|
Post by Lee on Nov 29, 2015 10:36:12 GMT -5
I would think that a designer who wanted sex to be strictly about human reproduction and strictly about the celebration of the differences between men and women would not create human bodies with such a hot mess of centers of sexual pleasure and would not make the expression of the human sex drive to be so readily adaptable and to be so....well, driven that the myriad possibilities for sexual relief hardly stand in the way of the perpetuation of the species. (IMO) What we are as human beings is what has survived. Survived God? That makes no sense. Don't know what's surviving if nothing was meant to be in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Nov 29, 2015 11:25:41 GMT -5
Survived God? That makes no sense. Don't know what's surviving if nothing was meant to be in the first place. Ultimately, you and I will die. I'm ok with that. For now, I am alive and life matters to me even if I perceive no intended nor lasting meaning.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 29, 2015 12:49:23 GMT -5
Are you sure? How do you know we'll ultimately die? Or are you just saying we'll eventually peter out and go to our graves. That's not the same thing. Could be. But you'd have to prove it. Since you don't really know we'll ultimately die why are you so sure we will?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Nov 29, 2015 13:06:54 GMT -5
Are you sure? How do you know we'll ultimately die? Or are you just saying we'll eventually peter out and go to our graves. That's not the same thing. Could be. But you'd have to prove it. Since you don't really know we'll ultimately die why are you so sure we will? It is my working assumption. I believe thst anything I might imagine beyond my last breath would be just that, an imagination. I see no evidence that would suggest that you or anyone else knows with any more certainty and I have no fear of being wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 29, 2015 13:28:57 GMT -5
Not even a tittle of apprehension or pause? Wow!
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Nov 29, 2015 13:36:38 GMT -5
Not even a tittle of apprehension or pause? Wow! At one time in my life, I did feel apprehension. Not any more. Not about anything you have had to say. If verifiable evidence emerges that contradicts my working assumptions, I will be all ears. In the meantime, I will not be holding my breath in anticipation.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 29, 2015 13:42:41 GMT -5
Not even curiosity ...?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Nov 29, 2015 14:03:55 GMT -5
Plenty of curiosity and a naturally inquisitive temperament. I am curious about why you (and others) are so critical of people whose sexuality doesn't conform to your rigid ideas about what is acceptable. I am curious about why you would imagine a sexually prudish "designer," given the myriad examples in nature that I would think suggest otherwise. That is, if one is inclined to believe in a designer.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 29, 2015 14:48:58 GMT -5
It's about advocating what is most normal, healthy, or advantageous to a species.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Nov 29, 2015 15:05:02 GMT -5
It's about advocating what is most normal, healthy, or advantageous to a species. same sex partners companion preachers, 12 guys living together in the desert, a married virgin??? ... not the stereo typical straight lifestyle.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Nov 29, 2015 15:17:07 GMT -5
It's about advocating what is most normal, healthy, or advantageous to a species. Yours is one opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 29, 2015 15:21:28 GMT -5
It's about advocating what is most normal, healthy, or advantageous to a species. same sex partners companion preachers, 12 guys living together in the desert, a married virgin??? ... not the stereo typical straight lifestyle. Is your point that religious hypocrisy and contradiction necessarily prevents us from advocating?
|
|
|
Post by xna on Nov 29, 2015 15:42:43 GMT -5
same sex partners companion preachers, 12 guys living together in the desert, a married virgin??? ... not the stereo typical straight lifestyle. Is your point that religious hypocrisy and contradiction necessarily prevents us from advocating? If you are advocating against nature, and you want everyone to be straight from a religious basis then I see this as a problem. I don't think it's a choice to be gay. So far no gay person has every given me any reason to be concerned. Many christian's until just recently were against that "gay lifestyle". The bible, and in particular the 2x2 have some not so straight lifestyle examples. The God of the OT was very much into controlling sex, and he was obsessed with the male sex organ, which also seems rather gay. skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Nov 29, 2015 17:25:41 GMT -5
I am curious about why you (and others) are so critical of people whose sexuality doesn't conform to your rigid ideas about what is acceptable. I am curious about why you would imagine a sexually prudish "designer," given the myriad examples in nature that I would think suggest otherwise. That is, if one is inclined to believe in a designer. This one has always puzzled me as well. Why would you ever care? (I take a mental trip back through my perceived history of mankind, where controlling sexuality was probably important for the survival of the tribe. But I cannot think of any practical application for our current time.) I have very little curiosity about what happens “between the sheets” for other people. For the most part, I truly do not want to know. And perhaps this, in itself, is a symptom of my own hang ups and prudishness? This past summer, a heterosexual couple we know split up. One evening, while “under the influence”, the male of the couple shared something (before we could stop him) that transpired in their bedroom in the months prior to their break-up. I still feel a little squeamish over this, and would like to erase the mental images. It was too much information. We really didn’t need to know. Somehow, it seems quite natural to me to not be curious or to judge that part of other people’s lives.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 29, 2015 21:21:29 GMT -5
Are you sure? How do you know we'll ultimately die? Or are you just saying we'll eventually peter out and go to our graves. That's not the same thing. Could be. But you'd have to prove it. Since you don't really know we'll ultimately die why are you so sure we will? Actually, no, -she DOESN'T have to prove it. No one has to "prove" the existence something for which there isn't any evidence.
And we certainly don't have any evidence for proof for life after death.
Example: For the person who believes that indeed wee folk (fairies, gnomes, etc.) do exist, -the burden of proof that indeed they do exist lies with the person who believes that. They can't expect that I should have to show proof that wee folk DON'T exist.
Just think of all the things for which there is someone, somewhere, who believes that a certain something exists! Would you believe that the burden of proof lies with YOUR showing that they DON'T exist?
If you believe that there is something of oneself that survives beyond death, -then the burden of proof of such a belief lies with you who makes such a claim.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 29, 2015 21:30:32 GMT -5
Is your point that religious hypocrisy and contradiction necessarily prevents us from advocating? If you are advocating against nature, and you want everyone to be straight from a religious basis then I see this as a problem. I don't think it's a choice to be gay. So far no gay person has every given me any reason to be concerned. Many christian's until just recently were against that "gay lifestyle". The bible, and in particular the 2x2 have some not so straight lifestyle examples. The God of the OT was very much into controlling sex, and he was obsessed with the male sex organ, which also seems rather gay. I didn't get the circumcision thing, whose interpretation today is a little clearer. Are you saying nature has no normal? On what basis is the norm of 'no-normal' more normal than what is healthful and advantageous to a species?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 29, 2015 21:34:00 GMT -5
"If you believe that there is something of oneself that survives beyond death, -then the burden of proof of such a belief lies with you who makes such a claim."
The absence of proof like you're talking about, which the apostles swore to have seen, incidentally, doesn't prove that it doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 29, 2015 21:38:00 GMT -5
There are cultures today and through antiquity of whom guys like putting it in many-a-warm place. I sure glad for that quirky bit of evolution aka the Judeo-Christian influence on the western world that straightened it out to a great degree. Gave us boundaries and laws. Easy to say we don't need that now. Might have a different perspective if you lived prior to that quirky-evolutionary influence.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 29, 2015 21:57:49 GMT -5
So the species doesn't evolve randomly but must s urvive cosmic evil presenting itself as imaginations of God? And you've come into your own apart from your egos? Try leaving any god/gods or other imagined paranormal entities for which there isn't any proof of existence out of the equation. Look at the evolution of life.
Now THAT is an amazing adventure to take! Then you don't have to twist paranormal beings & happenings into a story which has caused and still causes so much angst & divisions amongst people.
Take a really good, unbiased look at evolution and you will find there is no "designer" present and no need for a designer. There is also no designed "end" for life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2015 22:00:37 GMT -5
Are you sure? How do you know we'll ultimately die? Or are you just saying we'll eventually peter out and go to our graves. That's not the same thing. Could be. But you'd have to prove it. Since you don't really know we'll ultimately die why are you so sure we will? Actually, no, -she DOESN'T have to prove it. No one has to "prove" the existence something for which there isn't any evidence.
And we certainly don't have any evidence for proof for life after death.
Example: For the person who believes that indeed wee folk (fairies, gnomes, etc.) do exist, -the burden of proof that indeed they do exist lies with the person who believes that. They can't expect that I should have to show proof that wee folk DON'T exist.
Just think of all the things for which there is someone, somewhere, who believes that a certain something exists! Would you believe that the burden of proof lies with YOUR showing that they DON'T exist?
If you believe that there is something of oneself that survives beyond death, -then the burden of proof of such a belief lies with you who makes such a claim.
the proof you need(someone coming back from the dead) has already happened with Jesus Christ....
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 29, 2015 22:20:57 GMT -5
"If you believe that there is something of oneself that survives beyond death, -then the burden of proof of such a belief lies with you who makes such a claim." The absence of proof like you're talking about, which the apostles swore to have seen, incidentally, doesn't prove that it doesn't exist. You are right, that "the absence of proof doesn't prove that it doesn't exist."
That is my point.
I don't expect you to prove that wee folk DON'T exist, -nor Santa Claus or purple unicorns, nor Nathan's Thor, or the other god Thor, nor Minerva. However, for anyone who states that any one of them DOES exist, if they want you to also believe that they exist, wouldn't you expect them to give you proof that they DO indeed exist?
PS: What the "apostles swore to have seen" doesn't convince me that something is true.
Knowing the times and how most people of the time believed in any number of supernatural beings & incidents makes what the apostles believe no more true than any of the other things purported to have that happened then.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 29, 2015 22:28:59 GMT -5
Actually, no, -she DOESN'T have to prove it. No one has to "prove" the existence something for which there isn't any evidence.
And we certainly don't have any evidence for proof for life after death.
Example: For the person who believes that indeed wee folk (fairies, gnomes, etc.) do exist, -the burden of proof that indeed they do exist lies with the person who believes that. They can't expect that I should have to show proof that wee folk DON'T exist.
Just think of all the things for which there is someone, somewhere, who believes that a certain something exists! Would you believe that the burden of proof lies with YOUR showing that they DON'T exist?
If you believe that there is something of oneself that survives beyond death, -then the burden of proof of such a belief lies with you who makes such a claim.
the proof you need(someone coming back from the dead) has already happened with Jesus Christ.... You rather make my point don't you?
You only believe that Jesus Christ came back from the dead because of a religious belief that written in a time when many people, not just the followers of Jesus, also believed in such supernatural happenings.
Example:
One of the Roman Emperors rose from his funeral pyre into the heavens. Do you believe that also?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Nov 29, 2015 22:36:12 GMT -5
There are cultures today and through antiquity of whom guys like putting it in many-a-warm place. I sure glad for that quirky bit of evolution aka the Judeo-Christian influence on the western world that straightened it out to a great degree. Gave us boundaries and laws. Easy to say we don't need that now. Might have a different perspective if you lived prior to that quirky-evolutionary influence. ...and after all of the "straightening out"....the stonings and burnings at the stake, and the pushing into paddy wagons and into freight trains headed to gas chambers, gay people still exist and continue to be born into the world...in many cases, to heterosexual parents. It strikes me as a human phenomenon not prone to being eliminated despite some people's best efforts.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 29, 2015 23:38:21 GMT -5
In reality most people hid in the closet or refrained. I don't think primitive male behavior can be altered other than by banning it. Doesn't evolution convey the idea "evolved"?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Nov 30, 2015 0:03:24 GMT -5
In reality most people hid in the closet or refrained. I don't think primitive male behavior can be altered other than by banning it. Doesn't evolution convey the idea "evolved"? I would say "evolved" would include the idea of being able to live and let live. I find it interesting that you seem especially obsessed with male sexual behavior.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 30, 2015 0:39:05 GMT -5
Are you sure? How do you know we'll ultimately die? Or are you just saying we'll eventually peter out and go to our graves. That's not the same thing. Could be. But you'd have to prove it. Since you don't really know we'll ultimately die why are you so sure we will? No evidence to the contrary?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 30, 2015 1:03:29 GMT -5
In reality most people hid in the closet or refrained. I don't think primitive male behavior can be altered other than by banning it. Doesn't evolution convey the idea "evolved"? I would say "evolved" would include the idea of being able to live and let live. I find it interesting that you seem especially obsessed with male sexual behavior. If you are looking to control people you would design a set or rules that were focused on the behavior that people are least likely to comply with. For example, a rule that says "Stick not a nail into the center of your eye or sin shall be upon you." is not not going to generate a lot of sinners that will need to be guided to the right path. And there is a cost for providing that guidance. However, a rule that says "Stick not your flesh into {a long list here} or sin shall be upon you." will generate a lot of people who will need to be helped over and over.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 30, 2015 11:30:02 GMT -5
Given that people are better behaved than at anytime before and given your complaint about authority as it has presented itself through the ages, what makes your opinion providential over evolution?
|
|