# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  Wal-Mart 'dyke' book

## Logan13

*Wal-Mart 'dyke' book gone after WND story* 
Worldnetdaily
Nov. 17, 2006

'How-to' lesbian manual for teen girls pulled, but retail giant offers only vague explanation 

Wal-Mart is refusing to explain why a sexually explicit manual on how to be a lesbian was pulled suddenly from its website just hours after a WND story about the product appeared. 

Family organizations in Canada had warned about the book just weeks ago, and while it calls God a "fat black dyke" and provides how-to information for same-sex experimentation, the store described it as the "stuff youth need to know." 

It's called "The Little Black Book for Girlz: A Book on Healthy Sexuality" and is produced by St. Stephens' Community House in Toronto, an organization that has fled its Christian foundation. 

The book was posted on the site through late yesterday and early today, but suddenly disappeared. WND asked Wal-Mart to explain what had happened to the book listing and why the change was made, and the company provided only a generic response that didn't answer any questions. 

"Hi Bob, Here is our response to your question regarding 'The Little Black Book for Girls,'" said the e-mail. 

"As an online retailer, we continue to make business decisions every day about our merchandise assortments. In addition to other categories on our site, we continually modify our book selection based on our customers' current interests and preferences. 

"Thanks, P.K. Van Deloo, Spokesperson, Walmart.com." 

Wal-Mart had been advertising the book as "a great mix of real-life examples and life-saving info," and it includes a section called, "My First Time F---ing a Girl" and other obscenities. It has information on "safe" sex devices and assures its audience that condoms are 100 percent effective in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, even though the World Health Organization, a longtime condom supporter, admits they fail one out of five times. 

A WND reader from Kentucky said that was all the information needed. 

"Walmart  'low prices  low values.' That's all I need to know. I'll find somewhere else to shop. They certainly don't need or deserve business from the '10 percent of the population [that is] heterosexual,'" the reader said. 

Another said Christians should exercise their moral right to choose where to shop. 

"Christian  make a stand and tell Walmart 'NO MORE MONEY FROM US UNTIL YOU CLEAN IT UP,'" wrote Robert Lloyd. "JUST SAY NO MORE  loud and clear  they will get the message." 

The alarm about the book initially was raised by Joseph Ben-Ami, the executive director of the Institute for Canadian Values, who told WND this fall that Canadian officials were considering using the book in public schools. 

"We have to find a way to stop this from happening," Ben-Ami told WND at the time. "People don't know this is happening." 

The graphic manual promotes lesbianism to young girls, gives explicit instructions for engaging in oral or anal sexual acts and instructs girls that only 10 percent of the population is heterosexual. 

A report from LifeSiteNews.com said the book also recommends sewing latex squares into their underwear "for added fun." 

The online catalog for Wal-Mart, just before the item was removed, listed the book price at $11.58, and it said the manual is "not just a book about sex, but a look at girl culture by teenagers. No stuffy school textbook. No nosy adults.  " 

"It's all stuff that youth need to knowThe Little Black Book for Girlz is an important, take-anywhere empowerment guide. Girls shouldn't leave their teen years without it." 

When WND reported on the issue in September, the full text was available online at St. Stephen's House but it was removed shortly after the WND report surfaced then too. 

Ben-Ami called it, "a thinly veiled propaganda piece that undermines healthy parent-child relationships, substitutes voodoo myths for actual science, and provides advice that, if followed, will certainly result in real and serious harm to those who follow it." 

It tells girls that most parents are homophobes. "So are children until they get minds of their own," it said. 

St. Stephen's declined several opportunities to respond to questions about the book. The center was started by the Anglican Diocese in 1962 and "was" a Christian-based organization until 1974. It now gets government money, almost $8 million this year. 

If "you need someone to represent God The Holiness, then for me, it's a fat black dyke" the book tells readers. 

"What this statement has to do with healthy emotional and sexual development is beyond us," Ben-Ami said. 

His concern is that Canadian authorities now are reviewing the guide for its possible uses. In Canada, which legalized same-sex marriage about a year ago, school curricula that refers to a man-and-woman as a couple has to be dropped. 

"'The Little Black Book' is one of the most obscene and irresponsible 'educational' books we have come across," said the Canadian family institute. "Canadians from all walks of life need to take action now to ensure that children are not exposed to its harmful influence." 

Reminding readers that it's intended for fairly young girls, the online version honored the 40th anniversary of the Barbie doll with a list of recommendations for the occasion. 

Those include "Shave her head and give her a nose ring," "Have Barbie marry another Barbie," "Have her take part in an orgy," and "Give her leather bondage gear, a whip and chains." 

It also lists "Fun alternatives to intercourse: Petting, Cyber sex, phone sex, kissing, making out, blowjob" and others. 

It also offers tips about having sex that "help you make the jump and land with a smile." 

Wal-Mart, which confirmed to WND just this fall that it had joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, also has contributed $60,000 to the homosexual activist group called Out & Equal. 

But it also is facing protests because of its suddenly pro-homosexual advocacy. 

As WND reported in separate stories, several workers have resigned their positions with the company over its stance, and they aren't going away quietly; they are launching protests in front of local stores to alert their friends and neighbors to the company's sexual agenda.

----------


## alphaman

and scriptfactory says society isn't in moral decline...

----------


## Logan13

> and scriptfactory says society isn't in moral decline...


Everyone seems to have their own idea as to what morality means. Problem is, it is really not open to interpretation, you either have it or you do not. 

Alpha,
thanks for PM. I will get info and PM you back this weekend, I appreciate it.

----------


## alphaman

> Everyone seems to have their own idea as to what morality means. Problem is, it is really not open to interpretation, you either have it or you do not. 
> .



HA! One of the longest -- if not the longest thread in the prw forum was about whether morals were objective or subjective.

----------


## alphaman

> Alpha,
> thanks for PM. I will get info and PM you back this weekend, I appreciate it.


No problem.

----------


## Tock

> Wal-Mart had been advertising the book as "a great mix of real-life examples and life-saving info," and it includes a section called, "My First Time F---ing a Girl" and other obscenities.


ya, like there are no other books or magazines that speak of guys f---ing girls, right? And these people have never seen any of those books?










> It has information on "safe" sex devices and assures its audience that condoms are 100 percent effective in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, even though the World Health Organization, a longtime condom supporter, admits they fail one out of five times.


Were they speaking of women's condoms, or men's condoms? And did they qualify that statement in the book?

Seems to me that this bizarre source of information, "WorldNet News" usually tweaks the news to suit its own purposes -- I doubt we're getting the entire story here . . .













> Ben-Ami called it, "a thinly veiled propaganda piece that . . . substitutes voodoo myths for actual science . . ."


Not unlike the way these idiots substitute "creation science" for real science in schools.










> It tells girls that most parents are homophobes."


Well, most parents _are_ homophobic. Some are beyond hope, others can reform, with a little help. 









> The center was started by the Anglican Diocese in 1962 and "was" a Christian-based organization until 1974.


Ah, so now we get to play the game, "Christian, Christian, who's the Real Christian?" And maybe we can burn the infidels like they used to back in the good ol' days . . .










> It now gets government money, almost $8 million this year.


A drop in the bucket, compared to the billions given to Christian organizations (like Catholic Charities, Salvation Army, YMCA, etc etc) each year.










> If "you need someone to represent God The Holiness, _then for me_, it's a fat black dyke" the book tells readers.


So what?
Looks like somebody has a thin skin . . .











> "'The Little Black Book' is one of the most obscene and irresponsible 'educational' books we have come across," said the Canadian family institute. "Canadians from all walks of life need to take action now to ensure that children are not exposed to its harmful influence."


Let's have a good old-fashioned book burning! 
Truth is, these idiots want to ban Frankenstein, Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs, Harry Potter, and lots of other harmless books. 
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...ngedbanned.htm
If these idiots want to get picky about things, well, there's lots of stuff in the Bible that isn't very pretty -- tales about guys pimping their wives, erotic talk about women's bodies, tales of adultery, killing a woman's husband to make her available for sex, all sorts of stuff. It's full of other moral defects, too . . . so these idiots shouldn't be throwing rocks in their glass houses . . .











> Wal-Mart, which confirmed to WND just this fall that it had joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, also has contributed $60,000 to the homosexual activist group called Out & Equal.


So what? Should Wal-Mart quit giving to all charities? Your right-wing religious church groups would lose out on a lot more $$$ than just $60k they gave to Out & Equal.









> As WND reported in separate stories, several workers have resigned their positions with the company over its stance, and they aren't going away quietly; they are launching protests in front of local stores to alert their friends and neighbors to the company's sexual agenda.


I sure haven't seen anyone protesting. 
I don't think anyone really cares . . . .

----------


## Logan13

Fuk Tock, In a bad mood tonight? I obviously did not write this.
Someone has to post this stuff, the NY Times sure as hell will not.

----------


## Tock

> Fuk Tock, In a bad mood tonight? I obviously did not write this.
> Someone has to post this stuff, the NY Times sure as hell will not.


It's pure BS, not worth posting here. 

JHC, it's like you're trying to turn this forum into a freak show.

Why not just stick to posting worthwhile news stories that actually affect people's lives instead of this _National Enquirer_ grade stuff you've been posting?


Sheesh . . .

----------


## alphaman

> Fuk Tock, In a bad mood tonight? I obviously did not write this.
> Someone has to post this stuff, the NY Times sure as hell will not.


Keep pluggin bro.  :Smilie:

----------


## alphaman

> ya, like there are no other books or magazines that speak of guys f---ing girls, right? And these people have never seen any of those books?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hit a soft spot!  :LOL: 



First of all, how does Walmart snatching a book off the shelf merit your attack on the Bible? 

Second, justt because the Bible records something doesn't mean God commands or condones it..... But if you were going to be a preacher, you already knew that -- just grabbing for anything you can, huh?

----------


## Joey2ness

Lesbians are at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals. However, the health consequences of lesbianism are less well documented than for male homosexuals because there are fewer lesbians than gay men.

----------


## Carlos_E

> Lesbians are at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals. However, the* health consequences of lesbianism are less well documented than for male homosexuals because there are fewer lesbians than gay men.*


Who told you this? Please provide a reference.

----------


## Tock

> First of all, how does Walmart snatching a book off the shelf merit your attack on the Bible?


If the Bible falls apart under close scrutiny, tough. 







> Second, justt because the Bible records something doesn't mean God commands or condones it.


Well, the Bible records this:

Exodus 22:18: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. 

So what should all good Christians do now? Kill all the witches? Or conclude that some parts of the Bible are bogus?

 :Owned:

----------


## Tock

> Lesbians are at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals. However, the health consequences of lesbianism are less well documented than for male homosexuals because there are fewer lesbians than gay men.


This is news to me. Where did you discover this little tid-bit? Or did you just make it up?

----------


## Carlos_E

> This is news to me. Where did you discover this little tid-bit? Or did you just make it up?


I'm assuming he made it up. This is news to me as well.

----------


## Tock

> Fuk Tock, In a bad mood tonight? I obviously did not write this.
> Someone has to post this stuff, the NY Times sure as hell will not.


The NY Times won't print this bogus BS because it's bogus BS.

----------


## alphaman

> If the Bible falls apart under close scrutiny, tough. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Bible records this:
> 
> Exodus 22:18: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. 
> ...


You know what? We're gonna really examine this. Are you ready? 

I'll be back tomorrow night.

----------


## alphaman

Tock -- do you know the difference between the old covenenant and the new?

----------


## Mike Dura

In a broad historical peak, t's been in moral decline since day one - nothing new there. Just human nature. 




> and scriptfactory says society isn't in moral decline...

----------


## Mike Dura

Yeah, because the NY times is written by educated, mature minds for educated, mature minds. 




> Fuk Tock, In a bad mood tonight? I obviously did not write this.
> Someone has to post this stuff, the NY Times sure as hell will not.

----------


## Mike Dura

No way dude. Lesbian sex has a much lower risk of std's than heterosexual sex. That's for obvious reasons. 




> Lesbians are at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals. However, the health consequences of lesbianism are less well documented than for male homosexuals because there are fewer lesbians than gay men.

----------


## Carlos_E

> No way dude. Lesbian sex has a much lower risk of std's than heterosexual sex. That's for obvious reasons.


I'm still waiting to see where he got this info.

----------


## guest589745

Good, what a worthless book with a shitty purpose. Amazes me what people come up with.

----------


## Mike Dura

There are plenty of worthless books out there. No need to single this one out. 




> Good, what a worthless book with a shitty purpose. Amazes me what people come up with.

----------


## guest589745

> There are plenty of worthless books out there. No need to single this one out.



Oh yea I forgot about all the other books that were mentioned in this thread.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Mike Dura

Lol! Morality is that black and white huh? Don't confuse simplistic thinking with complex life. 




> Everyone seems to have their own idea as to what morality means. Problem is, it is really not open to interpretation, you either have it or you do not. 
> 
> Alpha,
> thanks for PM. I will get info and PM you back this weekend, I appreciate it.

----------


## Carlos_E

> Lol! Morality is that black and white huh? Don't confuse simplistic thinking with complex life.


 :LOL:

----------


## Logan13

> It's pure BS, not worth posting here. 
> 
> JHC, it's like you're trying to turn this forum into a freak show.
> 
> Why not just stick to posting worthwhile news stories that actually affect people's lives instead of this _National Enquirer_ grade stuff you've been posting?
> 
> 
> Sheesh . . .


This is what is going on in the world, tough shit if you do not like it. Perhaps I should get your OK on everything before I post. It is no worse than your daily religious fodder...........

----------


## Logan13

> Yeah, because the NY times is written by educated, mature minds for educated, mature minds.


Sure it is.......for the leftists.

----------


## Logan13

> Lol! Morality is that black and white huh? *Don't confuse simplistic thinking with complex life*.


How does one confuse simplistic thinking with complex life anyway?

This makes no sense, very revealing that Carlos laughed at it though.......... :1laugh:  
At least you are down to a single sentence.

----------


## Logan13

> There are plenty of worthless books out there. No need to single this one out.


Seems the bible is singled out plenty in here, tit for tat.

----------


## Tock

> Tock -- do you know the difference between the old covenenant and the new?


Of course.

Not many fundamentalists do, though. Otherwise they wouldn't cite all the anti-gay rules and laws in the Old Testament. And they wouldn't be so excited about the Ten Commandments, either. 

Anyway, what's your point?

----------


## perfectbeast2001

sounds like a good book to me.

----------


## alphaman

> Of course.
> 
> Not many fundamentalists do, though. * Otherwise they wouldn't cite all the anti-gay rules and laws in the Old Testament.* And they wouldn't be so excited about the Ten Commandments, either. 
> 
> Anyway, what's your point?



WHAT!? 

Can you elaborate on this please?

----------


## alphaman

> In a broad historical peak, t's been in moral decline since day one - nothing new there. Just human nature.



Is it just me, or does this statement make absolutely no sense at all? 



OK -- *"In a broad historical peak,"* --  :Hmmmm:  the nature of a peak is that it's not broad, *"it's been in moral decline since day one - nothing new here."* -- so if the correct term here was moral decline, it would mean that morality has diminished over time, thus being in a constant state of change and there would always be a _new_ state of morality in the world, no?



You try too hard to make yourself look smart and it backfires on you sometimes.

----------


## Logan13

> Is it just me, or does this statement make absolutely no sense at all? 
> OK -- *"In a broad historical peak,"* --  the nature of a peak is that it's not broad, *"it's been in moral decline since day one - nothing new here."* -- so if the correct term here was moral decline, it would mean that morality has diminished over time, thus being in a constant state of change and there would always be a _new_ state of morality in the world, no?
> *You try too hard to make yourself look smart and it backfires on you sometimes*.


EXACTLY!!

----------


## alphaman

> Lol! Morality is that black and white huh? Don't confuse simplistic thinking with complex life.



Complex life? What do you think makes life complex in regards to morality?

----------


## alphaman

> Sure it is.......for the leftists.



I guess that he didn't catch that you mentioned the NY Times because of that......

----------


## Tock

> WHAT!? 
> 
> Can you elaborate on this please?


Well, you asked if I knew about the Old vs. the New Covenants . . . 

The Old required people to comply with a strict set of rules, required the periodic shedding of animal blood, etc. In the New, the shedding of Jesus' blood is supposedly sufficient sacrifice for people who accept Christ as their saviour, and since salvation is obtained by faith in Jesus' sacrifice, then beleivers are not accountable to all the rules and laws outlined in the Old Testament. 

So . . . just as it is inappropriate for believers who consider themselves to be living under the terms of the New Covenant to cite citations from the Old Testament requiring circumcision, or to avoid eating shellfish, or to avoid wearing clothes made of more than one fabric, or to kill witches and homosexuals, it is just as inappropriate to cite Old Testament rules that ban gay sex. After all, a rule is a rule, and,
Romans 1:17 -- For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, *The just shall live by faith*. 
Hebrews 10:38 -- *The just shall live by faith*
Galations 3:10-13 ": For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 
"11": But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, *The just shall live by faith*. 
"12": And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 
"13": Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 

It should be clear even to the dimmest of theologians that anyone who places their faith in Jesus as their saviour is not going to Hell. It should be abundantly clear, also, that those who live by the old rules of the Old Covenant are, by definition, living by terms of the New Covenant, and unless they keep Kosher and perform all the tasks required by the Old Covenant, are probably going to Hell. 


Hence, my comment that people who understood the difference between living under the Old Covenant vs. the New, wouldn't be citing Old Testament verses to support their contention that homosexuality was sinful. In doing so, they assert that the old rules are still valid for other folks, which is what folks under the Old Covenant beleive, which means they themselves are not living under the terms of the New.

----------


## alphaman

While through God's grace, some OT laws do not apply anymore, this does not wipe out the law completely. In fact, under the New Covenant the law of God is written on our hearts when we put our faith in Him.




> Hebrews 8:7-11
> 7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said[b]: 
> "The time is coming, declares the Lord, 
> when I will make a new covenant 
> with the house of Israel 
> and with the house of Judah. 
> 9It will not be like the covenant 
> I made with their forefathers 
> when I took them by the hand 
> ...

----------


## alphaman

While it would be nice to think that the Old Testament is completely obselete and that we can sin as much as we want and still receive the grace of God. But the sticking point is that when we put our faith in God, we do not _continue in sin_. Not to say that we will never sin, but that we will not continue to mindlessly live a life of sin -- we will be unable to.





> *2Timothy 3:16*
> 16 _All_ Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
> 
> 
> *1 John 3:5-11*
> 5But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. *No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.* 
> 
> 7Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. 9No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
> 
> ...

----------


## Tock

> jlWhile through God's grace, some OT laws do not apply anymore,


So who gets to decide which laws apply and which ones don't? Not everyone agrees on these rules . . . For instance, some Christians say it's ok to be gay, others say it's not recommended, and others say it's the vilest, worst, most horrible thing anyone could possibly do. 

And then, some Christians say that if you were saved once, then you're always saved, no matter what. Others will tell you that only 144,000 people are gonna make it into Heaven, and everyone else is going to Hell.  :Evil2:  

Seems to me that all those different groups are correct on one thing -- that all the others don't know what they're talking about. 









> this does not wipe out the law completely. In fact, under the New Covenant the law of God


What the Bible says is irrelevant, because (1) it is interpreted thousands of different ways by honest people; and I cannot beleive that a Just God would condemn the vast majority of people who ever lived for misinterpreting this silly book--after all, it's full of absurdities, impossibilities, wretched examples of morality, and sheer stupidity. If there is a god, it would be a grave insult to say that It had anything to do with this book. 










> written on our hearts when we put our faith in Him.


  :Bs:  Vagueness isn't a virtue; I prefer plain language.
The only way to "write anything on our hearts" is to have a surgeon tattoo something on it. That is clear.

What exactly do you mean when you say, something is "written on our hearts when we put our faith in Him?"

Be clear, if you can . . . 

Well,

----------


## alphaman

> Vagueness isn't a virtue; I prefer plain language.
> The only way to "write anything on our hearts" is to have a surgeon tattoo something on it. That is clear.
> 
> What exactly do you mean when you say, something is "written on our hearts when we put our faith in Him?"
> 
> Be clear, if you can . . . 
> 
> Well,



This is the last post from page 1 of this thread:

While through God's grace, some OT laws do not apply anymore, this does not wipe out the law completely. In fact, under the New Covenant the law of God is written on our hearts when we put our faith in Him.




> Hebrews 8:7-11
> 7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said[b]: 
> "The time is coming, declares the Lord, 
> when I will make a new covenant 
> with the house of Israel 
> and with the house of Judah. 
> 9It will not be like the covenant 
> I made with their forefathers 
> when I took them by the hand 
> ...

----------


## Tock

Oh, no . . . you don't get to pass this one by me . . .

*2Timothy 3:16
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,* 

Look at this with a bit of common sense . . .
Somebody had to write this verse on paper. Well, this verse says "All Scripture is God-Breathed." Does that automatically mean that this verse is God-Breathed as well? 
If your answer is yes, then by what authority, for what reason, is this verse God-Breathed?
If your answer is no, then there is nothing in the Bible that says that Scripture is worth a flip.

Another point to ponder . . . since the writer of this verse was not aware of the other canon of New Testament writings, then the writer was, of course, referring to the Old Testament, the Torah. That again leaves the New Testament without any sort of verification that it is of any significance. 

----------

Everything I have written is true, because, "Everything Tock writes is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." 
--Tock

----------


## alphaman

> So who gets to decide which laws apply and which ones don't? Not everyone agrees on these rules . . . For instance, some Christians say it's ok to be gay, others say it's not recommended, and others say it's the vilest, worst, most horrible thing anyone could possibly do.



I'm pretty sure God decides.




> 1Corinthians 6:9-10
> 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.










> What the Bible says is irrelevant, because (1) it is interpreted thousands of different ways by honest people; and I cannot beleive that a Just God would condemn the vast majority of people who ever lived for misinterpreting this silly book--after all, it's full of absurdities, impossibilities, wretched examples of morality, and sheer stupidity. If there is a god, it would be a grave insult to say that It had anything to do with this book.


So you wanna try and bulild a case on homosexuality being ok under the new covenant and when it doesn't work out for you -- you say the Bible is irrealevant? That doesn't make sense.

----------


## Tock

> This is the last post from page 1 of this thread:
> 
> While through God's grace, some OT laws do not apply anymore, this does not wipe out the law completely. In fact, under the New Covenant the law of God is written on our hearts when we put our faith in Him.


Nope, that's not an answer.

What, exactly, do you mean when something is "written on our hearts?"
Let's get away from all this religious mumbo-jumbo . . .

----------


## alphaman

> Nope, that's not an answer.
> 
> What, exactly, do you mean when something is "written on our hearts?"
> Let's get away from all this religious mumbo-jumbo . . .



It could probably be best likened to having a 'conscience' for a secularist such as yourself.

----------


## alphaman

> Oh, no . . . you don't get to pass this one by me . . .
> 
> *2Timothy 3:16
> 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,* 
> 
> Look at this with a bit of common sense . . .
> Somebody had to write this verse on paper. Well, this verse says "All Scripture is God-Breathed." Does that automatically mean that this verse is God-Breathed as well? 
> If your answer is yes, then by what authority, for what reason, is this verse God-Breathed?
> If your answer is no, then there is nothing in the Bible that says that Scripture is worth a flip.
> ...



You should know what the qualificaitons for entry into the canon (which is revelation from God) if you were going to be a preacher!

1. Apostolic Authority
2. Testimony of Authentic Authorship
3. Consitency with the rest of Holy Scripture

----------


## Tock

> So you wanna try and bulild a case on homosexuality being ok under the new covenant and when it doesn't work out for you -- you say the Bible is irrealevant? That doesn't make sense.


Well, then, let's just say the Bible is irrelevant, and doesn't make sense.

Noah's Ark had no more than 2 acres of floor area, and yet it held 7 of every animal species (thousands of animals--imagine an entire zoo crammed into 2 acres), plus enough food and water for 14 months. And after the flood, kangaroos (and lots of other species native to Australia) swam across the ocean from Asia to Australia, leaving no other kangaroos along the way. Does that make sense to you? 

Over half the population of Egypt (Exodus chapter 1) left the country, with immense riches, while decimating the Egyptian army, and yet the only record of this ever happening is in the Hebrew scriptures? Archeologists have found all sorts of detailed information from that time period, but no mention of this event has ever turned up anywhere else. And we are supposed to beleive that such a thing happened? Does that make sense to you? 

No one knows who wrote the first 5 books of the Bible. And yet, we are supposed to beleive that it is true. The fellow who wrote Genesis wrote of events that happened over 500 years after the Genesis time period. Are we supposed to beleive that the people who wrote about Adam, Abraham, and Moses, lived at the time of Moses, or are we supposed to beleive that the writers lived 500 years later? 
This is pretty screwed up . . . 

The Bible writes of talking animals . . . Does that make sense to you? 


Nope, a book like this, IMHO, does NOT make sense, and thus, is irrelevant. 
It does have some charming traditions, and if you take parts of what it says metaphorically, has some value. But to take it as 100% "God-Breathed" just because one blanking verse in it says the entire thing is "God-Breathed," well, that does NOT make sense to me.

----------


## Joey2ness

> Lesbians are at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals.


 


> Who told you this? Please provide a reference.


http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ty/ho0075.html

The Health Risks of Gay Sex 
JOHN R. DIGGS, JR. M.D. 

Promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, but it is still higher than among heterosexual women. Overall, women tend to have fewer sex partners than men(with men). But there is a surprising finding about lesbian promiscuity in the literature. Australian investigators reported that lesbian women were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women (9 percent of lesbians versus 2 percent of heterosexual women); and 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men.17 Other studies similarly show that 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men.

----------


## Tock

Originally Posted by Tock
Nope, that's not an answer.

What, exactly, do you mean when something is "written on our hearts?"
Let's get away from all this religious mumbo-jumbo . . .



> It could probably be best likened to having a 'conscience' for a secularist such as yourself.


Well, then, if, as you wrote, "_under the New Covenant the law of God is written on our hearts when we put our faith in Him,"_  then what accounts for all these people who say they're Christians, but they go out and commit crimes, and do other people dirty?

Y'know, the vast majority of people in jail say they are Christian . . . And I have no doubt that they are. I've seen plenty of Christians who drive like the devil, too. I would say, therefore, that their having faith in Jesus did _not_ affect their conscience. I would imagine that if we were to examine the outer lining of their heart muscle, there would be no tattoos, either. 

So, I doubt that your definition/explanation holds . . .

----------


## alphaman

> Well, then, let's just say the Bible is irrelevant, and doesn't make sense.
> 
> Noah's Ark had no more than 2 acres of floor area, and yet it held 7 of every animal species (thousands of animals--imagine an entire zoo crammed into 2 acres), plus enough food and water for 14 months. And after the flood, kangaroos (and lots of other species native to Australia) swam across the ocean from Asia to Australia, leaving no other kangaroos along the way. Does that make sense to you? 
> 
> Over half the population of Egypt (Exodus chapter 1) left the country, with immense riches, while decimating the Egyptian army, and yet the only record of this ever happening is in the Hebrew scriptures? Archeologists have found all sorts of detailed information from that time period, but no mention of this event has ever turned up anywhere else. And we are supposed to beleive that such a thing happened? Does that make sense to you?


The Bible has been confirmed by archaeology in an overwhelming amount of instances. Look it up.




> No one knows who wrote the first 5 books of the Bible. And yet, we are supposed to beleive that it is true. The fellow who wrote Genesis wrote of events that happened over 500 years after the Genesis time period. Are we supposed to beleive that the people who wrote about Adam, Abraham, and Moses, lived at the time of Moses, or are we supposed to beleive that the writers lived 500 years later? 
> This is pretty screwed up . . .


Moses is believed to have written the first five books.




> The Bible writes of talking animals . . . Does that make sense to you?


So if there's a God, then why is it so hard to believe that he could make animals talk, or the story of Noah's ark. What's much more difficult to believe is that complex living organisms that cover the earth popped into existence by chance.




> Nope, a book like this, IMHO, does NOT make sense, and thus, is irrelevant. 
> It does have some charming traditions, and if you take parts of what it says metaphorically, has some value. But to take it as 100% "God-Breathed" just because one blanking verse in it says the entire thing is "God-Breathed," well, that does NOT make sense to me.


That would be convenient for you, but you know what? I don't believe you're so sure. If you were, I don't think you would spend so much time posting every little thing you can to try and undermine the faith. If it wasn't a big deal to you, you would be able to let it go.

----------


## Tock

> You should know what the qualificaitons for entry into the canon (which is revelation from God) if you were going to be a preacher!
> 
> 1. Apostolic Authority
> 2. Testimony of Authentic Authorship
> 3. Consitency with the rest of Holy Scripture


Ya, that's what the official, orthodox line is. 

But if you look at the grisly details, the actual history of how the Bible got written and who decided what books were good and which were bogus, and why, well, you'll discover that the official  :Bs:  line about authentic authorship isn't all what it's cracked up to be. 

The vast majority of theologians who study the antiquity of Bible writings don't beleive that the Bible is "God-Breathed." They either take it as a body of ethnic writings, rich in metaphors, and not much more. These are the experts. Of course, you'll find some fundamentalist theologians who will swear that this book is "God-Breathed," but they're in the minority. And a small minority it is.

----------


## alphaman

> Well, then, if, as you wrote, "_under the New Covenant the law of God is written on our hearts when we put our faith in Him,"_  then what accounts for all these people who say they're Christians, but they go out and commit crimes, and do other people dirty?
> 
> Y'know, the vast majority of people in jail say they are Christian . . . And I have no doubt that they are. I've seen plenty of Christians who drive like the devil, too. I would say, therefore, that their having faith in Jesus did _not_ affect their conscience. I would imagine that if we were to examine the outer lining of their heart muscle, there would be no tattoos, either. 
> 
> So, I doubt that your definition/explanation holds . . .




Well, this is getting a little ridiculous. We've been through this enough for you to realize that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is.........

I mean 5 posts ago, you were trying to give me a Gospel presentation for gays!

----------


## alphaman

> Ya, that's what the official, orthodox line is. 
> 
> But if you look at the grisly details, the actual history of how the Bible got written and who decided what books were good and which were bogus, and why, well, you'll discover that the official  line about authentic authorship isn't all what it's cracked up to be. 
> 
> The vast majority of theologians who study the antiquity of Bible writings don't beleive that the Bible is "God-Breathed." They either take it as a body of ethnic writings, rich in metaphors, and not much more. These are the experts. Of course, you'll find some fundamentalist theologians who will swear that this book is "God-Breathed," but they're in the minority. And a small minority it is.



This post is filled with conspiracy and liberal garbage that is completely untrue. Back up your claims with reliable sources.

----------


## Tock

> The Bible has been confirmed by archaeology in an overwhelming amount of instances. Look it up.


Not really.
There is ZERO archeological verification for the Exodus story. None, Nada, Zip, Nothing, -----, 0000000. 

Disagree? Find me something.
You'd think that something as significant as the total destruction of Egypt's army would have been noticed by someone back then. It certainly would have been noticed by neighboring empires, who would have certainly swooped down on Egypt for an easy picking.








> Moses is believed to have written the first five books.


Not by anyone with a lick of sense.

If Moses had written Genesis 36:31: _And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel._, and if Moses dropped out of sight after just before the Hebrews went into the promised land, then how could he have known about "kings that reigned over the children of Israel?"

Nope, whoever wrote the book of Genesis was around after the time of Solomon, the 2nd king of Israel. Was Moses around then? I don't think so.








> So if there's a God, then why is it so hard to believe that he could make animals talk, or the story of Noah's ark.


Because this sort of thing only happens in fiction!!!

Duh!!  :Icon Rolleyes:  








> What's much more difficult to believe is that complex living organisms that cover the earth popped into existence by chance.


I don't know squat about evolution, but, I have heard Richard Dawkins (an expert on evolution) say http://www.planetvids.com/html/Richa...d-Haggard.html that scientists don't assert that organisms popped into existance by chance. Maybe you know of one or two, but from what I understand, the majority of scientists don't make that claim. Evolutionary processes have been verified in labs with animals that reproduce quickly. And pretty much, the only folks who doubt evolutionary theory are fundamentalists who fear that it contradicts their faith.











> That would be convenient for you, but you know what? I don't believe you're so sure. If you were, I don't think you would spend so much time posting every little thing you can to try and undermine the faith. If it wasn't a big deal to you, you would be able to let it go.


No, I pursue this because it's kinda fun for me. And I don't really have much else to do . . . 
And it is kinda fun to pop the pumped-up blatherings of fundamentalist bullies who try to frighten people into conversion by scaring them with fictions of eternal damnation . . . 

Ya, it's all just fiction . . .  :LOL:

----------


## Tock

Originally Posted by Tock
Ya, that's what the official, orthodox line is. 

But if you look at the grisly details, the actual history of how the Bible got written and who decided what books were good and which were bogus, and why, well, you'll discover that the official line about authentic authorship isn't all what it's cracked up to be. 

The vast majority of theologians who study the antiquity of Bible writings don't beleive that the Bible is "God-Breathed." They either take it as a body of ethnic writings, rich in metaphors, and not much more. These are the experts. Of course, you'll find some fundamentalist theologians who will swear that this book is "God-Breathed," but they're in the minority. And a small minority it is.




> This post is filled with conspiracy and liberal garbage that is completely untrue. Back up your claims with reliable sources.


I'll tell you what -- you quoted Timothy 3:16, claiming that all scripture is "God-Breathed." You made this declaration about YOUR book, you prove your point first.

----------


## Tock

> Well, this is getting a little ridiculous. We've been through this enough for you to realize that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is.........


Ya, but you'd think that folks like Ted Haggard, the head of the National Evangelical Association (25 million members) and pastor of a 14,000 member church, would be a Christian. And look at him -- he's been preaching against homosexuality while paying a gay prostitute for years! What's up with that? I wouldn't say that anything had been "written on his heart" or put into his conscience. 

He's just one interesting example. I'm sure there are plenty more . . . 
Like all the folks in the KKK (and other right-wing bigots) over the years who claimed to be Christian, yet lynched plenty of blacks, Jews, gays, etc, and said it was the right thing to do. Another interesting example, ya?

I suppose another easy example would be all the Christians in colonial America who falsely accused people of being witches, and got 20 innocent people killed. And the Christians in colonial Massachusetts who banned Christmas because it was a catholic holiday, and they didn't want catholics in their midst. 
Or all the Christians who tortured and burned heretics in Europe. 
Or the idiots who try to change the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians with "reparative therapy," a practice condemned by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association. 

I'm sure I missed quite a few others, of mean-spirited Christians who do terrible things -- each and every one a faith-filled beleiver who exhibit an appalling lack of sympathy and empathy for their fellow human beings.

----------


## Joey2ness

> Not everyone agrees on these rules . . . For instance, some Christians say it's ok to be gay,


*Condemned Christians*
Do not be deceived many say they are Christians yet they practice something that is clearly condemned in the Christian Bible






> Others will tell you that only 144,000 people are gonna make it into Heaven, and everyone else is going to Hell.


*Not many go to Heaven* – _Matthew 7:14_
"Narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

*Kingdom of Christ and God* - _1 Corinthians 6:9_
do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither *fornicators*, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals

Most of us are or were fornicators - (voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or male and female not married to each other.) 






> And then, some Christians say that if you were saved once, then you're always saved, no matter what.


 *Born Again- Being saved (reincarnation)*
The Bible says that the way to be Saved or Born Again is to repent of your sin

Jesus said in John 3:3-6 unless a man is born again he cannot see or enter the kingdom of God. A man is spiritually dead because of sin.

----------


## Tock

> - _1 Corinthians 6:9_
> do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, *nor effeminate,* nor homosexuals


Gee, what's the problem with effeminate guys not going to Heaven? You're telling me that you don't have to commit a crime or a sin? Just looking a little bit like a woman is enough to keep you out? 


Surely you're joking . . .

----------


## Joey2ness

> I'm sure I missed quite a few others, of mean-spirited Christians who do terrible things


You missed one, contrary to popular beliefs, One of the most Evil men of our times, Adolf Hitler was actually a Bible believing Christian. But not only was Hitler a Christian, but he used Christianity to justify the evil he did against Jews and other people.

*The Christianity of Hitler revealed in his speeches and proclamations* 
_Hitler's own words reveal his feelings for God, Christianity and faith. Taken from speeches made by Hitler from the 1922 to 1939_

----------


## Joey2ness

> Gee, what's the problem with effeminate guys not going to Heaven? You're telling me that you don't have to commit a crime or a sin? Just looking a little bit like a woman is enough to keep you out?


The Greek word from which the King James Holy Bible gets the word “effeminate” is malakos, which literally means something soft to the touch, but is used as a negative metaphor to refer to a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man. 

1) soft, soft to the touch
2) metaph. in a bad sense -a) effeminate
3) of a catamite
4) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
5) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
6) of a male prostitute

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> So if there's a God, then why is it so hard to believe that he could make animals talk, or the story of Noah's ark. *What's much more difficult to believe is that complex living organisms that cover the earth popped into existence by chance.*



That is a missunderstanding of how evolution(in the broad sense of the word as in everything since the big bang) works. 
Its not by pure chanse like throwing dice. We have a set of natural laws that drives the universe towards complexity. Its inevitable that complex structures evolve. 

Now who/what made the laws the way they are is a much more important question in my mind and one christians could focuse on without losing face. Attacking evolution is as futile as attacking any other scientific theory. There is not much point in trying to tear down a theory that gets verified each and every day and whos basic principles are completely proven.

----------


## Teabagger

You remind me of a professor I had in a religious studies course I took at university. He had been an ordained minister of the Methodist congregation. He had his Masters in Divinity from Harvard, and his Phd from Harvard as well. Really enjoyed his class because he made my faith stronger by constantly challenging belief systems... although oddly enough they were always the Judeo-Christian belief systems. He, like you, would take items from the Bible and deliver them out of context, providing half truths wrecking havoc on the young minds in the class. After a quarter of him I had some serious questions myself, or I thought they were serious questions so I spent a couple of hours with my parish priest. He knew this professor well and said this professor enjoyed kicking the legs out from under his young students with the half truths. The questions I had turned out easily, and logically answered...no mystery at all. But you are a lot like him...he had a grudge against God, apparently didn't like what he had learned, but he used his position in a foul way, and he, as all of us one day will be judged for our actions and inactions.

----------


## Mike Dura

How does one confuse simplistic thinking with complex life? You know better than me. For me, I wonder that all the time! Lol! 




> How does one confuse simplistic thinking with complex life anyway?
> 
> This makes no sense, very revealing that Carlos laughed at it though.......... 
> At least you are down to a single sentence.

----------


## Mike Dura

I don't think the bible is a worthless book. But that's not to say that there are worthless ways of reading the bible. It depends on the person and their abilility to interpret text. Differences in interpretation are really differences in literacy. 




> Seems the bible is singled out plenty in here, tit for tat.

----------


## Mike Dura

Both life and morality can be seen in many ways. In other words, it's not so simple and clear-cut. That is not to say that some people make it simple and clear-cut or "black and white." Absolute thinking in modern times leads to intolerance and destructive consequences in general. 




> Complex life? What do you think makes life complex in regards to morality?

----------


## Mike Dura

You're right, it doesn't make sense. That's what's called a typo. I meant to say "sweep" not peak. You interpret that as trying to be "too smart." I interpret it as an error. That's what makes life interesting - we all have our ways of making interpretations about the motives and intentions of others. Either those interpretations help us understand or it alienates! Either way, it makes little difference here because I have no need to be understood by people I will never meet. It makes for interesting dialogue. I'd get really bored if everyone thought or expressed themselves like me but I'd be even more bored if everyone thought and expressed themselves like you. 




> Is it just me, or does this statement make absolutely no sense at all? 
> 
> 
> 
> OK -- *"In a broad historical peak,"* --  the nature of a peak is that it's not broad, *"it's been in moral decline since day one - nothing new here."* -- so if the correct term here was moral decline, it would mean that morality has diminished over time, thus being in a constant state of change and there would always be a _new_ state of morality in the world, no?
> 
> 
> 
> You try too hard to make yourself look smart and it backfires on you sometimes.

----------


## Mike Dura

lol, oh no! Logan is finding some validation through the "alpha!" Lol! 




> EXACTLY!!

----------


## Mike Dura

If the bible is so provable then what is the point of faith? Faith, by definition, is the choice to believe in something without supporting evidence. I think in fundamental ways, you're missing the point of your own religion. Maybe you're in poor faith. 

[QUOTE=alphaman]The Bible has been confirmed by archaeology in an overwhelming amount of instances. Look it up.

----------


## Mike Dura

Interesting statement. Maybe it can be couched in a different way. Is the bible a means toward having crystal-clear clarity or it a means toward opening yourself up to the mysteries of existence. 

The same text can be used in both ways. I'm more impressed with the latter possibibility because for me it's more humble and more functional to orient a person towards the complexities of life. Better to be open-minded and humble IMO than it is to be closed-minded and confident - like some of the Archie Bunker types that are posting on this thread. Although I can understand and empathize with the psychological comfort that clarity brings, I think it's divisive. It's more courageous, imo, and more noble to be open-minded and questioning. I think it can be more about the question and less about the answer. Knowlege has it's limits and one is more than just a mind and the "scheme of things" is more than just a conceptualization. Confusion and uncertainty can be tolerated and judgment can be suspended. Knowing too quickly is the enemy! The beatnics use to say, lose your mind and come back to your body" maybe there you will find God. God runs away when you pigeon-hole him into a concept (don't take that literally). 

"Loosing your mind and coming back to your senses" or the experiential has an element in all of the great religions - the monks know this better than the priests. It's not about social consensus about conceptual formulations, it's about personal experience and what's going on within the individual. It's personal not public. That's where many Christians miss the point. Carl Jung used to say that organized religeon (the public or the "we") is a defense against the religious experience (the personal or the "I"). 





> You remind me of a professor I had in a religious studies course I took at university. He had been an ordained minister of the Methodist congregation. He had his Masters in Divinity from Harvard, and his Phd from Harvard as well. Really enjoyed his class because he made my faith stronger by constantly challenging belief systems... although oddly enough they were always the Judeo-Christian belief systems. He, like you, would take items from the Bible and deliver them out of context, providing half truths wrecking havoc on the young minds in the class. After a quarter of him I had some serious questions myself, or I thought they were serious questions so I spent a couple of hours with my parish priest. He knew this professor well and said this professor enjoyed kicking the legs out from under his young students with the half truths. The questions I had turned out easily, and logically answered...no mystery at all. But you are a lot like him...he had a grudge against God, apparently didn't like what he had learned, but he used his position in a foul way, and he, as all of us one day will be judged for our actions and inactions.

----------


## Tock

> You remind me of a professor I had in a religious studies course I took at university. He had been an ordained minister of the Methodist congregation. He had his Masters in Divinity from Harvard, and his Phd from Harvard as well. Really enjoyed his class because he made my faith stronger by constantly challenging belief systems..


I'm glad you enjoy my company . . .  :Bbblowme:  










> He, like you, would take items from the Bible and deliver them out of context,


Oh?
And how have the things I've mentioned been taken out of context?












> I had some serious questions myself, . . . . so I spent a couple of hours with my parish priest. He knew this professor well and said this professor enjoyed kicking the legs out from under his young students with the half truths. The questions I had turned out easily, and logically answered...no mystery at all.


Sounds like you went looking for reassurance for your challenged orthodoxy. 
Well, it's no skin off of my nose . . . I hope you're happy.











> But you are a lot like him...he had a grudge against God,


I beg your pardon . . .  :What?:  
I have no grudge against God. I do, however, bear considerable antipathy towards the varieties of organized religion that make empty promises and make preachers rich. You see these sob's on TV all the time. 
I also bear antipathy to religious organizations and preachers that create classes of people to ostracize; that create a "Godly Us" and "Evil Them." 
I also bear antipathy to religious organizations that demand free public services. 
Most of all, I bear antipathy to preachers and religious organizations that attempt to frighten people with idle threats of Hell Fire and Brimstone into conversions and giving $$$. 

To God, well, I have had no encounter with such a Being, I have no information about such a Being, so I know nothing about any such Being. Therefore, how can I possibly be angry or hold a grudge against It?










> apparently didn't like what he had learned,


If they filled his head with fundamentalist doctrine, that would be understandable.











> . . . and he, as all of us one day will be judged for our actions and inactions.


Ah, yes, another warning -- turn or burn . . . Idle threats, idle threats . . . the hallmark of Christian Fundamentalism . . . 
Tsk tsk tsk . . .

----------


## Tock

Originally Posted by Tock
Gee, what's the problem with effeminate guys not going to Heaven? You're telling me that you don't have to commit a crime or a sin? Just looking a little bit like a woman is enough to keep you out? 




> The Greek word from which the King James Holy Bible gets the word effeminate is malakos, which literally means something soft to the touch, but is used as a negative metaphor to refer to a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man. 
> 
> 1) soft, soft to the touch
> 2) metaph. in a bad sense -a) effeminate
> 3) of a catamite
> 4) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
> 5) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
> 6) of a male prostitute


Ok, so tell me who you think isn't going to make it to Heaven. 
1) soft people?
2) effeminate, unmasculine men?
3) catamites?
4) boys kept for gay relations?
5) sexually submissive males?
6) male prostitutes?

Seems to me the English translation, which says "Nor effeminate," may have lost something in the translation. Care to venture a guess on how much of the rest of the English Bible is similarly misunderstood?

----------


## Logan13

> http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ty/ho0075.html
> 
> The Health Risks of Gay Sex 
> JOHN R. DIGGS, JR. M.D. 
> 
> Promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, but it is still higher than among heterosexual women. Overall, women tend to have fewer sex partners than men(with men). But there is a surprising finding about lesbian promiscuity in the literature. Australian investigators reported that lesbian women were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women (9 percent of lesbians versus 2 percent of heterosexual women); and 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men.17 Other studies similarly show that 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men.


I do not see where Tock or Carlos apologized to you after insinuating that you made this statement up. Very telling.........

----------


## Carlos_E

> http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ty/ho0075.html
> 
> The Health Risks of Gay Sex 
> JOHN R. DIGGS, JR. M.D. 
> 
> Promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, but it is still higher than among heterosexual women. Overall, women tend to have fewer sex partners than men(with men). But there is a surprising finding about lesbian promiscuity in the literature. Australian investigators reported that lesbian women were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women (9 percent of lesbians versus 2 percent of heterosexual women); and 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men.17 Other studies similarly show that 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men.


Look at your source. (catholic education.org) I question the validity of their research. Also, no where here does it say that lesbians are at a higher risk for STDs. It does not say they're having unprotected sex.

???

----------


## Logan13

> Look at your source. (catholic education.org) I question the validity of their research. Also, no where here does it say that lesbians are at a higher risk for STDs. It does not say they hare having unprotected sex.
> 
> ???


You asked for a source, you got one. It does make factual sense, regardless of the source..........Do you still think that Joey2ness made it up?

----------


## Tock

Originally Posted by Joey2ness
http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ty/ho0075.html

The Health Risks of Gay Sex 
JOHN R. DIGGS, JR. M.D. 

Promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, but it is still higher than among heterosexual women. Overall, women tend to have fewer sex partners than men(with men). But there is a surprising finding about lesbian promiscuity in the literature. Australian investigators reported that lesbian women were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women (9 percent of lesbians versus 2 percent of heterosexual women); and 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men.17 Other studies similarly show that 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men.




> I do not see where Tock or Carlos apologized to you after insinuating that you made this statement up. Very telling.........


Where did I insinuate that he made this up?

Sheesh . . .

Your thought processes are not unlike a 10 foot wide truck speeding along a 9 foot wide mountainside road . . . it goes over the edge . . .

----------


## Carlos_E

> You asked for a source, you got one. It does make factual sense, regardless of the source..........Do you still think that Joey2ness made it up?


Yes. I don't see a reference to STDs.

----------


## Logan13

> Originally Posted by Joey2ness
> http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ty/ho0075.html
> 
> Your thought processes are not unlike a 10 foot wide truck speeding along a 9 foot wide mountainside road . . . it goes over the edge . . .


My thought process _is_ like a 10 foot wide "logic" truck, I roll over everything in my path........... :Wink/Grin:

----------


## Logan13

78 posts in a thread about a "Lesbian How-To Book"? Admit it guys, we all want to know how to be a lesbian, well except for like 3 of us.....

----------


## Joey2ness

> Also, no where here does it say that lesbians are at a higher risk for STDs. It does not say they're having unprotected sex.


 The women were actually bisexual in the study because 93% had male sex partners but were *self-described lesbians*. Alot of self-described lesbians could actually be bisexual but who knows.

Much of the info is associated with heterosexual activity by lesbians. In the study 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men. 

"Not only did lesbians commonly have sex with men, but with lots of men. Consequently, the lesbians' median number of male partners was twice that of exclusively heterosexual women. *(2X the number of male sex partners = higher risk for STDs)* 

As you know this study is mostly likely about women who are self-described lesbians but are actually bisexual and not know it.

----------


## Logan13

> The women were actually bisexual in the study because 93% had male sex partners but were *self-described lesbians*. Alot of self-described lesbians could actually be bisexual but who knows.
> 
> Much of the info is associated with heterosexual activity by lesbians. In the study 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men. 
> 
> "Not only did lesbians commonly have sex with men, but with lots of men. Consequently, the lesbians' median number of male partners was twice that of exclusively heterosexual women. *(2X the number of male sex partners = higher risk for STDs)* 
> 
> As you know this study is mostly likely about women who are self-described lesbians but are actually bisexual and not know it.


You may want to include the fact that 2+2=4 as well, since some in here would not be able to decipher that either. The facts were in your previous post, some just do not want to see it because it gives your stance credibility....

----------


## Tock

> You may want to include the fact that 2+2=4 as well, since some in here would not be able to decipher that either. The facts were in your previous post, some just do not want to see it because it gives your stance credibility....


So . . . the upshot of all this is, lesbians who confine their sexual habits to other women are healthy, and bisexual women who have sex with lots of men are not. 

It kinda says something positive for the homosexual lifestyle, yes?

So what else it new?

----------


## Teabagger

Tock, Tock, Tock... :No No:  You are way too rigid in your thinking. You must practice what you preach. :LOL:

----------


## Carlos_E

> The women were actually bisexual in the study because 93% had male sex partners but were *self-described lesbians*. Alot of self-described lesbians could actually be bisexual but who knows.
> 
> Much of the info is associated with heterosexual activity by lesbians. In the study 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men. 
> 
> "Not only did lesbians commonly have sex with men, but with lots of men. Consequently, the lesbians' median number of male partners was twice that of exclusively heterosexual women. *(2X the number of male sex partners = higher risk for STDs)* 
> 
> As you know this study is mostly likely about women who are self-described lesbians but are actually bisexual and not know it.


 *"2X the number of male sex partners = higher risk for STDs"* 

The study does not say this. You're making this assumption. It does not say that they're having unprotected sex or high risk sexual behavior with men.

----------


## Carlos_E

> So . . . the upshot of all this is, lesbians who confine their sexual habits to other women are healthy, and bisexual women who have sex with lots of men are not. 
> 
> It kinda says something positive for the homosexual lifestyle, yes?
> 
> So what else it new?


He's assuming that all heterosexual sex is unprotected.

----------


## Mike Dura

Let's not be naive. The source does make a big difference. If a source has an agenda (ulterior motives) to get a specific answer, the "facts" do become questionable and doubtful. Newsflash! People lie! Also, in understanding any "fact" or theory supported by them, a given result has to be replicated in more than one study before one can have more confidence in drawing a conclusion. Therefore, if understood properly, one always takes a tentative attitude towards the results of a study. 

The best sources are those that are peer-reviewed in a major academic journal not some Christian journal (or some liberal journal for that matter). It's important for an educated person to be a critical consumer of information and this requires the right attitude and the right knowledge (understanding statistics and experimental design and where the funding of the study comes from). It's also about having a critical attitude and a desire to put your biases aside. 




> You asked for a source, you got one. It does make factual sense, regardless of the source..........Do you still think that Joey2ness made it up?

----------


## Mike Dura

I agree. Logan is probably a nice guy but the conclusions he draws and the oversimplifications he makes seems a little out of touch to me. 

Where did I insinuate that he made this up?

Sheesh . . .

Your thought processes are not unlike a 10 foot wide truck speeding along a 9 foot wide mountainside road . . . it goes over the edge . . .[/QUOTE]

----------


## Mike Dura

Yet another example of thought processes going over the edge. You roll yourself into your own world while the dialogue goes on dispite you. 




> My thought process _is_ like a 10 foot wide "logic" truck, I roll over everything in my path...........

----------


## Logan13

> Yet another example of thought processes going over the edge. You roll yourself into your own world while the dialogue goes on dispite you.


no matter how hard you try, you can not win...............

----------


## Logan13

> Let's not be naive. The source does make a big difference. If a source has an agenda (ulterior motives) to get a specific answer, the "facts" do become questionable and doubtful. Newsflash! People lie! Also, in understanding any "fact" or theory supported by them, a given result has to be replicated in more than one study before one can have more confidence in drawing a conclusion. Therefore, if understood properly, one always takes a tentative attitude towards the results of a study. 
> 
> The best sources are those that are peer-reviewed in a major academic journal not some Christian journal (or some liberal journal for that matter). It's important for an educated person to be a critical consumer of information and this requires the right attitude and the right knowledge (understanding statistics and experimental design and where the funding of the study comes from). It's also about having a critical attitude and a desire to put your biases aside.


so if this source wrote a piece and remarked that e=mc^2, you would not believe it because of the source? That is just stupid, read into the facts regardless of the source. By not doing this you just reveal that your agenda
means more than the facts.

----------


## Shang III

Well I just wasted some time reading all this, and I feel guilty about having burned my GD given time with this, BOTH sides have drawn enough blood over this issue. books should be written and read by those who CHOSE to read those books, not part of a curriculum where they are forced to. but the same books should be available to individuals who are intrested in varrious subjects. I dont want man-organized church telling me what to watch or read, I'll let my conscien decide if it offends my beleifs and my GD, bye I'm going to the gym, play nice children! :Wink/Grin:

----------


## Phreak101

> Well I just wasted some time reading all this, and I feel guilty about having burned my GD given time with this, BOTH sides have drawn enough blood over this issue. books should be written and read by those who CHOSE to read those books, not part of a curriculum where they are forced to. but the same books should be available to individuals who are intrested in varrious subjects. I dont want man-organized church telling me what to watch or read, I'll let my conscien decide if it offends my beleifs and my GD, bye I'm going to the gym, play nice children!


Thank you oh wise poster, please grace us with your genius again when we are unable as a group to solve everyone's problems!  :LOL:

----------


## Carlos_E

> Thank you oh wise poster, please grace us with your genius again when we are unable as a group to solve everyone's problems!


Indeed!

----------


## Teabagger

> Well I just wasted some time reading all this, and I feel guilty about having burned my GD given time with this, BOTH sides have drawn enough blood over this issue. books should be written and read by those who CHOSE to read those books, not part of a curriculum where they are forced to. but the same books should be available to individuals who are intrested in varrious subjects. I dont want man-organized church telling me what to watch or read, I'll let my conscien decide if it offends my beleifs and my GD, bye I'm going to the gym, play nice children!


Who the HELL do you think your are..............? ME?

----------


## Shang III

> Thank you oh wise poster, please grace us with your genius again when we are unable as a group to solve everyone's problems!


 no prob, when ever you need help, just let me know :1seeyah:

----------


## Shang III

> Who the HELL do you think your are..............? ME?


I would never entertain the thought of being anywhere near your level of thought, sorry if you misunderstood my rant :Evil2:

----------


## alphaman

> Not really.
> There is ZERO archeological verification for the Exodus story. None, Nada, Zip, Nothing, -----, 0000000. 
> 
> Disagree? Find me something.
> You'd think that something as significant as the total destruction of Egypt's army would have been noticed by someone back then. It certainly would have been noticed by neighboring empires, who would have certainly swooped down on Egypt for an easy picking.


There are tons of websites that are dedicated to informing people of archeological verification of the scriptures. Google it if you don't beleive me.







> Not by anyone with a lick of sense.
> 
> If Moses had written Genesis 36:31: _And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel._, and if Moses dropped out of sight after just before the Hebrews went into the promised land, then how could he have known about "kings that reigned over the children of Israel?"
> 
> Nope, whoever wrote the book of Genesis was around after the time of Solomon, the 2nd king of Israel. Was Moses around then? I don't think so.


Read the verse again. It's saying that they ruled before there was an Israelite king. These were not Israelites -- Esau was Jacob's brother. Jacob's descendants are the children of Israel because Jacob is Israel.







> Because this sort of thing only happens in fiction!!!
> 
> Duh!!


I'm sure the idea comforts you, but beware of what you say. You can bury your head in the sand all you want, but one day you will be judged like the rest of us. 








> I don't know squat about evolution, but, I have heard Richard Dawkins (an expert on evolution) say http://www.planetvids.com/html/Richa...d-Haggard.html that scientists don't assert that organisms popped into existance by chance. Maybe you know of one or two, but from what I understand, the majority of scientists don't make that claim. Evolutionary processes have been verified in labs with animals that reproduce quickly. And pretty much, the only folks who doubt evolutionary theory are fundamentalists who fear that it contradicts their faith.


So if they didn't pop into existence by chance, then how do you think it happened?










> No, I pursue this because it's kinda fun for me. And I don't really have much else to do . . . 
> And it is kinda fun to pop the pumped-up blatherings of fundamentalist bullies who try to frighten people into conversion by scaring them with fictions of eternal damnation . . . 
> 
> Ya, it's all just fiction . . .



Do you know what the unforgiveable sin is?

----------


## alphaman

> That is a missunderstanding of how evolution(in the broad sense of the word as in everything since the big bang) works. 
> Its not by pure chanse like throwing dice. We have a set of natural laws that drives the universe towards complexity. Its inevitable that complex structures evolve. 
> 
> Now who/what made the laws the way they are is a much more important question in my mind and one christians could focuse on without losing face. Attacking evolution is as futile as attacking any other scientific theory. There is not much point in trying to tear down a theory that gets verified each and every day and whos basic principles are completely proven.



No one wants to attack the theory. The problem is that it's taught to our children in school as a fact -- just as you are presenting it here.

Can you show me how the basic principles of macro-evolution are completely proven?

----------


## alphaman

> Originally Posted by Tock
> Ya, that's what the official, orthodox line is. 
> 
> But if you look at the grisly details, the actual history of how the Bible got written and who decided what books were good and which were bogus, and why, well, you'll discover that the official line about authentic authorship isn't all what it's cracked up to be.



This is total crap. Prove it.




> The *vast majority of theologians*  who study the antiquity of Bible writings don't beleive that the Bible is "God-Breathed." They either take it as a body of ethnic writings, rich in metaphors, and not much more. These are the experts. Of course, you'll find some fundamentalist theologians who will swear that this book is "God-Breathed," but they're in the minority. And a small minority it is.


 Show me anything that says what is above. 




> I'll tell you what -- you quoted Timothy 3:16, claiming that all scripture is "God-Breathed." You made this declaration about YOUR book, you prove your point first.


I didn't make this declaration, Paul did -- through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

----------


## Tock

_Tock:
I'll tell you what -- you quoted Timothy 3:16, claiming that all scripture is "God-Breathed." You made this declaration about YOUR book, you prove your point first._ 



> I didn't make this declaration, Paul did -- through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.


Ya, Paul wrote it, but you're saying that you agree with that statement. 

Do you beleive that Timothy 3:16 is "God-Breathed" scripture? If yes, then what verification do you have that it is?

It seems to me that any fool can declare their writing to be "inspired by God." Lunatic hospitals are full of people who do this. And anyone who unquestioningly beleive people who say, "What I write is given by inspiration of God" is a bit off their rocker, too, IMHO.

----------


## Tock

> Do you know what the unforgiveable sin is?


Sure I do. I'm a recovering fundamentalist.

Wanna see me commit "The Unforgivable Sin" right here in front of everybody?
Ok . . . you might want to hold on to your wig and car keys . . .

_Matthew 12:31-32 
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. 

Mark 3:29 
But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. 

Luke 12:10 
But unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.
_

The Holy Ghost of the Christian Bible is a fraud! 

How's that?

----------


## Tock

Tock:
_The Bible writes of talking animals . . . Does that make sense to you?_ 



> So if there's a God, then why is it so hard to believe that he could make animals talk, or the story of Noah's ark.


Tock:
_Because this sort of thing only happens in fiction!!!
Duh!!!_



> I'm sure the idea comforts you, but beware of what you say. You can bury your head in the sand all you want, but one day you will be judged like the rest of us.


And once again, you respond to a challenge to your faith with a warning not to offend some sort of judge. 

It is safe to say that the only place that anyone has ever encounterd talking animals has been in fiction. Period. 
Now, if every now and then an animal could be made to speak coherent sentences with humans, well, I'd say that while unlikely, it would have been at least possible for a talking snake to persuade Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit, and I would agree that a donkey may have warned his owner of danger. But since neither creature poesesses the physiological means to produce speech, I will say that it could not have happened.
I will also say that humans have demonstrated time and time again an eagerness to create ficticious tales of talking animals, and I will say that the accounts of talking creatures in the Bible are no more than additional examples of this type of fiction.


It seems to me that you live in needless fear of inciting the vengence of a wrathful god. Well, the Good News from Tock is that you too can accept a new life of freedom, joy, peace, and happiness that comes from rejecting the foolishness of Christian Fundamentalism, and embrace and utilize the common sense that you were born with, and assert your right to think for yourself.

Ya, that's a lot better than your pitiful message of "You better not offend the Final Judge if you know what's good for you!" Ya, pisss on that BS . . .

Face it, Alphaman -- yours is a religion based on fear. You can choose to either continue living with this tyrant, or reject it as the phantom that it really is, and live a life of freedom. The choice is yours . . . needlessly trembling through the only life you will ever know, or embracing a life of freedom and Reason. 

The choice is yours . . .

----------


## Tock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tock
There is ZERO archeological verification for the Exodus story. None, Nada, Zip, Nothing, -----, 0000000. 

Disagree? Find me something.
You'd think that something as significant as the total destruction of Egypt's army would have been noticed by someone back then. It certainly would have been noticed by neighboring empires, who would have certainly swooped down on Egypt for an easy picking.



> There are tons of websites that are dedicated to informing people of archeological verification of the scriptures. Google it if you don't beleive me.


Name one website, and make a specific reference to something that cites archeological verification for the Exodus story. If there are "tons of websites" as you say, that task should be simple.

Truth is, that task will be impossible, as there is no archeological verification for the Exodus story. None, Nada, Zip, Nothing, -----, 0000000.

----------


## Tock

_Originally Posted by Tock
But if you look at the grisly details, the actual history of how the Bible got written and who decided what books were good and which were bogus, and why, well, you'll discover that the official line about authentic authorship isn't all what it's cracked up to be._ 



> This is total crap. Prove it.


It's _your_ Bible, _you_ are the one who says it is the Word of God.
_You_ prove your point first. I have better things to do than to write out the history of the Christian Bible . . .  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Shang III

could this be the final round?

----------


## Logan13

> It's _your_ Bible, _you_ are the one who says it is the Word of God.
> _You_ prove your point first. I have better things to do than to write out the history of the Christian Bible . . .


Right, you would prefer to re-write the Christian history in order to change it to Adam and Steve.......
You are obviously the one offended by Christians. You are not going to be allowed to just pick at everyone else's assertions, you must come up with your own. Alpha does not seem to be one playing the role of outcast, so why does he have to prove anything?

----------


## alphaman

> could this be the final round?




I see that you've been here for a year, but you must be new to this side if AR -- huh? 

 :LOL:

----------


## alphaman

Tock:

I'm going out of town for Thanksgiving. I'll respond when I get back. The crappy thing is that I'm pretty sure I've addressed the majority of these very issues with you before, but if you forgot I'll tell you again on Sunday/Monday.


BTW -- I'm glad you know where to look in the Bible to find the verses on the unforgiveable sin, but I'm afraid it goes a little deeper than simply stating, "The Holy Spirit is a fictional character." 

Do you know what those verses actually mean?

----------


## Mike Dura

I don't think you're not grasping what I said in that post. Understanding the value of anything written up as "scientific" or "factual" requires a technical understanding of experimental methodology, statistics and a critical attitude in general. 

Sure politicians and lobbyists can support claims based on some research they find but that research has to be scrutinized and understood in the context of the larger body of studies. Any judgement about a given study has to be suspended in lieu of replication and meta-analysis. 

Taking the example of e=mc^2, first of all, such a profound finding would not be submitted for publication in a marginal journal. It would be published in a well known, peer reviewed journal and there would be a subsequent rush to support it with what's called "convergent evidence (diverse ways of supporting that formula)" and replications (studies that repeat the finding). Technically, a theory is never considered true or false. There is just evidence to support it or fail to support it. That's the mentality of the scientific method. 




> so if this source wrote a piece and remarked that e=mc^2, you would not believe it because of the source? That is just stupid, read into the facts regardless of the source. By not doing this you just reveal that your agenda
> means more than the facts.

----------


## Mike Dura

Damn you're good!  :LOL:  




> no matter how hard you try, you can not win...............

----------


## Mike Dura

I don't think that anyone is playing the role of outcast - that's just you're way of couching it. 

I do think that Christians (like "Alpha") have something to prove. They want to prove that their worldview is literally and absolutely true and not just a worldview. That's why "Alpha" made a statement about science backing up the bible. I raised the question, who needs evidence when you've got faith? 

My feeling is, the literal reading of the bible is a tenuous belief and that's why Christians are always "talking" their beliefs, trying to prosyletize others, or supporting their beliefs with "evidence" and testimonials and sometimes even "speaking in tongues." 

You bring up "the outcast." Jesus was considered an outcast. The slaves who followed him were considered outcasts too. 

It was once believed that the world was flat. It was the outcast who thought differently. Great cultural change start with a single man who has to go against convention and resistence but once people catch on culture changes and we call this progress. True power starts with the individual (e.g., the "outcast") not the herd or the masses. We need more outcasts and less Logans. 





> Right, you would prefer to re-write the Christian history in order to change it to Adam and Steve.......
> You are obviously the one offended by Christians. You are not going to be allowed to just pick at everyone else's assertions, you must come up with your own. Alpha does not seem to be one playing the role of outcast, so why does he have to prove anything?

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> No one wants to attack the theory. The problem is that it's taught to our children in school as a fact -- just as you are presenting it here.
> 
> Can you show me how the basic principles of macro-evolution are completely proven?


I cant but talkorigins(A webpage I have posted lots of times but that no creationist so far has tried to debunk  :Big Grin: ) can and just about any evolutionary biologist. They even have examples of speciation. So macroevolution has been observed, not only microevolution.

That evolution happen is a fact, the finer details about the mechanism is what is debated. 

It should be taught like fact just like all other scientific theories  :Thumps Up: 

that nature tends towards complexity is totaly undeniable. The laws of thermodynamics ensure that. Its a comon missconception that increase in entropy means increase in disorder in the way we think of disorder.

----------


## Phreak101

> Tock:
> 
> I'm going out of town for Thanksgiving. I'll respond when I get back. The crappy thing is that I'm pretty sure I've addressed the majority of these very issues with you before, but if you forgot I'll tell you again on Sunday/Monday.
> 
> 
> BTW -- I'm glad you know where to look in the Bible to find the verses on the unforgiveable sin, but I'm afraid it goes a little deeper than simply stating, "The Holy Spirit is a fictional character." 
> 
> Do you know what those verses actually mean?


Alpha, you REALLY need to read the bestselling book "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong. It is a very well thought out and researched book about "God" as we know Him from the three major religions. Some of the history of it all is very eye-opening, especially from the standpoint of scripture...

I hope you'll check it out, you won't regret it.

----------


## Mike Dura

Are you kidding? Christians deny it all the time! And many deny complexity in any regard. Those are the confident ones who believe that everything is clear and black and white and it is just the erudites who "complicate" things. Those damn long-headed folk with their double talk trying to be smart! Ask Logan. He'll tell you all about it. 

that nature tends towards complexity is totaly undeniable.

----------


## Shang III

> I see that you've been here for a year, but you must be new to this side if AR -- huh?


yeah your right, but thats why I love this site, I learn alot about so many different things and opinions and points of view, its great! :7up:

----------


## Tock

> Tock:
> I'm glad you know where to look in the Bible to find the verses on the unforgiveable sin, but I'm afraid it goes a little deeper than simply stating, "The Holy Spirit is a fictional character."


Well then, how would you like me to commit the unforgivable sin?









> Do you know what those verses actually mean?


Everyone seems to have their own take on religious writings . . . what do these verses mean to you?

----------

