Religion is man-made, not God-made and beware only, the Religious Blind Mice

First topic message reminder :

This has always been my problem with it.

I have no problem with religion as it brings people together, in a family-type unit and they pray to their "father".

Religion doesn't destroy people or lives anymore than any other inanimate object does, until it gets in the wrong hands. People can find comfort in coming together and reading from their books; it's a community after all.

It only goes wrong when people become fanatical and so tunnel-visioned that they can't see beyond their scripts and their faith. When they cast God as in imposing force and a great dictator they do their own "father" an injustice.

They become religious blind mice.

Why do people have to question what other's believe? If a human wants to hold dear, some words that warm his soul and then share them with others who want to fill their souls with those words like a warm blanket, then who are we to judge?

As long as the religious who walk on the earth know that religion was made as a comfort club for the like-minded, what is the harm?


God didn't make religion. He doesn't need worship or promises or words set in stone to be carried like a boulder on your shoulder. He doesn't need undying love or the loyalty of a man acting like a lovesick new puppy.
He doesn't need any more blind mice.
He doesn't need, full-stop.

If he created you he wants you to be you. A you, that you created and sculpted and gave birth to. He trusts you to make the right choices and use the free will that he gave you to live and walk the path you choose.


God doesn't make religion; man makes religion in his own image.

Here's my poem (turned into a rock song) about religion and religious blind mice:

What was the fuss all about?
Couldn't help but notice there was nothing about you
A big fat ego in an empty shell
You blow your own trumpet and you blow it well
A little red book clutched to your heart, emphasising your love of God
Over and over and over

You ain't unique and you ain't exceptional
Speaking in tongues try and work a miracle
Walk on water then turn it to wine
Script that tries to twist your mind
Robots are what you got, well here's a sheep that strayed the flock
Over and over and over

Your words are candy floss they don't fill me up and I've had enough now
Back to the sidelines, get back to the sidelines
Your words are candyfloss, get on your cross coz I've had enough now
Oh I've had enough now...


I think God would like it

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


That is a simplified way of looking at this. Most of the Protestant Northern Irish are descended from Scots and English and committed devastation, bloodshed etc to Ireland, based off classing the Catholics as heretics for their faith. The religion also allows the opposing force to be seen condemned from a belief their interpretation of Christianity is wrong. This allows you to dehumanize your enemy. I agree it is far more sectarian, but religion certainly plays a part

I think that saying it was all religion is too simplistic a way of looking at it.

of course it is, it's the same as saying the crusades were God's fault, the crusades were all about, wealth , property and personal fame...

Again it does not matter HF, all your argument is on is that we see religious violence still today. Many Muslims are literal believers, but they vary on the political view point on their faith, based on teachings. When Christianity ruled, we saw many of the same problems, with countless religious wars. Thankfully most Christians are not literal believers and of those that are less are radical right Christians.

Have a good even people

Belatucadros wrote:Again it does not matter HF, all your argument is on is that we see religious violence still today. Many Muslims are literal believers, but they vary on the political view point on their faith, based on teachings. When Christianity ruled, we saw many of the same problems, with countless religious wars. Thankfully most Christians are not literal believers and of those that are less are radical right Christians.

we do not see Christian violence today that is the whole thing, e see Muslims all the time because their religion calls them to it, that is why there is no extreme Muslims just those ho live true to the koran which will and must kill and those who do not follow the koran which are not Muslims at all..

we did not see religious wars we saw people shouting God wills it just so they can go to war and get others to follow..

In years to come will we stop using oil because it caused wars or will we realise greed caused it ...

Sabra and Shatila massacre in Lebanon

Maronite Christian militias perpetrated the Karantina and Tel al-Zaatar massacres of Palestinians and Lebanese Muslims during Lebanon's 1975–1990 civil war. The 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre, which targeted unarmed Palestinian refugees for rape and murder, was considered to be genocide by the United Nations General Assembly.[33] A British photographer present during the incident said that "People who committed the acts of murder that I saw that day were wearing [crucifixes] and were calling themselves Christians."[34] After the end of the civil war, Christian militias refused to disband, concentrating in the Israeli-occupied south of the country, where they terrorized Muslim and Druze villages and forcefully recruited men and boys from those communities into their groups.[35]
Northern Ireland paramilitaries

The Troubles in Northern Ireland are widely seen as an ethno-nationalist conflict that was not religious in nature.[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] Some experts who subscribe to this view argue that religion was also a motivating factor, with Philip Purpura calling it an "overlap" between religious terrorism and ethnic/nationalist terrorism,[50][51][52] a characterization that is at odds with multiple other analysts.[37][38][45][46][53][54][55]

The aims of republican paramilitary organisations such as the Irish Republican Army (IRA) were political: to force British troops out of Northern Ireland and bring about a United Ireland.[56][57] Sociology professor Steve Bruce has said that, with the exception of three small splinter groups, loyalist terrorist organisations were not motivated by Protestant evangelical teaching.[58]
Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda

The Lord's Resistance Army, a cult and guerrilla army, was engaged in an armed rebellion against the Ugandan government in 2005. It has been accused of using child soldiers and of committing numerous crimes against humanity; including massacres, abductions, mutilation, torture, rape, and using forced child labourers as soldiers, porters, and sex slaves.[59] A quasi-religious movement that mixes some aspects of Christian beliefs with its own brand of spiritualism,[60][61] it is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself the spokesperson of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the "Holy Spirit" which the Acholi believe can represent itself in many manifestations.[62][62][63][64] LRA fighters wear rosary beads and recite passages from the Bible before battle.[60][65][66][67][68][69]
United States
See also: Anti-abortion violence in the United States and Christian terrorism in the United States

After 1981, members of groups such as the Army of God began attacking abortion clinics and doctors across the United States.[70][71][72] A number of terrorist attacks were attributed by Bruce Hoffman to individuals and groups with ties to the Christian Identity and Christian Patriot movements, including the Lambs of Christ.[73] A group called Concerned Christians was deported from Israel on suspicion of planning to attack holy sites in Jerusalem at the end of 1999; they believed that their deaths would "lead them to heaven".[74][75]

The motive for anti-abortionist Scott Roeder murdering Wichita doctor George Tiller on 31 May 2009 was the belief that abortion is not only immoral, but also a form of murder under "God's law", irrespective of "man's law" in any country, and that this belief went "hand in hand" with his religious beliefs.[76][77] The group supporting Roeder proclaimed that any force is "legitimate to protect the life of an unborn child", and called on all Christians to "rise up" and "take action" against threats to Christianity and to unborn life.[78] Eric Robert Rudolph carried out the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in 1996, as well as subsequent attacks on an abortion clinic and a lesbian nightclub. Michael Barkun, a professor at Syracuse University, considers Rudolph to likely fit the definition of a Christian terrorist. James A. Aho, a professor at Idaho State University, argues that religious considerations inspired Rudolph only in part.[79]

Terrorism scholar Aref M. Al-Khattar has listed The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord (CSA), Defensive Action, the Montana Freemen, and some "Christian militia" as groups that "can be placed under the category of far-right-wing terrorism" that "has a religious (Christian) component".[80]

In 1996 three men—Charles Barbee, Robert Berry and Jay Merelle—were charged with two bank robberies and bombings at the banks, a Spokane newspaper, and a Planned Parenthood office in Washington state. The men were anti-Semetic Christian Identity theorists who believed that God wanted them to carry out violent attacks and that such attacks will hasten the ascendancy of Aryan race.[81]

In 2011, analyst Daryl Johnson of the United States Department of Homeland Security said that the Hutaree Christian militia movement possessed more weapons than the combined weapons holdings of all Islamic terror defendants charged in the US since the September 11 attacks.[82]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

Belatucadros wrote:

eddie wrote:Hang on....

All these extremist religious types are not killers because of their religion! They're killers because they're killers - perhaps if it wasn't religion they'd use another excuse? How would we know?

It's like saying guns are killers or gun-owners are killers.
They're not. Only the people who misuse them are.

Hi Eddie


Do not agree with your last point. The gun does not have instructions within, commanding the new gun owner to be a killer. However extremists believe from reading and interpreting text that they are justified to kill. A killer is not a killer until he kills. So why they use another excuse here, when it is off religious text that they interpret to justify killing. Other motivating factors would be revenge to a wrong done to your family for example, but hang on a minute. Many of these Muslims that go off to fight do not have family there and then the only thing that you are left with for going would be to fight for a religious state and even more hope to die in battle in martyrdom. Tad to many things to leave out of the equation there. As it would be rare for someone to go off and actually fight against an injustice where hey have no connection. Throw in religion and in this instance Islam, then you have religious justification for going of to fight based off a view Muslims as family. Whatever way you look at this, religion plays a fundamental part here, not everything and not all. Plenty of other factors play a part, but religion in this instance plays a very big part. They do not have to be experts on Islam and even better that they are not as then they are easily more manipulated to join

Hi didge x
Okay point taken but it was a poor example by me that's all.
My main point still stands; wouldn't these killers and extremists - whatever the religion - still have been looking for a "bloodthirsty something"?

It's like football hooligans: it's not really about the football team but about the tribal trouble that they thrive upon.

is that it...lol

if i posted just a weeks worth of the Muslim killings it would fill twenty pages...lol

you know the idiots are desperate when they have to mention the lords resistance army....

Your just desperate all the time, a desperate little man, calling himself a Christian, with no Christian values, trying to shit stir because he has nothing else to do.

Sad prat.

eddie wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Hi Eddie


Do not agree with your last point. The gun does not have instructions within, commanding the new gun owner to be a killer. However extremists believe from reading and interpreting text that they are justified to kill. A killer is not a killer until he kills. So why they use another excuse here, when it is off religious text that they interpret to justify killing. Other motivating factors would be revenge to a wrong done to your family for example, but hang on a minute. Many of these Muslims that go off to fight do not have family there and then the only thing that you are left with for going would be to fight for a religious state and even more hope to die in battle in martyrdom. Tad to many things to leave out of the equation there. As it would be rare for someone to go off and actually fight against an injustice where hey have no connection. Throw in religion and in this instance Islam, then you have religious justification for going of to fight based off a view Muslims as family. Whatever way you look at this, religion plays a fundamental part here, not everything and not all. Plenty of other factors play a part, but religion in this instance plays a very big part. They do not have to be experts on Islam and even better that they are not as then they are easily more manipulated to join

Hi didge x
Okay point taken but it was a poor example by me that's all.
My main point still stands; wouldn't these killers and extremists - whatever the religion - still have been looking for a "bloodthirsty something"?

It's like football hooligans: it's not really about the football team but about the tribal trouble that they thrive upon.

they are still following their blood thirsty religion that is why islam is in the news every day...

The religion isn't bloodthirsty.

eddie wrote:The religion isn't bloodthirsty.

yes islam is, that is why it is constantly in the news for what it's followers are doing...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

eddie wrote:The religion isn't bloodthirsty.

yes islam is, that is why it is constantly in the news for what it's followers are doing...

And what of the millions and millions who are NOT bloodthirsty or committing atrocities?

eddie wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Hi Eddie


Do not agree with your last point. The gun does not have instructions within, commanding the new gun owner to be a killer. However extremists believe from reading and interpreting text that they are justified to kill. A killer is not a killer until he kills. So why they use another excuse here, when it is off religious text that they interpret to justify killing. Other motivating factors would be revenge to a wrong done to your family for example, but hang on a minute. Many of these Muslims that go off to fight do not have family there and then the only thing that you are left with for going would be to fight for a religious state and even more hope to die in battle in martyrdom. Tad to many things to leave out of the equation there. As it would be rare for someone to go off and actually fight against an injustice where hey have no connection. Throw in religion and in this instance Islam, then you have religious justification for going of to fight based off a view Muslims as family. Whatever way you look at this, religion plays a fundamental part here, not everything and not all. Plenty of other factors play a part, but religion in this instance plays a very big part. They do not have to be experts on Islam and even better that they are not as then they are easily more manipulated to join

Hi didge x
Okay point taken but it was a poor example by me that's all.
My main point still stands; wouldn't these killers and extremists - whatever the religion - still have been looking for a "bloodthirsty something"?

It's like football hooligans: it's not really about the football team but about the tribal trouble that they thrive upon.

HI Eddie

Tribal or sectarianism certainly plays a major part, but the key is the religion here to injustice to a fellow Muslim or defending an Islamic state, martyrdom, etc. The extremists use and manipulate off the religion to recruit.

Have a good evening Eddie, really have to go.
Hope you have settled in alright now.

xx

Yes thanks didge, just about there. Still feel like I'm on holiday though

eddie wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

yes islam is, that is why it is constantly in the news for what it's followers are doing...

And what of the millions and millions who are NOT bloodthirsty or committing atrocities?

they are not Muslims if they are not following the book that tells them to kill the infidels...

eddie wrote:Yes thanks didge, just about there. Still feel like I'm on holiday though

Enjoy and goodnight.x

Eddie, without religion thousands of extremists who are part of or support ISIS, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Taliban and so on, would have no justification or distinguishing points for the violence if not religion. And on suicide bombers in particular, to commit such acts requires some form of divine purpose- or they would not throw their own lives away.

To say a religion is poisonous is not to say all religious people are bad, it is just to point out the apparent dangers (and in the case of Christianity the problems thesedays are smaller ones of sexism, homophobia and anti-choice protestors). Most smokers wont get lung cancer, but it would be irresponsible not to point out the dangers wouldn't it?

homophobia is made up word to try and make people who don't believe it is normal feel guilty , again where is the equality here , why can't people disagree with homosexuality why should it always be one sided .

Christianophobia is very rampant on this forum .

How can you 'disagree' with homosexuality?

Disagreeing with a religion = I don't think the Bible/Koran is the true word of god, here is why..,

Disagreeing with homosexuality = I don't think gay is real???

Or 'I think being gay is wrong.' In which case you then have to explain why, without being a bigot...

Eilzel wrote:How can you 'disagree' with homosexuality?

Disagreeing with a religion = I don't think the Bible/Koran is the true word of god, here is why..,

Disagreeing with homosexuality = I don't think gay is real???

Or 'I think being gay is wrong.' In which case you then have to explain why, without being a bigot...

it is disagreeing that being gay is not, healthy or normal... it does unfortunately exist...

being gay is not normal as the most natural thing is for a species to survive and homosexuality would lead to the end of a species...

so as i have a reason for not agreeing with homosexuality I am not a bigot, good news thank you, so please refrain from calling me and ask your fellow gays on here to do the same...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Eilzel wrote:How can you 'disagree' with homosexuality?

Disagreeing with a religion = I don't think the Bible/Koran is the true word of god, here is why..,

Disagreeing with homosexuality = I don't think gay is real???

Or 'I think being gay is wrong.' In which case you then have to explain why, without being a bigot...

it is disagreeing that being gay is not, healthy or normal... it does unfortunately exist...

being gay is not normal as the most natural thing is for a species to survive and homosexuality would lead to the end of a species...

so as i have a reason for not agreeing with homosexuality I am not a bigot, good news thank you, so please refrain from calling me and ask your fellow gays on here to do the same...

Absurd reasoning. Funny how you are using evolution as part of your reasoning here.
If every single human being was homosexual, would that mean they could not reproduce?
Of course they could still reproduce and you forget that evolution adapts species, where women could start to have virgin births. We have seen this start to occur naturally in endangered swordfish, who are reproducing without having sex. So I am afraid your view and belief to what is normal is completely wrong on both counts.

HF, I'm very healthy thanks, and since my life is very similar to most people I know (I get up, have breakfast, go to work, have a laugh etc) I'm pretty normal too, so your argument is already destroyed.

Any correct non bigoted argument?

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

it is disagreeing that being gay is not, healthy or normal... it does unfortunately exist...

being gay is not normal as the most natural thing is for a species to survive and homosexuality would lead to the end of a species...

so as i have a reason for not agreeing with homosexuality I am not a bigot, good news thank you, so please refrain from calling me and ask your fellow gays on here to do the same...

Absurd reasoning. Funny how you are using evolution as part of your reasoning here.
If every single human being was homosexual, would that mean they could not reproduce?
Of course they could still reproduce and you forget that evolution adapts species, where women could start to have virgin births. We have seen this start to occur naturally in endangered swordfish, who are reproducing without having sex. So I am afraid your view and belief to what is normal is completely wrong on both counts.

survival of a species is as much adaption as anything...

hmm it would be interesting to come across a naturally occurring mutation that brings on virgin births..lol

though i'm sure some desperate evolutionist will try it...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



Absurd reasoning. Funny how you are using evolution as part of your reasoning here.
If every single human being was homosexual, would that mean they could not reproduce?
Of course they could still reproduce and you forget that evolution adapts species, where women could start to have virgin births. We have seen this start to occur naturally in endangered swordfish, who are reproducing without having sex. So I am afraid your view and belief to what is normal is completely wrong on both counts.

survival of a species is as much adaption as anything...

hmm it would be interesting to come across a naturally occurring mutation that brings on virgin births..lol

though i'm sure some desperate evolutionist will try it...

Again if all people were homosexual they can still produce children through reproduction.
Science though has now made it possible they do not require needing to have sex in order to get pregnant.
Adaption you say:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150601-virgin-birth-animals-sawfish-endangered-genetics-science/

Anyway as seen your points were poor and wrong as homosexuality is very natural.

Have a good day.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



Absurd reasoning. Funny how you are using evolution as part of your reasoning here.
If every single human being was homosexual, would that mean they could not reproduce?
Of course they could still reproduce and you forget that evolution adapts species, where women could start to have virgin births. We have seen this start to occur naturally in endangered swordfish, who are reproducing without having sex. So I am afraid your view and belief to what is normal is completely wrong on both counts.

survival of a species is as much adaption as anything...

hmm it would be interesting to come across a naturally occurring mutation that brings on virgin births..lol

though i'm sure some desperate evolutionist will try it...

you know you can acctualy use the internet and your computer for more than just spouting religious dogma

Extract
A few female smalltooth sawfish have figured out how compensate for the low numbers, though, by reproducing without a male partner. Andrew Fields of Stony Brook University in New York and colleagues found evidence that female sawfish are capable of reproducing without sex


https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/wild-things/%E2%80%98virgin-births%E2%80%99-won%E2%80%99t-save-endangered-sawfish  

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

survival of a species is as much adaption as anything...

hmm it would be interesting to come across a naturally occurring mutation that brings on virgin births..lol

though i'm sure some desperate evolutionist will try it...

Again if all people were homosexual they can still produce children through reproduction.
Science though has now made it possible they do not require needing to have sex in order to get pregnant.
Adaption you say:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150601-virgin-birth-animals-sawfish-endangered-genetics-science/

Anyway as seen your points were poor and wrong as homosexuality is very natural.

Have a good day.

Dam you beat me too it


Ps wasn`t mary a "virgin"

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

survival of a species is as much adaption as anything...

hmm it would be interesting to come across a naturally occurring mutation that brings on virgin births..lol

though i'm sure some desperate evolutionist will try it...

Again if all people were homosexual they can still produce children through reproduction.
Science though has now made it possible they do not require needing to have sex in order to get pregnant.
Adaption you say:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150601-virgin-birth-animals-sawfish-endangered-genetics-science/

Anyway as seen your points were poor and wrong as homosexuality is very natural.

Have a good day.

humans cannot reproduce without sex without intervention, so homosexuality is still unnatural...

or would you describe artificial insemination as natural some how..lol

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



Again if all people were homosexual they can still produce children through reproduction.
Science though has now made it possible they do not require needing to have sex in order to get pregnant.
Adaption you say:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150601-virgin-birth-animals-sawfish-endangered-genetics-science/

Anyway as seen your points were poor and wrong as homosexuality is very natural.

Have a good day.

humans cannot reproduce without sex without intervention, so homosexuality is still unnatural...

or would you describe artificial insemination as natural some how..lol

Absurd reasoning again.
It matters not that today we have developed the ability for woman to get pregnant without having sex. As seen this also occurs through adaption in animal species. Not only that for centuries homosexuals have produced children through sex with women. So on all counts based on your methodology of homosexuality not being normal through the survival of a species through reproduction, is completely flawed. So again you have no valid reasons to show homosexuality as unnatural.

korban dallas wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



Again if all people were homosexual they can still produce children through reproduction.
Science though has now made it possible they do not require needing to have sex in order to get pregnant.
Adaption you say:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150601-virgin-birth-animals-sawfish-endangered-genetics-science/

Anyway as seen your points were poor and wrong as homosexuality is very natural.

Have a good day.

Dam you beat me too it


Ps wasn`t mary a "virgin"

She was supposed to be.
Artificial insemination by God then.

Belatucadros wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Dam you beat me too it


Ps wasn`t mary a "virgin"

She was supposed to be.
Artificial insemination by God then.

that as a one off by divine intervention, not sure that classes as natural, mind you mormons think God had sex with Mary but that is a debate for another day...

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

humans cannot reproduce without sex without intervention, so homosexuality is still unnatural...

or would you describe artificial insemination as natural some how..lol

Absurd reasoning again.
It matters not that today we have developed the ability for woman to get pregnant without having sex. As seen this also occurs through adaption in animal species. Not only that for centuries homosexuals have produced children through sex with women. So on all counts based on your methodology of homosexuality not being normal through the survival of a species through reproduction, is completely flawed. So again you have no valid reasons to show homosexuality as unnatural.

lol your reasoning is flawed, is it natural for women to get pregnant without sexual intercourse..lol

artificial insemination is not natural, if you look close the anwser is in the name..lol

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Absurd reasoning again.
It matters not that today we have developed the ability for woman to get pregnant without having sex. As seen this also occurs through adaption in animal species. Not only that for centuries homosexuals have produced children through sex with women. So on all counts based on your methodology of homosexuality not being normal through the survival of a species through reproduction, is completely flawed. So again you have no valid reasons to show homosexuality as unnatural.

lol your reasoning is flawed, is it natural for women to get pregnant without sexual intercourse..lol

artificial insemination is not natural, if you look close the anwser is in the name..lol

You are just deliberately ignoring I proved your belief to homosexuality being unnatural via the concept of the survival of the species is invalid to use.
Homosexuals can still have if need be, sex with the opposite sex to produce children.
Also as seen we see in the female of some species adaption through evolution, can reproduce without having sex.
There is no need of artificial insemination, even if all men were homosexual. They can produce and also females can adapt to reproduce without males.
So your reasoning based on what is natural through survival of a species does not work.
So that reason to why you think homosexuals are unnatural has been easily rebuked.
You have to offer something different, to justify your belief homosexuals are unnatural.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

survival of a species is as much adaption as anything...

hmm it would be interesting to come across a naturally occurring mutation that brings on virgin births..lol

though i'm sure some desperate evolutionist will try it...

Again if all people were homosexual they can still produce children through reproduction.
Science though has now made it possible they do not require needing to have sex in order to get pregnant.
Adaption you say:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150601-virgin-birth-animals-sawfish-endangered-genetics-science/

Anyway as seen your points were poor and wrong as homosexuality is very natural.

Have a good day.

humans cannot reproduce without sex without intervention, so homosexuality is still unnatural...

or would you describe artificial insemination as natural some how..lol

Are blowjobs unnatural then?

And what about wanking? Is that unnatural?

eddie wrote:And what about wanking? Is that unnatural?

if you do it to the exclusion of every other sexual contact i would say yes it is unnatural...

Isn't it sad when people are so tied in knots about sex because of their religion? It normally ends up with the person having a very sick perspective about sex and bodily functions, as we can see. And we all know the kind of thing that leads to.

risingsun wrote:Isn't it sad when people are so tied in knots about sex because of their  religion?   It normally ends up with the person having a very sick perspective about sex and bodily functions, as we can see.  And we all know the kind of thing that leads to.

i have no idea what you are on about I don't follow a religion..lol

but if you thinking masturbating all the time to the exclusion of sexual intercourse is normal you are clearly a bigger wanker than even I thought .....

But the point is, HF, you keep saying that homosexuality is wrong because you can't procreate (although as didge has correctly pointed out it is still possible to have a world of gays and continue to make babies) yet I'm asking...

Is it wrong to give and receive blowjobs then?

eddie wrote:But the point is, HF, you keep saying that homosexuality is wrong because you can't procreate (although as didge has correctly pointed out it is still possible to have a world of gays and continue to make babies) yet I'm asking...

Is it wrong to give and receive blowjobs then?

It is not possible without intervention so therefore not natural...lol getting pregnant without sex...

again if it is to the exclusion of intercourse of course it is...

i said homosexuality is abnormal , it goes against the norm.... the natural way within humanity...

Why is it that the same people on here who are against a belief in god, are the same people who try to justify homosexuality and who also try to tell everyone that it is normal, natural and right...!?



Also, male/female sexual attraction and interaction is the normal and natural and right way of things as of biological and mechanical design and purpose of our whole reproductive system and pre programmed attraction mechanisms...


You can't use an example of male/female sexual interaction to argue that homosexuality is normal, natural or right.

Tommy Monk wrote:Why is it that the same people on here who are against a belief in god, are the same people who try to justify homosexuality and who also try to tell everyone that it is normal, natural and right...!?



Also, male/female sexual attraction and interaction is the normal and natural and right way of things as of biological and mechanical design and purpose of our whole reproductive system and pre programmed attraction mechanisms...


You can't use an example of male/female sexual interaction to argue that homosexuality is normal, natural or right.

thank you for those words of wisdom Tommy, I wonder exactly the same...

if I could give rep points i would for this comment...

You can. Click "like" left hand bottom of his post.

eddie wrote:You can. Click "like" left hand bottom of his post.

yeah i just noticed that and did click it, does that give a rep point then...?

Tommy Monk wrote:Why is it that the same people on here who are against a belief in god, are the same people who try to justify homosexuality and who also try to tell everyone that it is normal, natural and right...!?  
Also, male/female sexual attraction and interaction is the normal and natural and right way of things as of biological and mechanical design and purpose of our whole reproductive system and pre programmed attraction mechanisms... You can't use an example of male/female sexual interaction to argue that homosexuality is normal, natural or right.

I am afraid you are very wrong Tommy, because you are basing your concept of what is unnatural is utterly flawed. You find in both heterosexuals and homosexuals the same sexual acts performed. Bar one, that homosexual men do not normally engage in vaginal sex . We have oral sex,, kissing, anal sex etc. So no sexual act can be the bases here used to define homosexuals as unnatural. So the only difference you are claiming or can claims is based off physically and sexual attraction. Well we cannot control who we are physically attracted to, whether homosexual or heterosexual. So what else do we know. Well we know that both homosexuals and heterosexuals as couples that fall in two way love and love is a very natural feeling shared between two people. So there really is no bases for claiming two people naturally in love. Where they have sexual acts like, kissing, anal sex and oral sex, which is also naturally performed by heterosexuals. Thus left with two people who cannot control the fact they are physically attracted to each other.

How is any of that unnatural?
Love is natural.
Attraction is natural.

Thus 2 natural things which you find in heterosexuals and homosexuals, ,love and attraction proves that homosexuality is very natural

You need to come up with a better argument Tommy, that last one just failed.

Belatucadros wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Why is it that the same people on here who are against a belief in god, are the same people who try to justify homosexuality and who also try to tell everyone that it is normal, natural and right...!?  
Also, male/female sexual attraction and interaction is the normal and natural and right way of things as of biological and mechanical design and purpose of our whole reproductive system and pre programmed attraction mechanisms... You can't use an example of male/female sexual interaction to argue that homosexuality is normal, natural or right.

I am afraid you are very wrong Tommy, because you are basing your concept of what is unnatural is utterly flawed. You find in both heterosexuals and homosexuals the same sexual acts performed. Bar one, that homosexual men do not normally engage in vaginal sex . We have oral sex,, kissing, anal sex etc. So no sexual act can be the bases here used to define homosexuals as unnatural. So the only difference you are claiming or can claims is based off physically and sexual attraction. Well we cannot control who we are physically attracted to, whether homosexual or heterosexual. So what else do we know. Well we know that both homosexuals and heterosexuals as couples that fall, two way love. in love and love is a very natural feeling. So there really is no bases for claiming two people naturally in love. Where they have sexual acts like, kissing, anal sex and oral sex, which is also naturally performed by heterosexuals. Thus left with two people who cannot control the fact they are physically attracted to each other.

How is any of that unnatural?
Love is natural.
Attraction is natural.

Thus 2 natural things which you find in heterosexuals and homosexuals, ,love and attraction proves that homosexuality is very natural

You need to come up with a better argument Tommy, that last one just failed.

so loving a cow is natural, is loving your own sister natural....

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:
I am afraid you are very wrong Tommy, because you are basing your concept of what is unnatural is utterly flawed. You find in both heterosexuals and homosexuals the same sexual acts performed. Bar one, that homosexual men do not normally engage in vaginal sex . We have oral sex,, kissing, anal sex etc. So no sexual act can be the bases here used to define homosexuals as unnatural. So the only difference you are claiming or can claims is based off physically and sexual attraction. Well we cannot control who we are physically attracted to, whether homosexual or heterosexual. So what else do we know. Well we know that both homosexuals and heterosexuals as couples that fall, two way love. in love and love is a very natural feeling. So there really is no bases for claiming two people naturally in love. Where they have sexual acts like, kissing, anal sex and oral sex, which is also naturally performed by heterosexuals. Thus left with two people who cannot control the fact they are physically attracted to each other.

How is any of that unnatural?
Love is natural.
Attraction is natural.

Thus 2 natural things which you find in heterosexuals and homosexuals, ,love and attraction proves that homosexuality is very natural

You need to come up with a better argument Tommy, that last one just failed.

so loving a cow is natural, is loving your own sister natural....

Is that a two way love with the cow?

No


I think most people love their sisters, as its very natural to love your family.

You see, fake Christian, trying to make people who are not like him feel bad about themselves.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

eddie wrote:You can. Click "like" left hand bottom of his post.

yeah i just noticed that and did click it, does that give a rep point then...?

Yes it does.

Belatucadros wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Why is it that the same people on here who are against a belief in god, are the same people who try to justify homosexuality and who also try to tell everyone that it is normal, natural and right...!?  
Also, male/female sexual attraction and interaction is the normal and natural and right way of things as of biological and mechanical design and purpose of our whole reproductive system and pre programmed attraction mechanisms... You can't use an example of male/female sexual interaction to argue that homosexuality is normal, natural or right.

I am afraid you are very wrong Tommy, because you are basing your concept of what is unnatural is utterly flawed. You find in both heterosexuals and homosexuals the same sexual acts performed. Bar one, that homosexual men do not normally engage in vaginal sex .We have oral sex,, kissing, anal sex etc. So no sexual act can be the bases here used to define homosexuals as unnatural. So the only difference you are claiming or can claims is based off physically and sexual attraction. Well we cannot control who we are physically attracted to, whether homosexual or heterosexual. So what else do we know. Well we know that both homosexuals and heterosexuals as couples that fall in two way love and love is a very natural feeling shared between two people. So there really is no bases for claiming two people naturally in love. Where they have sexual acts like, kissing, anal sex and oral sex, which is also naturally performed by heterosexuals. Thus left with two people who cannot control the fact they are physically attracted to each other.

How is any of that unnatural?
Love is natural.
Attraction is natural.

Thus 2 natural things which you find in heterosexuals and homosexuals, ,love and attraction proves that homosexuality is very natural

You need to come up with a better argument Tommy, that last one just failed.

I'm sure YOU do dodge...!!!





The 'I do something, therefore it is normal, natural and right' argument could be used to try to justify anything and everything dodge... that is why it is so completely corrupt!!!



But I'm glad you are finally admitting your preference for deviant sexual behaviour...

Sexual behavious is only deviant if someone is hurt and doesn't want to be, or someone is forced to do something against their will. There is no such thing as normal, thankfully. There is only people who are so screwed up that they are frightened of let go and enjoy their own bodies.