Religious Beliefs

[Womble]

Of course it's possible. After the first generation ,it wouldn't be conspiracy, would it? It would just be people passing on what they honestly thought was the truth, because they didn't know it was all a lie.

Sure it would be. First off, you'd need to somehow brainwash an entire generation; quite a feat in the ancient times, when they didn't exactly have TV, newspapers and other devices capable of quickly transmitting bovine manure over long distances to thousands of recipients. Then, of course, the question arises- who would lie about such things and to what purpose? The Biblical religion as laid out in the Hebrew Bible doesn't exactly benefit the priests; for example, of all the tribes of Israel, the priestly tribe of Levi was the only one to not receive its own land share in the Land of Israel. Then, of course, there's the question of continuity; those who lied had to transmit their knowledge down the line as well, otherwise what's the point of being the only ones in the know? And then, of course, there's the fact that false beliefs generally do not endure for thousands of years. Unless they contain a hefty dose of truth, they quickly fall apart as their falsehood becomes self-evident. It's the basics of lying

It's perfectly plausible, so don't try and hide behind the "if it's Hollywood it must be false" argument.

If it's Hollywood, it usually IS false.

Seriously, the more I hear this sort of argument, the more convinced I am that modern layman atheism (not all atheism, but the kind most commonly exhibited) has its source in the suspense genre. They are always looking for a plot twist leading to a conspiracy by some sinister upper class group. The other popular fad seems to be an atheist claiming to be a descendant of a long line of cretins who unquestioningly believed every piece of nonsense they were told... while taking offense when I question their own wits

[Womble]

Funny, because the majority of LGBT-people are born to straight people.

But that would be an argument in favor of homosexuality being a matter of nurture rather than nature. If homosexuality is not hereditary, then it is either a "freak of nature" genetic aberration, some kind of prenatal trauma, or is caused by social conditioning.

You cannot change the way your brain works.

That's not what modern sociobehaviorists say. In fact, historically speaking, homosexuality in modern understanding (as opposed to the practice of sodomy) did not really exist until a couple of hundred years ago.

But that debate is a huge can of worms of its own, isn't it?

[FallenAngelII]

But that would be an argument in favor of homosexuality being a matter of nurture rather than nature. If homosexuality is not hereditary, then it is either a "freak of nature" genetic aberration, some kind of prenatal trauma, or is caused by social conditioning.

Why do some people love the taste of apples but loathe the taste or oranges? Because they were born that way. They can learn to tolerate oranges, but if they from birth hate the taste of oranges so much they feel like throwing up, they'll probably not be able to be conditioned into loving oranges.

Not everything you are born with has to be hereditary or genetic. Some people are born with a talent for music even though their parents are tone-deaf. Some people are born with a body made for athletics while their parents are fat.

And how is homosexuality "conditioned", anyway? It's not like there's pink Gaymobiles going around encouraging kids to be gay. Little boys are encouraged to play with cars and be boisterous while girls need to be neat and play with barbie dolls. And the majority of gay people I know knew from an early age that they were "different".

While the straight kids were having crushes on the opposite sex, they either had crushes on the same sex or no crushes at all 'til they finally started getting crushes and then it was only for the same sex.

That's not what modern sociobehaviorists say. In fact, historically speaking, homosexuality in modern understanding (as opposed to the practice of sodomy) did not really exist until a couple of hundred years ago.

But that debate is a huge can of worms of its own, isn't it?

Generally speaking, until a coupl of hundred years ago, women couldn't inherit their husbands and weren't allowed to do "men's work". Women were considered the property of Men, at first of their fathers and then, at their weddings, ownership is passed onto their husbands.

Women were considered fragile and perfect for housework while it was "a man's job" to do this and that. Doesn't mean that the woman body and psyche was born to do said things and that it's somehow mutated into wanting and being able to do other things with time.

You know what, when the world around you says "Homosexuality is wrong! It goes against nature!" and there are no gay rights, chances are, a lot of people will either be deeply closeted or delude themselves into thinking they're straight because "it's better that way".

While in the past, before the Christians took over the Western World and indoctrined its populus with the message of hatred for homosexuality, the world didn't really condemn homosexuality as a mortal sin (for the most part), it's not like it was actively encouraged. Way back, it was really important to have kids... especially sons. Man + Woman = Kid = Good = Go get yourself a wife/husband and give me some grandchildren! Heck, women well into oldage without husbands were considered failures as human beings!

In today's society, homosexuality isn't encouraged. No one goes around saying "I hope my kid is gay. It'd be so great!". But it's no longer considered a mortal sin by the majority and we no longer have to fear people hunting us down with pitchforks or some other crap. So it's easier to "be gay" nowadays. Back when, I might've felt differently and deluded myself into thinking I'm straight since it would've made by life a lot easier.

Funny how you claim this and that. Back it up with sources. I seem to remember how the old Ancient Greeks had documented homosexuality and not just in the way of Pederastry but in the way of "Grown Men Who Are In A Monogamous Relationship Together"-kind of way. The Spartans (I think) even had a special saying going something like "No soldier is a more fearsome soldier than one who fights side by side with his (romantic) partner" in reference to gay couples in the Greek armies and how they'd fight twice as hard if they wanted victory not only for themselves and their country but also their loved one fighting by their side. Heck, the old Greeks and Romans had bisexual gods. The Catholic Church and old Pagans used to wed gay couples as well.

Now that would be kinda hard to do if homosexuality didn't actually exist "until a couple of hundred years ago".

[Womble]

Why do some people love the taste of apples but loathe the taste or oranges? Because they were born that way. They can learn to tolerate oranges, but if they from birth hate the taste of oranges so much they feel like throwing up, they'll probably not be able to be conditioned into loving oranges.

Nonsense. There is such a thing as acquired taste. I hated ice cream as a little kid; I love it now, not tolerate it.

Not everything you are born with has to be hereditary or genetic. Some people are born with a talent for music even though their parents are tone-deaf. Some people are born with a body made for athletics while their parents are fat.

Both of those are environmental, if not entirely than to a large degree. "Fat" is certainly an acquired condition. As for talent, it's a somewhat complex matter, but talent often IS hereditary.

Generally speaking, until a coupl of hundred years ago, women couldn't inherit their husbands and weren't allowed to do "men's work". Women were considered the property of Men, at first of their fathers and then, at their weddings, ownership is passed onto their husbands.

Women were considered fragile and perfect for housework while it was "a man's job" to do this and that. Doesn't mean that the woman body and psyche was born to do said things and that it's somehow mutated into wanting and being able to do other things with time.

You know what, when the world around you says "Homosexuality is wrong! It goes against nature!" and there are no gay rights, chances are, a lot of people will either be deeply closeted or delude themselves into thinking they're straight because "it's better that way".

Funny you should assume denying that homosexuality is inborn to necessarily be a condemnation. It doesn't have to be. In fact, I find that "we're born this way" is the weakest argument one can offer in defence of gay rights. It's an argument from handicap, a plea for mercy for those who can't help it, poor wretched things that they are. It groups the homosexuals with the crippled and the mentally retarded. Wouldn't it be a lot more dignified and powerful a position to stand up and say "yes, it's a choice, I have the right to live my life the way I please and I expect you to respect my choices"?

Funny how you claim this and that. Back it up with sources. I seem to remember how the old Ancient Greeks had documented homosexuality and not just in the way of Pederastry but in the way of "Grown Men Who Are In A Monogamous Relationship Together"-kind of way. The Spartans (I think) even had a special saying going something like "No soldier is a more fearsome soldier than one who fights side by side with his (romantic) partner" in reference to gay couples in the Greek armies and how they'd fight twice as hard if they wanted victory not only for themselves and their country but also their loved one fighting by their side. Heck, the old Greeks and Romans had gay and bisexuals gods. The Catholic Church and old Pagans used to wed gay couples as well.

Funny you should bring it up, because Ancient Greece and Rome are precisely the examples of social homosexuality, homosexuality as a custom, an ideology and at times as a mandatory requirement. Homosexual vs. heterosexual dichotomy simply did not exist at the time. The quote about military homosexuality that you bring up was not a mere saying, it was a policy of morale boosting and enhancing the male bonding within the army. Greek armies, in fact, often maintained elite units where being in a pederastic relationship was a membership requirement. Adult-on-adult homosexual relationships were seen as extremely problematic even back then, however; they existed, often as a continuation of a pederastic relationship, and some prominent examples are known- but they were rare, unpopular and often condemned.

Now that would be kinda hard to do if homosexuality didn't actually exist "until a couple of hundred years ago".

I said homosexuality in the modern sense. I'll clarify further; homosexuality as a separate sexual identity did not exist until a couple of hundred years ago. The heteresexual vs. homosexual dichotomy is a modern social construct.

[Ltcolshepjumper]

POST 3


That is actually a lot more accurate than you may realize.

The Genesis creation account is one of two things:

A- Older than the other local myths in that it is far simpler and far more "down to earth" "physical" and not filled with strange happenings and elaborate methods of creation, like Marduk killing Tiamet, and making the universe out of her insides. And it would thus have been a far older and better preserved creation account.

Or.

B- It is an intentional attack on the other beliefs. All of the religions, around the Jews and the Jew's ancestors, had Sun gods and Moon gods and thought the stars were all gods, and they had God's fighting chaos.
In Genesis, God made everything. God didn't even give the sun and moon or stars proper names but called them "that bigger light, and that smaller light, and all them tiny lights".
This was terribly insulting to all the religions around them! Further, God creates the chaos, He isn't at war with it, it isn't some coequal entity. He creates the chaos and forms the essense of His creation into everything that we see around us. Everything we see is thus made from that initial "stuff" He created.
This was also a slap in the face to the religions around them.

So either way Genesis was not "just another" creation myth.
It was either a much older and preserved creation story, thus making it very important from a scholarly standpoint- or it is an intentional attack on the ideas of everyone around them-also making it very important from a historical scholarly standpoint.

There is a third option also:
C- It is both an older account and used in Genesis as an intentional attack on the religions around the Jewish Abrahamites. This is the view I hold, and the view held by most Biblical Christians.


There is evidence that a huge flood occured early in human history before humans diverged.
Just one evidence is the existece of flood stories in most cultures accross the world including many where floods are rare or common. Both being environments where such a story wouldn't be that important.

Second: That second point is a misconception.

We do not believe the Ark housed 2 of every land species known to man.

Rather, we believe that the Ark would have housed 2 (actually, 7 of every clean animal [ the minority of animals] was said to have been taken, 3 pairs and a 7th for sacrifice) of every kind of land animal that breathed through the nostriles-and couldn't survive a massive flood.

This would include 2 of 1 kind of archetypical cat.
This would include 2 of 1 kind of archetypical dog.
This would include 2 of 1 kind of archetypical mammoth or elephant.
This would include 2 of 1 kind of archetypical mouse/rat.
Ect.

They wouldn't have to be fullgrown adults either-much smaller adolescent animals would surfice for most.

That is a heck of a lot less than you are asserting.


Uh, what?
Translating from one language to the other is precarious.

That is why Christians resort to the Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic to settle disputes.


The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and parts in Aramaic.
Then it was translated into Greek.
Our Bibles are based on the Hebrew and Aramaic.


Of course it is easy to interpret.
Everything in existence can be interpreted differently.

God could be standing in front of us right now stating exactly what He means and people would misinterpret Him.

The Bible's reliability is in many other things. Though it was written by dozens of different people spanning every genre of writin- it easily harmonizes and flows together very easily.
This is unlike the many other religious texts, and any other set of works written by people based on the same premise throughout history-and included together.
Even the Qo'ran, which was written by one man (Mohamed), flows together rather poorly-at least in English. If anyone hear is familiar with the Arabic version, correct me if I am wrong.

As for interpretations:
Most are invalid.

There is a principle in Biblical Interpretaion, and it has equatable practices in every other field dealing with literature, called exegesis.

Exegesis is the art of taking out of a body of text what is meant in relation to the context, the culture it was written in, the people it was written by and their backgrounds, ect ect ect.

This is rarely followed by most who interpret the Bible,
or any text for that matter.

Following exegetical rules eliminates the vast majority of disagreements among reasonable and people who are not dedicated to their views beyond reason.


Interestingly the Bible never hides this fact.

One point that leads to my belief in the accuracy of the Bible is that the Jews portrayed their own history accurately.

We know this because of how poorly they portray themselves.
They are constantly screweing up, constantly breaking the law, the "holy" "Godly" patriarchs themselves are sinning and screwed up.

David was a murderer and adulterer and is portrayed honestly as such.
David wasn't put to death like He should have.

We know that the Old Testament was not written by Kings to make themselves powerful because even then in the foundation of the line of Kings, they are breaking God's commands. And God even says that they are rejecting Him by demanding a Kingdom.

These are not the works of latter people forging or changing their own history for beneficial gain.

If anything these would be seen as propoganda against the Jews not the Historical biography of the Jewish people!

But they were written by the Jews. They were the Jewish scriptures.

If anything, we know they are at least generally accurate History.

ITA. And, to be honest, what is a naturalistic view anyway? What is natural? IMO, it's more foolish to believe that something came from nothing by itself, than to believe something cam from nothing by the hand of an eternal, divine being. Everything supports the concept of a god. It's pride and irresponsibility that started the whole notion of a universe without God anyway. Because if God did exist, and there was an absolute, constant moral standard, we would have to be accoutnable for our actions and decisions. On top of that, we wouldn't be in control. That is what a lot of people can't seem to get. The Bible is very accurate. Historically and geographically.

[SG-25CSAR]

I had a Gay friend in High School. He respected my Faith, and I respected his choice. He knew where I stand on the subject, jet he stayed my friend. What is wrong with that? Christians, True Christians are supposed to be Lights in darkness. Christ ate with sinners, not cause he was one, but cause a Doctor is needed buy the sick not the Healthy. We had a Good Friendship. We graduated and like many other group of friends in High School we parted our ways.
What is wrong with that? He was not Intolerant of my Religion, He respected it and we got along. What is wrong with that?


Not Spoilers just a Response to FAII. I was Writing it when I noticed that some points have been addressed by Womble. So Edited it. Read if you wish.

Spoiler:

Why do some people love the taste of apples but loathe the taste or oranges? Because they were born that way. They can learn to tolerate oranges, but if they from birth hate the taste of oranges so much they feel like throwing up, they'll probably not be able to be conditioned into loving oranges.

um...no.
No one is Born one way or the other. We learn things. Human Babies Learn everything they do minus some necessary things like feeding. I like Apples but I Hated a Latin fruit called, in spanish, Chayote. Why? cause I didn't eat any as a toddler and when I was 6 I tried it for the first time. It tasted unlike anything I ever had and thus hated it. Now, I am starting to like it. So no, I am Living proof that we are not born to like or not like something.

Not everything you are born with has to be hereditary or genetic. Some people are born with a talent for music even though their parents are tone-deaf. Some people are born with a body made for athletics while their parents are fat.

That's cause of Resisive and Dominant genes. Basic High School Biology.

And how is homosexuality "conditioned", anyway? It's not like there's pink Gaymobiles going around encouraging kids to be gay. Little boys are encouraged to play with cars and be boisterous while girls need to be neat and play with barbie dolls. And the majority of gay people I know knew from an early age that they were "different".

Who encourages old men to "Like" children? But it is there. So they must be born that way as well.

While the straight kids were having crushes on the opposite sex, they either had crushes on the same sex or no crushes at all 'til they finally started getting crushes and then it was only for the same sex.

That could debated
Seeing your parents is an atoumatic imprent in how you should grow up to be like. Some times a Child desires to not be like them and never think about Girls. Others Notice their Parents and desire to be like them and start Talking to Girls.

Generally speaking, until a coupl of hundred years ago, women couldn't inherit their husbands and weren't allowed to do "men's work". Women were considered the property of Men, at first of their fathers and then, at their weddings, ownership is passed onto their husbands.

yes, we all know this.

Women were considered fragile and perfect for housework while it was "a man's job" to do this and that. Doesn't mean that the woman body and psyche was born to do said things and that it's somehow mutated into wanting and being able to do other things with time.

If you mean Strength, Genetically Male Muscle mass is larger than Female Muscle mass.

You know what, when the world around you says "Homosexuality is wrong! It goes against nature!" and there are no gay rights,

What are gay rights? Are thier any "Straight only Restaurants". Do gay people have to go to the back of the Bus when a Straight dude gets on?
Are Gay people prevented to vote by silly Suthern laws? Do Black err, I mean Gay People get sent to rundown schools while Striahts go to modern schools?

chances are, a lot of people will either be deeply closeted or delude themselves into thinking they're straight because "it's better that way".

Matter of opinion.

While in the past, before the Christians took over the Western World and indoctrined its populus with the message of hatred for homosexuality, the world didn't really condemn homosexuality as a mortal sin

Read the Bible, Most stuff about gays are found in the Old Testament. It was God's people who started it.

(for the most part), it's not like it was actively encouraged. Way back, it was really important to have kids... especially sons. Man + Woman = Kid = Good = Go get yourself a wife/husband and give me some grandchildren! Heck, women well into oldage without husbands were considered failures as human beings!

In India Widows are considered trash and a burden. They are to be sent off to kill them selves. In Western Religions that is a sin. Widows are considered closer to God and are to be respected and even helped.

In today's society, homosexuality isn't encouraged. No one goes around saying "I hope my kid is gay. It'd be so great!". But it's no longer considered a mortal sin by the majority and we no longer have to fear people hunting us down with pitchforks or some other crap.

Or Get lynched or have your leader Jessie Jackson killed, oh wait thats Black people...Never mind.

Funny how you claim this and that. Back it up with sources. I seem to remember how the old Ancient Greeks had documented homosexuality and not just in the way of Pederastry but in the way of "Grown Men Who Are In A Monogamous Relationship Together"-kind of way. The Spartans (I think) even had a special saying going something like "No soldier is a more fearsome soldier than one who fights side by side with his (romantic) partner" in reference to gay couples in the Greek armies and how they'd fight twice as hard if they wanted victory not only for themselves and their country but also their loved one fighting by their side. Heck, the old Greeks and Romans had bisexual gods. The Catholic Church and old Pagans used to wed gay couples as well.

The Catholic church does a lot of things. That's why I am Protesting it. I am a Protestant. The bible describes Homosexual acts as a Pagan act so of course it is OK with Pagans.

Hate the Sin Love the sinner.
Just cause you Believe that bing Homosexual is wrong it doesn't make you a Homophobe. In the USA, Mexico, and Canada there lies a basic right, Freedom of Religion. The Right to Believe. Saying that I am immoral or that anyone who shares a belief is immoral is a very ignorant intolerant thing to do.
Gay rights? What about Religious rights? Or shall we forget that civil rights means that all get treated Equally.
Anyone has the right to be racist, as long as they don't act on it. Who are we to judge them for their Belief? Let God judge them, and if they are guilty then they will be punished. I had a Racist Friend, He however never acted on those beliefs He even made of friend that belonged to the very group he is racist with.

[jenks]

Gaymobiles.

[Gate-builder]

I have no problem if people want to believe in the bible, or in any kind of religion, but in my opinion I dont understand how people can believe that the bible is such an accurate portryal of past events. For starters nobody actually knows for sure who wrote it, only that it was written thousands of years ago. Secondly some of the stories in the bible are clearly just pure fantasy so maybe its possible that the whole lot is just made up. Because it was written so long ago I don't think we will ever know

[FallenAngelII]

Nonsense. There is such a thing as acquired taste. I hated ice cream as a little kid; I love it now, not tolerate it.

And then there's such a thing as brain chemistry. My brain won't let me eat certain things without feeling really ill. It's not that I just don't like them, I'll feelp physically ill (on the verge of throwing up). It's not an allergy or a medical condition. I just can't eat that crap because it tastes too vile for me and no matter how much my parents tried to condition me, it stayed the same.

Both of those are environmental, if not entirely than to a large degree. "Fat" is certainly an acquired condition. As for talent, it's a somewhat complex matter, but talent often IS hereditary.

Obesity can very much be genetic. Talent can be hereditary but doesn't have to be, just like intelligence doesn't have to be genetic. Just because someone grows up to have an IQ of 200 doesn't mean their parents couldn't have have average or even below-average IQ.

Funny you should assume denying that homosexuality is inborn to necessarily be a condemnation. It doesn't have to be. In fact, I find that "we're born this way" is the weakest argument one can offer in defence of gay rights. It's an argument from handicap, a plea for mercy for those who can't help it, poor wretched things that they are. It groups the homosexuals with the crippled and the mentally retarded. Wouldn't it be a lot more dignified and powerful a position to stand up and say "yes, it's a choice, I have the right to live my life the way I please and I expect you to respect my choices"?

Yes, we're grouping ourselves with the cripples because we were born this way. I'm Asian. I was born that way. Asians much also be of the same wretched part as those really pathetic crippled.

In one single paragraph, you managed to insult two large groups of people.

It's not a choice. Why would anyone choose to be a homosexual when it's such a taboo, even today? Why would anyone choose to be a homosexual in, say, Saudi Arabia where you get stoned to death for it? Because it's fun?

Funny you should bring it up, because Ancient Greece and Rome are precisely the examples of social homosexuality, homosexuality as a custom, an ideology and at times as a mandatory requirement. Homosexual vs. heterosexual dichotomy simply did not exist at the time. The quote about military homosexuality that you bring up was not a mere saying, it was a policy of morale boosting and enhancing the male bonding within the army. Greek armies, in fact, often maintained elite units where being in a pederastic relationship was a membership requirement. Adult-on-adult homosexual relationships were seen as extremely problematic even back then, however; they existed, often as a continuation of a pederastic relationship, and some prominent examples are known- but they were rare, unpopular and often condemned.

Funny how you ignored the part about bisexual gods. I believe Apollo fell in love with Adonis (among other things). Obviously it was just divine pederasty.

While pederastry was a part of the Greek and Roman cultures, it did not constitute all of the "gayness" of said cultures.

Not to mention the fact that not all of the drawings of homosexual practices depict a man and a boy. Some depict adults of the same age.

Besides, I never said that the Greeks and Romans didn't practice social homosexuality. I made quite a big deal about having gay sex does not make you gay. However, the fact that they thought it was fun does not make it a choice or mean there weren't Ancient Greek 100% gays.

Famous Greek and Roman bisexuals include Caesar and Alexander the Great whose romances were not pederastic.

I said homosexuality in the modern sense. I'll clarify further; homosexuality as a separate sexual identity did not exist until a couple of hundred years ago. The heteresexual vs. homosexual dichotomy is a modern social construct.

You know why? Because maybe 'til a couple of hundred years ago, no one had thought to classify it as a sexuality instead of "that vile thing you should stone them for".

It's obvious the "thing" has existed for millennia, though. Bisexual gods, the Bible condemning such acts, etc.

Where are these sources I wanted you to cite to prove your stance. You keep claiming this and that ("modern sociobehaviorists").

[Womble]

And then there's such a thing as brain chemistry. My brain won't let me eat certain things without feeling really ill. It's not that I just don't like them, I'll feelp physically ill (on the verge of throwing up). It's not an allergy or a medical condition. I just can't eat that crap because it tastes too vile for me and no matter how much my parents tried to condition me, it stayed the same.

That's certainly not genetic. It's a form of phobia. At some point very early in your life you had a bad experience somehow (not necessarily directly) associated with that food or possibly just decided (subconsciously) based on aesthetic characteristics such as the look and the smell that this food can't possibly taste well, and now trying to eat it gives you a brain freeze.

Obesity can very much be genetic.

No it can't. Inclination to obesity can be genetic, but the condition itself is environmentally acquired and controllable.

Talent can be hereditary but doesn't have to be, just like intelligence doesn't have to be genetic. Just because someone grows up to have an IQ of 200 doesn't mean their parents couldn't have have average or even below-average IQ.

Yes, we're grouping ourselves with the cripples because we were born this way. I'm Asian. I was born that way. Asians much also be of the same wretched part as those really pathetic crippled.

In one single paragraph, you managed to insult two large groups of people.

If that's how you get insulted, you must live a pretty sour life, with way too many people to be angry at.

Homosexuality is not a skin color or a nose shape. It's a behavioral characteristic. The Black and the Asians never put forth the "we're born this way, and we can't change it" as an argument in their struggle for equal rights. You know why? Because it's an argument for tolerance of a flaw and not for acceptance of their identity on equal terms. The corollary from this argument suggests that the legitimacy of your claim is founded on your inability to change, and if a way is found to change your skin color from black to white, it will render the Black people's claim to equality null and void.

So you come to a homophobe saying "I want to be treated as equal because homosexuality is in the genes." "Wait a minute," says the homophobe, "What equality? You're ill, you poor thing. Your genes are broken. We'll just need to isolate that gene and develop a suitable therapy, and you'll be a nice normal heterosexual fellow again in no time."

Do you still not see the problem?

It's not a choice. Why would anyone choose to be a homosexual when it's such a taboo, even today? Why would anyone choose to be a homosexual in, say, Saudi Arabia where you get stoned to death for it? Because it's fun?

Because it's fun. There are always people for whom cheating death on a daily basis is fun. Because it's an edgy subversive thing to do that makes you look like a brave rebel against the machine. Because it's a kind of a semi-secret upperclass fashion thing (as it was among the nobles in the Medieval Christian Europe). Because in a sexually restrictive society where young men and women are prohibited from having contact until marriage, a young man in the age of raging hormones who never had a chance to touch a woman might as well focus his sexual attention on that which is available. Because in a sexually restrictive society which doesn't allow men and women to mingle and holds premarital sex to be a capital offense, a homosexual affair is far easier concealed than a heterosexual one. Lots of reasons, really.

Funny how you ignored the part about bisexual gods. I believe Apollo fell in love with Adonis (among other things). Obviously it was just divine pederasty.

Why yes, of course it was. Social homosexuality was such an integral part of the Greek social order that it would have been bizzare were it not reflected in their folklore. Apollo was the educator god, god of truth, medicine, arts and athletic sports- and therefore, in accordance with the Greek life's realities, had to be the quintessential erastes, who went from one pederastic relationship to another. All his male lovers were young human boys.

While pederastry was a part of the Greek and Roman cultures, it did not constitute all of the "gayness" of said cultures.

There was no such thing as "gayness" at the time. Look at the same Greek gods- there wasn't a single one of them that slept only, or even predominantly, with men. They were all skirt chasers with an occasional, usually pederastic, homosexual contact.

Not to mention the fact that not all of the drawings of homosexual practices depict a man and a boy. Some depict adults of the same age.

Like I said, homosexual acts did happen- but open homosexual relationships between adults were generally scorned. Greek literature is full of insults against passive homosexual adults, with Aristophanes' comedies being best known for it. Most of the adult-on-adult homosexual relationships that did take place were basically extended pederastic relationships.

Besides, I never said that the Greeks and Romans didn't practice social homosexuality. I made quite a big deal about having gay sex does not make you gay. However, the fact that they thought it was fun does not make it a choice or mean there weren't Ancient Greek 100% gays.

In and of itself, it doesn't. It does, however, raise the question of how one separates the two.

Famous Greek and Roman bisexuals include Caesar and Alexander the Great whose romances were not pederastic.

Again, bisexuals. Which is our modern term that attempts to work around the modern gay vs. straight dichotomy which at the time simply didn't exist. To prove that homosexuality is pre-programmed genetically, you'll need to give me an example of a prominent ancient Greek homosexual- someone who only ever slept with men.

You know why? Because maybe 'til a couple of hundred years ago, no one had thought to classify it as a sexuality instead of "that vile thing you should stone them for".

No, it's because 'till a couple of hundred years ago no one had thought of being attracted to men and to women as being mutually exclusive.

Where are these sources I wanted you to cite to prove your stance. You keep claiming this and that ("modern sociobehaviorists").

Google "homosexuality nature vs. nurture" or the Wiki entry on homosexuality, you'll get some nice overviews of the general debate on the subject. Pay attention to the mentions of Jean Foucault. The notion of innate bisexuality goes back to Freud and to the Kinsey reports.

[FallenAngelII]

I ignored much of your latest post because I found it quite insulting to "my people".

Freud was a nutbag who's since been discredited and many psychologists today reject his "teachings". This was the guy who claimed that if you at any time dreamed about drawers, it was really just your subconscious masquing that you were really dreaming about women's boobies.

The Kinsey repor was and still is contested from all sides. And it's just one report. According to Wikipedia and Google, Jean Foucault was a physicist who had nothing to do with "homosexual studies".

And why should I have to Google myself to studies and proofs you claim exist? Show me multiple credible sources where people have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a matter of nurture.

And as a matter of fact, I did read the Wikipedia article on Homosexuality. Nowhere does it say that it's been proved that homosexuality is a matter of nurture. In fact, it specifically says that while the debate rages on, studies show a lot of things, like how the majority of homosexuals discovered they were different at a very early age.

So unless you're saying parents and society nurtured them into gayness at a very early age... and how come kids of the same parents usually aren't gay? It's quite unusual to find two gay (or at least bisexual) kids in the same family. I guess they were just nurtured the wrong way.

And I guess the animal kingdom nurtures it young to be gay as well since there are gay animals.

[MechaThor]

This isn't meant to be a theological debate, but go ahead if you want to. I was at work today and for some reason or other a thought popped into my head: If you were involved with the Stargate program and discovered that an extremely advanced race of aliens, not too dissimilar from us physiologically, which I suppose is debateable, seeded life on here on Earth, and the galaxy(s) for that matter, would that alter your belief in God, whichever one that may be?

Also, after making this discovery would you be able to do your job effectively.

Personally, I would have no problem with it. I have never been the most faith driven individual, but I do respect that many are, more power to you. It has also been an idea I have had for a while, that we are a big alien experiment and they like to mess with us.

Have a nice day, now I need to put my tinfoil hat back on so they can't read my thoughts.

I am not religious and belive in no actual god (other than the concept of one as a mental barrier to help use make sense of what we do not understand). So for me finding out that aliens played and created are modern regligious system and that there are god like aliens out their would be a relief.
For me finding out that Aliens are real would not only be the best day ever (even if they wanted to kill us all, it would be cool to finally have an answer to are we alone). Seeing a real alien would support my idea that their is no god. UNLESS the Alien turns around and gives me a Bible identical to ours, or other Earth religon book. That would make me change my mind about god. However i doudt that would be true. They may have their own religious views or as a culture have moved past it.

If i may. This is how i view religion (do noy read if you will find it offensive but is a free internet and i have a right to say what i belive.)
To me religion on this planet makes no sense. For a start their are TOO many for any 1 to be right, maybe they all come from the same concept but have all gottern twisted and out of shape. But i think its just an almost genetic part of Human life inwhich we create these stories out of trying to exsplain what we do not know and out of are own disire or a greater and meaningfull life.

What i also don't get is how religions can just come and go, Norse, Greek and egyptian reglion was around long b4 christianity. And would have been treated as the truth, but due to greater understanding of how the world works these relions where abandonded for ones that make more sense and relate more to the current world around the people, like christianity. This also happened b4 when the stone age relions about the Sun and moon where changed for more complex ones and so on. There4 i belive eventually all current religion will and are suffer the same effect. When for exsample christianity was invented it made alot more sense to the people of the time and a more developed world. But now as we developed futher, with new facts to dig away at its core. Like if God created man then what about millions of years of evoultion? adam and eve would be have to of interbred, Where was the dinosaurs? other planets and galaxies whats their meaning?, Humans evolved from apes not created in 7 days, theirs no records of a near exstinction global flood, also how can one boat fit all 2 kinds of animal? some animals Humans never even knew about at the time and even so 2 would again mean interbreeding, people can't walk on water!
This is why people are now turning to more "up to date" religions like more spritual based one to escape the stress of current dayily life.
There4 i am excited about what an advanced alien race might belive or not. Will i be right or wrong? Hopefully i can find out in my lifetime as that would be cool.

Thank you

[Womble]

I ignored much of your latest post because I found it quite insulting to "my people".

Try reading it again, with your brain activated. I am completely at a loss why you would find it insulting.

Freud was a nutbag who's since been discredited and many psychologists today reject his "teachings". This was the guy who claimed that if you at any time dreamed about drawers, it was really just your subconscious masquing that you were really dreaming about women's boobies.

The Kinsey repor was and still is contested from all sides. And it's just one report.

I am not saying they offered a definitive proof. Just pointing out the roots of the idea.

According to Wikipedia and Google, Jean Foucault was a physicist who had nothing to do with "homosexual studies".

Apologies, I may have confused between him and Michel Foucault. Them Frenchmen are all alike

And why should I have to Google myself to studies and proofs you claim exist? Show me multiple credible sources where people have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a matter of nurture.

Frankly, I don't consider the entire debate to be even remotely relevant to the issue of gay rights
Show me multiple credible sources where people have come to the convlusion that homosexuality is a matter of nature alone. In the meanwhile, there's this report refuting the 1993 "gay gene" study:

...Our data does not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation," they concluded.

It doesn't entirely rule out the possibility of a "gay gene" being elsewhere, but it goes to show that there's currently no proof to there being one.

I'll try to dig out more later when I'm back from work. Been a long while since my last Big Debate on the subject, and most of the worthwhile articles I used to refer to appear either offline or archived.

And as a matter of fact, I did read the Wikipedia article on Homosexuality. Nowhere does it say that it's been proved that homosexuality is a matter of nurture. In fact, it specifically says that while the debate rages on, studies show a lot of things, like how the majority of homosexuals discovered they were different at a very early age.

But the debate rages on, doesn't it? Meaning that conclusive evidence in favor of "nature" there isn't. In fact, the article rather prominently features the following quotes:

The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated, "Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."[71] The American Psychological Association has stated that "there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people". However, it states that for most people, sexual orientation is determined at an early age.[72]
This suggests that homosexuality is not rigidly fixed in genetics; it is at least in part environmentally caused and therefore environmentally controllable.

So unless you're saying parents and society nurtured them into gayness at a very early age... and how come kids of the same parents usually aren't gay? It's quite unusual to find two gay (or at least bisexual) kids in the same family. I guess they were just nurtured the wrong way.

And I guess the animal kingdom nurtures it young to be gay as well since there are gay animals.

Actually this is largely how things are, except that you are using too narrow a definition of "nurture". If you extend it to incorporate any post-birth influences, whether intentional, subconscious or accidental, your above description more or less fits.

[FallenAngelII]

I have never once claimed homosexuality is genetic. I have actually refuted this idea. It's not genetic or a mutation just because you're born with it.

It's also not a conditioned effect that your body can't handle certain kinds of foods. Brain chemistry. Read up on it. Just because I can't handle eating licorice does not mean I had a traumatic incident (because I didn't) involving it nor does it mean that I'm allergic to it.

[Ltcolshepjumper]

It's a choice. Simple as that. ( although I have a personal belief about it, I won't say it here)