venomai

That's actually an interesting point. Some people are 100% straight, others are 100% gay. There are, however, people who are in the middle. This is just a little fact I heard and I have no statistics (however I'll go look) but quite often people are neither 100% straight nor 100% gay. It's interesting becuause we most often think of people either being gay or straight and imagine nothing in between (and no, I don't mean everyone else is bi). I suspect there is such thing as a "100%" straight/gay, but I'm sure that many of the self-appointed straights/gays are actually bisexual (in the sense that there is a level of attraction to both sexes) and choose not to admit it. There's a general misconception that bisexual always means exactly "in the middle" in terms of preference. Most bis I know tend to prefer one sex over another. Just speculation, though... :)

Most Bi People I know get involved with multiple partners, and some even try and find couples. (Yes I do know Bi, and Gay people) That's a huge generalization based on your own personal experience of a small handful of bisexuals. Have you got any actual sources? May I ask your age? I only ask because most males (and I mean a great deal of them) who have passed puberty would testify otherwise. :wink:

Isn't the main subject of this thread about human sexual orientation? That's like saying all ears have the defect of not being able to smell. It's just a stupid statement without any relevancy to this debate. My point was: What the hell does it matter with humans? I don't see what you are hoping to achieve by pointing this evolutionary impairment out. PS: Since when do analogies need to be relavent to the topic? :-s

Blindness is an impairment. Explain how homosexuality is an impairment. Blindness is a visual impairment, and homosexuality is a reproductive impairment. Surely from an evolutionary standpoint homosexuality can be viewed as a defect? Blindness impairs vision. On the other hand, homosexuality does not impair reproductive ability. I don't see what you hope to achieve by comparing the two. And by the same logic, you could say all men have the reproductive impairment/defect of not being able to reproduce. So what? No -- homosexuality is not seen as a disease in any sort of evolutionary or scientific point of view. :| Refer to warri0r's nicely cited post on page 2 for a more "scientific" view on homosexuality.

Interesting perspective. I think one of the important things to note here is that sexual orientation is not an opinion or a decision, but rather a biological component that we have very little self-control over. It can be compared to skin colour. Is it immoral to be born with black skin instead of white? Generally, though, I agree that "be accepting" is a hypocritical statement. We cannot truly be accepting of everyone as many opinions go against certain laws and/or morals in our society (for example, we cannot simply accept a serial killer because of their different opinions). I would say yes, as they are both things that can be observed in non-human nature. Fook, by your logic we should also not allow blacks or the disabled to be adopted merely because of the potential for bullying. Any child, adopted or not, has the potential to be bullied If you really want to avoid bullying, then raise the child in a society where gays are more accepted. It's much the same with having a black or disabled child. If sexual orientation was a choice, bi would be the most logical one. :)

Me: hey Them: hey Me: sup? Them: nm, u? Me: nm Them: k MSN gets pretty boring after a while. :(

Ok, sorry, but I disagree. "God" gave these people a brain. If this brain that "God" created was limited and "God" made the brain to never have bad thoughts, they wouldn't murder or do anything bad. Would they? But that would be taking from their free will :wall: . Really, do you guys want every human being to be a programmable robot merely for the sake of peace? Sure, the world is a better place overall, but is worth the sacrifice of free will, of individuality, of purpose? [side note: Good and bad are relative; there's no clear line. Pretty much every action made by men has at least a little of either of those complementary forces in them. So how would you describe a person "completely free of bad thoughts"? Someone with no mind to begin with?] What does free will, individuality and purpose have to do with bad/corrupted thoughts? Since when do you need evil thoughts to have those things? If evil never existed, then you would have no concept of what evil is. You wouldn't be able to "choose" evil because you wouldn't comprehend it. Your free will wouldn't be taken away because it wouldn't be a choice that your brain could ever actively make. If true evil did not exist, there would still be free will and individuality and purpose in the world. Although I agree, it would be futile and detrimental to take away every "bad" thing in this world. At the very least, God could diminish revenge, hatred and wars. He could diminish the number that die every year due to hunger and disease. He could have helped those in the Holocaust. He could have diminished the damage in the 9/11 attacks. etc.

This came up a few pages back: http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?p=5576942#5576942 Basically, I argued that: - God does not give us all equal free will. He has the power to increase free will around the world but chooses not to. - God did create the murderer and did nothing to stop the crime or to save the victim. - God does not love us all equally. The Holocaust was a test? The hundreds of thousands dying every year of hunger is part of God's great mysteries? Is this all "God's plan"? Perhaps it's easy for you and I to say that there is a lot of love in the world, but when we look outside of our self-centered bubbles and begin to focus on other nations and other races it becomes clear that God does not treat us all equally and does not give us all equal free will.

And you're missing my point and ignoring it. I said the war in Iraq is not over, that warfare still exists. 1. The Coalition is at war in Iraq with the Iraqi Insurgency. Therefore, the war in Iraq, AKA the Iraq War, is still ongoing. The Iraqi police has joined forces with the Coalition to help the efforts but this does not mean that warfare has ended. 2. The Iraqi Insurgency is not made up entirely of terrorists. That's a really poor attitude. You say I am not allowed to discuss the war simply because I have never experienced it? That would be comparable to refusing to discuss soft drugs with somebody simply because they have never tried them. I appreciate the fact that you've had first-hand experience, but that does not give you the right to boast any sort of superiority to the rest of us, nor should you be using it as a valid argument in this matter. Although I do not know what war feels like, I know exactly what it means. When I say "war is still ongoing" I am not referring to the feeling of war, as I have no idea, but rather I am referring to the conflict of war. The conflict between the Coalition and the Iraqi Insurgency is still very clearly ongoing, and they are very much at war. I can believe you, an individual online identity that I know nothing of, or I can believe the thousands of TV shows, news sources, internet articles and other media that still claim the war in Iraq is ongoing. Tough choice, but I choose the media. See that bolded part? Exactly what I've been trying to argue. :wall: The "invasion phase" (or "official war" as you call it) ended in April 2003. I go by the day that the Coalition officially declared it over, and you go by the day that you saw peace in your specific city. Either way, the invasion phase was only the beginning of the war and conflict in Iraq, and like you said, the "whole war" hasn't ended yet. The war directly relates to Bush's "War on Terror" so I would say it is still relevant to the topic.

Personally I think it would be quite interesting to die while in an altered state of mind (either through OBEs, meditation or psychedelic drugs). It would feel very spiritual and euphoric, almost as if the altered state was guiding you to Nirvana. It would also help diminish the pains that come with disease and sickness. Of course, if I used drugs, the government would probably classify my death as drug-related and use it as evidence in anti-drug campaigns. :(

Just a myth. Most people tend to wake up before dying in their dreams because it's such a shock to think you are dying. Has anyone here ever had a lucid dream? It's where you are aware that you are dreaming, so you have the power to influence your dreams (enabling you to do ANYTHING). :) Very interesting experience.

I have glasses. Some people say I look more like the "artistic hippie intellectual" type with them on but I don't think it actually changes how I'm treated. Also, some people assume I'm older when I'm wearing them (which is why I don't mind wearing them to bars :P). I wear contacts when I'm trying to look pulled together (ie: for parties and dates). A lot of the people I meet outside of school don't know I even need glasses. I hate wearing contacts, though... I tend to wear glasses most of the day.

Your post contradicts itself. First you say the war ended, and then you say the war is still ongoing. The war may have ended for you on the 9th, but for the rest of the world the war in Iraq is still ongoing. Hell, the invasion itself continued right up until the 13th of April, when Tikrit was invaded. The invasion phase wasn't declared officially over until the 15th. I can understand if you feel that the war between the Coalition and the Iraqi Armed Forces is over, but that was only "phase one" of the Iraq War that we are currently seeing. *sigh* This is getting no where. If you have sources suggesting that the Iraq War has been OVER and FINISHED since 2003, and that warfare in Iraq stopped after that point, then please show these sources. PS: Not all Iraqi insurgents are terrorists.

This was the day that Baghdad fell. It wasn't until April 15th that the "invasion phase" was declared complete. Unfortunately, the invasion was only the beginning of the Iraq War. Some people give the current efforts a different title, like the "Occupation in Iraq", but to the soldiers and civilians there it is still very much a "war". Iraq insurgents kill hundreds of Coalition soldiers through guerilla warfare, and many more citizens. To say that the war is finished would be wrong. Here is a pretty good summary of the ongoing war in Iraq: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War Thats wrong for a whole load of reasons. it implys that communism was the work of a group of religious zelots and warmongerers, which is quite obviously wrong if you look at communists like che guvera (i know the spelling is wrong) I think he was referring to the fact that America's new "War on Terror" is similar to the old "War on Communism". In both cases, the public hated the idea of terrorists/communists and supported war efforts to defeat them.

The Iraq War is still ongoing, so any deaths that occur now are still "during the war". If you meant to say the 2003 Iraq invasion, that was the peak of the violence. Far fewer people are being killed now than during the initial attacks. Source: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ There were 2,752 civilian deaths from the 9/11 attacks. Although this is sad, it is nothing compared to the numbers in Iraq. Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, there have been around 80,000 to 87,000 civilian deaths from violence, and that number is still climbing. I wouldn't say America is the cause of all those Iraqi deaths, but I would go as far as saying many of them (if not most) would not have died so violently had America not invaded Iraq.

Yet you're ignoring the fact that America kills thousands of innocent people as well. Sure, it's all in the name of "counter-terrorism"... but is there really a difference? I wouldn't go as far as saying America did that to themselves, but it's certain that the government benefited from the event. It was the true starting point of the "War on Terror" and it allowed America (along with many other nations) to increase violence and military production all for the cause of defending themselves against "terrorism". Out of pure fear, fear that was only increased by the government and media coverage of terrorism, the public began to support the military efforts. Soon, the "defense" against terrorism turned into offense, and the U.S. began to invade and attack various "hot spots" in the Middle East. The American public didn't resist -- they were so afraid of terrorists that they believed it to be a good idea. Now that years have gone by and thousands upon thousands of innocent lives (on both sides) have been ruined, people are starting to have second thoughts as to whether it was a good idea in the first place.

It's ironic that the United States was also after money and oil, and that they have killed THOUSANDS of innocent Iraqi lives as well. Could you elaborate? The invasion of Iraq was a mistake that the entire world now must suffer from. :(

But the radius is twice your height... :wall: EDIT: To clear things up... Red line is the radius.

Yep, terrorism is an interesting topic. :) I do not support the United States in their "War on Terror" -- I believe that it is making the situation much worse. Here are some interesting articles you may want to check out... The Iraq effects have increased terrorism sevenfold: http://www.motherjones.org/news/feature ... ect_1.html Noam Chomsky interview about the United States as a "terrorist state":

Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen(ie: God) So, you believe air exist right? You know - oxygen, nitrogen, all those other gases = air. Yep....oh wait....but where is it? OH MY GOSH! Well, I can't see air so it must be there. Case solved. See, perceive, find, understand, be one with, be enlightened... choose whichever term you are most comfortable with. I suspect that I will never truly see the divine through my physical vision, as the human eye is very limited in what it can perceive. :roll: What's that for? Plectrum said he doesn't believe it unless he sees it, so I'd assume the only reason he believes in God is because he has seen Him.

How the hell would you escape? :wall: To those people suggesting AK-47s and explosives... please read it again. :?

Was Frankenstein's monster not proof that Frankenstein existed? Are the pastries and breads in the store not proof of a baker? I don't know about you but I have to see the bakers, just so I know for a fact that the bread didn't evolve from a single cell wheat seed. Yes, I have to see God to believe that this is all his creation, just like you have to see the baker to believe that the pastries and breads are his creation. So I'll assume you've seen God. What was He like? :)

Hah, that's exactly what I was thinking when I first read the title. :lol:

The reason it matters is because we only get one physical life on Earth. Sure, it may feel like a blink of an eye compared to eternity, but that is no reason for God to do nothing to the suffering that occurs on Earth. I suppose it's rather unfortunate that many of these people who suffer do not follow the Christian religion and are therefore not going to Heaven. :( I think that is perhaps the most important reason that God should help those who suffer. I agree that it's almost impossible to define "right" and "wrong" when it comes to personal opinions, but I don't see how that is relavent to God's existence. Why does "right" and "wrong" need to be set? It is always changing, as you said. These concepts were never defined at the beginning of time, they simply adapted and grew with the rest of humanity. Saying that God is the answer to those questions is no different from saying that Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the answer.

You've got that right. :? God hasn't done anything to help us get more free will at all. If God removes the free will from the Nazis responsible for the Holocaust, then he will not only be saving millions upon millions of lives, but he will also be giving those millions of people more free will. The resulting "net" free will, so to say, will be far more than it previously was -- there will be an "increase" in free will across the world. Your post is a little confusing. In one breath you imply that God is Jesus, and in the next breath you say God is not a physical being (although Jesus clearly was). God may be a spiritual and divine being, yet the Bible shows that he can communicate and even co-exist with humans (see Genesis 1). Jesus, as claimed by the Bible, is the Eternal Son of God, is he not? And wouldn't the 21st century have been a more appropriate time to materialize, considering our large scientific wealth of knowledge and documentation? I'm not asking for God's DNA or fingerprints. However, some sort of concrete, objective and "scientific" evidence that God exists is all that's needed to unite much of the world into a single belief. But the Bible is not proof enough to many, as most would say it does not present the facts. Rather, it presents various stories and testimonies that may or may not be factual. The Bible does not present the facts in the same way that, say, evolution presents the facts.