Shinjula

Seconded, you bid for it, you bought it.

It's now a week later, so tell us, how is it going? Are you still managing?

I heard (although I cannot confirm its correctness) that the Indian system works completely different, and to me it sounds like a great idea, you pay the doctor a low amount all the time you are well, and it is only when you are not well that you dont pay, that way it encourages the doctors to keep their patients well, to speed their recovery as much has possible, and to be greatly concerned with preventative medicine.

Yeah, but it's pretty damn close. That strongly depends on how you look at it. On an individual basis, sure it works great, someone who chooses abstinence for themselves as a precautionary measure will almost certainly have no problems. The problem comes when using it as an educational plan, if you teach abstinence to young people as a whole, as opposed to teaching condom use it suddenly becomes a whole lot less safe as they will not have chosen it as a path for themselves, as thus as far less likely to use it as a precautionary measure that condoms and so the success rate will go much further down.

I was looking further down the page where they said that number came from, and to me it still a dodgy way of saying it. However that said I have looked further into it on the net, and that figure does indeed seem to be the correct one. And incidentally ZOMG, how crap can people be at putting a condom on? lol, as I said before it aint exactly rocket science. I've never had a problem or the slightest difficulty with them in my life, hence my disbelief at the figure.

Obvious question, are you sure she is ACTUALLY pregnant? Like have you seen her take a pregnancy test infront of you or been to the Doctor? A lot of girls (well, and boys too for that matter) get odd ideas in the heads. and man trapping often crops up. To be honest it kinda sounds like that to me.

Um, how does the gay rights movement have any affect on whether or not your becoming a more or less rural country?

Yep I'm going to say rewards too, I really liked fresh fruit, (cos I really love fruit but obviously pick something you really like) I used to get all the weird exotic fruit I could find that I would usually be able to afford, like watermelons, gauva, passion fruit. It reminded me that my taste buds were improving, gave me something to concentrate on. Thoe nicorette inhalators as also really good. Really though just take it half an hour at a time in the beginning, keep at it. I'm sure youll be really proud of yourself if you successfully quit. And congratulations. No really, congratulations, its a difficult thing to do, and I'm sure everyone here is as impressed as I am that youve set yourself this goal. Keep at it, I'm sure you can do it.

I take it, then Nick, that you are in favour of teaching abstinence. May I ask if you are in favour of teaching only abstinence, or would you favour, teaching abstinence alongside handing out condoms, the pill and other preventitives? If the latter, why not teach both? I agree that abstinence is a good idea for teenagers, but a full sex education is also vital.

Except that scientists are working on it, trying to construct fool proof methods of testing it rigorously. Maybe if Christians were doing the same thing I'd give them the same level of respect. Though can you truly test the boundary of the universe? All scientists have so far is an estimate based on what we can see. Science still has a long way to go before fully answering any of those, and "working on it" isn't the same as having an answer. Though did you ever stop to think that some Christians may be the ones working on it? There are a couple billion, so it isn't unlikely... I suppose you could consider 'working on it' as less ideal than having a concrete answer, but really thats not a good position to take, comparing 'working on it' and 'having an answer' is missing the point of science. The idea is to hypothesise, experiment and then confirm or disprove. This is not something that Christianity for the most part is having anything to do with. That said there are the Gnostic Christians, who are at least more flexible in their approach, but I've yet to hear any of them on this thread, nor do I think it was them to whom you were referring. I also suspect your understanding of just how much progress they are making in these fields may also not be correct, since in the last ten years scientists have made giant leaps forward in our understanding of the early Universe, and whilst these dont answer the questions you mentioned they are vital information in creating a landscaping in which we could start to frame the questions. These questions have to be considered at the correct scale, these are vast, vast questions if we truly want to know the answers to them as a species we must be willing to devote hundreds of years to answering them (in addition to the hundreds of years we have already spent on them), requiring many generation of scientists. Useful results and technologies will, by the nature of the work be found as a result (which is good in these days of market forces) and can be exploited, but the work will go on. I really dont see anything that Christianity has which compares to that.

Except that scientists are working on it, trying to construct fool proof methods of testing it rigorously. Maybe if Christians were doing the same thing I'd give them the same level of respect.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Condoms-(male-and-female)/Pages/Introduction.aspx?url=Pages/what-is-it.aspx A large percentage of men and women do not use condoms correctly. Typical use of condoms puts condoms at 84% effective against pregnancies. 98% is really just the advertised statistic. Citation needed :) It's in a previous post on this thread, if you really want it. EDIT:http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/malecontraceptives1.html Ok cool thanks for posting it, cos i think youve read it incorrectly. it says which is not at all the same thing as If you use it incorrectly its only 86% effective, but the proportion of people using it correctly will have a large effect on the overall efficacy, and the page give no figures for how many people use condoms correctly. It's tempting to guess that incorrect usage would possibly be quite high, but then its not exactly rocket science to put a condom on, the only things you can do wrong are put it on inside out, nick it with your finger or take it off too soon. So I couldnt guess at how that would affect the figures.

That ironically enough if god doesn't exist you are entirely correct. How so? The same question applies to shinjula. I'm sure you can perceive a "self" if there's no god. It's not like you stop existing when god does. Um, actually I'm not at all convinced I can perceive a self. I was brought up in a western home and so I did always consider myself to be.. myself, but as I've started thinking about it it all just seems to fall away. It seems to me that people convinced themselves that there is something there and by doing that, create effects which would mirror a reality where there was a self, but I've tried to live without a self as much as I can (given how much ones beliefs are settled during childhood) and I really reckon it IS just an illusion. Now I'd like to speak about some things which are common in Buddhism, but not really accepted elsewhere, please dont immediately jump down my throat if they dont happen to agree with the way you see reality, but equally do feel free to ask questions. Everything is connected, everything is one. Ok this may sound a bit etheric and meaningless, but let me elaborate. If you get a friend to take two compass points and place them gently on your arm, say 5 cm apart, you will be able to feel them separate and distinct,, now close your eyes and repeat it with the compass points closer together, at some point you will only feel one compass point - and when you open your eyes you will probably be surprised how far apart they are, this is because nerves in your arm are spaced quite far apart, between 1 and 2 cm (Odd experiment I know, but worth doing simply for the surprising result) What I'm showing here is that what you perceive as continuous parts of you, are actually held together by illusion. You perceive that your body's feelings are continuous, despite the brain filling in the gaps. So being able to feel a part of you is not required in order for you to consider it part of you. It;s even more obvious when you consider that you cant feel (for the most part) your teeth, but they are considered part of you, when your foot falls asleep you dont consider it no longer part of you ,although I would guess many of you find the feeling very odd simply because it does kinda FEEL like its not part of you, yet you know enough to dismiss that feeling, when your foot goes to sleep you know it will wake up and rejoin you, and you certain dont poke at it repeatedly with a sharp knife even though it wont hurt, because you know you will suffer the consequences. To me the world is like that. I know that there is no inherent difference between my foot and the table, the foot is no more part of me than the table it is, or alternately the table is as much part of me as my foot is. The molecules of the table as constantly in flux, surface molecules ping off into space to mix with the molecules of everything else. The molecules of my foot are even more in flux, the skin replaces itself completely every seven years, and the tissue of my foot is made from the food I eat. The Physical part of the universe has no inherent boundaries, when you touch an item you feel as though you are touching it, yet this too is an illusion, the atoms are filled with space and what actually occurs is an electrical repulsion from the electrons, there is no connection there at all, or at least the very same sort of connection that exists within your own body. Moving on to the world of ideas, its the same story, nothing which I consider to be myself is constant, or in any way mine. My ideas and my beliefs are scavenged from other people, and when I do have ones of my own they are simply repetitions and alterations of other ideas which have come before me. Obviously when I first had this thought I did upset me quite a bit. I work as a sculptor and creativity is very important to me, but I realised its actually a great thing, it gives me a sense of continuity with the past. I dont know how many of you have experienced this sort of thing, but I find my thoughts are not my own either. Often then come unbidden about subjects I have no interest, my mind wanders on its own. Odd trivia pops up on its own and even when I think about stuff deliberately the thoughts I have do not seem part of me. People also talk of qualities inherent to themselves, things which make up their personality, which make them them. And from my own life I believe this to be one more illusion. I have not found it the case that I have any of those. I have changed so much in my life, all qualities I have seen in my life have changed over time, both naturally and in response to circumstances. I am currently a very tense person I react quickly to events as they come. I am creative, and intelligent. I am quick to anger and slow to diffuse. However if I look at myself only a year ago and I was completely different. I was depressed, quiet, interested in reading, distrusting of people. And then the year before that I was vivacious, fabulous and flamboyant. I was relaxed and vibrant. Each year I am different. You might be tempted to say, therefore I am a quixotic person, yet I have had periods of stability in my life too, for five years I was a very quiet studious person, before that was another period of rapid change. So I claim nothing in my personality as my own, they are merely as surface qualities as what clothes I wear. And I claim nothing in the physical world as my own either. To me the Universe is a field effect. I am simply part of one gigantic whole. Imagine a wave on the ocean. You see the wave and think it is an object, yet as the wave travels forwards the individual water atoms stay where they are, just moving up and down, the atoms in the water never move with the wave. The wave is just an illusion, as am I... ...well you did ask :)

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Condoms-(male-and-female)/Pages/Introduction.aspx?url=Pages/what-is-it.aspx A large percentage of men and women do not use condoms correctly. Typical use of condoms puts condoms at 84% effective against pregnancies. 98% is really just the advertised statistic. Citation needed :)

Since it was asked earlier...yes, condoms are 98% effective if used correctly, my citation comes from the NHS choices site, so should be pretty reliable - whilst searching I also found that figure in a lot of other places, but the NHS link is probably one most people should feel comfy relying on (NHS is the National Health Service of the UK) http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Condoms-(male-and-female)/Pages/Introduction.aspx?url=Pages/what-is-it.aspx

Dunno if this has been brought up as a perspective, but I'm buddhistic in nature, my answer to the question of self, is that I dont have one, its just an illusion. Any thoughts or questions?

Talk Origins is NEVER a good place to start your sresearch I found it was perfectly fine. Ultimately your research should focus on first-hand research that's published in scientific journals, hence why I used TalkOrigins because it links to some papers so you can check it out for yourself. Added, it explains some of the misconceptions about abiogenesis, so naturally it's a good place to start. Edit, sorry i think i may have been confusing this site with a different one. I spoke before checking it out which was very poor of me, my apologies.

Talk Origins is NEVER a good place to start your sresearch

One thing that bugs me, which kinda relates to a post earlier... ...is the people who dont mind us being gay, but object to the campness. This is a major part of our culture, and yes, it is a culture. We were ostracised for decades and developed our own culture, based a lot on both the circus culture and the creative arts and bohemian cultures. Our culture is descended from a very flamboyant place, unhindered by traditional mores and roles because we were thrown out of them, refused entry. So we made our own rules. And now people come to us and imply that we can rejoin the mainstream culture, but only if we pander to their own cultural values. I dont think so. We are a strong community and we don't need to conform to your outdated ways. We have our own political power, as part of a democracy, we have our own financial power as earners in our own right. We are strong enough to stand on our own if we absolutely have to. We would prefer not to have to take positions on our own, we would prefer to work with people, accept them for who they are, with them accepting us for who we are. But if necessary we would rather stand on our own than bow down to conformist behaviour. There are many of us who are not camp at all, and they are welcome to behave any way they choose, equally a straight man acting camp takes nothing from us and may add to their own culture. But why should we act straight just for you? (These are my personal opinions, although I speak in the plural, it is my opinion that this is the general consensus opinion of much of the gay community)

(Also) Because we all have to believe something - we have no way of checking on reality itself. You can't really positively know what the reality of the universe is? Is the universe just a complete illusion being fed into your mind? Whether you believe that people are real and deserve respect, or whether you believe its all an illusion its still a belief. Now some beliefs can be argued as being better than other beliefs. But its also a belief that... the beliefs which can be argued as being better... are actually intrinsically better They are only actually better on the scale on which "a better argument is valued" which is just a tautology. No matter which way you have it you believe something. Even if you only believe that not holding beliefs is the best plan. (Personally I choose my beliefs based on what entertains me the most and does least harm - but then I believe an awful lot of weird and strange things - cows are from mars btw).

Obvious question 22pepsi22, where are you getting this information? Because none of this is church dogma, it seems to me this is just a created justification. It also contradicts some of the more basic tenets of Christianity - how can you be cut off from god when he omnipresent and all knowing?

One of the things I find most intolerable about it is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. A single sin which is unrepented gives you an eternity of damnation, even if that sin is something small. Let me say that again, a punishment lasting an eternity!!! Differences in sin are not qualified with different punishments, and different amounts of sin are not qualified with different punishments. After death no repentance is possible but if you can repent in the last seconds of life forgiveness is automatically given. What sort of a crazy [wagon] justice system is that?

I dunno, living in caves seems to have worked out quite well

He could have just asked, "Where does the evidence point?" and "Who is more credible?" instead of rewording the same things in order to stretch it into 10 questions. A few of those do blur a bit but most of then are very specific 10 is a very different question to 2 I'm surprised that you think there isnt anything to be gained by examining things from as many perspectives as possible.

I've just had a thought crop up on the homosexuality is wrong thread whilst writing one of my replies. I think it might get more of a response here... From the perspective of someone who believes in Bible inerrancy, who say Homosexuality is wrong. The Leviticus stuff can easily be argued as ignorable because when Jesus arrived on the scene that brought in a new compact between Man and God, Paul is usually a sticking point - hes the main bit in the new testament argueing against homosexuality. My question is this, Paul is only a disciple of Jesus, Jesus has to teach him stuff, so how come he is counted as an authority on whether homosexuality is a sin. I'm always confused by how a book could be inerrant. It sounds like "The bible is inerrant" simply means that every word in it is true, but its a bit more complicated than that because of hearsay. If Paul says in the Bible that Jesus says something does that mean it is true that Jesus said it, or just that its true that Paul thinks that Jesus said it? Also what about the stuff that Paul says on his own? Is that stuff all true too (such as th homosexuality stuff) Further, if the stuff that Paul say is true, because its in the bible, would that apply to everyone else in the bible? Wouldn't that imply that everything Herod said was also true? And that it was right for him to kill all the first born? Just some thoughts, let me know what you think, I'm always confused by any sort of absolutism because it always seems to me to end up somewhere silly.