Scout you are so smart! You have rather supported my argument. So I trust your brain is now smarting with embarrasment.

You stated: Principle 1. All living forms have their existence from cross fertilisation of male and female genes.

"WRONG. Single celled life forms simply divide - no duality pf sexes required, many invertebrates such as slugs, snails and worms carry dual sex organs, a species of mole is all female and reproduce themselves, in a species of fish a female turns into a male. Also what about human babies born with both sets of genitalia?"

WRONG CONCLUSION! In every case without exception there are male and female genes combining to form the new cell. Never just male genes combining with male genes. It rather shows your ignorance so I suggest you read up on how these species are reproduced.

Even in plants they have both male and female genes and it is only as they cross fertilise are new fertile seeds or plants formed. There are exceptions that one plant has both genes, as some plants need the presence of other plants with the opposite gene. Some plants have totally seperate parts like corn, others are found within the flower. I've been involved with DR Gothel in the 1960's develpoing female vegetables so we could introduce selective male genes for special purposes; included beans, soy beans, cabbage, tomatoes, capsicum and watermelons. Today we have seedless watermelons, and grapes as examples, they will not reproduce, they have been breed from fertile parents. However most Gay and lesbians are capable of having children.

Bosk?

We were talking about human sexual relations the whole point was that properly rather than improperly ordered sexual relations leads to human flourishing. Pagan natural law doesn't subtract it adds to the Christian form.

Your second paragraph is simply an argument from silence. The Bible is unanimous on the issue.

In your third you claim an authority to interpret scripture, I think it best you trust the experts. Your last sentence doesn't surprise me, another shameful smear. Throw enough mud?

Rex you want to establish your opinions as law and do away completely with online opinion because others won't substatiate YOUR beliefs. Among questions that have sustained the life of European philosophy for two and half millennia not one has been solved to our general satisfaction, until now apparently.

What you say is very enlightening in a way you don't expect. It sums up a lot of what passes for critical thought when religion is discussed in here. Too many have completely absorbed the spirit of the age,caught wacky metaphysical beliefs (an area of constant disputation and will always be)like a bad cold and get shocked when others don't complain of your symptoms.

Robert, rather than Judeo-Christianity, the most potent force for good the world has seen, doing the inculturating (the culture that ppl from all over the world flock to) you would have our children inculturated into some kind of experimental secular atheocracy. I shudder at the consequences.

As evangelists for this brave new world, some of you have no idea how extreme your views are. Beliefs that have been normative for thousands of years make you foam at the mouth.

Throughout its history Christianity in its attempts to follow Our Lord's example has been the best advocate we've had for the poor and powerless By trying to darken the entire history of Christianity you make yourselves look ridiculous in your self righteousness.

The itching scratching hatred of Him who shows up the thinness of the absoluteness you claim for yourselves pours out over those who seem not to have lost their way as completely as you.

Rancitas, I had intended leaving this string, but I feel it would be disrespectful to do so without replying to your last post. I have no objection to your views about the design or appropriate use of the rectum, merely your characterisation of those views as "scientific". Science is the study of testable hypotheses. My point was that questions of design or purpose don't fit that paradigm, and are more appropriately dealt with in philosophy or religion. Possibly my view of what is, and isn't scientific might seem narrow to some.

As to my views on anal sex, as a disembodied facial appendage I have no personal preference, beyond observing that it is capable of generating such a powerful visceral reation in many that discussion of it on a string like this is likely to derail the original argument into flaming and other such unproductive discourse (a la Godwin's law).

Martin, to repeat what I said to Philo,

"Philo, you don't appear to understand the difference between "know to be true" and [in the absence of any reliable verification] "believe to be true".

You don't know if there is a god [or gods], you simply believe it. In the event that your belief turns out to be true, then you still don't know what he/she/it thinks about anything, you simply believe that you do."

[For Philo, read Martin.]

Martin, you have little or no idea what I believe, want or expect, you just believe that you know. And herein lies the problem with people with your mindset. Without any sound evidence, you set yourself up as judge and jury on the conduct of others. I'm not saying that the following applies to you personally [because I don't know], but some people with your kind of mindset also literally set themselves up as executioners.

One thing you may have worked out correctly is that I am a 'freedom of choice' person on many things [where the conduct is by or between consenting adults where appropriate and no-one and/or nothing else is adversely affected]. The bit in brackets shouldn't really be necessary, but I put that in to avoid pointless discussion on unrelated concepts.

One thing which comes from this attitude is that I absolutely support your right to believe whatever you want and I will not criticise your spiritual beliefs. But your spiritual beliefs are simply that, they are not proven truths and neither is the Bible proven truth.

What I strongly object to is someone else's unsubstantiated beliefs used to vilify me or anyone else. And wouldn't you say exactly the same if anyone attempted to force onto you beliefs which you did not share?

When it really comes down to it, I am sure God, in all His/Her (not either/or but both - ying and yang) wisdom is far more aggreived at watching grown men hurl bombs at each other, killing each others' children by the dozen into the bargain (and believe me, they're not just spermatoza either), than he/she is watching two grown adults coming together in loving embrace - exploring their sexuality and having a good time. Much rather the parade in Jerusalem - a celebration of life and community - than what is occuring in the Middle East with religious fundamentlism on all sides (Western, Christian Fundamentalism included) fueling the flames.

When the Church is far more vocal and condemnatory about this very real display of disorderliness and violence (for God's sake, get your priorities right) than it is about human sexual relationships, then it and its advocates may be (just) worth listening to.

This is my final post on this matter - I wish you all the ability to find peaceful and loving relationships in your lives (they really do make life, not only worth living, but truely, the most wonderful experience) in every possible form. We are not just mechanical baby making machines - this view could, just, be leading to over-population and planetary exhaustion.

So, BE respectful of others and respect all of ours' HOME - There isn't another HEAVEN around for miles (if there is at all). Most of all, BE happy (cos one day, you may just wake up and realise you missed the boat). God bless.

Reality Check I agree with what I take as concern regarding both the items you mentioned. The lists could be expanded significantly. Good point.

Martin

“Judeo-Christianity, the most potent force for good the world has seen” – I’ll concede a personal preference for western civilization which judeo-christainity has played a significant part in the development of. Your claim ignores all the other influences which have gone into shaping our culture and the painful price which has been paid by so many to overthrow the burdensome yoke of church control of peoples likes.

“Beliefs that have been normative for thousands of years make you foam at the mouth” – I’ve not noticed a lot of foam around the moth lately. On the actual point for thousands of years much of the world believed that the world is flat, so what. That argument sounds a bit like what I perceive the Amish approach to advancement to be, you just happen to be fighting growth and change on different fronts. Just as I would resist someone who insisted that I not use an electric light in my home because throughout most of history people have not used them. I might also mention that those beliefs you hold have not been normative on this continent (or for most of humanity) through most of history.

“Throughout its history Christianity in its attempts to follow Our Lord's example has been the best advocate we've had for the poor and powerless” – some Christians have been at the forefront of great works. I think that there are a number of reasons for this. Some see it as an outworking of their understanding of their faith. Often the church has been the only game in town, competition has been suppressed and if your society is militantly christian you’d better be christian. You might also consider the times that the church has taken side with the oppressors and kept the poor downtrodden as it’s leaders surround themselves with the trappings of wealth.

Reaching the word limit – I’ll be back

R0bert