On our journey from the many gardens of Eden, many beliefs have one.
Or from the caves as us Evolutionists think.
Sex has played a role in our religions beliefs.
I know of no belief that can not find such links.
No belief I know of, there indeed may be some, can point the finger with safety at another.
Some say men must not wed, others throughout time call for Virgin priestess.
My interest, have to ask we refrain from generalized judgments, came about after hearing an ex Muslim lady.
She spoke of 9 year old Brides.
Not I am sure the only creed to have such beliefs.
What can humanity do to protect the vulnerable, do we have the right.
Some one here recently said one world government will never come.
Because of religious differences.
Maybe one day it will, because of that very reason.
If we get a run, lets not be anti one, be by all means anti all or pro all but even the Church I was born in to C of E fights still over women priests.

A complex and divisive subject.
I invite some who would normally never touch such a subject to contribute.
It is not my intention to other than question all of them.
In our modern world can we sustain the view females are lessor beings?
The 9 year old bride stands out but it is not just one belief or culture that has it.
Women are treated as lessor in many cultures even at times unclean.
Yet without the very act of sex we would never have been here.
I could make a case, well you can about any subject, that it is to control women every creed I know of has these themes but is it true.
Was there something in early humans that called for women to be kept within a roll?
I ask believers to understand the thoughts of those who believe in other Gods.
And note the seeming blindness to those who have one different than theirs.

Recently Belly on one of your threads, trying to be light-hearted, I posted this:

"I've long suspected that, psychologically, tension between the sexes boils down to jealousy:

A woman knows with absolute certainty she is the mother of her children – whilst a man can only hope and believe that he is the father of his."

Levity aside, it is true and I believe from prehistory is at the core of cultural rules, taboos and religious prohibitions around the world.

There are eight different forms of family relationships known to anthropology. The dominant one is the one man, one woman, father authority-figure model. The variants include mother's brother authority figure while the biological father is only a person who has sex with the mother but does not have any say outside of that. I don't know anything about the religion of the other seven forms but will ask my anthropologist son.

many 'holy men'..have done the child thing
in trible societies...the young helped the old
[and if you keep a clean mind...morally a girl serving a sage..is respect..giving her an oppertuinity..to meet the most influential p0eople..live in style..inherit honour..]

till you had a pure love relationship[sans sex]
sans ab/using the other..cause of need..greed lust
or any hurtfull intent;;;

belly i must make it personal
to make my point...

[your walking down the street..with a grandchild[grand daughter]

what do you think others are thinking?

the worst
[just like im honest enough to say..so i would likely think]

heck just seeing a grown man sitting on a swing
beside a child of either sex...

i think...how can i tell..if this is good for the child..
as much as the man..or is he some child pervert

thing is we dont know
our thinking..not only reveals..
that we say..but more importantly..whats going on inside

no doudt you have some rape victim..in mind?
proof the old pervert is abusing?

just be carefull
where kids are..perverts will be
heck who dont love kids right,,,[ya know that horrible word for child pervert]

pedophile..?
[that vile word..simply means child lover
and who dont love kids]...how much fun are kids..but

wait
what would people think

sex child pervert..oh a priest
yep link sex with religion..and what ya got..athiest adgenda

or other perverts
saying..but look at him..that priest serving orphans..

yeah thats got sex written all over it
thats not to say that sex perverts should get the benefit of the doudt

castrate the mongels
but lets not cast stones..the muck just might stick..

Well, there’s religion and sex. And then there’s religion and sexism. Two different things. Throughout history (at least the history we know) sex has been used as a weapon: against women, against men, against change, against stagnation. It has been used to seduce and to dominate. Women are still today, in our enlightened world, raped and brutalized during times of war and lawlessness. Men and boys are too. But such behaviour isn’t restricted to these moments and it is not restricted to religious dogma or practices. Sex and tyranny often go hand in hand. Despite what we tell ourselves, we are not so different from any other carbon-based life form.

As most modern religions are patriarchal or stem from patriarchal teachings, it is easy to link sexism with religion. I wonder though, way back when mankind worshipped the Mother Goddess in areas of Europe, whether men were treated any differently to the way women are treated today? Were they simply seen as hunters and sex partners, necessary for procreation and survival against the elements but had little say in much else? We all know there are many creatures who, after mating, eat their partner. Job done. Don’t need you any more. Not a nice thought is it? Yet as we drift away from religion, are we so different? Okay, we don’t necessarily practice cannabalism (I hope) but the practice of sex or sexual means to procreate and then abandoning the partner to rear the progeny alone or with a different partner, is becoming more commonplace.

Recently, it was discovered penguins in the Antarctic practice homosexuality, necrophilia and infanticide – regularly. It is tempting to suggest the anthropologists have it wrong and our ancestors aren’t apes after all!

Wm Trevor yes saw it the first time and I actually agree!
In the hunt for the best father set in our past it is often true.
But remember, I am asking about religions.
In our hearts we mostly think we should be equal, but in some things, each sex more equal than the other.
A good woman is better at household budgets and maybe kids.
I think, maybe I am wrong, Holly books, every one of them, are not the direct words of God.
That God handed the words down, and some ,ours was written that way.
Eve took the blame for sin? sex is the original sin?
We may find the answer in our mind not Gods.
I will not believe God, any of them, gave women to men as toys or slaves, or that he/she said reproduction is dirty.

Dear Belly,

I came across this in a sociology text book,
a chapter on Sexuality and Society.
I found it interesting. I hope that you and others
will as well:

"The traditional sexual values of Australian society,
and of Western society in general, have their roots
in a particular interpretation of ancient Judeo-
Christian morality. Sexual activity can have two
basic purposes: reproduction and pleasure. The
Western tradition has strongly emphasized the former
and has generally disapproved of the latter.

Sex was morally acceptable if the partners were married
and if their primary purpose was reproduction: sex for
pleasure alone, especially by unmarried partners, was
considered immoral.

The traditon that the main purpose of sex is to produce
children comes from the Old TEstament, which urges the
faithful to "be fruitful and multiply," censures those
who "waste" their seed, and imposes severe penalties for
non-reproductive sexual acts.

The negative emphasis on sexuality, with its blanket
prohibition on sex outside marriage, comes from
the New Testament - not from the teachings of Jesus, who
had little to say about sex, but from those of Saint Paul,
who recommended total abstention from sex and tolerated
marriage only on the grounds that it was "better to marry
than to burn."

By the early Middle Ages sex was virtually equated with
sin: the doctrines of the medieval Church
"were based, quite simply, upon the conviction that the
sexual act was to be avoided like the plague, except
for the bare minimum necessary to keep the race in
existence."

The Church not only insisted that priests
be celibate, but even tried to limit marital sex,
forbidding it on Sundays, Wednesdays, and eventually
Fridays, with the equivalent of about five months
of the year."

cont'd...

cont'd ...

"Subsequent centuries were marked by alternating periods
of restrictiveness and relative permissiveness, with
particularly restrictive attitudes occurring among
the early Puritans and among the Victorians of the
past century. Masturbation was regarded as a dreadful
vice that caused such maladies as deafness,
blindness, and insanity. Some lunatic asylums even had
separate wards for inmates who were believed to be
victims of this "self-abuse."

It's interesting to note that for centuries, the sense of
the erotic as sinful has been compounded by the
double-standard, an unspoken expectation that restrictive
rules of sexual conduct should be strictly applied to
women, but leniently to men.

Women were considered pure and chaste, a notion
which ultimately led to a widely accepted myth that
(with the possible exception of prostitutes) women
were essentially sexless.

These tradition values remain powerful in our society
today, although attitudes vary greatly according to
age, sex, religion, place of residence, and level
of education. Sex for some is still sometimes regarded
as somehow dirty and unmentionable, and the practices
that do not potentially lead to reproduction are
considered perverted.

Despite the introduction of sex-education programs into
many schools, a conspiracy of silence may still prevent
the young from obtaining accurate and objective
information about sex. The mass media generally refuse
to carry advertisements for birth-control products.

Parents if they discuss sex with their offspring at all,
often do so with embassassment, and most information is
acquired from the peer group."

Yet - opinion polls today show substantial tolerance for
diversity in sexual behaviour (the birth-control pill
permitted a separation of the pleasurable from the
reproductive aspects of sexual behaviour). The
polls also show a continued commitment to relationship
fidelity and a declining interest in promiscuity.

Its hoped that judgements about right or wrong
in sexual matters today will generally be based
on the attitude that
moral behaviour is that which involves mutual affection
and respect and does no physical or psychological harm to
those involved.

Lexi all very true, this thread is not a Trojan Horse, I did not start it to under mine belief.
I am looking for answers and expecting they will come from human minds not Gods.
Much of the Bible it can be said was selected for publication, while parts excluded.
But are men stoned to death for Adultery?
Some burn wives alive after the husband dies.
To what end? priests must be celebrate?
Is it not bringing the wrong folk to the job?
Child brides are from many creeds, but surely wrong for modern man?
I need to under stand why we do two things, put our belief before all others, even excluding them completely.
And why we maintain SOME belief that is harmful to one sex or one race.

'Sex was morally acceptable if the partners were married
and if their primary purpose was reproduction: sex for
pleasure alone, especially by unmarried partners, was
considered immoral.'

Still is Lexi. The Creator does not change His mind with the wind like people who refuse to face their sin and have it forgiven.

Dear runner,

I don't belong to your congregation and you
are not my preacher so kindly stop preaching
patronising, or interpreting what you think God
said et cetera. That is simply arrogant.
If you can't post in an objective, respectful, manner -
DON'T! I don't enjoy interacting with a narrow-minded
person like you - and I would prefer not to do so
in the future.

Do you a deal Belly.

I'll take the sex, you have the religion. That's fair isn't it?

Dear runner,

Please forgive my previous post to you.
It was a dummy spit - and I should not
have posted what I did to you. I apologise
as I didn't mean it. I know that you mean well
deep down. Mea Culpa.

The churches attitudes to sex in earlier centuries was probably based on the societal practicalities of those times and then became a tradition enshrined in religious doctrine.

With no effective contraception and women in those times often having 10 or more children, the society or rulers probably decided that it was in the best interests of society to make the man who fathered the children responsible for feeding them etc. Otherwise the burden for abandoned wives and children would have been placed on the society as a whole. The mother too might have just decided it was all too much and just left her children on the orphanage doorstep and disappeared.
Therefore, it made sense from a societal perspective to strictly enforce the having of sex and as a consequence children within a legally binding agreement called marriage.

For a man to put so much into providing for so many children he would have needed absolute assurance that they were his and so the woman’s womb in effect became the sole possession of her husband under this legal marriage agreement.

To make sure women stuck to this arrangement women having any kind of sexual freedom was frowned upon. Hence the double standard of morality imposed on women as opposed to men.

The male church leaders quickly realised that not allowing contraception was highly beneficial to the power of the church(numbers)and also monetary ,the wealth that pours into the coffers of the church from its followers.(and pays the wages of the imams and priests) also increases the Money paid to the priest for weddings, funerals etc and for teaching in religious schools.

This is the same reason the muslim leaders do not allow contraception today(power and money), although the world has had the pill for around 40years or so. Plus the men in those countries have been conditioned to believe that women are somehow less human than they are and inferior.

In the West we worry about date rape, in the muslim countries they have State Rape, in the form of child brides and forced marriages.

Sometime I wonder what it is that makes some people adore the image of a man being tortured to death but see the image of a naked child "obscene".

Then I remember that the it's the same people who teach modesty, courtesy and generosity but live in depravity, rudeness, and greed.

If women want to share the blame for this sort of society then they should be entitled to. Wisdom and mercy aren't biological concepts and neither is it an excuse for oppression.

Men have done a pretty lousy job of it so far. Maybe a change is overdue.

Belly
<My interest, have to ask we refrain from generalized judgments, came about after hearing an ex Muslim lady. She spoke of 9 year old Brides.>

I heard the ex muslim lady speak about the 9year old brides proposed
by the new Muslim Brotherhood too. She referred to it as the New Muslim Winter as opposed to the New Muslim Spring that was promised.

It was a brilliant and highly intelligent speech, I was surfing through the TV channels and there she was apparently speaking to an audience in Melbourne somewhere. I tried to find the speech on the internet I was so impressed with her words but I couldn't find it.

Lexi

No need to apologise and thanks anyway. I have been trying to analyse my post and I can see that it came across as a 'sermon'. My apologies. I will attempt not to preach to you or anyone else. I would be lying to myself and my Maker if I did not try and interpet what I believe God thinks and says. The subject is 'sex and religion'. My views do seem narrow minded to many however that does not make them wrong in themselves. A broad mind does not automatically mean a virtous mind.

Dear runner,

I don't think you have a virtuous mind. My definition of a virtuous mind includes a devotion to truth. Because one believes something strongly does not mean what one believes is true. I think you confuse belief with truth. A person with a virtuous mind does not equate belief with truth but will follow the evidence wherever it may lead. Sometimes it does not lead anywhere then the person with a virtuous mind will admit that he or she simply doesn't know.

david f,

'I don't think you have a virtuous mind. My definition of a virtuous mind includes a devotion to truth '

I will be the first to admit DAvidf that my mind is in the state of renewal. I had many years believing secular lies and living them before I believed in the Truth personified ( the Lord Jesus Christ). The more of God's Word and love that enters me the more virtous I will become. On the other hand without God's virtue no one has any only self righteousness.

Gday CHEFUL, think I can help, it was as you say, and such prime journalism comes only via ABC and SBS, look in their web pages.
We are narrowing the intention of the subject, it happens.
Runner forgets other Gods, many more exist, than his/once mine.
And we are focusing on Christianity, but it is far from the only one of interest here.
Multiple wives , in my view, are a blot on SOME belief.
I note SOME think as I do, CONTROL, NOT FROM GOD but men, over women, has been written in to SOME Holly books.
And just maybe that is reason to re write those parts.
This totally non believer, knows, or thinks he does,some need God, maybe all humanity does, at some time.
We invent new religions, or twist existing ones, every year, maybe we should make a world one.
Will not try to spell it, but one formed less than 200 years ago prays in the name, and using the words of every God.
Before stoning me, I need no God, my childhood standards to live by came from God and remain.only belief is gone.
But we know some will forever.

Dear runner,

You wrote: "I had many years believing secular lies and living them before I believed in the Truth personified ( the Lord Jesus Christ)."

That's it exactly - you believe. You are still confusing belief with truth. However, since Jesus never denied that he was Jewish it would seem logical that you would consult a rabbi and become Jewish so you could follow his religion instead of the religion that other people made in his name.

oh dear david
runner become jewish..thats so specific
jesus was a messiah..[one of many sent to the children of mosus]

jesus came to inform ..the people of the lampstand[not the blue star]
he talked of things..like rite/right and ritual that have become more important..than the father of all living..

he came to unite the fathers divided house
but peace/love..his own rejected the new command
[love god via charity..[love].to other...runner has that as his only law[and you wanna send him as a goy..into the den of vipers[gods word]

lol
the 12 laws were never 12
but evenb that was two simple..so you created the noahtide lore
forgetting that the rite was poluted..at the genocide for love[of the tribe recovering from the 'rite'..[you know unless your mother is jew..the rest of the flockers remain goy

heck even blackness determines what sort of jew
which of the tribe of david..managed to subvert the rite/right of the priest tribe/levie..

is the star more sacred than the father
is the lampstand more than the living good[god]
[light sustaining life into love via logic..[all grace and mercy..

unless we adulterate his law
or decieve his own[and who is not a child of the father]
that said..the non neocon need to bring those of the chirist back to reality

its all about god
not saint..not ritual..not creed
charity [service to other..not greed

that is unless they serve the lord of darkness and death
jesus left a clue..[by their deeds/works..shall we know them]

lets see they live in a walled prison
yet god said mountains must fall
who builds the wall
who breaks them down

how is the god of life served by any death?

I think I am on safe ground in saying well over half the worlds population are not followers of Christ.
If so why do we always end up talking about him.
Are we able to focus on why almost every God, has words said in their name, that say women are lessor.
Why is man being told via God how to have sex with who and when?
Nature demands the act or we die out.
Any God, and his/her followers, seem to have rules about sex why.

Dear Belly,

Men in generally are physically stronger than woman and feel they should control everything because they are stronger. However, one thing they can't control is that women are the source of new life. Men invent gods and put words in the mouths of the gods they invent. They make fables about women coming from men's ribs, men being conceived without sex, holy fables about Jesus and Buddha doing without or giving up sex, fables about virginity being somehow holier than having sex, fables about women as seductresses, etc.

Meanwhile women keep having babies, nurturing them and continuing the race.

Men can't control that so they make more fables and more restrictions on women.

Meanwhile with all the nonsense of religious fable and arbitrary rules for women, they continue to be the source of life.

And so it will be.

david/note..""Meanwhile women keep having babies,
nurturing them and continuing the race.""

turning little demons into faux gods
so they can die as a marter*

yeah mums like strong men
and a man fighting a war..isnt here[and this suits her]

"""Men can't control that
so they make more fables..and more restrictions on women.""

who wants to be a drone[raising others child?]
[joseph]..thats a jewish thing..[stepfather's raising not their own]

must keep the holy holy
free of sentimental attatchment

""Meanwhile with all the nonsense,,of religious fable
and arbitrary rules for women,..they continue to be the source of life.""

not so

sure;;they are co-creators]..like god
but man puts a living sperm..[puts the life in]
mother then moulds the man[till he goes off to kill others children]

ahhh men
god gave you the gift of life
but gave to the mother's.. the gift of co creation

adam rejecting god..
for what the beasts got[mating to their sister]

adams rib=father of eve
eve was adams clone[sister]
adam was father..to his daughters/sisters kids

who has the origonal sin son?
the one who rejected god..one to one exclusivly
who didnt tell eve of the living loving lover [god]..good

''the serphant did ask eve..didst god forbid''?
and no god didst forbid adam..but adam forbad eve

she ate an apple of wisdom
his inbred decendants know it not..still

*she is without sin*
[read ya noatide law...[father can forgive a daughter..a foolishness[ditto brothers husbands etc..forgiving sisters wives]..the story is clear..yet they are blind to how god feels

[no death honours the god of life
[thus yes every sperm is sacred..lol
but seed live too ..pollen lives TOO..etc etc

where life is
there is god is good..sustaining it its life

HI Belly,

Thank you for that information, I will check out the ABC and SBS websites. It was good to hear this Muslim lady speak some common-sense-sanity in this world of so much insanity and delusion.

Davidf I share your view, but while thinking all human habits and actions are a result of our evolution remain baffled.
If we look via that evolution we can see too women,as is the case with most life, searched for the best father for their offspring.
Both sex's see some never stop searching.
Even today men want assurance the woman is loyal,often more so than them.
Baffled too, by the understanding religions come in very many shapes and sizes, but we tend to cast off all but the one we follow.
Ignore in fact all others.
Evidence maybe, that man needs to believe,and has invented then re invented God.
I had hope others would focus on why we do need God.
The fact is if you and I on an Island today invented a God, in three generations it would be no longer seen as an invention, hence ww2 cargo cult in our north and many others.
A question needs asking,would this world be better for only haveing one God?

belly/quote..""If we look..via that evolution
we can see too women,as is the case with most life,
searched for the best father for their offspring.""

makes sense
the best lookers get the mating[then the drone raises]
just as much as many men get tempted by the right genes in jeans

""Even today men want assurance the woman is loyal,
often more so than them."""

i used to say to that belly
is men cant pretend..its the wifes kid
but the wife has a drone locked in[she ned simply name some mug..say its yours..and govt sends the sukker a bill or levies his wage

guys cant say to the wife
this is yours..its a huge difference
[we all know the 'fun' guys...are having way too much fun..for a kid

so comein spinner

""Baffled too,..by the understanding
religions come in very many shapes and sizes,
but we tend to cast off all but the one we follow.""

even worse reliions divide into creeds
like watch 'trouble in ammish paridise'
the christs house is very divide..as much as all other scets

""Evidence maybe,..that man needs to believe,
and has invented..then re invented God.""

oh belly..yes SOME..people
like others to tell them what to do/blieve etc
yet others love telling others what they want you to do

if not religious charity
then serving natzie/commie idoligy..[athiest idolitry]

""focus on why we do need God.""

cause we know FOR SURE..science never dun it
only claims to know how..yet cant do it[thus is why god did it]

why we need god..is to do that thing called life
natural/nurture/nature anything..that belongs to god
where life is there is god sustaining it to live..

no god..no-one
to invent..[{0}]..nuthin

""The fact is..if you and I..today invented..*a God,
in three generations..it would be no longer seen..as an invention,""

you got proof of course?

""would..this world/be better..for only haveing..one God?""

thats the real problem[realise belly..inside you is god
we all are god..yet there is only one true life sustaining light sustaining good[the true god]..found by loving others..seeing god..of all]..in all..[omni-present]

doing for the least
is*..doing unto god..[the atonement..the all..[at-one=meant]

Dear Belly,

I don't think we need any gods at all. However, if we must have gods, why limit the number? In the Roman Empire (before it became Christian in the fourth century) when a new group became part of the empire their gods were simply added to the pantheon of gods. There was little intolerance. Some people favoured one set of gods some another. Monotheism increased intolerance. You either follow Jehovah, Jesus or Allah or you're a dirty dog. Only the Jews and later the Christians caused problems with their insistence that their invention was the only god.

In my opinion no gods is most reasonable. Polytheism is liveable and monotheism stinks. Monotheism promotes intolerance. This intolerance has been controlled where there is separation of religion and state.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10725 points to the article I wrote on the beginnings of the separation in the sixteenth century. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10790 is my article on the separation of religion and state in the US.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10065 is my article on the invention of god.

At this time the High Court of Australia has heard a case calling for the ending of Commonwealth funding for the National School Chaplaincy Program (NSCP) but has yet to make a decision.

It would help if state money would go to state schools and church money would go to church schools. I think parents have a right to send their children to religious schools but do not think taxpayers should finance their decision.

Government funding for religious schools and the NSCP seems to be in violation of S. 116 of the Australian Constitution.

OUG I found much to agree with in your post.
It is true, SOME from both sexes play the Field then some, and not new, to either sex.
Davidf well I do not agree, God separates mankind.
Well of the thousands maybe even millions of them we invented, most claim to be better, than every one else.
Just imagine,10 generations 100 years in to the future after we invent, one God, owner of all the best from every creed.
We would first include all men are equal, every one has the same rights.
What an achievement.
Now as each God serves his/her people, why so many? they can not all have made us, surely they are not at war for our affections?
Sex like general behavior,in my view is an effort from God followers to control.

Dear Belly,

I agree that god separates mankind. However, if we have many gods we can have different gods for different peoples. There is only coflict if we insist that the same god is for everybody.

Belly said: “I had hope others would focus on why we do need God.”

There are two types of people who profess to believe in a god: those who use God as a weapon, and those who use God as an excuse.

“A question needs asking,would this world be better for only haveing one God?”

We already do, Belly. It’s called money. And look where that’s getting us.

When my kids asked me a few years back whether I believed in God (Anglican upbringing) I replied thus: “I do not believe in organized religion of any sort. But I do believe, or rather hope, that there is some kind of higher and better power. History aside, as I look around the world today, I hope fervently that we are not ‘it’, because if we are the pinnacle of carbon-based life forms on this planet, then (all jokes aside), God help us all.”

They’re still thinking that one over. ;)

Gday scribbler, well my childhood in the now Anglican Church was forced belief.
We even in small villages went to any non Catholic Church if ours was not around.
I once free from home, fell for the born again thing, totally.
C.A.S.H. Woke me up, collected for overseas work it more often sent the Parson and family on holidays, over there.
It was the same for my EVERY younger mans efforts to find a better world.
Socialism/communism proved no different.
I however know,as sure as I live, humanity is capable of better and one day some one will get it.
First we must take full responsibility for our own actions.

davidf writes

'I think parents have a right to send their children to religious schools but do not think taxpayers should finance their decision. ' But of course he is happy for Christian taxpayers to finance secular schools

Dear runner,

State schools are for everybody not just those who use them. The taxes of unmarried people also go to support state schools. They are for the good of all. You mentioned Christian parents. There are people of other religions in this country. Why should Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim or Hindu taxpayers support Christian schools? If Christians or people of other religions want to have schools that promote their religion I don't think it should be the business of the government to promote or support those schools. In fact it looks to me like a violation of s. 116 of the Australian Constitution for them to do so.

I don't think it should be the business of the government to promote any religious belief or lack of belief. I don't think it should be the business of any belief group to use government to promote their belief. Christianity should not be favoured over any other religion or lack of religion. It is ok to tell children in public schools about what different people believe. It is not ok to tell them that they should believe in any particular religion.

You want to believe in Christianity? You have that right. I object to using my tax money to promote that or any other belief.

david f,
'I object to using my tax money to promote that or any other belief'

Again you are happy for Christian taxpayers to pay for the promotion of secular beliefs. THankfully many that hold secular beliefs can see clearly that in practice they fail miserably. That is why they are prepared to pay taxes and also pay fees to get an education that works a lot better.

You ask Why should Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim or Hindu taxpayers support Christian schools? You are happy for them to support secular schools. A tad hypocritical. They to can have their own schools along with the secularist if they like. In fact some do.

Dear runner,

Secular schools aren't promoting anything but knowledge. You can't seem to understand that. Question, analyse, learn, follow the evidence. Promoting any form of religious belief is something else.

You can follow whatever superstition you want to. The public schools and state money should not be used for promoting your superstition or anybody else's superstition.

The strange thing is, that the Muslims and Christians do worship the same God, it is Jesus and Mohammed the go-betweens , between the people and God that cause the problem.

There is God. Then there are these, made- in- the- image- of- man messengers. It is the messengers that dictate the supposed word of God to the people. Believers of these charismatic leaders follow them and write down their words in books such as the Koran and Bible.

People worship Jesus and Mohammed as much as they worship God. If this was not the case, if there were no Messengers, then the world could just believe in a divine universal presence or intelligence, aka God.

I think we can see the same thing in action today, when we see cults started up by charismatic leaders who claim to be in contact with the divine or God. It is absolutely astounding how they quickly get a huge lot of people to follow them. Not dills as you would expect but educated and professional people totally believe what these leaders tell them.
Priests, and the rules they enshrine in doctrine are therefore what divides religions and stops them from believing in one supreme god

david f

'Secular schools aren't promoting anything but knowledge' You really are kidding aren't you. Evolution and global warming myths are both being pushed in secular schools. You seem threatened by schools that don't swallow these myths as well as schools that don't deny the obvious (a Designer and Creator). It really is very dumb science (pseudo) to suggest we are here by chance. Thankfully many private schools are honest enough to allow kids the facts. Secular dogmas really are a waste of taxpayers money and leads to all sorts of immoral lifestyles. Many parents also see the teachers job is not just to teach but also to be role models. That is why so many are voting with their money and feet.

Dear runner,

Because your mind is clouded with religious myth you are unable to evaluate evidence. There is absolutely no evidence for the myth of the virgin birth yet you choose to believe that. There is a great deal of evidence for evolution. It is the basis for much of modern science, but you choose to reject that. That's ok with me, but it is unreasonable to expect anybody else's taxes to pay for you pushing your superstition. Defend your ignorance and superstition all you like but not from my taxes.

A good course in science might help to open your mind, but you are possibly more comfortable with it closed. That again is all right with me, but I don't want to support it with my taxes.

davidf

'A good course in science might help to open your mind, but you are possibly more comfortable with it closed. That again is all right with me, but I don't want to support it with my taxes.'

you get science mixed up with faith. As I said the chance of something from nothing is beyond betting odds. The obvious observation of design equals Designer is just commonsense. And to think my taxes go towards brainwashing the something from nothing brigade. Its a disgrace really but not surprising from those who reject the notion that science requires real evidence not such idiotic odds.

btw a good course in science would lead you to the obvious (creation equals a Creator). But I take it your closed mind will rem ain that way unless of course you come to repentance.

Dear runner,

Reason and logic do not always win. Superstition and ignorance have triumphed in the past and no doubt will at times triumph in the future. You call for my repentence. I don't regard using my reason as sinful. I don't even regard your devotion to ignorance as sinful. Although it is tragic to bury your reason you have a right to do so.

You have a right to maintain your superstitious mumbojumbo. I just don't want to be taxed to promote that nonsense in the schools or anywhere else.

May the light of reason shine on you. Good night.

Runner I am human, I get it wrong and often.
We you and I clash, I however am far from the only one to do so with you.
My days as a Christian came about because of love, for every one,well no, one creed repels me.
I do not see that love in you.
So we clash.
Yet I understand, I do not regret my days as a believer, every human should travel many paths learn as much as they can.
It helps the me I now am to understand the you I see.
I understand your blindness to other belief is in my view this,if you look at them, you may see a resemblance to your belief.
Unquestioned belief is mandatory for believers, leading to un questioned they are wrong, maybe evil,views of all others.
Religion must have unquestioned belief.
Yet I too understand the part played by it, modern civilization was in part, made possible by belief, by a common set of rules to live by.
For that reason, I support the INVENTION of a new one world religion.
Helped by censorship, we do that now, parts of your Bible never got to be printed,
One set of rules for every one, room exists for such as me to continue to evolve and those who need the straw to cling, at least to one that unites not divides.

davidf

'Reason and logic do not always win.' You are right

yes keep Creationist out of schools because they expose how religous and idiotic evolution is.

im noting bellies call for a 'new' religion
mormans come to mind..or maybe tom cruise

i would prefer them to get it together
bring alive what the prophets said[AT THE PLACE they said 'it'
rebuild the best local story..form a holygrail trail..[where you adopt the local dress/custom...which if violated..at worst earns getting outcast

look at how pilgrimages..in uk...made good living
religious tourism[expiencing as the prphets expiernce
could be huge

come to the place the donkey spake
where the donkey..earned the cross on its back
cross where mosus crossed..

walk arround the wall..till the walls fall down
[work on the great wall of china..help rebuild a pyramid
[it could be huge..revealing and honouring..tourists not terroists

the prophets and their message
[as much as giving back our amasing huh?man story..back to god]

I am not sure we made much progress.
I learned from runners posts, to think differently about them.
I have, for a very long time, thought of them as bigoted.
Yet untruth no, not near close, in fact they are Representative.
They mirror post middle ages Christian thought.
Sex was evil, God all powerful and those who held his power? never to be questioned.
I again am reminded just how humanity can ignore, well give no value to,every other God, even if theirs is vastly out numbered by that Gods followers.
Even the separation, of males and females, for religion not other, is remarkable.
And what other living thing on this earth is constrained in sex other than as a method of not in breeding?
OUG I think not of a true God, but the invention , for those who wish/need it can bring a better world.
No expert,it may be dangerous but a church is teaching all faiths and may be that future one.
We should not forget, every day we are presented with news and views statements, that are untrue, as increasingly our world is challenged by rich and powerful.
So it may be them, or true humanists who launch the invented God.

belly[all the athiest 'facts'..i have heard
attack the religions..formed arround 'a' message
nuthing they present refutes or concerns the reality..of god..[its all about religion..getting a free lunch..].,.or piests doing ungodly things

or about how if you believe ...in THE THEOry..of evolution
your basing it on science..even if you got no idea of how 'science'..or 'evolution'..dun it..

i extensivly studied science..by the book
searched out the text it was bassed on..[from the actual science text punlications...read darwins revealations extensivly[asdore his science mind]..but watch as fools..never read any text..say god didnt do it[evolution did]

if you recall the feeling[when others grab the credit]
how that feels..knowing the actual person what CLAIMS they KNOW how it was dun BUT CANT REPEAT IT..they got a theory[a faith/hope fear]..but not a proof

if you cant do it
dont claim others did it
unless you can prove EGSACTLY HOW THEY DID IT[ie if you can sing sing]
if you think \singing did it..sing and make it happen

or like that king that orded the tide to stop
yua [they got a faith belief or fear
but no god replacement

till a man does what he says is how it really happend
his proof of how its done..is not proof..thus its theorry[wind]

david realises ..science cant prove evolution[out of genus]
as do the other prophets of evolution..spies level evolution cannot leave its genus[and if you dont grasp that statement..PRESENT PROOF ITS FAULSE

its not
science proves genus cant be evolved out of
proves living genus bbreds other living genus
of the same genus as its parents..

there is NOT ONE PROOF
OF A NEW GENUS..[lol..evolving..
exta;..out of..an old genus]...*ever*

life from same life
this is what science CAN prove
the rest is theory[unable to be proven]..thus taken on hope fear or faith..by thgose who dont dare learn limits of science facts..

science[evolution etc]isnt that scientific
it has the same high priest authority
just like the high priests of athiestic sic belief..

OUG as you are aware, I find your views on this subject, evolution so unbelievable, I ofter ask can he believe this.
The thought that the earth is as young as it would need to be, to fit your creationist view is unacceptable for me.
I look at the Sky's and see a million prospective earths.
And KNOW if close contact has already been made, we must wait to find out.
For the fear mans primitive beliefs may crumble over night and what the result may be.
You look at me and see a stubborn man.
One of us is quite wrong.

belly/quote..""I look at the Sky's
and see a million prospective earths.""

i look at the heavens and see uncountable billions of suns
[any of which might contain..'an earth']

but know...if jesus had set out to go to the nearest one
[at the speed of light]..he would only now[2000 years later]..be reaching 'the nearest 'other sun'[solar system]

so thats a lot of life times
say 80 generations[thats simply impossable]

never the less we have wisdom from swedenberg
who informs us that in the shole universe..there are only 9 'earths'
a thing science cant begin to validate for 100,s of thouysands of years...[at the speed of light]

thus we have known knowns
like science CANNOT PRESENT TO YOU
proof of a single ecvolution of genus

look belly..you know plants
tell me how did the daisey..become a rose?
or how did a cutting plant;;evolve to grow seed

tomorrow there is going to be on abc
a show called 'growing a planet'[wheat this time]

it will be ionteresting seeing how grass became wheat..then corn rubbarb and onions..[if you think it[..state how it evolved[the theory is full of holes mate]..

they cant prove no god
never created any new genus
taxonomy [based on phenotype..is a lie]

they cant prove rubarb dna became pop corn
or that algie became a dog a cow an ape then became you

mate if you cant prove it
its theory[the theory of evolution of species[not genus]
mate its nice how you KNOW..evolution is true[yet cant name a single one]



""And KNOW if close contact
has already been made,..we must wait to find out.""

mate it would have taken them 2000 years plus
they arnt here[its impossable]science says the fastest is light
and we got nuthing that comes close

[nor do the other 9 earths
[in fact we alone are able to read or write[just like angels]..they are advised..like we were by the same..till we learned it[then evolved it]..see language behaviour lots of things change over time[evolve]..but not out of that their parents are

heck mate..you sen how wild animals kill mutants
or defective or sick babie's..[or as darwin calls them sports]
\

""One of us is quite wrong""

yeah but your reading a cfriket book..or a news paper
try reading darwin or real science books.. i know i had to do it..

like you would have to
[with a dictionary..to tell US what the word's mean.]
but mate i dun it...i mightent spell it..but know it cant happen

it was based on phenotype[looks like]
but the dna dont show 'evolution'

taxonomic phenotype fooled even clever science
yet ignorants..know it not..mate..you say what evolved
give the dna proof[you aint got it belly]..you know it..

Life begins at the cellular level. The cells are programmed to form different lifeforms. So they divide and grow into that life-form. If there is a creator then this being would have had to design the Cells and DNA and set them in motion to create life, matter and energy.

The bible and Koran don’t explain in detail how God created the universe. Therefore, the way the universe was created does not have to be different to scientific fact.

I don’t see how a creator would not use scientific method to create. In fact I think it would be Impossible to create in a haphazard way.

thanks cherfull/quote..""Life begins at the cellular level.""

an important point
so lets egsamin the first cell
its name is.......?

how was the first cell formed?
[science claims accumulations into a 'mud bubble'...lol]

never the less lets take that further
a cell is a membrain..[that allows osmisis..the expells too much..sucks in what it dont got enough of]..so any 'mud bubble'..would need live in a cellular soup

now cell sounds simple
but just the actions of a single cell..in one single second..is more that all super computers combined could record or do[yet we got trillions googilians of 'cells'

but as i posted on the single cell ammeoba
its far from 'just as simple cell'...so ameoba cant be the first 'cell[never the less no science goes back..that far

life began according to the ignorants theory
with water critters..that look faintly like cockroaches
when thats clearly multicellular...

[clearly and totally ignored by the science..is the fact that cell death[death of the telimere..is an evolution..of itself...

[if the first life lived..it lived eternally..or at least for a maximum time ..then devolved..dies..gets sick evolves sexual reproduction etc

but essentially..that perfection has become deviated

""The cells are programmed..to form different lifeforms.""

programed..lol..by accident/or alians[so the science says]
yet has only recently..'programed'..a twenty stand junction of dna
INSERTED INTO A LIVING CELL*..it reproduced..and the nurds claim they made life

nonsense[they used a cell][a living gods cell
with the sim casrd removed]..they didnt make life[say a phone]..they only changed sims

science cant even make a cell membrane
not even skin..yet ignorants think 'science' is god

their mightiest computers cant even report on what goes on
with-in a single cell[see the joke]

""So they divide..and grow into that life-form.;;""

yes that lifeform..and no other
each after parentel genus

""If there is a creator..then this being""

no god is cause..being is affect

god..""would have had to design the Cells;and DNA
and set them in motion to create life,matter and energy.""

note/no mention of 'evolve"

""The bible and Koran..don’t explain in detail..how God created the universe...""

but its much like sciences birth m oment[big bang][let there be..light]

""Therefore,the way the universe..was created
\does not have to be different to scientific fact.""

its not fact..unless you can replicate it
scientific fact calls for..[as the koran says]..FIRST MAKING ONE JUST LIKE IT..[using your own jinn dust..and design..not gods]


""I don’t see..how a creator
would not use scientific method to create.""

logic sees the same designers hand
one sure thing..mans 'science'..didnt 'evolve' nuthin[genus wise]

""In fact I think it would be Impossible..to create in a haphazard way""

i agree..science is BUILT ON..
one simple fact...every thing having a cause
if your doing it..you can do it again[or its not science]

Under-One-God
I do agree with you that science doesn’t have all the answers and I have never accepted the Big Bang Theory. I do think however, that a lot of religious people have the idea that God just went wave, wave, wave with his magic, God-wand and everything was created in six days.

In a lot of ways science is delving into the way the universe has been put together and in so doing they do find truths, but I’m also not sure I totally believe in the evolution theory either. Why do monkeys and Apes still exist in the old form if one lot of them had the ability to develop into a superior model like humans? That seems to indicate that we are born as monkeys or humans in the first place. I know the scientists will cry me down on that one and point out all the archaeological skeletons found of previous humans. But still the question does linger?

There is a natural selection evident in nature though and that is the survival of the fittest.
Masses of us would be wiped out by disease if not for modern immunisation,antibiotics and penicillin. Only the fittest would survive.

Evolution in that sense is real, but if we would ever grow four arms is a highly unlikely evolutionary occurrence I think. Although genetic mutations at birth do occur.

My take on the whole debate is-- that Science may not have all the answers,-- and that Religion is too quick to stamp on any questioning that is thrown up by legitimate scientific proof, saying that the creator wouldn’t have created life starting at the miniature level and allowing it all to grow and evolve into what it was to become. I am not saying here evolve into just any form which is what science claims. There-in lies the crux of the argument between church and science I think. What extreme of evolution is involved.

OUG I will answer every question.
On the day you answer mine.
Your great creator.
Why if he made every sun, every thing.
Did he infest the earth
With so many Gods?
Why do so many of them.
Call for the death of followers of another.
Why too has he not fixed that minor mistake.

cherful..[there is no dispute..between science/religion;as such]
the pope accepts its a valid theory..her majesty[pope of enmgland]..accepts it..and many others accept it

but thats fine for them[they take it on faith too]
sadly as a youngster/..i had to study breeding
and just mendelic ratio's excludes evolution

just as taxonomy...has become obsolete[since dna dont confirm..with their theory..seems there are many causes for that taxonomic clasification[thus not evolved geneticly]

but there is yet more refutal[fossils work via taxonomy]
but its refuted..thus the fossils links..refuted as well
but more[the expanding earth theory..links to the expanding earth theory..this includes the likely hood of expanding fossils

i have more to addlike my notes from last nights abc scam[on wheat]
that didnt rate any further mention till the 53 minute mark..into a 60 minute conjob for the vision literatie

belly/quote..""Why if he made...every thing.
Did he infest the earth
With so many Gods?""
\
why has man so many internal combustion moters
cause petrol makes em go

life is because god sustains its living
[call god petrol]..the car goes cause its running..NEEDS PETROL
no petrol..car dont go[ditto with life]..no god no life

where god is life is
some theories that god isnt ..in a black hole
without god..nothing...just void/nothing

""Why..do so many of them.""
many?..most 'get it'
but a few insane nutters,,""Call for the death..of followers of another.""..[religion not god]

your electricty..comes via many sources
but life only comes..of via one good[god]

""Why too..has he not fixed..that minor mistake.""

its not a misstake
look say someone said[all unions are bad]..thats a clear lie
yet ignorants/extreemists can say religions ALL bad
clearly bias/hate/fear

here we are allowed to do evil
there your either doing it..or rejecting doing it
or you come back here..with a brain washesed clean..to repeat the same eror..till we get it right

ok the wheat thing..on abc last night[for the gullible faithless evolutionist]..promised a complete reveal on wheat[wheat wasnt mentioned..till a few minutes from end

program used amasing imagry..painting/quote...""[one type of plant..the underdog[...all the rest is direct quotes

''forrests rule the land.poles etc coverrd by trees''welcome to the [planet of trees''

next we go to east afriks[mist forrest]..but dsomehow in these mist forrests..was found a dino tuuurd[teqnical name a scat..that stone scat..had..patterns in it[that look like grass][this space was filled with..a kid absailing down a clif..measuring the light..etc

trees cut the light down to half
[down here the trees are intimindating''
tree falls creat light wells..[then dino-scat study found a figure 8 nodules[''a sign for magliafus?[''a plant that will become goliath..for the first grass']''

anyhow ''metor changes atmosphere[30/50 million year]''
limestone reefs form from c02...plants suck it from the air
and lo grass wiuth nodules cheats the trees

\c02 sh0rtage killed many tree
next he goes for a car engine[starved of oxigen]
''car engines=plants'..car petrol plus plant 0=c02
plants faulterd..but grases thrive..''grasses evolve ways to get more c02

next we 'evolve
to elephant grass[30 mil years ago]
''inventing the turbo charger'[leaves photo syn-thesis]
'grass advantage..turbocharged..

but forrest still 'rule''

yet forrests survived''then under dog [grass]..releases new evolved weopen[it got drier'...''grass develops a tiu=inder box[8 mil years ago

now vision south\afrika..showing 'a burn'
reveals grass fire burns its hottest a meterr abouve the grass

''but why did grass evolve fires to start''[lol]
grass survives cause heat raises..

[half hour gone!]

anyhow next grass grew teeth
[made from silica][2 mil years ago]
found in herbivor teeth

herbavor evolution/inserted for colour?

teeth evolved to chew..'evolved grass'..
gnashing teeth../mil/8 mil/6 mil years ago

anyhow..''herbavors collect silica..silycar..evolves green algie!

5 million years huge ammoungts of silica..feed hering/anchovies..create algie blooms..

[1/4 of our air's 0 comes from algie]
8000 species

next we go back 5 mil years..[apes leaving trees[study fangoli?chimps]..[much footage shows them in trees[yet one shot shows an ape standing up to look over the top of grass[their idea..of why we began to walk][45 minutes gone]

note humans didnt 'evolve'..till only 80,000 years ago

apes/tools[stick from same apes
fishing for termites][ie termites..eating trees]lol

anyhow hunter gatheering..''but grass not finished yet'
go to a dig in turkey..[after talking in millions.of years..!

not willing to state 20,000
[so say;;''goberkletepi's buildings=3 times as old as pyramid's..]

[note 12,000 year..
after talkng in millions..[thats a huge gap

anyhow..the wheat looks like wheat[ancon?wheat]

but its seed falls off as soon as you tough it
but wait a mutayion..""event..one gene..in one small plant''..''traced back to.."teplie?''..''

which..dont shed its seed collar

thus wheat finall gets mention..12,000 years ago
so much for explaining wheat

the rest is just feel good pap for the gullible flock
so they can be sure god didnt do it..cause science tv hosts did

bah what a wasted hour
i wasted for you..so maybe you would see though the spin

i know
i shouldnt have botherd..

cheers brother

Sorry bloke [OUG] if you tried to answer my questions I missed it.
Haveing made the earth , are we talking about every God? and finding he made too many false or other Gods, why not fix it?

'Religion is the opiate of the masses' Religion is made by man. The question really is why a supposedly thinking being lets a man made contruct dictate how to live is astonishing. Especially considering how frequently the movers and shakers in each religion shows themselves to be the biggest hypocrites regarding their own rules.

It only works because so many have been brain washed from an early age. I actually don't think parents have the right at all to send their children to religious based schools. It is abuse of power.

Schools are there so little people become educated thinking beings. Religion is there to curtail and control thinking.

Religion has always been used, and still is, to control a large number of people, because many have been brainwashed into thinking that humans cannot live a good life without having somebody watching. Many still think people cannot have a more sophisticated morality than a 3 year old. So, many find it acceptable to be told who you are allowed to play with, when and how. It is ridiculous. Sex is an adult activity.

belly/quote..""Haveing made the earth,""
to rise out of the deep

""are we talking about every God?""

yes every god..[thats so clever]
who thunk it for you

EVERYONE*..says god meaning the one and only good god
[the god of all creation...who's proof is life sustained by the light]via logic reason..known by many names..but as eviodenced..by his creation[glorified in his creations]

there is only one god belly
just cause your re=as-king pericules one liner[dont validate any logic into your question

its much like that question[are you STILL beating your wife]
its clever..but we all are talking of the one god[cause of EVERYTHING..none other

by whatever names you chose to call him
spagettie monster or oden..the god i speak of is the only one
there from the beginning

jesus wasnt god..adam wasnt god
god gave them life..then let them chose how to live it

"""EVE-ry god..and finding he made*
too many false or other Gods,..why not fix it?""

sure re faulse gods
but its not gods job..to change you
your missing what god does..[sustain all life their lives]
full stop..
\
no god..means no life..
thus for me..life means proof of god[fullstop]
i say god done it using nature/nurture.survival of the fitest

nature[al]selection..isnt science selection
til science can ACTUALLY "DO IT"[and it hasnt yet
im going with god dun it..the one god[omnipresent]..not the lord who calls himself i am

[note how god god..then lord lord lord]
but heck i forgot if you know everything ya dont need to read

just say which god
well belly..which genus?
was the first life...prove it

change just one daffoldill
into a rose*..or a potato..or a pea

go on..prove it
the cleverest guys in science cant explain
i know you wont either..better to say which god
i say give proof of no god..or show how men do it..[nadda]\*

Who thunk it for me?
AH, well not you bloke, ok?
Side stepping here, any one else bit surprised about Church, Catholic for sure, getting involved in gay thing?
Yvonne welcome, but for some sex is a kid thing!
I agree however with your words.
But am sad that a church so tainted by sexual assault is seeing others sins not its own?

When David Attenborough was asked if he believed in God.

He said no. Because he could not believe that God would have created
a worm that bores into the eye of an animal or human and blinds them.

I am on extremely dangerous ground.
Free speech is not a fact.
Some things are not to be said.
Some can get you killed.
So with delicacy, thought, carefully, I highlight this.
SOME FOLLOWERS of one GOD again kicked over Australian WAR GRAVES in a country owing much to western intervention.
One climbed up to hammer a Christian cross!
THESE followers, not all, acted out HATE FROM THE MIDDLE NEAR DARK ages.
Tell me, please, why did our great creator make them?
Why must men hate one another in the name of GOD?

Not worth trying to restart the thread.
It was interesting but in truth never was going to be informative.
Even I after asking not to, diverted the thread several times.
So what did I get out of it?
I feel as I did going in to it, sexual control was inserted by men to control women it many beliefs.
Still,and forever, stunned by the thought almost every believer has their God alone is the one, others false.
And in the end I remain convinced it is was and always will be, about control.
And it too must be said, putting a bottom and a fence around human behavior.
In the weirdest way for a non believer, I think we need the last moral rules and fences to live together.