08 Aug 2007, 11:14 am
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Ah, have we a prophetess in our midst? ^_^
no? that's not what you were going to say? well get on with it!
say something to my response to your question on kids learning their lessons
say somethin g in regard to my question
having worked at as teacher for several years now... i am used to trying to mentally hearding people (to save time) as well as trying to figure out what they are trying to communicate
it's a natural skill...
quite sidestepping.... if that kid analogy was so important... then say something... about it (other than what i surmized)
But you once again didn't answer it. All you said was that you don't see the point of answering it, because it doesn't have to do with your question.
All you admitted was that you could see my point. The kid/parent analogy shows that what we don't necessarily think is right sometimes is! That proves that we can never say God doesn't exist or that He's wrong with finality, because our knowledge will always be finite, as little children's knowledge is compared with parents. You could even use a teacher/student comparison. The idea behind the structure of school is that your students are more ignorant than you are about what you're going to teach them. Why do they listen to your lessons, then? Why do they put aside some of their opinions in order to listen to you? Because they realize that your knowledge on the subject is greater than their's is. Well, in exactly the same way, I realize that God's knowledge is greater than mine, so I'd do best to listen to Him.
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
08 Aug 2007, 11:16 am
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
When I study a woman's ass... I mean, THAT ... GUY ... KNEW ... WHAT ... HE ... WAS ... DOIN', when makin' that lil piece o' heaven!! !
But what if that turns out to be a guy's ass?
and are you now saying ragtime... that your monkey anscestors would have thought that mokey tail was hot too?
My point is of art -- there was clearly an artist behind the design of the female body.
my point was that you superficially will say you acknowledge evolution when the situation suites you but that you dont ACTUALLY believe it...
hence my suggesting you have monkey-like ancestors... which im fairly certain you dont agree with... and if you dont, then you dont believe the first thing about evolution... whatever small random diluted points you concede in hard-pressed moments
The reason I don't get much into evolution with you is that it's not my element, whereas it is yours. It would be like me drawing you into a debate about music technicals, like deceptive resolutions, chromatic figurations, the circle of fifths, the specific overtones of the oboe versus the clarinet, etc. Having written two operas, music is my specialty, so I can only expect you to discuss it so deeply. Likewise, you, having taken countless courses on evolution, very much have a leg up on me (......sorry, lost my train of thought
) in that particular study. So, no, of course I can't discuss it with you in the depth you can -- don't blame me for that. 
but that has nothing to do with your inconsitancy in accepting and denying it
it's like me saying im going to heaven though i choose to break this, this, and this commandment
i do not dredge up a lot of nit-picking within religions cause that's not my aread... though i do so on a base level simply because i find core concepts screwed up... and thus dont need to delve farther... but i do have a good bit of formal education on religions... as so you should for anything you even talk have-way intelligently about.
my point to you is that you alluded that you admit god is responsiblel for evolution (which i am perfectly fine with people believeing, if they know WHY) but you dont actually believe i evolution, which is where my contention lies... in the simple core concepts that dont require an indepeth understanding... which is why you should be held responsible for saying such things (if only for yourself)
we AND monkeys come from mokey-like ancestors cause we are monkey-like, ourselves....
this is a simple point that you will not concede so i do not think you should be saying that you're ok with god claiming evolution... maybe youve convinced yourself with this kid of blanket statment, but it has obvious logical flaws... given your personal stance on the statement in bold
no complex issues needed
08 Aug 2007, 11:24 am
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
And I doubt gay guys have sex if the only thing they derive from that is pain.
Lust does crazy things. Ever heard the phrase, "It's hurts so good"? I'm just reporting my observations. I also read that gay men have permanently streched and loosened sphincters -- that can't be good, can it? The sphincter is there for control of your crap.
Do they need to wear butt plugs to keep from soiling themselves in public? How else would they hold it in once that muscle is gone?Again, not everyone who engages in anal sex is gay, and not everyone who is gay has anal sex. Why are you so obsessed with the sex part of it?
'Cause that's what it's about. Otherwise, they're just friends.
Sopho wrote:
What about a gay couple who only have oral sex or neither?
Women are better at sucking a penis than men are. Please don't ask me to go into the depths, as it were, of their silky mouths, and their natural subtle eroticism which so inflames us. Men suck more like they're playing professional sports, or working out, than like they're actually making sweet, sweet love to their partners.
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
08 Aug 2007, 11:28 am
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
i know what my heaven is very well thankyou... and it's much better than what the bible describes
Well, we can save that for another forum. I'd bet $1,000,000 you don't know and understand the Bible's description of Heaven. Did you know it has specfic measurements, for example? (And no, guys, they're not "36-24-36"
.)Do you know about the specific jewels each of its twelve steps are made of? How about its streets and its sea? What are they made of? What shape is Heaven?
But I digress...
just causee you're ignoring the point to my posts...
You have to respond to posts to the extent that you want responses. It goes both ways.
yeah but i deliever on ultimatums (spelling atrocity is caryring through to today)... i answered your question and doubt you'll answer mine cause you'll consede a very importnant point to your previous argument...
which im sure you're hoping is at least obscured in rememberance by this point
so ill refresh:
you cannot claim that denying homosexual practices is ANYTHING COMPARABLE to denying premarital/extramarital sexual practices
because going against your genetic sexual nature is FORCED!! !! so it's BS to say that just cause you succeed at denying yourself straight sex fairly easily, that it's equivocal to expect the same for homosexuals to deny themselves homosexual sex
TOTALLY DIFFERENT
No it's not.
They're both, respectively, sins against our different natures. It's a sin-vs.-desire analogy, Sedaka, not a literal comparison.then how can you expect that trying to abstain from either is equivocal?... cause if you dont realize that's what you and your religion are dmaning of these people... then i feel sorry for you.
you yourself have said one is natural (hetero attraction... cause you're a hetero, obviously) and the other is forced... yet you are so blind that you cannot see a fundamental difference between the two and that one (homosexuality) is not one that just goes away with prayer and persistance and can be reversed... i know inclinations for lust dont go away either... but when you pray not to lust after women, i sincerely doubt you ever pray to stop doing this by becoming attracted to men... why do you expect homosexuals to then do this?
nor can you see clearly enough to realize that while it's easy for one to see "sin" in lusting after other people in general... that there is not that associated guilt with homosexuals being attracted to the same sex
how could you? you cant fathom it (as you weakly claim to be able to do (though with mislead good intentions).... and started implementing this anaology in order to prove your capabilities of fathoming... but from which you're now backing out of)
you keep switching your stances on points... they are very fine points.... but none the less make you appear very inconsisntant... i hope you consider this stuff further
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
08 Aug 2007, 11:33 am
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Ah, have we a prophetess in our midst? ^_^
no? that's not what you were going to say? well get on with it!
say something to my response to your question on kids learning their lessons
say somethin g in regard to my question
having worked at as teacher for several years now... i am used to trying to mentally hearding people (to save time) as well as trying to figure out what they are trying to communicate
it's a natural skill...
quite sidestepping.... if that kid analogy was so important... then say something... about it (other than what i surmized)
But you once again didn't answer it. All you said was that you don't see the point of answering it, because it doesn't have to do with your question.
All you admitted was that you could see my point. The kid/parent analogy shows that what we don't necessarily think is right sometimes is! That proves that we can never say God doesn't exist or that He's wrong with finality, because our knowledge will always be finite, as little children's knowledge is compared with parents. You could even use a teacher/student comparison. The idea behind the structure of school is that your students are more ignorant than you are about what you're going to teach them. Why do they listen to your lessons, then? Why do they put aside some of their opinions in order to listen to you? Because they realize that your knowledge on the subject is greater than their's is. Well, in exactly the same way, I realize that God's knowledge is greater than mine, so I'd do best to listen to Him.that's exactly the answer i gave.... and asked you not to reiterate
i said kids dont always know whats best for them (or true) and that maybe they will grow to learn... please comprehend before rolling your eyes at me.
and im not after being able to say whether god does or doesnt exist.... where'd that come into play?
i dont really care... cause i know what i believe and i iknow what you believe
that's WAY off topic
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
08 Aug 2007, 11:36 am
08 Aug 2007, 11:40 am
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
When I study a woman's ass... I mean, THAT ... GUY ... KNEW ... WHAT ... HE ... WAS ... DOIN', when makin' that lil piece o' heaven!! !
But what if that turns out to be a guy's ass?
and are you now saying ragtime... that your monkey anscestors would have thought that mokey tail was hot too?
My point is of art -- there was clearly an artist behind the design of the female body.
my point was that you superficially will say you acknowledge evolution when the situation suites you but that you dont ACTUALLY believe it...
hence my suggesting you have monkey-like ancestors... which im fairly certain you dont agree with... and if you dont, then you dont believe the first thing about evolution... whatever small random diluted points you concede in hard-pressed moments
The reason I don't get much into evolution with you is that it's not my element, whereas it is yours. It would be like me drawing you into a debate about music technicals, like deceptive resolutions, chromatic figurations, the circle of fifths, the specific overtones of the oboe versus the clarinet, etc. Having written two operas, music is my specialty, so I can only expect you to discuss it so deeply. Likewise, you, having taken countless courses on evolution, very much have a leg up on me (......sorry, lost my train of thought
) in that particular study. So, no, of course I can't discuss it with you in the depth you can -- don't blame me for that. but that has nothing to do with your inconsitancy in accepting and denying it
I treat it like everything else that's unimportant to me: I'm whimsical at best about it, like I am about such things as: whether the sky is really blue. See, 1) YOU'RE going to tell me about the sky, while I 2) really, really, REALLY don't care!
I'm free of many such trivial concerns. Conversely, 1) I tell you about how sex shouldn't be taken casually, while you 2) really, really, REALLY don't care! The difference is, I'm being trivial about a trivial matter -- one that can't hurt me. Whereas, you're trivializing a decision which has MAJOR life consequences to it. For instance, I'm not going to get any emotional baggage through not worrying about the true color of the sky!Sedaka wrote:
i do not dredge up a lot of nit-picking within religions cause that's not my aread... though i do so on a base level simply because i find core concepts screwed up... and thus dont need to delve farther... but i do have a good bit of formal education on religions... as so you should for anything you even talk have-way intelligently about.
But, like me with evolution, you may only think you understand the core concepts of Christianity. And thus, you're able to dismiss your strawman version of it.
Sedaka wrote:
my point to you is that you alluded that you admit god is responsiblel for evolution (which i am perfectly fine with people believeing, if they know WHY) but you dont actually believe i evolution, which is where my contention lies... in the simple core concepts that dont require an indepeth understanding... which is why you should be held responsible for saying such things (if only for yourself)
'Cause the thing is, evolution is far from proven -- it's more a philosophy of origins than a hard science. Therefore, God might have made things through a kind of evolution, subject to whatever factors (such as time dilation/acceleration) He desired to use. But I am at least honest enough to admit that I DON'T KNOW that evolution happened. And neither do you.
Sedaka wrote:
we AND monkeys come from mokey-like ancestors cause we are monkey-like, ourselves....
Sounds very simplistic to me.
Sedaka wrote:
this is a simple point that you will not concede so i do not think you should be saying that you're ok with god claiming evolution... maybe youve convinced yourself with this kid of blanket statment, but it has obvious logical flaws... given your personal stance on the statement in bold
I find physicist Gerald Schroeder's equations and explanations quite intriguing, because he sees, in detail, how classic evolution and God could have worked together. Being foremost a scientist, he's better qualified than I at understanding evolution.
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
08 Aug 2007, 12:06 pm
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
When I study a woman's ass... I mean, THAT ... GUY ... KNEW ... WHAT ... HE ... WAS ... DOIN', when makin' that lil piece o' heaven!! !
But what if that turns out to be a guy's ass?
and are you now saying ragtime... that your monkey anscestors would have thought that mokey tail was hot too?
My point is of art -- there was clearly an artist behind the design of the female body.
my point was that you superficially will say you acknowledge evolution when the situation suites you but that you dont ACTUALLY believe it...
hence my suggesting you have monkey-like ancestors... which im fairly certain you dont agree with... and if you dont, then you dont believe the first thing about evolution... whatever small random diluted points you concede in hard-pressed moments
The reason I don't get much into evolution with you is that it's not my element, whereas it is yours. It would be like me drawing you into a debate about music technicals, like deceptive resolutions, chromatic figurations, the circle of fifths, the specific overtones of the oboe versus the clarinet, etc. Having written two operas, music is my specialty, so I can only expect you to discuss it so deeply. Likewise, you, having taken countless courses on evolution, very much have a leg up on me (......sorry, lost my train of thought
) in that particular study. So, no, of course I can't discuss it with you in the depth you can -- don't blame me for that. but that has nothing to do with your inconsitancy in accepting and denying it
I treat it like everything else that's unimportant to me: I'm whimsical at best about it, like I am about such things as: whether the sky is really blue. See, 1) YOU'RE going to tell me about the sky, while I 2) really, really, REALLY don't care!
I'm free of many such trivial concerns. Conversely, 1) I tell you about how sex shouldn't be taken casually, while you 2) really, really, REALLY don't care! The difference is, I'm being trivial about a trivial matter -- one that can't hurt me. Whereas, you're trivializing a decision which has MAJOR life consequences to it. For instance, I'm not going to get any emotional baggage through not worrying about the true color of the sky!Sedaka wrote:
i do not dredge up a lot of nit-picking within religions cause that's not my aread... though i do so on a base level simply because i find core concepts screwed up... and thus dont need to delve farther... but i do have a good bit of formal education on religions... as so you should for anything you even talk have-way intelligently about.
But, like me with evolution, you may only think you understand the core concepts of Christianity. And thus, you're able to dismiss your strawman version of it.
Sedaka wrote:
my point to you is that you alluded that you admit god is responsiblel for evolution (which i am perfectly fine with people believeing, if they know WHY) but you dont actually believe i evolution, which is where my contention lies... in the simple core concepts that dont require an indepeth understanding... which is why you should be held responsible for saying such things (if only for yourself)
'Cause the thing is, evolution is far from proven -- it's more a philosophy of origins than a hard science. Therefore, God might have made things through a kind of evolution, subject to whatever factors (such as time dilation/acceleration) He desired to use. But I am at least honest enough to admit that I DON'T KNOW that evolution happened. And neither do you.
Sedaka wrote:
we AND monkeys come from mokey-like ancestors cause we are monkey-like, ourselves....
Sounds very simplistic to me.
Sedaka wrote:
this is a simple point that you will not concede so i do not think you should be saying that you're ok with god claiming evolution... maybe youve convinced yourself with this kid of blanket statment, but it has obvious logical flaws... given your personal stance on the statement in bold
I find physicist Gerald Schroeder's equations and explanations quite intriguing, because he sees, in detail, how classic evolution and God could have worked together. Being foremost a scientist, he's better qualified than I at understanding evolution.
you're so inane....
whatever you think my lack of understanding with respect to religions... at least i dont go around putting words in peoples mouths (especially my own god's!)
yes the fact that organsisms change over time (we came from monkey-like things) is as simple as it gets when contemplating evolution... and if you cant decide whether you agree or disagree with THAT..
even if you cant understand it yourself, you need to realize that that is a non-negotiable aspect of evolution that directly contradicts the adam eve theory (that at least should be simple enough for you)
and with your faith taking a very literal standpoint on things...i dont think your god appreciates you saying that he did have a hand in evolution.
nor do i see how it would even be conducive to your faith.
it's a matter of logic.
as i have said time and time before... i applaud christians making their religion and evolution work together... but you cant do that by effectively negating the ONE MAIN PRINCIPLE of either doctorine
how am i losing you on this level of logic... it's not hard
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
08 Aug 2007, 12:09 pm
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
08 Aug 2007, 12:18 pm
08 Aug 2007, 12:48 pm
08 Aug 2007, 12:50 pm
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
08 Aug 2007, 1:02 pm
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
08 Aug 2007, 1:05 pm
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
08 Aug 2007, 1:10 pm
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
08 Aug 2007, 1:12 pm
