Obvious Christian-baiting

[JohnDoe]

so once they attack you and take your land thus you have lost....you can not ever attempt to take your land back?

I am not quite certain what you are trying to ''bait me'' for here....so why don't you get to the point ... tell me what you believe Jesus taught, and we can discuss it from there?

[manu1959]

I am not quite certain what you are trying to ''bate me'' for here....so why don't you get to the point ... tell me what you believe Jesus taught, and we can discuss it from there?

not baiting you....i asked a simple question.....as a follow up that i could only defend myself while i was being attacked....

and in the context of our discussion that would imply once the moors took europe the europeans could not ever take it back much less strike into the middle east...

[nevadamedic]

I am not quite certain what you are trying to ''bate me'' for here....so why don't you get to the point ... tell me what you believe Jesus taught, and we can discuss it from there?

I have never seen Manny bate anyone, he is a lot more mature then that.

[OCA]

So, really, it's just one justification. Society sets the standards. See above.



Nowhere in Biology 101 was it proven that there is an innate natural attraction to the opposite sex at birth.

Again, prove it?



Er...I was responding to YOUR analogy that birds (an animal, just in case you were wondering) fly south for the winter and that is "natural".

So, want to try a different analogy?

Tsk tsk tsk.......muddying and deflecting are poor debating tactics.

My points are crystal clear and as tight as Fort Knox.

Again please try and prove that homosexuality is normal and natural among HUMAN BEINGS.

[Lightning Waltz]

Tsk tsk tsk.......muddying and deflecting are poor debating tactics.

My points are crystal clear and as tight as Fort Knox.

Again please try and prove that homosexuality is normal and natural among HUMAN BEINGS.

The only point that is crystal clear and tight as Fort Knox is the one at the top of your dunce cap. But, because you good enough to FINALLY define your terms, I'll answer your question, based on your terms.

Again, I think your definitions have problems....but, we'll put it to the test.

Normal -- since this is society decided standard. Just as slavery was once deemed socially acceptable, today, gays are not socially acceptable.

Under your definition, gays are not normal. Of course, my response would be, "so what?".

Natural -- I'm still confused on this one. You bring up analogies about birds flying south as natural, but don't like analogies about homosexuality being natural in the animal world, as a whole.

Your definition of "natural" seems to include that people are thinking things and "should know better" than to do what animals do.

So, is "natural" what comes to people through their animal instincts, or is it what they choose to do that doesn't necessarily follow nature? Hard to tell.

You also point to biology of people and make the astounding claim that members of the opposiste sex are attracted to one another at birth (but refuse to back up this claim).

Well, sex wasn't just made for procreation, obviously. So, it's hard to accept your "biology of how people work", argument. And all of your other claims, you haven't backed up.

Frankly, for this one, your definition is so confused that I'm not able to make heads or tails of it. I'm sure that YOU believe that homosexuality isn't natural by your definition...but your definition is so confused, I can't objectively say either way.

[Lightning Waltz]

I think what he is trying to say is that humans and all other animals enjoy sex, and have a desire for sex, for the most part, because we are somehow ''designed'' in this manner so that we procreate. It is not necessarily a concious thought, like: ''Oh boy, let's have sex so we can procreate kind of thing!''.

It is more in line with having orgasms when we have sex, we like it, we want more of it...and for most species, this attraction and enjoyment is with the opposite sex, which keeps our species, and all species... from extinction imo.

Perhaps, but then he states that humans are thinking beings and what is natural isn't necessarily dependant on what animals do.

[JohnDoe]

not baiting you....i asked a simple question.....as a follow up that i could only defend myself while i was being attacked....

and in the context of our discussion that would imply once the moors took europe the europeans could not ever take it back much less strike into the middle east...

I don't know enough about this situation to discuss it with any kind of intelligence. I am certain, besides this one scenario there are many other scenarios that could be brought up too in the "What if...or What about...." stage.

I only know what I know... That Jesus Christ taught us to turn the cheek to someone who strikes us, to walk the extra mile on our own with our adversaries, to love our enemies, to obey our masters if we were slaves, and even the story of the good Samaritan was a story about loving our fellow human beings even if they seem to be our enemies, we are to help them.

This is quite in contrast with many of the Old Testament stories in the past, it seems....?

I honestly don't totally understand these teachings of Jesus...and I find His requests on this subject quite hard to follow as a human being....my automatic reaction to someone slapping me would be to slap them back.

Jesus says NO, to that.... He says that if we don't strike back, and we continue to be civil, even to our enemies, that THEY will turn from their evil ways.

Why?

Jesus indicates that it will be like "burning coals" on their heads if we continue to do what the Man of Peace tells us...not strike back. I guess He is saying that the enemies human conscious will get to them and change them, in to better men, without violence involved?