Today, I heard a report on Radio National (it can probably be downloaded for those interested) about 'cave paintings' and the sex life of early man.

I've never heard anything about this before, so it caught my ears quickly. The thrust of the report was as follows: (warning, "R" rating material to come)

Cave paintings apprently portray the following activities/behaviors.

-Men having sexual relations with small male and female children.
-Men having sexual relations with men and boys.
-Groups of men having sexual relations with each other in a line. (Australian Aboriginal cave painting)
-Men having sexual relations with goats and donkeys.

Clearly, the whole gamut of 'possible' sexual actions were practiced by 'early' man.

Now..this raises some questions.

1/ Should we make value judgements on this behavior and call them 'degenerate' man ?
2/ What occurred to change this behavior or to change the 'perception' of such behavior in the moral sense?

3/ Given that the 'trend' in the mass media, adult industry,Hollywood etc is 'back' towards such behaviors, where the boundaries are constantly being challenged in the name of 'artistic freedom' and 'individual moral choice'.. (u don't like it, you can change the chanel, no one is FORCING you to watch that)

4/ Is a society based on such practices going to be healthy and prosperous?

5/ Is there anything inherrently 'wrong' or "Immoral" with such things?

The problem as I see it, is that the 'make_it_up_as_u_go' mob have serious trouble answering 'yes' to question 5.

I contend, that such practices flourished in the absence of awareness of divine moral code. Feel free to disagree with me here, but in so doing, I hope the disagreers can explain why these practices died out or faded or came to be regarded as 'immoral'....... or did they?

How do the experts know that the paintings weren't done by some degenerate that the tribe had kicked out?

Is Mise.. I haven't a clue... I just heard it and found it rather interesting as a commentary on the 'natural unrestrained man'.

That such practices are still prevalent in some traditional societies is evidence of this. I'm not aware of any of this kind of thing though among tribal people of Borneo. (even in their pre Christian phase) Though they thought nothing of lopping of your head for a trophy.

My original title was edited and changed, thats ok, I think it now has the same title as the program I'm reporting about.

The point the program was making is that "traditionally we have viewed cave man as indulging in sex as an act of procreation, but now we see he was into it for pure pleasure as well". Sadly in the absence of divine restraint, that lust for sexual pleasure manifested itself in ways we consider 'degenerate' today.

Jeez BOAZY, please feel free to read some books on cultural anthropology sometime. It may make comments on prehistoric cultures seem relatively well informed. Something by Jared Diamond is always a good look and quite entertaining if you are actually interested in the subject matter.

Some answers for you:

1/ Should we make value judgements on this behavior and call them 'degenerate' man ?

Value judgements can always be made with the benefit of history and through the blinkered looking glass of whatever morality one wants to impose on such practices. if you want to call them 'degenerate', then you may do so, however anthropologists will probably refrain from such judgements.

2/ What occurred to change this behavior or to change the 'perception' of such behavior in the moral sense?

This behaviour may or may not have been widespread, that is what is currently unknown. However may stone-age hunter-gatherer societies have preserved taboo(to us) practices right up until the modern age, including, but not limited to, human sacrifice, child sex, rape, cannibalism and homosexual acts. Many of these acts have been interpreted through initiation or religious rites. Even christians have a symbolic form of cannibalism.

3/ Given that the 'trend' in the mass media, adult industry,Hollywood etc is 'back' towards such behaviors, where the boundaries are constantly being challenged in the name of 'artistic freedom' and 'individual moral choice'.. (u don't like it, you can change the chanel, no one is FORCING you to watch that)

Were you going to finish this sentence? I don't see a point here.

4/ Is a society based on such practices going to be healthy and prosperous?

"healthy" and "prosperous" are subjective descriptions when you are referring to stone age hunter gatherer societies that were probably no more than small nomadic tribal groups. But nothing can be inferred from probably the only remnant of such groups, the cave art.

5/ Is there anything inherrently 'wrong' or "Immoral" with such things?

Only when making value judgements through the interpretation of an accumulated morality derived through religions that were made possible by agriculture.

cont'd....

"I contend, that such practices flourished in the absence of awareness of divine moral code. Feel free to disagree with me here, but in so doing, I hope the disagreers can explain why these practices died out or faded or came to be regarded as 'immoral'....... or did they?"

The 'divine moral code' theory is not borne out by anthropological study. Actually many of these practices did not "die out" or "fade" for many hunter-gatherer societies and were preserved until modern times and were only erased by colonial religions, and in fact some 'ugly' cultural practices are still being secretly practised in the world.

You wondered what changed, well the answer to most your questions is ultimately...agriculture. Not a spectacular answer but a historically ultimate one. Agriculture has enabled many people to live together and form societies far larger than immediate familial groupings and has enabled a form of religion and philosophy that is unattainable in a stone-age hunter gatherer society. But many of the taboo urges are still there, just ask the catholic clergy.

Another thought that I missed...when discussing "dengeneracy", it kind of implies that it degenerated from something, so that the ancestral state of mankind is a moral one? Is this your point? Or that morality arose from this "degeneracy" to become moral?

If you do think that this "degeneracy" came before morality (which isn't a logically proper use of the word) or the "divine moral code" then that is tantamount to acknowledging that mankind existed and had societies BEFORE recognition of what morality is (or at least our modern version of it). Which I agree with, but would you, really? Most Christians believe that morality did not evolve and is something that God instilled in people and it is something that is innate and only ignored by 'sinners'. What this thread is almost acknowledging is that morality probably evolved and the values we have today are ones that enable a large civilisation to exist.

If you think that the "divine moral code" has always existed, then you would probably believe that the cave paintings are just an ancient form of degenerate porn, or that particular society was an anomoly of history. But anthroplogy and psychology inform us that many of these 'taboo' acts were not prevalent in most societies (at least on a day-to-day basis), but when they were practised they were often ritualistic and linked to status and social control, similar to genital mutilation and the rape of lower status individuals and other acts still practised in various parts of the world today.

Worst choice of words for a topic ever. How about we keep 20th century social commentary and values OUT of the past? Why must people dumb history down so much -_-

"I contend, that such practices flourished in the absence of awareness of divine moral code."

A divine moral code is a meaningless construct, designed to force people to restrict people's freedoms. As you know, plenty of God's trusted, sacred priests raped little boys on holy ground.

Steel first.. the choice of topic heading was not mine bro, it was the OLO Editors, mine was considerably MORE contoversial:)

BUGSY.. amazing.. you certainly got to grips with this issue, and if no one else contributed, I would feel that your posts alone had made this thread worthwhile.

Cultural anthropology is something I studied for some time, and I recommend this article for your consideration
"Steel Axes for Stone age Australians" by Lauriston Sharpe.
http://www.mrs.umn.edu/academic/anthropology/chollett/anth1111/CourseReadings/Steel%20Axes%20for%20Stone-Age%20Australians.pdf
Clearly I did not approach the 'CaveSex' issue from a CA perspective.

Rather than address each point you raised (and Steel also confirmed) I should just ask you, "don't you have some concerns about where this moral relativism which you identify might lead us as a society?"

As you know, I'm always woffling on about the 'make_it_up_as_u_go' approach, and I see awful dangers in this.

The moment we say all these terms (which I deliberately used "Degenerate" etc) are culturally relative, then we are also saying that any lobby group within our own society can legitimately gather followers and promote a morality which could lead us to National Socialism and all manner of horrific outcomes. In other words, we would not (on the basis of moral relatism) had any valid grounds for criticizing Hitler for his 'sub_human_Jews' approach other that its simply 'our opinion'.

That is what struck me about the story of the cave dwellers. Oh.. it was widespread too, Europe and Australian evidence I recall.

I fully agree that in the absence of divine revelation, ALL human practices are without inherrant moral quality.
2 families on an Island with limited resources. One male family head decides to 'discuss' with the other about equitable sharing, the other says "ah.. screw this, I'll just kill him and take the lot" right...or wrong? :)

PAEDOPHILIA.

Now..I'll tackle one specific point, and draw the philosophical ramifications of moral relativism from this.

If....we regard all our legal and moral restrictions as 'simply taboos' which are 'plastic'... then.. how is Nambla 'wrong' in their suggestion that "Sexual experiences between adult males and consenting male children can be positive things".

I've heard this suggested by one contributor to OLO.

Ask any Aussie today "What disgusts you more than anything else"? and I think most would say Paedophilia etc. So, are they all wrong and simply the victims of flexible social taboos? Perish the thought!

Imagine if people were having sex with their German Shepherds in the back yard ....eeeeuwwwww... I mean..where does it end?

I prefer to think that Leviticus 18 is a better foundation of how we should view such behavior even though we don't advocate the same punishments in a society based on the fullness of revelation being the New and Old Testaments. We can still derive our moral attitudes about particular behavior from there as a reference point.

We can choose not to of course, but then,...where does it leave us?
I'd say at the mercy of any highly motivated and politicaly organized lobby group.

The bit about having sex with goats and donkeys doesn't make much sense as those (and all other) animals were domesticated well after the onset of the domestication of certain plant species (when people weren't living in caves). Put simply, in the time of cave dwellers, goats and donkeys (or their ancestors) would have been wild. There's no way a human would have been able to get close to any live one (except if it were somehow trapped, but I think that's drawing a long bow).

Boazy: "Today, I heard a report on Radio National (it can probably be downloaded for those interested) about 'cave paintings' and the sex life of early man."

Fascinating stuff indeed.

Boazy, I've looked at the RN online Schedule and program notes for yesterday, but I can't find any mention of your "Cave Sex' article. Do you remember which RN program it was, or what time it was on?

Cheers.

I think the point must be made very clear for you BOAZY: Universally (or near universally) accepted values are not the same as absolute moral values (the 'divine moral code'). Absolute values don;t exist, and if you want to use your bible as an example of a 'reference point' for absolute moral values, then you're plum out of luck. The bible is a great example of how moral certainties and norms can change over time as it advocates among other things: child killing, slavery and stoning people who work on the sabbath. How times change eh? Everything is open to interpretation at some point, there is no absolute immutable reference point.

Events can only be viewed as moral or not by interpretation. It is often argued whether it is the motivation behind the actions, or the ultimate outcomes of these actions that determine the morality of any given situation.

I'll give you an example on how this works:
In the massacre of the English troops at Isandhlwana in 1879 by the Zulus, afterward the Zulus cut open all the soldiers from neck to groin. The English interpreted this as savage barbarity, however the Zulus saw things quite differently. In the Zulu belief system, the soul tries to escape the body, this was often seen by the bloating of the body if left in the sun. So in order to let the soul travel into the afterlife, they cut open the bodies to let their honourable souls escape. They thought they were doing their enemy a favour! But was the 'mutilation' a moral act? I guess it depends on who you were, and what the motivation was.

Bugsy, there is a view that BD does not think that the bibles demands for behaviour have changed - rather he is working towards the day he can see the stonings and other fun bits reinstated ;) .

Seriously though the point you make is a good one, I doubt that BD and others opposed to "make it up as you go" actually live by the rules put in place to keep people alive during the exodus. There were rules which had meaning then which don't now. Not that difficult a concept really.

BD also has problems with the basics of the idea of consenting adults. An acceptance that consenting adults should be able to do some stuff his made up god does not like appears in BD's mind to place the kids and family pets at risk.

R0bert

There is one aspect of this that I would like to pursue.

Boaz hints, in a not very subtle way, that the means by which mankind turned away from the bestial acts depicted on the cave wall was the advent of a "divine moral code".

Perhaps he, or coach or another of the fellow-travellers can explain to me what God had in mind for the painters of those pictures.

Did he put them on earth so that he could consign them to hell when they died? Seems a touch thoughtless to me. After all, there were no churches or priests or bibles or missionaries to show them the way.

Why did he not provide them with a "divine moral code" - perhaps in the form of Ten Pictures, carved or painted in a way that made it clear that bonking the family pet was a bad idea.

If his objective is to lead mankind to forgiveness, it would have been decent of him to have told them what they needed to be forgiven for.

I know it is unfair to ask what is in God's mind on these matters, but there seem to be a few people around who are most happy to speak on his behalf when it comes to Islam, so we might be lucky.

But seriously, isn't it the most obvious thing in the world, that as man became more civilized, and needed some simple basic rules to enable people to live in large numbers and in close proximity, these guidelines emerged in a natural progression.

Religion drifted in naturally in their wake, as groups of people found new ways of exercising power over others that didn't depend on bloodlines. Cf. the balance of power between the Village Chief and the medicine man, shaman, wizard, sorcerer or soothsayer.

Codification of these moral judgments in to law is also a natural progression in civilized societies.

Seems pretty simple to me, but then I'm just one of those people who, apparently, makes it up as I go along. So what would I know.

"Imagine if people were having sex with their German Shepherds in the back yard ....eeeeuwwwww... I mean..where does it end?"

Your personal disgust has nothing to do with it. What is IMPORTANT in the distinction, is whether/IF the German Shephard IS HARMED by the act. There were Crimes against Nature laws in the USA, that were scrapped in all but seven states. Anal sex, fellatio and cunninlingus are listed alongside bestiality according to wikipedia. So millions of Australians by the standards of those early last century, are engaging in acts which no one bats an eyelid at today. If there is NO HARM CAUSED should be no reason fore a problem. Whether I find it reproachable personally is my own preference. What I can do is choose not to engage in those activities, rather than forcing others to live by my own values and personal choices. Democracy is about increasing freedom and personal liberty and accepting the diversity of human experience, while also protecting others from unnecessary harm or abuse.

In regards to sex in ancient times. There's plenty of incest, etc in the Bible. Lot got his daughters pregnant. Absolom, one of King David's sons, raped his half sister. And the list goes on. They did a lot of begating in the Bible.

" sex with their German Shepherds in the back yard....eeeeuwwwww..."

Boazy. Don't knock it till you've tried it.

My my.... this is bringing all manner of information and opinion to the fore.

Pericles, I think your point is probably the most important here.
That very issue, of the fate of the natural uninformed man is something every thinking Christian has to grapple and struggle with in their pilgrimage.
May I refer you to how Paul understood this? For me, I have complete faith in the justice of God, and also His sovereignty. Paul answers this specific issue in 2 places. Please have a read and then see how it addresses your point.
Romans 2:12-16
This is one of those sections over which there is considerable debate. I recommend placing it in the larger context of Pauls opening statement in Chapter 1:1
Then, Pauls understanding is further expanded in Romans 9:14-21
But should be read with the whole chapter for context. Again, I emphasise that this be seen in the light of Chapter_1:1

STEEL. "harm" there are many types. Social harm..to our value system, to the impressionable minds of neighbours young children, a general breakdown of our values.

BUGSY. I want to tackle the ramifications of your Zulu/British/cultural_relativist point. Yes, I see that, no problem.
But I'm seeking to limit the discussion to the specific area of sexual behavior. If, for example we have no information about the rightness or wrongness of various sexual behaviors, don't you agree that it is open slather for those who wish to persue such things to organize and politicize and aggressively promote such things?

On the other hand, if we have a social concience which has as part of its foundation "Sex with animals is 'wrong' period" "Sex with one's children is 'wrong' period" etc..do you not feel we have a better chance of building a safer and better community? (I'm aware those words "safer,better" are relative to one's moral centre of gravity)

Surely we can recognize that the prohibition of such things in Leviticus is positive? yet we cannot from our historical perspective relate well to the severity of the punishments right? More to come on this.

Rob...naughty naughty.. you know I don't want to throw rocks at people.. just a few spinning back kicks:)

Peppy.. your comment about 'tried it' did little for your "defense of Islam" position mate.

"Incest(etc) in the Bible" On this I must by now be seeming like a broken record, but ..sigh.. here we go. 'Reporting' behaviour is not an endorsement of it. The Bible also contains lists of Kings, and each one's behavior is listed and the conclusion "Thus king so and so did EVIL (or 'good')in the sight of the Lord" etc etc.. So, please don't waste everyone's time by saying such shallow things as "Oh...shock horror, the Bible 'mentions' blah blah".

MORAL ANCHOR. It seems from some comments that my point about our need for a moral anchor is well made. Such an anchor cannot come though legislation alone, but legislation will ultimately reflect our values.

SUMMARY. Looking at the various references to 'Crimes against Nature' as found in the statutes of the British Empire, and formerly in most States of the USA, it is clear that in many cases the Biblical position was exceeded, rather than followed. Trying to define all manner of what constituted a crime against nature led to a Pharisaical approach of huge lists of behaviours. The bible only lists

-Homosexual behaviour.
-Incest
-Bestiality
-Adultery
-Leading children astray.

as being prohibited. It says nothing about masturbation or 'creative' stimulation between heterosexual couples. The law books tried to specify "everything" they considered crimes against nature, and thus exceeded the Biblical mandate by adding human opinion.

Boazy - sorry to interrupt you mid-rant again, but would you please give more information about the radio program that you say prompted this rather silly post - like the day, time and program title? Like I said, I've searched the RN site but can find no mention of it.

The reason I ask is that, as someone who knows quite a bit about prehistoric rock art, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you'd significantly distorted the content of the article in order to make your point. Also, as someone who has read many of your distortions and outright fabrications in this forum, I wouldn't be very surprised if it turns out that you've just made this one up too.

Please provide independent evidence of the program's content, otherwise I'm afraid I'll just have to file this one together with all the other "Boaz Porkies".

Boaz, if I had wanted Paul's opinion, I would have asked him.

>>the fate of the natural uninformed man is something every thinking Christian has to grapple and struggle with in their pilgrimage.
May I refer you to how Paul understood this?<<

So, tell me about the grappling and struggling you went through. How did you personally come to reconcile the unfairness of it all?

Nevertheless, ever obedient to your wishes, I took a look at Romans. I have to say that 1.1 reminded me of the more rabid of those Southern US evangelists with its references to "being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things..." etc. etc. ad naus.

But I guess he was their role model, so why should I be surprised.

But I did get a surprise when I accidentally slipped over the boundary into Chapter 2 - I found Paul was talking to you, Boaz!!

Yes, really!

"Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest; for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things"

As the principle judge around here of everything Islam, Boaz, it might benefit you to think hard about what Paul is telling you.

I think that the hardest aspect of debating with you Boaz (and yes, I did notice that debating was on Paul's list of evil) is the sneaky way you keep shifting ground.

At every opportunity, you provide bible texts that you consider provide support to your argument, but refuse to accept any texts that contradict you. Somehow the ones you choose are meant to be taken literally, while everything else is somehow allusive or metaphorical.

For instance, you never did get back to me on "bring them hither, and slay them before me"

Hypocrisy is such a nasty word. It should also appear on Paul's list of unpleasantnesses.

Pericles,

Blasmephy. How can you possibly accuse Boaz of being a self righeous hypercrite? Don't you know that he sits at the right hand of God and gives HIM advise on which of us are worthy of His blessings.

Bugsy,
Don't want to take this thread off topic but Isandhlwana wasn't a massacre. The Brits were an armed force with the latest European technology, sort of. Pity their leaders took the Zulu lightly.

Ye (non existant) gods! So now the bible bashers are claiming the high moral ground by refering to some pre-historic cave graffiti! Tell me BOAZ_david, have you ever noted the many and varied sexual practices mentioned in and condoned by the book of Hebrew myths?

GYM-FISH... just a minor point..the Bible 'reports' many behaviours, but does not 'condone' that which is sinful. (read Kings and Chronicles for evidence)

PEPPY.. I'm not sure why u seem to be so upset. I'm simply reporting facts and on this issue a radio program and am using that to illustrate the importance of a Divine Standard, something which you as supposedly a Muslim should support 100%.

PERICLES on the issue of 'judgement' please realize, I'm judging 'a faith' which in Biblical terms is 'another gospel' which Paul refers to as follows in Galatians 1.9

"As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"

I don't recall 'cursing' fellow Human or Peppy, but you might consider using this verse as a counter to my own claim about Islam 'cursing' Jews and Christians ? I would have a ready answer though I assure you.

BACK to Cave Sex. My point ....again, is that 'unrestrained' natural man will diverge from Gods standard in many directions. He will indeed make it up...as he goes. Just like the Israelites "In those days there was no king in Israel, and every man did what was right in his own eyes" Judges 21:25

I created this thread, because I'd never heard the information about the behavior of geographically diverse early mankind, and it struck me as confirming the sad and morally degenerate inner nature of natural man.

Disagree, be hurt, be offended, even insulted, but thats not my intent. I'm making a point, and trying to support it with a report from those who have no Christian axe to grind, thus making it less 'tainted' by spiritual presuppositions

Boazy: " I'm simply reporting facts and on this issue a radio program ...

...I'm making a point, and trying to support it with a report from those who have no Christian axe to grind, thus making it less 'tainted' by spiritual presuppositions"

Perhaps you might have some hope of people believing you if you'd provide some information about the radio program that you claim prompted this silly thread. Since you seem to be refusing to provide such information when asked politely, I'm increasingly beginning to think that this is yet another case of Boazy "making it up as he goes" with respect to simple facts.

I think it's likely that Boazy invented this supposed "radio story". He is, of course, free to refute that suggestion by providing, the date, approximate time and program on Radio National that he heard the apparently salacious story upon which his post was based.

If he can't do that, we'll just have to conclude that he's telling porkies yet again.

CJ...humble apologies, I did respond, but had a computer crash half way through from memory and it got 'lost'.... when I came back later, I guess I thought I'd responded.

TIME Monday 1st appox 12.00 midday. 1026 khz AM ABC News Radio.

I rang the ABC and when the recorded message said "We will get back to you in approximately 5 days" I gave up.

I'm thinking that it was part of a program which did not carry a title sounding like Cave Sex.

No..not a porkie :)

I suppose I should thank Boazy for finally responding, albeit in his typically prevaricating way.

So the item upon which this entire discussion was on ABC News-Radio, as opposed to Radio National (which was Boaz's initial claim to credibility with respect to this subject). Unfortunately, there's no way of verifying this, nor of downloading the program as Boazy invited us to in his initial post in this thread.

Did anybody else listen to this program about prehistoric cave art depictions of outlandish sexual behaviour? Or can they otherwise corroborate Boazy's descriptions of homosexual group sex, bestiality etc?

Given Boazy's record of telling porkies and taking extreme liberties with the truth, I'm inclined to conclude that this whole thread is based on a fantasy concocted by him. He is both reticent and apparently unable to provide verifiable details of the supposed story which is the basis of the thread which he intiated.

I would really like to know more about this story. It's an interesting topic about which I used to have some small amount of professional knowledge. However, that's also another reason that I think that Boazy's making this story up - or at best, embellishing something he heard somewhere else by giving it ABC imprimatur.

Anyway, I think this whole thread is so much more Boazy bulldust, in this case designed to provide a platform for the expression of his peculiar sexuality. At least it provides some respite from Muslim-bashing, I suppose.

Prove me wrong, Boazy. All you have to do is back up your story.

Sorry, where I wrote "the item upon which this entire discussion was on ABC News-Radio", I meant to say

"the item upon which this entire discussion was based, was purportedly broadcast on ABC News-Radio"

C.J. if I wanted to make something up to hang a thread on I'd come up with something better.

I reported.. you can decide. Separate confirmation is something you can try yourself. I've googled the issue and there is plenty out there.

Pandering to your cynicism is more a waste of time than I care to consider. *smack* :)

This discussion by BOAZ is disingenuous and flawed. He seems to be proposing that because primitive man was without religion (BOAZ_David chose religion, more specifically, Christianity in the twentieth century as his reference point), it was without any moral code. His evidence is primitive man's actions, those same actions primitive man used to survive in the savage uncertain world but are abhorrent in our twentieth century standards. The clanging of alarm bells should be loud in your ears at this stage: You can't judge primitive (straw) man with 20th century values and then conclude that today, modern humans living now must be without values in their 'natural state', without religion. It's got to be some of the most asinine and outrageous logic...

On the topic of religion more specifically, why should anyone accept an arbitrary religious value system. For one they can leave others such as myself to their own pursuit of liberty and happiness in the first place. Second, they are hypocrites by their own definitions. So few of them follow their own moral values, that it is essentially meaningless to refer to "Christian values." From adultery and their use of divorce and abortion law, to including homosexuality in the church system. Charging that others have a "Christian axe to grind" is ridiculous. The "axe" is being ground without aid by the reality of these people's own hypocrisy and actions. In the specific name of religion, the worst crimes imaginable have been rendered on peaceful groups and individuals. Organised religion is about controlling others and collecting vast amounts of wealth off fools (religion tax). But isn't there a saying about parting fools with their money? However I won't condemn it without acknowledging the positive role it can have when used by good people.

Steel, You observed:

>>It's got to be some of the most asinine and outrageous logic...<<

This is only one example of many, I'm afraid.

Boaz, having failed dismally to report accurately where all this came from, you can hardly be cross with CJ for pointing out that it severely undermines your credibility. Let's face it, it isn't by any means the first time you have mis-read or mis-quoted, so it is well within the bounds of reason that you might have mis-heard.

And as for:

>>...if I wanted to make something up to hang a thread on I'd come up with something better<<

Once again, this is a fairly hollow defence, when you are well known for jumping on fragments and blowing them up out of all proportion.

If you think that anyone has forgotten "The virginia Uni massacre.. done by a Muslim? 'Ismail X'", think again. It is also highly significant that you didn't consider this outrageous piece of rabble-rousing to be worthy of an apology.

>>Separate confirmation is something you can try yourself. I've googled the issue and there is plenty out there<<

The practice is that you support your assertions with references, if there are any.

Also, your claim that Google retrieves many references on the topic are also a huge stretch of the truth.

They certainly do not support your claims that these paintings show

>>Men having sexual relations with small male and female children.
-Men having sexual relations with men and boys.
-Groups of men having sexual relations with each other in a line. (Australian Aboriginal cave painting)
-Men having sexual relations with goats and donkeys<<

If I am wrong here, once again it is up to you to provide the references from the "plenty out there" that you found.

Admit it, this was just another attempt to stir up support for your narrow-minded and inflexible view of the world.

Steel and Pericles. I realize this thread was hinged on a fairly flimsy foundation... I was simply reacting to what I heard. Pericles, correct..I did not find specific google responses to some items of behavior listed, but I do know what I heard, I was driving between places and had to cut my listening short for a hair cut appointment, so .. I concede that the verifiability of my point is weak. If the ABC was more accessible, I'd have better feedback.

Steel, you said:

"Organised religion is about controlling others and collecting vast amounts of wealth off fools"

I'm not sure how 'organized religion' came into this, but.. its here so I'll respond.
Yes, it sure can be all that you said:

Have you ever considered 'DISorganized religion'? :) What you are referring to is politicized, organized, structured, beaurocratic religion, that we have inherited from the British Monarchy and the Roman Catholic Church. There are some other large denominations but none as big as those 2 from my knowledge.
And now see it manifesting of late in World Vision.
(Which Pericles appears to support, including the CEO's salary of $200,000)

To me, the best pattern is small groups of mutually supportive believers meeting in lounge rooms around the Bible. That was how it all began mate. I could happily live with JUST that. Living networks are much better than sterile beaurocracies mate.

We all need support, encouragement, guidance and healing. Those things are found in Christ's "Body" and that body is found whereever 2 or 3 are gathered in His name.

Boazy: " I realize this thread was hinged on a fairly flimsy foundation"

It certainly was, i.e. it was based entirely on the recollection of a person who has been demonstrated time and again to have distorted or fabricated 'facts' in this forum, in order to push his fundamentalist Christian agenda. There is absolutely no way to verify Boazy's outlandish claims about the kinds of activities supposedly depicted in the rock art that he insists he heard on one ABC radio station or another - funny that there's no mention of this story at all on the ABC website or apparently anywhere else, and that nobody else seemed to have heard it.

As the instigator of this thread, I think that it is incumbent upon Boazy to provide the source of his alleged facts - particularly given his demonstrated record of distortions, fabrications and misinterpretations in this forum.

On the other hand, perhaps I've been a bit uncharitable to our prudish tubthumper in this instance - one explanation for his claim could be that he's hearing voices in his head. I understand that this is quite a common phenomenon among the religiously obsessed.