rjd970
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2007
- Messages
- 24,291
- Likes
- 24,279
Link?
Why not??There's absolutely no way that this is true.
This is ridiculous...
You made an absolutely ignorant statement which I refuted with facts...
And your best response is to try to change the subject while at the same time giving a 'nana nan boo boo' response with a cartoon trying to paint me as some sort of puppet
How old are you? 13...14 maybe
Oh well...keep livin' the dream chief k:
A typical example, oft-quoted by gay rights activists, is the July 1994 Pediatrics article by Jenny, Roesler and Poyer that finds that "Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community."14
The fatal flaw of this study is that it studied sexually abused children with a mean age of just 6.1 years. Children of this young age are usually targets of true pedophiles, those persons with no sexual attraction to adults of either sex. By contrast, homosexual pedophiles are usually classified as "ephebophiles," persons sexually attracted to pubescent or post-pubescent underage children.
The "ten percent" myth
There is much propaganda claiming that homosexuals comprise about ten percent of the population in the United States and in many other nations.
Even the names of many homosexual organizations and initiatives reflect this number: 'The Ten Percent Foundation," "Project Ten," and the "One in Ten Club" are a few examples. Some leading homosexual authors continue to insist that one in ten persons are born "gay."
As Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen claim in their book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90's, ". . . it is simply a matter of the odds --one in ten--as to who turns out gay, and who straight. Each heterosexual must be led to realize that he might easily have been born homosexual himself."15 Kirk subsequently boasted about how effective the homosexual propaganda campaign has been when he said that "When straights are asked for a formal estimate, the figure played back most often is the '10% gay' statistic which our propagandists have been drilling into their heads for years."16
The purpose of the "ten percent" figure is to create in the public mind an easily-remembered "everyone knows" idea that homosexuals make up a much larger percentage of the population than they do in reality.
The original source of the "ten percent" statistic is Alfred Kinsey, the world's most famous sex researcher. His best-known "finding" held that ten percent of the male population is "more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55. This is one male in ten in the white male population." Kinsey also claimed that four percent of all males are exclusively homosexual throughout their entire lives. 17 This percentage is not only the basis of the homosexual-rights "ten percent" claim, but also serves as a cornerstone of the sex education classes being taught in the United States and much of the rest of the world today.
Researcher Bruce Voeller explains how the mere constant repetition of this statistic made it true in the minds of many,
I campaigned with Gay groups and in the media across the country for the Kinsey-based finding that "We are everywhere." This slogan became a National Gay Task Force leitmotif. And the issues derived from the implications of the Kinsey data became key parts of the national political, educational, and legislative programs during my years at New York's Gay Activist Alliance and the National Gay Task Force.
After years of our educating those who inform the public and make its laws, the concept that 10 percent of the population is gay has become a generally accepted "fact." While some reminding always seems necessary, the 10 percent figure is regularly utilized by scholars, by the press, and in government statistics. As with so many pieces of knowledge and myth, repeated telling made it SO.18
In fact, the numbers are much smaller. There have been a number of major studies gauging the percentage of homosexuals in the general population. The aggregated results of these studies surveyed more than 218,000 men in several countries and show that 2.6 percent of the male population has ever had a homosexual experience in their lives. 19
So much for the "ten percent" myth.
....
A nationwide survey of school principals showed that they received 13 times as many complaints about homosexuals sexually molesting students than they did about heterosexuals molesting students. 24
Other studies have shown that homosexual teachers are from 90 to 100 times more likely to molest students than heterosexual teachers.
A nationwide survey of school principals showed that they received 13 times as many complaints about homosexuals sexually molesting students than they did about heterosexuals molesting students. 24
Other studies have shown that homosexual teachers are from 90 to 100 times more likely to molest students than heterosexual teachers.
....
As further evidence of the strong connection between active homosexuality and child molestation, many homosexual leaders have openly admitted that there is a natural link between a homosexual orientation and child sexual abuse.
Many homosexual organizations and leaders not only admit to, but support, the sexual abuse of children by homosexuals.
An editorial in the San Francisco Sentinel, a member of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalist's Association, claimed that
The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality. For the gay community to imply that boy-love is not homosexual love is ridiculous. We must not be seduced into believing misinformation from the press and the government. Child molesting does occur, but there are also positive sexual relations. And we need to support the men and the boys in those relationships.26
The notorious North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), one of several organized pedophile groups, almost always has a photo of a pre-teen boy on the cover of its NAMBLA Bulletin, as well as many others in its pages.
Pedophile Philip Hutchinson's poem entitled "Choirboy" is entirely typical of the fare found in the Bulletin;
"You look like a cherub, but you're worldly-wise. You'd love to have me think you're newly-born, but I can spot the twinkle in your eyes; you know damned well how much you turn me on. Between us, you're the satyr -- I'm the saint, so shed your sacred robe and bare your skin, surrender to my touch without restraint, and later, put your halo on again."27
One of NAMBLA's flyers says that
There is no age at which a person becomes capable of consenting to sex. The age of sexual consent is just one of many ways in which adults impose their system of control on children. . . Amazing as it may seem in this child-hating and homophobic society, boy lovers [pederasts] find boys attractive and like their spontaneity and openness.28
Convicted pedophile and NAMBLA member David Thorstad has said that "I think that pederasty should be given the stamp of approval. I think it's true that boy-lovers [pederasts] are much better for children than the parents are . . ."29
Like the "ten percent" myth, the concept that adults can legitimately have sex with children originated with the A1fred Kinsey team. Sex educator and Alfred Kinsey co-researcher Wardell Pomeroy said that "People seem to think that any [sexual] contact between children and adults has a bad effect on the child. I say that this can be a loving and thoughtful, responsible sexual activity."30
Frequency of molestation by individuals
Among the general class of male sexual deviants (both homosexual and heterosexual), pederasts (boy molesters) are found to be much more prolific in their offenses than pedophiles (girl molesters).
The most extensive study performed on the relative degree of predatory behavior of these two classes of male sexual deviants found that 153 pederasts sexually molested 22,981 boys over an average period of 22 years, while 224 pedophiles molested 4,435 girls over an average period of 18 years.33 This means that each pederast molested an average of 150 boys, and each pedophile molested an average of 20 girls-a ratio of 7.5 to one.
Furthermore, I would would be willing to bet I have read more of the Bible than you have ever thought about reading. I would be willing to bet even more that I have had more instruction on it, from both sides...the devout and the atheist. If reading the Bible, studying it, and then forming conclusions afterward is biased....but accepting it as truth on faith beforehand, then reading for confirmation is being objective...I'm guilty as charged.
Well, since this entire thread has been petty debates about specific meanings of words, I would point out you said I "specifically" said that....a far cry from an "implication" you are deciding to come away with.
Words do have meanings - your claim linking the 10th commandment and capitalism showed a misunderstanding of both the word covet and capitalism or capitalistic society. I don't consider those petty differences.
If you want to attack phrases in the Bible have at it. Using specific phrases from the Bible as an attack on the notion of a creator though is a pretty weak attack.
Put another way, one doesn't have to believe that the Bible literally to have a strong and justified belief in a creator. Accordingly suggesting that an omnipotent God wouldn't condone viewing women as property is a red herring.
I am assuming you are Christian, so this is an honest question. Is your belief in a creator best explained by Christianity, specifically that he sent his son to be crucified for your every transgression? More specifically, do you believe the Bible to be the inspired word of said creator?
I view Christianity as the manner in which I was taught about a creator. In that sense, it is the religion I identify with. However, perhaps Deism is closer to what I believe. I don't take the Bible literally. I don't believe you have to be Christian to 1) believe in a creator or 2) to pass into some next level if there is one. Personally, Christianity is akin to a "language" to me through which the creator is revealed. Other believers use a different language. I generally don't buy into specific religious ritual as critical to a more global belief in a creator.
I only ask because believing in a creator is one thing, saying that creator is Christian, as opposed to Muslim, as oppoed to Hindu, as opposed to Jewish is a whole other claim. As I said in this thread, I respect the reasoning for believing there is a creator, i.e....that we will never be able to explain it any other way and there is no evidence to substantiate a creator/non-creator...I think this is flawed, but at the end of the day it is a matter of opinion. But such reasoning in no way even begins to justify or provide proof for any specific religious belief.
The only group I can see that doesn't have a guiding belief are true agnostics that approach the issue from a there might be/there might not be perspective. A true atheist that believes there is no creator is placing faith in a certainty that has not been established hence a belief. This holds because the theories of life creation from the Big Bang to evolution are incomplete and fantastic leaps. There is a wide range of phenomena that could be explained by a creator as an alternate "theory". To rule out a creator a priori is making a belief statement.
And the woman as property claim is absolutely not a red herring. According to the Bible, God physically wrote the 10 commandments on stone tablets (Deuteronomy 5:22). This isn't even inspiration, written by imperfect humans, this is the real deal, straight from the mans mouth, down to every word. If you believe the Bible, this is a fact beyond dispute. It says it right there, and no interpretation is needed. This suggests that at least this part of the Bible was not infected with the erroneous nature of man's corruption or inserted after-the-fact.
Regardless of the source of the commandments, they were written by man. You will see many translations and variations over the years. I don't buy into the movie version where Chuck Heston watched the flame etching. So in the larger context, attempting to discredit the concept of a creator by saying He laid down some chauvinistic language in one of the religions that represent him is a red herring argument against a creator. It may be a semi-effective argument if you want to have a scripture battle with someone that believes every word in the Bible is a literal translation from God but that's about the limit of that argument.
That being said, I agree...coveting can take place over anything...ideas, knowledge, physical possessions...and the idea of a supreme, ominipotent, omnibenevolent creator considering a person to be property doesn't fit. I understand the position you have. But the simple fact of the matter is that is not what that passage says. EVERYTHING listed in that passage is property, and assuming he didn't mean a wife to be in the same category, simply because it doesn't make sense with your worldview of what such a God would be like is intellectually dishonest at best.
See above.
Of course, if you are willing to keep the notion of believing in a creator completely separate from your Christian faith (if indeed you are Christian) and say one has absolutely nothing to do with other, then my point is mute, and your point makes more sense.
The only group I can see that doesn't have a guiding belief are true agnostics that approach the issue from a there might be/there might not be perspective. A true atheist that believes there is no creator is placing faith in a certainty that has not been established hence a belief. This holds because the theories of life creation from the Big Bang to evolution are incomplete and fantastic leaps. There is a wide range of phenomena that could be explained by a creator as an alternate "theory". To rule out a creator a priori is making a belief statement.
The only group I can see that doesn't have a guiding belief are true agnostics that approach the issue from a there might be/there might not be perspective. A true atheist that believes there is no creator is placing faith in a certainty that has not been established hence a belief. This holds because the theories of life creation from the Big Bang to evolution are incomplete and fantastic leaps. There is a wide range of phenomena that could be explained by a creator as an alternate "theory". To rule out a creator a priori is making a belief statement.
Regardless of the source of the commandments, they were written by man.You will see many translations and variations over the years. I don't buy into the movie version where Chuck Heston watched the flame etching. So in the larger context, attempting to discredit the concept of a creator by saying He laid down some chauvinistic language in one of the religions that represent him is a red herring argument against a creator. It may be a semi-effective argument if you want to have a scripture battle with someone that believes every word in the Bible is a literal translation from God but that's about the limit of that argument.
There is a string of evidence and phenomena that could be explained with a creator and the same that could be explained with out one.
I am assuming you are Christian, so this is an honest question. Is your belief in a creator best explained by Christianity, specifically that he sent his son to be crucified for your every transgression? More specifically, do you believe the Bible to be the inspired word of said creator?
I only ask because believing in a creator is one thing, saying that creator is Christian, as opposed to Muslim, as oppoed to Hindu, as opposed to Jewish is a whole other claim. As I said in this thread, I respect the reasoning for believing there is a creator, i.e....that we will never be able to explain it any other way and there is no evidence to substantiate a creator/non-creator...I think this is flawed, but at the end of the day it is a matter of opinion. But such reasoning in no way even begins to justify or provide proof for any specific religious belief.
And the woman as property claim is absolutely not a red herring. According to the Bible, God physically wrote the 10 commandments on stone tablets (Deuteronomy 5:22). This isn't even inspiration, written by imperfect humans, this is the real deal, straight from the mans mouth, down to every word. If you believe the Bible, this is a fact beyond dispute. It says it right there, and no interpretation is needed. This suggests that at least this part of the Bible was not infected with the erroneous nature of man's corruption or inserted after-the-fact. That being said, I agree...coveting can take place over anything...ideas, knowledge, physical possessions...and the idea of a supreme, ominipotent, omnibenevolent creator considering a person to be property doesn't fit. I understand the position you have. But the simple fact of the matter is that is not what that passage says. EVERYTHING listed in that passage is property, and assuming he didn't mean a wife to be in the same category, simply because it doesn't make sense with your worldview of what such a God would be like is intellectually dishonest at best.
Of course, if you are willing to keep the notion of believing in a creator completely separate from your Christian faith (if indeed you are Christian) and say one has absolutely nothing to do with other, then my point is mute, and your point makes more sense.
I am only going to help you out of shear pity. Pay attention Sunshine, I don't want to have to repeat it for you. This is obvious for anyone reading this thread, and anyone posting in this thread with one GRAND exception.........YOU.
1. Covet- You're taking a word translated from Hebrew and looking the meaning up in an English online dictionary???? Really??? My God man, if you don't realize you're making yourself look like a complete jack@ss.......just stop posting in the thread please?!?!
2. A Woman vs. Ownership- Who in the he&* do you think you are judging how people viewed things 1000s of years ago in near eastern society??? If they viewed their wives as part of their property, so be it. Obviously we don't today but their veiw of slave ownership is not the same as you would equate to slaves in America either. I don't expect you to know or understand that based on your previous posts, but it's not.
3. Stop throwing around "no one but me's read the Bible...I'm the only one, I'm the only one...." No you're not, again, keep on yapping and let these guys keep laughing at you.
Seriously dude, I feel very sorry for you. I've never seen a dolt get owned more times in one thread....and the WORST part is........you don't even know it.
Just stop.
There have been a number of incomplete theories which religion eagerly inserts itself. As we learn more the religious explaination evolves. This doesn't say so much about the merit of the religious belief as it does the elasticity of said belief filling in the holes we can't otherwise explain at the moment. Before Darwin and his theory came along, is there a single devout leader expressing doubt that the creation story told in genesis, the native american story of creation, or the Hindu story of creation was anything less than literal fact? I would like for somebody to show it to me if that was the case. Now we have intelligent design, "creation science", and the argument that evolution is incomplete. What's more, these didn't just come along, it was after almost 100 years of fighting evolutionary theory until finally the religous had to concede that their creation myth simply doesn't make as much sense. Now, to hold on to what they have left, they need to come up with this other stuff we are hearing now, and point out what we don't know as proof they still have merit. This is the fundamental issue of why I think the reasoning you are using is false. It is the same reasoning used for 2000 years until it has to change. From the beginning, religious claims have been based almost entirely on faith, the other approach places much more emphasis on evidence. Let them say faith is primary in their belief, and let them be brave enough to admit it.
There are holes between the Big Bang and Evolution...but inserting God into the unknown has been proven to be wrong time and again.
Don't mix God (creator) with the particular view of God (a specific religion). I don't see how the notion of a creator has proven to be wrong time and time again.
I see no reason why it would still be wrong today. Has the scientific approach been wrong before? Sure, absolutely. But the fundamental difference is with the evidence based approach, it is a huge liability to be certain, and be wrong. With faith based approaches, this is often celebrated. With one, certainty is fleeting and absolutes are rare, with the other, they are in abundance.
We simply do not have sufficient evidence to show it happened with or without a creator. By clinging to "evidence" you are putting faith in a western approach to "knowing".
Well, than I am not a true atheist in your view. I'm not placing certainty in anything. There very well could be a God, but I think it is highly unlikely. An agnostic thinks both alternatives are equally likely. I don't give the creator argument that much credit, given the evidence it is resting on. On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being absolute belief in God, 10 being absolutely certainty one doesn't exist...I am sitting somewhere around a "9". A true agnostic is sitting somewhere around a "5". That's a big difference. Is a creator possible...specifically one that can be best explained by one of our religious traditions? Sure, I guess. It's also possible Bigfoot exists, but it is highly unlikely.
I don't say that to offend, just to try to illustrate where I stand on the possibility of a creator existing. There may be 100 different explainations of how everything began and how we got here, but not all are equally likely. And it is fair to say I have done nothing on an a priori manner. If anything, taking something on faith before reading the given evidence (if it is even read at all) more closely fits the definition of a priori.
You keep falling back to this view that anyone believing in a creator rejects evidence and lives in a purely faith and belief based world. It's certainly not the case for me. Why not stick to what I've told you my view is.
Nope, not that part. That is a valid point for every other part of the Bible. This commandment business came straight from God himself if one believes the whole sinai charade even happened.
Clearly you don't believe it happened so why tie it such a larger argument against Christianity to one thing in the Bible? I'm quite sure I could find an inconsistency with any of the scientific explanations you use but it wouldn't invalidate the entire theory.
I'm not discrediting the concept of a creator, per se, with my chauvinistic claim here. I think this is our disconnect. What I am doing, is saying the Christian version of the creator has obvious issues. Like I said in my previous post...saying there is a creator is one thing, saying he is Christian is a whole other claim worth investigating the claims he makes in his inspired (and in this case, literal) word.
I think you overstate the value of your commandment claim; even when attacking the Christian view. In the larger context of creator vs not; it is irrelevant.
And I am saying based on the merits and history each has with making such claims, the religious one is far inferior. But again, its a matter of opinion at the end of the day.
It is inferior from a western, scientific method, empiricist perspective. That is a narrow view of what constitutes "knowing". That may be enough to keep ID out of the classroom (I'm not an ID proponent). However, it's too narrow a perspective IMHO to explain the origins of the cosmos and everything else.
It's perhaps an arrogance of western man to believe that his created system for "knowing" is the only tool needed to unlock such secrets.
Sorry for the long response.
We simply do not have sufficient evidence to show it happened with or without a creator. By clinging to "evidence" you are putting faith in a western approach to "knowing".
You keep falling back to this view that anyone believing in a creator rejects evidence and lives in a purely faith and belief based world. It's certainly not the case for me. Why not stick to what I've told you my view is.
Clearly you don't believe it happened so why tie it such a larger argument against Christianity to one thing in the Bible? I'm quite sure I could find an inconsistency with any of the scientific explanations you use but it wouldn't invalidate the entire theory.
I think you overstate the value of your commandment claim; even when attacking the Christian view. In the larger context of creator vs not; it is irrelevant.
It's perhaps an arrogance of western man to believe that his created system for "knowing" is the only tool needed to unlock such secrets.
What would you say is a better approach to "knowing"? This is analagous to any political debate. Western democracy has more than its fair share of problems, but it is far better than any alternative.
If you comment is using Western Democracy vs. other political systems as analogy of logical empiricism vs other philosophies of uncovering knowledge I would say this is strong evidence for my point. Claiming Western Democracy is not perfect but better than the alternative shows:
1. It is one of many approaches that could be chosen (just as in the case of ways of uncovering knowledge or truth)
2. The choice is one made by man and can be debated on its merits (many will disagree with which choice is better)
3. It is not a complete approach since others offer advantages and disadvantages that WD doesn't.
As a result, basing your beliefs soley on a logical empiricism view of the world suggest you chose one from multiple competing approaches and you chose a system that while effective is flawed or incomplete.
And we simply don't have sufficient evidence to show that it did happen with a creator, and there is plenty of evidence against that claim.
Where is the evidence against a creator?
Is your claim not that absence of evidence to the contrary, there must have been a creator....i.e..we can't disprove a creator, ergo, there must have been one? What other evidence have you brought to the table? Lack of evidence is not sufficient evidence for a claim. Never has, and never will be.
Nowhere have I suggested the above. You are assuming something about my views that just isn't there.
The Big Bang people look at hard evidence, astronomical mathematics and thermodynamics show that the universe is expanding and cooling...regressed backward that mean at one point it was much smaller and more hot. A "Big Bang" of sorts is theorized must have happened at one point, but nobody ultimately knows. You seem to be saying, this theory is incomplete, therefore a creator must have been behind it all.
Nowhere have I made the claim in bold.
I still say it is the default position with no basis in hard evidence. It's a completely philosophical claim. In my opinion, this is the weaker of the two options we are discussing...but like I said, its a matter of opinion.
It is your opinion but recognize your position is also based on an underlying philosophy - that of the scientific method as THE way of knowing.
There is a huge, monumental difference here that you are convienently overlooking. No scientific theory ever claimed to be perfect, hence the definition of a theory. By every account, the devout claim God to be perfect in every way. No? Show me one Christian that says God isn't perfect and I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell.
Why do you keep going back to this "hypothetical Christian" as a position to attack? I've told you repeatedly my position - I'm not a devout Christian.
Even one mistake should invalidate the entire notion they are claiming. And this is just one example from the list. According to the Christian Bible, God physically wrote down every single commandment. And while it may be a moral code of ethics, it is far from the best we have. Mahivra eclipsed the morality of the entire Bible in a single sentence, much less God's 10 rules pertaining to his ego, and a rehashing of common sense ethics.
So what? I keep telling you where I'm coming from and you keep taking it back to some one else's view of Christianity. Formal religion and a creator view are related but distinct concepts. From page 1 I've stated my view is not based in the formal religious view. Parts or even most of any religion can be wrong without invalidating the creator concept.
In the context of a pure debate on a creator, you're right. Once the claim is made that said creator is Christian, it's open game for discussion. And again, given the devout's claim to a perfect God, any mistake can't be overstated.
I never made the claim the creator is Christian. The topic of the thread is basically creator view vs non-creator view. I've been working along those lines since the beginning. When you take to the "devout Christian" view, you are really arguing against a specific religion rather than against a creator. That's the point I"ve been trying to make.
Let me know of a better way that has a better track record and is more honest, and I'm all ears.