hermaphrodites... but I'll look.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Hmm, lots of articles seemed to have poofed. Those just talks about what happens when it 'goes bad'. There are many folks that will never know, because they're perfectly healthy. I would have never found out, had I not asked extra tests to be run out of curiosity (it's expensive)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

So... let me get this straight... Your belief is that you should ignore the thougths and emotions of your heart and soul--the same place were one is suposed to love and worship God? Your belief is that these emotions and feeligns should be over ruled by the plainly obvious and physical? How can you tell a person that they need to trust in a god in their own heart and soul... then tell them that the otehr feeligns they have are invalid.

Should a man beleive he loves a woman because he looks at here and gets an erection? hardly.

I know a transexual. Severlal of them, actually. Some of them I knew before their transition, and some of them after...

but I'm going t talk abotu one who i've been very good friends with before and after transition...

This persion was born female.. got married young. still togetehr today, though. he'd always felt this way// abotu himself. that he wasn't in the right body. Sex was not enjoyable... a huge lsit of thngs that I could go on about. He told his husband. His husband chose to ignore it. pretend it wasn't there. I supported him and gave him support... I was a person who was THERE for him. btu that doens't matter. He and his usband grew further and furhter appart. they were honestly at the point of considering separation, then. Things were very messy for a whikle... then the udnerstanding of this transgendered thing clicked in the husband's mind... and he started spportign as well. Sicne then.. I have watched this person.. one of my best friends.. .go from a depressed invividual.. to a brilliantly happy person. Happier then i have ever.. ever seen him. Happier then hes's ever been. because he and those aroudn him accept him as a male. beccause he is transitioning... and honestly.. I spent more time with him when he ands is husband here grouchy at eachother... That is more the person I remember when I think of him... I knew him more as a girl... and even today, I look at him and see a man... he IS a guy and he is so much happier for it all. is not that happyness the sign that things are as they should be?


and, one last point.. Transexualism is a birtdefect. Surgery is a corrective measure. No different then repairign a cleft pallat or some such. Cosmetic. ... is that self mutilation as well? or worse yet: the mutilation of a aby who has no say in the matter...

We are not all born perfect little individuals. Mutations to our geneses happen. Babies are born sickly.. ill.. with defeeatts.. what of the little boy born with no legs? or the baby with a defective heart? would you deny them the chance to have a good heart transplanted in?

You are entitled to yoru own pinion.. and I am entitles to my own... I am shariing my opinion with you... and you are welcoem to offer yorus in return.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

My father was a doctor who had a number of homosexuals as patients for a time. After a while, he refused to accept them any more because he felt there was no point. They would come to be treated for all sorts of bacterial and protozoal diseases (this was before AIDS), bowel disorders of various kinds, inability to "hold" it (they had to use the equivalent of diapers), and several other disorders. And to top it off, they STUNK. The women had problems almost as bad. My father could treat the symptoms, but he got disgusted because they would make no effort to change, so he quit trying to run the Red Queen's Race with them.

I don't condemn people for BEING homosexual, but I surely don't want a behavior that results in the kinds of things my father saw to be legitimized as NORMAL.

(Reply) (Thread)

Um...really.

What exactly were these people, other than homosexual? Druggies? Elderly?
How many patients did he have who were homosexual and, other than that, had good hygiene and such - and still had problems like this?

I find it a little hard to believe that homosexuality routinely leads to things like that, and somehow we haven't heard it a thousand times already from other sources. It sounds like a pretty serious proof of homosexuality as a health risk, if it's true.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Ok, let's look at this from a scientific and/or engineering standpoint. The anus is a precision machine. Ask anyone who farts. It is a valve designed to not only to retain biological waste until a more appropriate time might come to vent and dispose of it, but it is also sensitive enough to tell whether the stuff about to be released is solid, liquid, or gas. In short, it is a valve design of a complexity and ordinary reliability to make any flow management engineer weep with envy. Now, take this wonder of creation and ram a flashlight up it. Repeatedly. This will stretch the muscles that control the anus in ways they were not meant to stretch, and will risk causing them to be permanently stretched, torn, or damaged, affecting the ability of said individual to hold it in. The delicate skin of the sphincter will be torn, allowing access to the body of all manner of viruses, bacteria, and protozoic parasites, etc. Now I dunno where the hell you got your prejudices, but there are clinical studies of sodomy that actually prove these claims, and Ralph has cited them in this very journal before. As for the elderly, my Grandma neither stinks nor has trouble with holding her bowels. I dunno about yours.

In regards to homosexuality, before the Political Correctness Nazis start their whining and bitching, I will point out that there is a difference between saying God hates homosexuality and saying God hates homosexuals. God hates the practices of homosexuality. Nothing I have read, however, has convinced me that God hates homosexuals. Not the people who say it is genetic, not the people who say it is a product of a flawed upbringing, not the people who say homosexuality is sinful. If having sinful urges is cause for any of us to eternally be bereft of God's love, Heaven is gonna be a really lonely place.

As for the question of what should Christians do about homosexuals, let's stop spending so much time denouncing them and start spending more time helping fellow sinners. They have, through no fault of their own (honestly, neither their genes nor their upbringing can be blamed on them), become involved with dangerous urges and need God just as much as the rest of us.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

What do you think Christians have been trying to do for decades?

As anyone who has dealt with a junkie or drunkard or a career criminal or frankly anyone engaged in a chronically self-destructive lifestyle can tell you, You can't do anything for someone who refuses to believe they need help.

Even the most gentle, compassionate outreach programs for homosexuals---- ones that have helped countless homosexuals leave their old lifestyle and turn their lives around--- are viciously attacked by the gay "advocacy" groups, and the former gays and lesbians who have benefitted from these organizations are dismissed as "traitors" or "suppressed" or as never having been gay in the first place.

The christian community, no matter what it does for people in need, is despised as "homophobic."

Let's run a parallel.

Imagine what it'd be like if armies of drunks were out marching in the streets, lobbying the government, and viciously attacking people who objected to drunkenness as "hatemongers" and former alcoholics as "traitors" or "phony alkies."

Suppose you had a church in california that preached a sermon against drunkenness and alcohol, and a mob of alcoholics surrounded it, screamed epithets at the church members, pelted them with eggs, and threatened to burn their church building down.

Suppose you had drunks who phoned in death threats to MADD.

Suppose you had unions of schoolteachers who took your children for 8 hours a day and spent a portion of every day, and even organized school assemblies, telling them that alcoholism was a beautiful and natural lifestyle and that told them their parents were ignorant, backwards, uneducated, and "hateful" for saying drunkenness was shameful.

Suppose the Boy Scouts, one of the finest youth programs and social institutions in America, were ceaselessly vilified for refusing to let drunkards and junkies take charge of groups of children.

Suppose refusing to hire a drunk or a drug addict was grounds for being sued.

TELL ME HOW WELCOME IN AMERICAN SOCIETY ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS WOULD BE.


Christians are doing everything in their power to help. But when "hate the sin, not the sinner" is mocked and spat on by people who get their entire self-identity from their sin, there is nothing that the Christian community can do for them... except refuse to call their "lifestyle" anything but a sin.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

To quote someone-or-other, not quite sure (but it's a good quote nonetheless):
"What we have here is a failure to communicate."

The problem, so far as I can see it, is that from the Christian point of view, homosexuality is a sin, disease, whatever the hell you want to call it. It's not a good thing. Like you said, it's on a par with other self-destructive behaviors - alcoholism, drug abuse, that kind of thing.

From the viewpoint of most gay people (at least, extrapolated from my own views), homosexuality is not a self-destructive behavior. Sin enters into it only for those who subscribe to a Judeo-Christian worldview, and I have yet to hear of any extraorddinary health risks from a doctor (though I'll be sure to ask the doc about it next time I have a check-up). Also, people who have been targeted in the past tend to develop some extent of paranoia; because of this, even if someone tries to take a "helpful" approach to a gay person, they are likely to be greeted with hostility - either because it's difficult sometimes to tell the difference between someone that wants to help (regardless of whether you need help or not), and someone who just doesn't like you, or alternatively because some people really just don't like being told they need to change.

I'm trying not to pass judgement on either side, I'm just saying that that's why I think hostility is a common response.

Personally? I think it's a good thing that Christians are trying to save homosexuals, instead of vilifying them. I'm also not happy about knee-jerk hostility, period; I try to be polite as much as possible.

As for whether homosexuals need help? I'd say they really don't. I'm a firm proponent of free will, and the right to do whatever you damn well please so long as it doesn't hurt others (whether you SHOULD or not is a different story). I wish that people would realize that not all things that are sin according to Judaism and Christianity hold that status in other systems; while activities such as robbery, rape and murder are self-evidently bad, not all sins are so obvious.

If help is offered, then so much the better; I just want to keep the option of not accepting that help. If you think I'm going to Hell for what I do, then fine, that's your opinion; if you're right, then I go in full recognizance of my actions. If you're wrong, then I hope you'll accept the reality of things with grace.

As for gay marriage, well, that's another kettle of fish entirely. S'more of a religion-versus-secular-government issue, as far as I can see.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Politically, I am what is commonly called a Crank. I tend to disagree with everybody. On the subject of Gays, this means that I support (conditionally) the idea of Gay marriage, see no reason why homosexuality need necessarily be wrong, and condemn what is commonly understood to be "the Gay lifestyle".

The general perception of the "Gay Lifestyle" - which is to a large degree the result of the behavior of self appointed Gay spokesmen - is that it involves a high degree of promiscuity combined with sex practices that range into the BDSM spectrum fairly frequently. It also includes the myth/reality of the 'bug chasers' - Gods I hope that is the creation of a reporter under a deadline, but I fear not. In short the general public perception of the Gay subculture is that it is full of tacky idiots with low impulse control and suicidal tendencies. This may grow out of homophobia, but it has been magnified by Gay behavior: The idiot at every Gay pride parade who insists on playing "shock the squares" in his bondage gear or leather Nuns' habit. The goddamned fools who STILL write about "transgressive sex" being a "revolutionary act". The sexually incontinent who boast of having had hundreds of sexual partners. The list is an impressive collection of self absorbed nitwittery...and it does the fight for acceptance no good whatsoever.

I favor Gay marriage for two reasons;

1) I hope that it will add stability and sense to a subculture that needs those qualities badly.

2) I feel that Gays who wish to live monogamously should be protected from those who don't, but lie.

To whatever extent the actual Gay life resembles the "Gay Subculture", it is immoral. Random promiscuity is psychologically unhealthy in the extreme, and also spreads physical disease. Parading about in strange sexually associated costumes is, at a minimum, rude. Further, it tempts people to pass judgment on what is none of their goddamned business...until it is paraded under their noses (the psychology of such behavior hurts my head, nor do I understand it...but it can't be good). Playing 'shock the squares' is profoundly adloescent...and hugely counterproductive.


See? A Crank. Now, is there anyone here who I HAVEN'T offended with the above? ;-)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

An excellent reply, and I thank you for pointing out how deep the tainted information goes. I have, to date, heard of relatively few churches setting up such programs, and am glad to hear of more of them. You here of the "looney christians," but at the same time the death threats and church burning threats are news to me... wich oddly enough aren't covered by the media. And as for "homosexuality being a natural and beautiful way of life," if that's so, then let me be bass-ackwards and ugly till I die. My problem was not with what you said, but what you didn't say, and your reply has precisely filled that gap. Thank you.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Personally, I don't know or really give a darn what the New Testament says...and I don't know as much about the Torah as I would like to.

If I have ever posed as some kind of expert - sorry, I know I'm not, I just know what I've read in my spare time.

Now, as to the question of what kind of moral guide the Bible can claim to be, and whether it should be thought of as such, that's another question entirely...but this is your LJ, not mine. *shrug*

(Reply) (Thread)

To be perfectly clear on this point, the offspring in question had to be so uncontrolled and violent that the parents themselves had to bring him or her before the village elders, and the village elders had to agree with the parent's assessment as well. Try to imagine what sort of uncontrollable hell-spawn a son or daughter would have to be for their own parents to give up on them.... and have the rest of the village agree with their decision.

Go hang out in a grocery store and I'm sure you'll see several examples of such hell-spawned brats. Of course, I blame those on the parents who spare the rod and thus spoil the the child.

(Reply) (Thread)

No arguments from me, Ralph - and from my history, you're probably aware that I'm more than capable of argument nearly for its own sake. But in this case, and on the grounds that you've chosen, you're correct. You've studied the material, and given the premises, your logic is cogent.

*Shrug* It's not personally an issue with me. I'm heterosexual, so far as it actually matters. (Actually, given my patterns for the past several years, asexual would be just as accurate.) I don't have any feelings against homosexuals as a group, and I don't dislike any greater percentage of them than any other group (such as, say, heterosexuals), and when I do take a dislike to one of them, it's for a reason - usually their behavior. (I've had people confront me in the past, accusing me of being biased against them supposedly because of their orientation, only to have my reaction be surprised blinking and the comment, "I didn't know that". Really throws them off their stride.)

As for a Biblical question which could actually affect me... What do you believe the current Biblical stance on Onanism is?

(Reply) (Thread)

Okay, my dictionary gives two definitions to that word... as the "withdrawal" method of birth control, and as masturbation.

So far as birth control goes, there is no biblical prohibition against avoiding or preventing a pregnancy, regardless of the method of choice. One might argue that since abstinence is one of the options presented to people by design, then other means for a married couple to prevent conception are just as acceptible as a means of what one might call situational control.


As to the other definition.... The bible doesn't really address the issue specifically, one way or the other. *shrug*

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Mm... then I sure wish people would stop referencing Genesis 38:9-10 at me in support of various "campaigns against immorality". (By the way, "shrug" is about my take on it, too. Some people are way too concerned with the behavior of others.)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

referring to that passage..... the reason God slew him is due to the fact that **he was refusing to fulfil his obligation to provide an heir for his deceased brother.**
See, back then when a man died without leaving an heir, his widow married his brother, and his brother was to--- provide an heir for his lineage.

But apparently Onan hated his dead brother's guts or something, and took measures to prevent getting his new wife pregnant.
THIS is what displeased God. Not the, ah, mechanism whereby he prevented the conception.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Birth control other than periodical abstience, commonly called "Natural Family Planning" is prohibited by the Catholic Church for many reasons. "The pill" has a possiblity of causing an abortion, in that it has a failure rate for preventing ovulation and one of it's secondary mechanisms is to cause the lining of the uterus to not accept the developing blastocyst (which is the fertilized egg, about a week or so after being fertilized).

Here's something relating scripture to the Catholic interpetation of it with reguards to birth control:


Scripture

Is contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex).

The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

Yes I do realize I am talking out of both sides of my mouth, so to speak, but please be aware that while I understand and chose to articulate the Catholic viewpoint, it's not my own, it is merely one I believe follows the bible and apostlic tradition, there's no majority vote in Catholism to determine which morals are trendy enough to actually follow this year.

(Reply) (Thread)

Well, technically, not everybody agrees with Catholicism either. Ralph's already stated that he's Baptist, and independent at that (hard to get any more protestant; he'd have to go Pentacostal).

I don't really know whether contraception is considered wrong or not by God. I only know that abortion, which ends a life before it has hardly begun, is definitely condemned by the Almighty. Pretty much covered under Commandment #6 I think. As the article you linked states, we don't have to list every kind of killing or murder to know it is wrong (though I'm mostly speaking for Christians; don't know your view on it). I think abortion fits that, but it's only my opinion.

Personally, I don't really see the problem with contraception. So long as it prevents pregnancy and does not end it (which, technically, would be classified as abortion), why should it be condemned?

Oh well. Always wondered about Catholicism. Some of the beliefs I've heard just make me wonder how tightly their heads are screwed on. (On a personal note, you'll never find me praying to Jesus' mother instead of the Father Himself.)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Catholics don't pray to the virgin Mary unless they're insane or can't follow a simple concepts. What you call "praying to Mary" is about the same to a Catholic as a Protestant asking their pastor to pray for them, Mary can't work maricles, she is not God, she is not Jesus, she is not the Holy Spirit, praying to her makes as much sense as praying to a doornob to most Catholics. But it is acceptable to ASK her to pray for us, just like you can ask your pastor to pray for you.

If you have any further questions, feel free to email me r(dot)lawler(at)gmail(dot)com

I included the Catholic viewpoint, as it is also based on biblical views as well as the apolstolic(sp) tradition. Like I said, I was born and raised Catholic in a very conservative home, logically if you want to follow the bible and such, the Catholic way is the way to go for many reasons I won't bother to go into here as I doubt ralph has any interest, and this is his journal.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I forgot to include the encyclical from the Holy See, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Also, as far the bible condeming homosexuality, the old testment was written in Hebrew, which is not even a Romance language, so any translation to English is not going to always be perfect, and the new testment was not written in english either (duh), it was written in Greek. I can bring up St. Paul saying stuff about women not being allowed to ask question in church, not being allowed to teach, or "usurp authority from men" not to mention that St Paul explicitly said that marriage should only be undertook only if otherwise fornication would be unavoidable (ie, if you can't keep it in your pants it's better to get married than fornaticate- which implies that marriage is not good).

(Reply) (Thread)

to read what Reblaw is refering to Click here

I do, however, want to point out one part in Paul's rightings.

Corinthians 7
36If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin--this man also does the right thing. 38So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.</i>

Paul is stating that both paths are good but he thinks remain unmarried is better.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Actually, Paul was advocating his own path--- which was that he was once married but now widowed.

See, it says elsewhere that paul was once a member of a rather exclusive religious order in Jewish society...one of the prerequisites was that the person joining had to be married, or a widower. Based on this, plus the fact that he traipsed all over the known world completely alone and seemed to call no home port his own, scholars presume that he was a widower.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

What you complain of is fairly standard practice for the Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressive (LIRP) Left. They are, as a class, mental lightweights, but deeply desire the aura of intellectual achievement. In short they wish to be "Intellectuals" without actually being troubled with the heavy lifting involved in actual scholarship. Hence, their positions and arguments tend to be based on a series of wrote learned assertions, which lack much in the way of factual basis.

The Feminist myth that wife and girlfriend abuse peaks on Superbowl Sunday is a case in point. There is no statistical basis for the assertion, but they repeat it anyway. (Spousal abuse tends to DROP rather dramatically on Superbowl Sunday; the brute is occupied)

This is hardly unique to the Left. A great many "fundamentalist" types that I have met are about as familiar with the finer points of the Bible as I am with Quantum Physics. And for generalized and widespread ignorance, very little beats both side on the subject of Darwin.

Darwin was a Christian. His theory supposed evolution as a force without continuity or direction. He specifically did NOT say that evolution proceeds from the primitive and flawed to the complex and wonderful...yet that is the basis upon which almost all arguments about evolution (save by qualified scientists) are made by all sides.

Foo.

My father - son of a Methodist Minister, and PhD. in the History of Science - taught survey courses in his subject for decades. All through that time he could count on SOMEBODY bringing up the "theory" of "Creationism" when he got to Darwin. he always asked them why they wished to call the revelation of the book of Genesis a theory.

(Reply) (Thread)

Hmmm... you make an excellent point.

To be honest, "Creationism" is as much a theory as most of "Darwinism"... they are not. They're ideologies, ways of thinking that help an individual interpret facts and develop an opinion or belief. Sometimes, these ideologies create false beliefs and very shaky opinions. Arguments based on them are really very fruitless. It's like a fish talking to a wolf about the sky or how meat tastes.

I'd rather put that all aside and talk about the facts themselves, and find out what they say on the subject. That's what science is supposed to be about, but the subject of the origins of our planet and all life on it is so controversial things get lost in all the arguments, counter-arguments, and general blathering of nonsense. It happens on both sides, unfortunately.

Now, if we want to talk about theories, why not look up "intelligent design"? Its proponents state it as a way to get science back to what it was, throwing out any questions about whether something points to God or not, which simply muddle the equation (and give some Darwin supporters the chance to throw out data they don't like).

The idea is to simply examine the evidence we have (fossils and such) and then draw a conclusion from there. Many claim that is what science is doing now, but I believe many scientists throw out any data that discredits evolution and points to God. I have no proof, but some people treat evolution like their religion; try to show them evidence to the contrary and they'll scream about how it's all true. Which actually sounds more like a cult of fanatics than a religion, now that I think about it.

Anyway, when examining evidence using the model of "intelligent design", the researchers/scientists look for patterns. Not necessarily any that says, "Copyright (c) God, Birth of Time", but just patterns. In other words, they search for order.

I've heard it said that the entire universe happened purely by chance, as was the "development" of life on this planet (are we talking biology or photography here?). If so, and there was no "Creator" to start it off or put it all together, then there should be few patterns, if any. Order doesn't really come from chaos unless someone puts it together y'know, though there might be some freak chance that occurs (read: an almost impossible chance).

If there is no "Creator" that put the universe together, there should be little to no evidence of any order or (dare I say it?) design. Yet, we've already had someone post here who used the word "design" several times when describing part of the human anatomy. No matter which side of the argument they are on, one has to admit life is pretty complex. If the right enzymes, proteins, carbs, and other materials are not present in the right mixes, life stops, or begins to decay. The only place we have cyborgs and human-like robots is in the movies; we've only just begun to get close to what our own bodies are like. And we still haven't managed to produce an artificial material that can survive the kind of wear and tear our bones and flesh put up with every day.

Perhaps you think I'm just going on about "creationism" again. I'm not. I don't care if the evidence points to God or not, I just want the facts without the theological smokescreen. Besides, you cannot use any evidence for design in support of the Bible, Torah, Koran, or any other holy book and its religion. All it will say is, "There is a creator. Life was not by chance, but by design."

It's still up to you to find this creator, and find out why he/she/it created all this in the first place.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I'm actually reading a book for a three hundred level college course that basically reconciles the two ideas. "Creationism" when described by probably 75% of those who say they believe it basically is just "God made the world 'cuz it says so in the Good Book."
-Before I forget, Darwin was born and raised Christian, he feel out of his faith when his six year old daughter died and he couldn't figure out how God could be so cruel as to do that to him. Originally Darwin just sat on his manuscript until a rival had basically written his own about the idea, and that's when he finally got off his butt and published it, he was too relunctant too before. Darwin was a person, full so, which means you can't really shove him in a box that well.
Anyway, before my brain went off on a tangent I was explaining that most creationists' don't bother to try to figure out "how" the events that they credit God with doing in seven days happened. My parents subscribe to numerous creationists newsletters and such, all they ever do is attack evolution, which even avowed atheists will admit is an incomplete theory at best, no one was there for it, we can't explain how it all happened, chance may have accounted for some of it, but there have to be some sort of pre-determined mechanisms to help it along, as otherwise, amino acids don't particularily naturally over any amount of time come together to start forming cells or life. Evolution is a very flawed theory, but, honestly, it's about the only theory that can be said with a straight face without looking like a complete cop-out.
Anyway the book I'm reading suggests that you take all the "chance" and "random" out of the theory of evolution, ie the random mutations, and replace it with "caused by God", which, I dn't know how any can argue that a diety may exsist and alter the chances of things, at least in some minute respect, you can call cousin sue's recovery, which had a chance of 1 in 1 million, a miricle from God if you want, there's no way of proving it to either side. That's how you can reconsile both if you want, it's a respectable theory, it isn't just trying to avoid how things happened, it's merely suggesting an alternate cause in a field where the cause is relatively undefined.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

You just managed to yank out every dead horse argument in the book, AND you snuck in an accusation of racism at the end, all in one post.

*claps* Very nice job, I didn't think it was possible to be that much of a parrot.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Why do Christians feel it is their duty to "save" everyone?

Why do firemen feel it's their duty to save everyone in a burning building?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

If the master has forgiven your debt, why the frick are you going around trying to collect debts owed to you.

The more I exaim the bible, the more I believe no sane christian should have any real interest in the government.


I'm not sure you're aware of this, or it's implications, but Jesus died for


EVERYONE'S SINS


not just yours, not just my mom's, not just George W Bush's.

merely accepting that Jesus died for your sins does not make you a better moral judge- that would require a leap of faith that has no foundation in any verses I've read, it doesn't, He died for you sins and the sins of all, not to give persons who belong to a particular Christian sect 2000 years after He died DIVINE WISEDOM and therefore the moral authority to KNOW THE ONE TRUE PATH TO LIVE

You are not a member of a superior sect of human beings. Accpecting Jesus in your life does make you any better morally than the rest of us. True you may believe that you might be able to get a reward in the afterlife better, but it was not earned by your or your actions, it was a gift. If Bill Gates, Ted Turner and Micheal Eisner (the disney guy) give a child of age six all their net worth, all their worldly possions, that does not make the aforementioned child an expert on investing.

Get over it, Jesus loves all of us, even those who don't act like you or perscribe to all of your beliefs, when He was on earth, He ignored and cut down the pharasees, the men who went around instructing the common man how to live a holy life, they mostly quoted form the Word of God, what could be wrong with that? Jesus instead spent time with the tax collectors, men who were frequently corrupt, He didn't tell them that they must change now or burn forever in hell, He didn't lead any political action committies calling for increased regulation of tax collection.

I don't know what bible you read, but whatever it is, it's a load of cock. You are a child who was rescued from a burning fire, the same as the rest of us, stop running back into the burning building, please.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

bakichan,
In your latest post on your LJ you wrote about your post above as about "homophobia being like racism" and proceed to call the two people who replied to you "narrow-minded" and "idiots." Thank you for taking us back to the playground.

Let's got through your reply point by point and see if there is a reasonal counter argument to them. (Reasonable does not me you agree with what I am saying, but admitting it has merit.)

Do the Commandments not say "Love thy neighbor"? If thy neighbor is homosexual, is it okay not to love them because they are sinners?

No, Christians are commanded by Jesus Himself to love our neighbor not matter what. In fact, We are to love our neighbor because that person is a sinner.

And to what basis is it still a "sin"?

A sin is when a person goes against the will of God and are in general very selfish things.

I wonder if I will go to hell, hmm? Is it possible if i don't BELIEVE in it?

To answer a question with a question:
If I believe that Africa is not a place does that mean it is not an real place? For your own sack I hope you are right.

You're hating PEOPLE for being WHO THEY ARE.

Personally, I try not hate people no matter what they have done. I am commanded, as are all Christians, to love them matter how evil they have been.

The constitution protects freedom of speech and privacy, and the right to pursue happiness.

Yes, we are granted the the rights speech, privacy he right to pursue happiness, but given the right to pursue something is not the same as get the right to have that thing. Using the logic of "the right to have Happyness" then Kerry, Bush, Nader, Cobb, Barnarik (and every other person who ran) would all be President, the southern state would be its own country and every product, from nickel candy to a Boeing 747, would be free for anyone to take home.

Are men who sleep with men, no longer men? What about women?

No. Of course they are still human. What Christians are trying to do is keep them from making a mistake.

I disagree (obviously) with the Christian philosophy that it is a sin, due to the out-datedness of the Bible itself-the time it was written in, and that homophobia is another form of racism.

Since when has looking out for another's interest been out of date? From our point of view, Christians are trying to keep someone from walking off a cliff they have failed to see.

Do you think being african american or dark skinned is a sin too?

Skin color is beyond a person's control. Homosexuality, however, is a behavior and that is something that can be controlled. See Ralph's post above on why I think that.

Now you may call me an idiot, jerk, closed-minded or whatever else you wish but I think I have given a reasonable rebuttal. You may not agree, but I hope that it is coherent enough that you can see where we are coming from.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Some people are so deep in their own views, and sometimes their own sin, that they refuse to see anything but what they wish to. Indeed, it is often the case with every human being. We see what we wish to see, not necessarily what is the truth.

Until we're willing to put aside our egos and try to see things as they are, and not how we wish them to be, we shall remain igrnorant fools, condemned to stumbling in darkness of our own design.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The problem, so far as I can see it, is that there's a difference between trying to save someone from error, and forcing them away from what you think is sin.

In a secular society, you can think that I'm going to Hell for having sex with someone of the same gender. You can even tell me that I'm going to go to Hell. The problem arises when you stop acting as a private citizen and try to legally limit my behavior. Allowing gay marriage (as a civil, not a religious institution) is equality of rights; it doesn't infringe upon the rights of those who believe homosexuality is wrong, because no-one's forcing THEM to marry people of the same sex.

Regardless of your religious beliefs, an activity that does not harm another person is the business of the person engaged in that activity. While I appreciate that people may care enough about me to try to save my soul, I don't believe that it needs saving.

The problem with the burning-building example is that a fire is not arguable, whereas the topic of sin is nowhere so clear-cut. I have the right to commit actions that Christians would qualify as sin, so long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's individual rights. Similarly, there's no law against Christians committing actions that would be classified as sin in Judaism, Wicca, or Hinduism (though the term 'sin' is difficult to apply under those belief systems).

Basically, I reserve the sovereign right to go to Hell (if it does exist, which I tend to doubt). You can warn me if you think I'm in danger, but in the end it's still my choice, one way or the other.

(I've been reading Rawls in my philosophy class lately, and drew from his writings somewhat.)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

While I agree that the topic of sin is far from as clear cut as that of fire, this is an argument that Gays would be wise to avoid. Statistically speaking, the Gay lifestyle is severely unhealthy....far more so than smoking. The rate of sexually transmitted disease - before AIDS, even - was several hundred percent that of the general population. The life expectancy of a sexually active Gay male is decades short of the general average. Further, there is considerable evidence to suggest that the disease prone Gay population has been acting as a host population for a number of unpleasant diseases that have made recent comebacks (TB, for example). Not that I want to outlaw homosexuality on these grounds, I just think that Gays should be extremely wary of over-relying on the argument that opposition to homosexuality is entirely religious in nature. Similarly any Gay male who supports the wars on drugs, obesity, or tobacco should tread warily. That is a can of worms that you do NOT want to open.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Um...do you have any sources for that info? I'd really love to be able to check it out...

Personally speaking, I'm really not a proponent of the war on drugs or obesity or any of that crap. I'm firmly in favor of legalizing marijuana, you can be as fat as you damn well please, and as for smoking, it's not that clear-cut there; second-hand smoke DOES have some effects on bystanders, though I'm really not sure about the extent of those effects.

Besides which, has anyone made the claim that the opposition to Gay marriage is anything OTHER than religious in origin? Seriously, is there anyone who has?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Not being a full time Policy Wonk, I lack primary sources for any of this. Nevertheless, I trust the secondary sources, and believe that the assertions follow logically from widely acknowledged facts.

The assertion that Sexually Transmitted Disease rates among Gays, before the rise of AIDS, were several hundred percent of the STD rates for the background population is widespread. David Horowitz has referred to it several times in essays, and it is the subject of one or more chapters of AND THE BAND PLAYED ON (the well respected book about the beginnings of the AIDS epidemic). Furthermore, it follows logically from behavior that Gay spokes men and writers have made a hallmark of the Gay community. Gays themselves say that they have hundreds of sex partners. Since this is several times the number of sex partners of the average person, is should not be surprising that Gays have several times the level of STD's. If the public health records show anything to the contrary, I would have expected somebody to shout the fact from the rooftops, but I may be overly sanguine.

The idea that actively Gay men die (on average) decades before the background life expectancy is something I get from many sources. I believe that REASON magazine has referenced it in a number of articles. I suppose that somewhere at the back of it is some Government buttinski with a boatload of statistics. I haven't checked because it would seem to follow logically from the STD data and the existance of the AIDS epidemic. Again, I have not heard anybody loudly challenging this idea, but it may be that I wasn't listening.

I think the notion that Gay men suffering from STD's act as a kind of disease sink and endanger the rest of the community is more speculation than fact. Nevertheless, the speculation has been made in several places, and is not illogical if you accept the preceding two points. AND THE BAND PLAYED ON discusses how the Gay community's casual attitude toward STD's created circumstances calculated to produce strains resistant to anti-biotics, and I can vaguely recall a NEWSWEEK 'viewing with alarm' story a few years back.

On the other hand it may be that a little digging would expose this all as Crusade driven fraud, just as a little digging shows that 90% of the assertions made against 'secondhand smoke' are total pigswill.

Aside: most of the Secondhand smoke hysteria is based on an EPA study that a Federal Judge threw out for prior bias; i.e. cooking the numbers. Buried in the report of that study (pp3-33, if I recall correctly) was the statement that 'the highest concentration of smoke expected in the real world would be the equivalent of smoking two fifths of a cigarette a day' ...or words to that effect. For decades the accepted wisdom on smoking has been that it takes about ten years of smoking a pack a day to get cancer, on average. Compare that to the highest level of exposure to Secondhand Smoke that the EPA expects to find in the real world; about three cigarettes a week. Secondhand smoke does indeed affect passersby; it is annoying and can slightly hurt unusually sensitive persons. The same can be said for loud disco music, but nobody is talking about banning that from bars....yet.

My point? Gays should be aware that there is a well worn path of attack to which they are vulnerable. The data used in an attack by that route may or may not be solid, but that will hardly matter.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Had a famous essay on just this subject, Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality. (I think it's on the Web somewhere, but don't remember the URL. It got Prager in a lot of trouble.)

His thesis was that Judaism was the first (in the Torah) to restrict sexual intercourse to husband-and-wife. Man and woman.

Before this, the distinction was not between man-and-woman, but between penetrator-and-penetrated regardless of X and Y chromosomes (or two and four legs, for that matter). Only penetrator and penetrated, with the penetrated crouching in submission before the penetrator in an animal's forced-dominance display. (Still seen among prison showers, Arabs, and SoCal furry fandom.)

This dovetails completely with Thomas Cahill's book Gifts of the Jews, whose thesis is that the Torah is one long call to Transcend the Animal. (Cahill also mentions that the Jews were the only people in the area to use the Missionary Position, while the surrounding peoples -- Canaanites, Philistines, etc -- used "doggie style". The symbolism in the two positions is obvious -- face-to-face as equals or penetrated/sub crouching in sumbission while the penetrator/dom rams it home.)

(Reply) (Thread)

I would question his conclusions about various postures in sex... :P but he does have a few interesting points.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)