Jamstone, although Jesus did not come to abolish the old testament, he came to fulfill it, this is the tricky part: Because part of the old testament was the prophecy that the old bond (the Mosaic bond = ten commandments, cir cision etc) will be replaced by The One (Neo so to speak) who will introduce a new bond. The new bond basically consists of love others like you love yourself + Love god more than yourself + some things mentioned by Paulus (= no blood intake, no sexuality etc)
very true. if a species can find a way to adopt or survive in suddenly hostile conditions then it evolves.
but why do we think about this solely in terms of 'reproduction' ? there are clearly other ways that a species can benefit from adaptation. in other words, is evolution defined by reproduction or survival ?
Brings to mind an image (that I can't find, sonuva ) consisting simply of 7 bars, in each of the colors of the rainbow, with the text "Will God punish me for loving or you for hating?" over it.
As a card carrying member of the pre-AID's sex, drugs, and rock n roll generation you can trust me when I tell you that women in the 60's, 70's and 80's did not try to hide their sexuality. Just because you have finally discovered sex doesn't mean it's new to everyone.
and OMG, like a girl HIT on you?
Paulus? Where are those passages in the Bible please. I'll look them up.
My point, as it was earlier, is not to say sexuality is right or wrong, but rather for people to respect a person who is gay without judgment. That is for something that person must face with his or her own god when their judgment comes, whether it's right or wrong.
I think each person deserves to not be judged for something like being gay. It's not my place or your place to cast judgment about it, for me or for you to ridicule them for it, to call them s and mock them. That's what I have a problem with.
My pointing the stuff in the Bible was to point out your hypocrisy and selective citation of Bible passages, since the same place in Leviticus that condemns sexuality also condemns the other things I point out like eating s fish or shaving. Like I said much earlier, social customs evolve and change. People eat lobster and shrimp. People shave their faces. Children aren't sentenced to death for cursing out their parents. And, that's why I think that today, people need to respect other people who are gay, or at the very least not judge them or proactively express hatred for them.
I know you like to post about how much of a badass you are, how you got sooooo much pussy back in your dayAs a card carrying member of the pre-AID's sex, drugs, and rock n roll generation you can trust me when I tell you that women did not try to hide their sexuality. Just because you have finally discovered sex doesn't mean it's new to everyone.
and OMG, like a girl HIT on you?
, how you're a 6'6 badass who picked up his boss by the throat and held him against the wall, how you're rich, etc, but the fact of the matter is I don't believe anything you say or wish to argue with you about moot points. The sexual revolution ended in the early 80's because of AIDS and things quieted down for a while. All I'm saying is that people are becoming more bold about their sexuality once again. Maybe you're of age where you were young during the heat of the sexual revolution. I really don't care.
Yes, people do all these things. Some of those strict laws against them were done away with in the new testament. However, sexuality was still condemned. If you're interested, please, feel free to do your own research. I know you and Allanon enjoy this long debate sort of thing, but I simply don't have the time or patience for you at this particular moment.
quieted down for a while?
and then your parents went out on a limb in the nineties and decided to try it again?
It's all good dude. Congrats on finally getting laid....I know you like to post about how much of a badass you are, how you got sooooo much pussy back in your day
That's why I asked you for the passages in the Bible.
First, show me where they abolished those laws about s fish and shaving.
And, then give me those "Paulus" passages still condemning sexuality.
If you're going to make an argument, back it up. Your near genius IQ can handle giving me Bible citations, can't it?
Yup, I've been naughty. You going to pin me up against the wall with one of your 60 year old arms?It's all good dude. Congrats on finally getting laid....
I'm not the one talkin . You little es crack me up.
http://www.in-my-opinion.org/in-my-o...36d55b32e9db29
I didn't know a near genius would require plagiarism to argue a point.
Wow... at least we know even near geniuses google when they don't know what the they're talking about.
Because I wanted to find what I was looking for without searching through the bible for it. I've stated numerous times that I'm not interested in a long drawn out debate about religion. The guy is right though, FWIW. There is no such thing as plagiarism on a messageboard
Yup everyone is a little , you're the big billy badass. You're 6'6, rich, and pin people against the throat with one arm when they disagree with you!
I think he was talking about Acts 11:1-9 but that doesn't say anything about s fish.
I know google is an awesome reference but it helps to study and research yourself instead of just rehashing other people's arguments. That goes for anyone here trying to argue using the bible as their back up.
I know I don't seem like it but I studied the bible... religiously lol... for about 6 years straight. I will not get into a religious discussion because of it though and before I am labeled I do not consider myself to be christian.
Sure there is. I just posted it.
Obviously you would still rather worry about semantics than answer the question. No surprise.
Humans have managed to reproduce without having to have male-female intercoure.
Obviously you don't know much about evolution.
lol "bisexual" reproduction is in the veterinarian dictionary, dumbass.lol "bisexual" reproduction. It's simply sexual reproduction, dumbass.
My source redirects to ask.com since it can't find a definition.
Blake cares about my opinion. No surprise.No surprise.
A male and a female are still involved.
Obviously you don't know much about evolution.
women are the same today as they always have been.
you're just too smart to see that.
I don't really understand what all the fuss is about.
That's a very subjective statement. Women 1000 years ago were the same in physical and mental capacity, but differing cultural ideals, a lack of technology and wide spread knowledge, and single-sex dominated societies certainly changed the way women viewed the world.
So we evolved by finding a way to evade evolution.
You are making up your own rules about what evolution means.
Great. Let's go one step further and take the sperm and eggs of the best and brightest people of the world to make the most attractive offspring possible in a science lab.I understand you're meaning 'artificial insemination' by this, but artificial insemination avoids evolution entirely for the partners. Evolution, by definition, means selecting the most attractive mates possible and reproducing. Artificial reproduction does not have evolution as any basis; evolution doesn't select for or against certain traits.
Society would benefit from that faster than having "nature" run it's course.
This thread needed a bit of Godwin's Law in it, so thanks for that bit of inspiration.
you are correct, but in the context of the bar scene, women have pretty much always been the same.
way to take it to the extreme.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
