The "Religion" thread

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 30 2009, 11:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Religious authorities - actually, the Vatican - understand that point because they have a tested philosophical discipline, which forces them to try and reconcile the conflict. You argue as if they are enemies of reason. Naive.[/b]

They argue that Homosexuals are going to hell (a place that doesnt exist) because of what was written in a book 1500 year ago. The believe that the risk of pregnancy is the perfect deterrent to sex outside of marraige, and have refused to change this mindset aiding the spread of AIDS globally, again this is because of a book written 1500 years ago. This is just the Catholics, they are the easy going ones.

The American Christian variety tend to believe that the world is 10,000 years old (no older), the great flood and ones and twosies bits happened, and we were made in gods image, about 6000 years ago (i think) from a handful of dirt (except women of course).

Followers of Islam believe they have the right to kill anyone who offends their religion (writes a book, draws a cartoon, occupies holy land), they believe in the inferiority of the female side of the species, they believe in death to any non-believers, again based on the content of a book.

There is nothin Naive about it. Of course they are enemies of reason. Your denial of this is absurd.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 29 2009, 10:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I'll be satisfied when mathematicians get to the bottom of it all, because they deal in ultimate truth. I'm not holding my breath.[/b]

So if it hasnt been proven mathematically you dont believe it? Do you also accept the supernatural arguement instead? If not your effectively saying you dont believe in anything unless mathematics has proven it. How do you function as a human being in the absebse of all this mathematical proof?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 30 2009, 11:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Some of our resident evolutionists argue as if their theory were a theorem. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis.[/b]

We have Christians here who believe the Christian "Science" also offer a valid thoery (the kinds that either require supernatural interference, or just cant be proven). By your logic we should accept that, and other thoeries like the BFSM, The celestial teapot as equally valid because they too havent been proven 100%. Or are all of them invalid which just seems illogical. Is it possible to have "no position" on everything?

The thing is their religion depends on the 100% infallibility of the bible. Natural Selection (as close to a theorem as we will probably ever get) shows that man was not made in the image of god, and not 6,000 years ago. In the same way we can point to techtonic plate movement, fossils, dinosaurs, 13billion year old stars etc to reinforce the ridiculous position they hold.

Thats all Science has to do in this arguement. The bible sets the rules, we just have to show its a pile of shite. Its kinda easy really.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 30 2009, 11:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis.[/b]

But a hell of a lot more likely than God made man out of a pile of dirt sometimes after creating light and before some other event. You are trying to make Abiogenesis sound as ridiculous as religion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 29 2009, 11:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Getting pedantic about the word "theory" is no more than seeking to agree the terms of debate. Without those terms it's just mutual abuse. The criterion of beyond a reasonable doubt is specific to judicial determination of facts, and has nothing to do with science.[/b]

I dont think it was ever proven that the Earth is actually bigger than the moon. I mean not 100%. Do you require 100% proof of every fact the earth throws at you before accepting it, or does Beyond a reasonable doubt actually come into it? Beyond a reasonable doubt actually has a lot to do with Science. It has sod all to do with Mathematics, but Science can only go so far sometimes.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 30 2009, 04:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Ditto for the Creationist argument! B)[/b]

Not true. Quite a few of us read your account of boat building. It was amusing, but it offered no proof and the chances are it was logistically impossible. Its not a thoery, its a myth.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 30 2009, 04:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

The best biblical proof however is in the manuscripts and in personal testimony[/b]

There you go then. Personal testimony compiled 30 years after the fact (explains the contradictions). A book complied 300 years after the fact. Throw in a bit of Supernatural hocus pocus and voila ............ the perfect manual for life.

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (alexmac @ Oct 29 2009, 09:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

There are questions that keep coming back to me. "Why are we trying to ditch God? Why are we trying to disprove something that ultimately has a positive influence on so many people's lives?" and finally "Why are we so arrogant that we can't accept something bigger than ourselves?"

Maybe if we answer these questions we might actually get somewhere[/b]

No no no and no. Ultimately religion can have a positive, negative or negligible influence on someone's life. It is neither the force for good you make it out to be, nor the force for evil that has a finger in the pie of the crusades, imperialism, several genocides and countless other ills. Why are we so arrogant? Because we as a species are the most successful out of the millions of other species that have existed on earth. It is this arrogance that created religion in the first place, simply because humans couldn't accept that there were natural forces their brainpower as yet couldn't explain. Why should we accept something that there's no evidence for?

And shtove, I don't need to reply to you because I really don't have to do better than that. In the religion vs science debate the balance of facts is weighed very heavily on one side. It is the other side who 'needs to do better' to make up the balance. You cannot waive irrefutable evidence away by saying there's not enough of it.

 

[O'Rothlain]

Some of you lads need to take basic science classes again and learn your termonology.
Theory & LAW.

Theory: (countable) (sciences) A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena.
There is now a well-developed theory of electrical charge.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theory

Law: A well-established, observed physical characteristic or behavior of nature. Newton and Einstein understood the law of gravitation in very different ways
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/law

Therefore Gravity, unlike some have noted, is no longer a theory, it is a Law. Evolution, unlike some of you have noted, has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and is therefore a Theory.

The two terms are immense when discussing things of this nature. Evolution has not been proven to be a law. It is not a known absolute. It is a good way to explain findings in nature, but at this point is just an assumption (however logically or scientifically formed).
Creationism is the belief that for this natural world/universe to exist, something supernatural must have happened, because in nature chaos does not become orderly, order breaks down to chaos. Please check the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You treat us as if we don't go about things logically because we assume the divine or the supernatural, which just isn't right.

 

[durbutter]

Learn how spell terminology.

 

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noidsay @ Oct 30 2009, 11:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Learn how spell terminology. [/b]

You got me on that one, you........ <_<
Ha Ha...where's spell check when you need it!!!

 

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 30 2009, 11:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 30 2009, 11:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Religious authorities - actually, the Vatican - understand that point because they have a tested philosophical discipline, which forces them to try and reconcile the conflict. You argue as if they are enemies of reason. Naive.[/b]

They argue that Homosexuals are going to hell (a place that doesnt exist) because of what was written in a book 1500 year ago. The believe that the risk of pregnancy is the perfect deterrent to sex outside of marraige, and have refused to change this mindset aiding the spread of AIDS globally, again this is because of a book written 1500 years ago. This is just the Catholics, they are the easy going ones.

The American Christian variety tend to believe that the world is 10,000 years old (no older), the great flood and ones and twosies bits happened, and we were made in gods image, about 6000 years ago (i think) from a handful of dirt (except women of course).

Followers of Islam believe they have the right to kill anyone who offends their religion (writes a book, draws a cartoon, occupies holy land), they believe in the inferiority of the female side of the species, they believe in death to any non-believers, again based on the content of a book.

There is nothin Naive about it. Of course they are enemies of reason. Your denial of this is absurd.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 29 2009, 10:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I'll be satisfied when mathematicians get to the bottom of it all, because they deal in ultimate truth. I'm not holding my breath.[/b]

So if it hasnt been proven mathematically you dont believe it? Do you also accept the supernatural arguement instead? If not your effectively saying you dont believe in anything unless mathematics has proven it. How do you function as a human being in the absebse of all this mathematical proof?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 30 2009, 11:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Some of our resident evolutionists argue as if their theory were a theorem. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis.[/b]

We have Christians here who believe the Christian "Science" also offer a valid thoery (the kinds that either require supernatural interference, or just cant be proven). By your logic we should accept that, and other thoeries like the BFSM, The celestial teapot as equally valid because they too havent been proven 100%. Or are all of them invalid which just seems illogical. Is it possible to have "no position" on everything?

The thing is their religion depends on the 100% infallibility of the bible. Natural Selection (as close to a theorem as we will probably ever get) shows that man was not made in the image of god, and not 6,000 years ago. In the same way we can point to techtonic plate movement, fossils, dinosaurs, 13billion year old stars etc to reinforce the ridiculous position they hold.

Thats all Science has to do in this arguement. The bible sets the rules, we just have to show its a pile of shite. Its kinda easy really.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 30 2009, 11:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis.[/b]

But a hell of a lot more likely than God made man out of a pile of dirt sometimes after creating light and before some other event. You are trying to make Abiogenesis sound as ridiculous as religion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 29 2009, 11:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Getting pedantic about the word "theory" is no more than seeking to agree the terms of debate. Without those terms it's just mutual abuse. The criterion of beyond a reasonable doubt is specific to judicial determination of facts, and has nothing to do with science.[/b]

I dont think it was ever proven that the Earth is actually bigger than the moon. I mean not 100%. Do you require 100% proof of every fact the earth throws at you before accepting it, or does Beyond a reasonable doubt actually come into it? Beyond a reasonable doubt actually has a lot to do with Science. It has sod all to do with Mathematics, but Science can only go so far sometimes.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 30 2009, 04:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Ditto for the Creationist argument! B)[/b]

Not true. Quite a few of us read your account of boat building. It was amusing, but it offered no proof and the chances are it was logistically impossible. Its not a thoery, its a myth.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 30 2009, 04:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

The best biblical proof however is in the manuscripts and in personal testimony[/b]

There you go then. Personal testimony compiled 30 years after the fact (explains the contradictions). A book complied 300 years after the fact. Throw in a bit of Supernatural hocus pocus and voila ............ the perfect manual for life.
[/b][/quote]
Sweet jebus, you read an awful lot of crap ... and believe it!

That post is full of false understandings and assumptions. You should write a letter to the Irish Times. Or just write the Irish Times. Thankfully, it's going out of business.

What is a homosexual? Is that like a homo sapiens? Or is it a sodomite? Or a leeeesbian? Or a gay? Or someone who's shy about sex? Or blatant about sex? Or someone with an eye for fashion? Or a kiddy fiddler? I'd really like to know the basis for that categorisation.

And let's start a thread on the link or non-link between HIV and AIDS, so we can all get really really irritated.

p.s. I'd suggest a thread on the bullshit of global warming rip-off taxation politics, but that would blow all the liberal gaskets.

 

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 30 2009, 11:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

That post is full of false understandings and assumptions.[/b]

I was just responding to the pedantic crap you came out with and followed your logic to its conclusion. Care to point out which assumptions and understandings are incorrect (and why) and which ones are correct?

I didnt really understand the rest of the post.

 

[O'Rothlain]

Can I just add that the Catholic Church cannot be blamed for the spread of aids. I think this notion is simply retarded. I have friends who go on and on about it, but it just isn't right. If you don't want aids, don't have sex. It's called self-control, and it's your responsibility. And, and, if you disagree with the church, go strap on 15 rubbers and plug away at any ole minger that'll have you. It's not as if the Pope is sitting in a helicopter pouring aids-dust over Africa. Africa is doing it to themselves. I've had friends who were missionaries in Zambia for over 7 years, and the stories are shocking. Men raping under-aged girls because they believe having sex with a virgin will cure aids. That doesn't come from the Church. Anyway, I think this is one point where I can say you are picking a fight for fights sake. This argument is an agenda started by anti-church people.

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Oct 31 2009, 02:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Can I just add that the Catholic Church cannot be blamed for the spread of aids. I think this notion is simply retarded. I have friends who go on and on about it, but it just isn't right. If you don't want aids, don't have sex. It's called self-control, and it's your responsibility. And, and, if you disagree with the church, go strap on 15 rubbers and plug away at any ole minger that'll have you. It's not as if the Pope is sitting in a helicopter pouring aids-dust over Africa. Africa is doing it to themselves. I've had friends who were missionaries in Zambia for over 7 years, and the stories are shocking. Men raping under-aged girls because they believe having sex with a virgin will cure aids. That doesn't come from the Church. Anyway, I think this is one point where I can say you are picking a fight for fights sake. This argument is an agenda started by anti-church people.[/b]

No. If a Church with a huge influence over people (largest religion in the world...) says 'use of contraceptives is murder' then a lot of people are going to listen. Condoms and education are the best ways of preventing AIDs. The 'no sex' argument is like saying 'never eat and you won't get food poisoning'. You're never going to get people to stop having sex. In the West, HIV/ AIDs has a low prevalance because of contraceptives and education. No one is blaming anyone for the spread of AIDs, but preaching against the use of contraceptives is at best harmful to prevention of the disease.

Anyway, that is a sidetrack to the whole religion debate...

 

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 31 2009, 05:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Oct 31 2009, 02:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can I just add that the Catholic Church cannot be blamed for the spread of aids. I think this notion is simply retarded. I have friends who go on and on about it, but it just isn't right. If you don't want aids, don't have sex. It's called self-control, and it's your responsibility. And, and, if you disagree with the church, go strap on 15 rubbers and plug away at any ole minger that'll have you. It's not as if the Pope is sitting in a helicopter pouring aids-dust over Africa. Africa is doing it to themselves. I've had friends who were missionaries in Zambia for over 7 years, and the stories are shocking. Men raping under-aged girls because they believe having sex with a virgin will cure aids. That doesn't come from the Church. Anyway, I think this is one point where I can say you are picking a fight for fights sake. This argument is an agenda started by anti-church people.[/b]

No. If a Church with a huge influence over people (largest religion in the world...) says 'use of contraceptives is murder' then a lot of people are going to listen. Condoms and education are the best ways of preventing AIDs. The 'no sex' argument is like saying 'never eat and you won't get food poisoning'. You're never going to get people to stop having sex. In the West, HIV/ AIDs has a low prevalance because of contraceptives and education. No one is blaming anyone for the spread of AIDs, but preaching against the use of contraceptives is at best harmful to prevention of the disease.

Anyway, that is a sidetrack to the whole religion debate...
[/b][/quote]
It's a 2 sided rule. The church says no condoms and no sex before marriage. So, the fact that people will ignore the "no sex before marriage" part, but hold fast to the "no condom" part is ridiculous. The Churches whole position on sex is what should be examined, not just the wee bit that you want to pick out.

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Oct 31 2009, 01:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 31 2009, 05:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Oct 31 2009, 02:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can I just add that the Catholic Church cannot be blamed for the spread of aids. I think this notion is simply retarded. I have friends who go on and on about it, but it just isn't right. If you don't want aids, don't have sex. It's called self-control, and it's your responsibility. And, and, if you disagree with the church, go strap on 15 rubbers and plug away at any ole minger that'll have you. It's not as if the Pope is sitting in a helicopter pouring aids-dust over Africa. Africa is doing it to themselves. I've had friends who were missionaries in Zambia for over 7 years, and the stories are shocking. Men raping under-aged girls because they believe having sex with a virgin will cure aids. That doesn't come from the Church. Anyway, I think this is one point where I can say you are picking a fight for fights sake. This argument is an agenda started by anti-church people.[/b]

No. If a Church with a huge influence over people (largest religion in the world...) says 'use of contraceptives is murder' then a lot of people are going to listen. Condoms and education are the best ways of preventing AIDs. The 'no sex' argument is like saying 'never eat and you won't get food poisoning'. You're never going to get people to stop having sex. In the West, HIV/ AIDs has a low prevalance because of contraceptives and education. No one is blaming anyone for the spread of AIDs, but preaching against the use of contraceptives is at best harmful to prevention of the disease.

Anyway, that is a sidetrack to the whole religion debate...
[/b][/quote]
It's a 2 sided rule. The church says no condoms and no sex before marriage. So, the fact that people will ignore the "no sex before marriage" part, but hold fast to the "no condom" part is ridiculous. The Churches whole position on sex is what should be examined, not just the wee bit that you want to pick out.
[/b][/quote]

Fair point.

Although it is unrealistic to presume that no sex will take place before marriage.

 

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 31 2009, 11:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Oct 31 2009, 01:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 31 2009, 05:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Oct 31 2009, 02:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can I just add that the Catholic Church cannot be blamed for the spread of aids. I think this notion is simply retarded. I have friends who go on and on about it, but it just isn't right. If you don't want aids, don't have sex. It's called self-control, and it's your responsibility. And, and, if you disagree with the church, go strap on 15 rubbers and plug away at any ole minger that'll have you. It's not as if the Pope is sitting in a helicopter pouring aids-dust over Africa. Africa is doing it to themselves. I've had friends who were missionaries in Zambia for over 7 years, and the stories are shocking. Men raping under-aged girls because they believe having sex with a virgin will cure aids. That doesn't come from the Church. Anyway, I think this is one point where I can say you are picking a fight for fights sake. This argument is an agenda started by anti-church people.[/b]

No. If a Church with a huge influence over people (largest religion in the world...) says 'use of contraceptives is murder' then a lot of people are going to listen. Condoms and education are the best ways of preventing AIDs. The 'no sex' argument is like saying 'never eat and you won't get food poisoning'. You're never going to get people to stop having sex. In the West, HIV/ AIDs has a low prevalance because of contraceptives and education. No one is blaming anyone for the spread of AIDs, but preaching against the use of contraceptives is at best harmful to prevention of the disease.

Anyway, that is a sidetrack to the whole religion debate...
[/b][/quote]
It's a 2 sided rule. The church says no condoms and no sex before marriage. So, the fact that people will ignore the "no sex before marriage" part, but hold fast to the "no condom" part is ridiculous. The Churches whole position on sex is what should be examined, not just the wee bit that you want to pick out.
[/b][/quote]

Fair point.

Although it is unrealistic to presume that no sex will take place before marriage.
[/b][/quote]
The Realistic side is that the Church only sees sex as an act of marriage, therefore when married and having sex they prohibit the use of birth control. They condem the act of sex outside of marriage before they condone the use of birth control.
While I understand that it might be "unrealistic" to presume that no sex will happen before, it doesn't change the moral standard set forth.
Anyway, enough of that...sort of a side tangent.

 

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 31 2009, 12:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 30 2009, 11:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That post is full of false understandings and assumptions.[/b]

I was just responding to the pedantic crap you came out with and followed your logic to its conclusion. Care to point out which assumptions and understandings are incorrect (and why) and which ones are correct?

I didnt really understand the rest of the post.
[/b][/quote]
I don't really understand it either. It was a rant.

I did come across a bit strong, but then you are full of crap and nothing you said was correct.

You use cartoon notions to dismiss a very profound appreciation of life and seem to have a literal mind, well suited for a shouting match with people who insist on the literal truth of the bible. The Americans you refer to are simply protestants who take a leaf out of Ussher's book - born in Dublin.

Catholics don't argue that homosexuals are going to hell. Their point is that sex is for procreation within the family, and that people who have a different reason for waving their cocks around are best advised to keep it in their pants. If they don't follow that advice, then they are in a state of sin and estranged from god, whether or not they're homosexual.

My rant comes from frustration that the notion of homosexuality wipes out the true purpose of sex. The state uses this carte blanche to justify interference in the family and the promotion of the benefits system as the "bread winner" for millions of children born to poor mothers. It defies personal responsibility and erodes our freedoms. And besides, I'm ****** off paying taxes for this nonsense.

 

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 31 2009, 03:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Catholics don't argue that homosexuals are going to hell. Their point is that sex is for procreation within the family, and that people who have a different reason for waving their cocks around are best advised to keep it in their pants. If they don't follow that advice, then they are in a state of sin and estranged from god, whether or not they're homosexual.[/b]

That is the best way to put it.

 

[melon]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Nov 1 2009, 08:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 31 2009, 03:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Catholics don't argue that homosexuals are going to hell. Their point is that sex is for procreation within the family, and that people who have a different reason for waving their cocks around are best advised to keep it in their pants. If they don't follow that advice, then they are in a state of sin and estranged from god, whether or not they're homosexual.[/b]

That is the best way to put it.
[/b][/quote]
That statement becomes null and void on the basis that there's no such thing as the being who is being lusted upon by far too many people.

Haw haw haw.

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 31 2009, 08:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

My rant comes from frustration that the notion of homosexuality wipes out the true purpose of sex. The state uses this carte blanche to justify interference in the family and the promotion of the benefits system as the "bread winner" for millions of children born to poor mothers. It defies personal responsibility and erodes our freedoms. And besides, I'm ****** off paying taxes for this nonsense.[/b]

Sex is fun. Yeah it's more loving and ultimately more intense and meaningful in a relationship, but having a one night stand can (and usually is) great fun. It's the deepest expression of desire for someone, hence the expression 'how far did you go', with the furthest being intercourse. If you fancy people of your own sex, that doesn't make it any different. Homosexuality is not a 'notion'.

And being ****** off paying taxes really gets on my ***s. The collective money of the people pays for so many of the things we enjoy and take for granted. We enjoy healthcare, transport, security, education and numerous other benefits thanks to the collective resources of the nation. Whenever I get a payslip I'm happy that my taxes are being put toward the Greater Good. It's national insurance that ****** me off.

 

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Nov 1 2009, 04:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 31 2009, 08:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My rant comes from frustration that the notion of homosexuality wipes out the true purpose of sex. The state uses this carte blanche to justify interference in the family and the promotion of the benefits system as the "bread winner" for millions of children born to poor mothers. It defies personal responsibility and erodes our freedoms. And besides, I'm ****** off paying taxes for this nonsense.[/b]

Sex is fun. Yeah it's more loving and ultimately more intense and meaningful in a relationship, but having a one night stand can (and usually is) great fun. It's the deepest expression of desire for someone, hence the expression 'how far did you go', with the furthest being intercourse. If you fancy people of your own sex, that doesn't make it any different. Homosexuality is not a 'notion'.

And being ****** off paying taxes really gets on my ***s. The collective money of the people pays for so many of the things we enjoy and take for granted. We enjoy healthcare, transport, security, education and numerous other benefits thanks to the collective resources of the nation. Whenever I get a payslip I'm happy that my taxes are being put toward the Greater Good. It's national insurance that ****** me off.

[/b][/quote]
Sex is weird - especially when you give the gspot a healthy rub. But then you pay for the pleasure. Can't afford the consequences? Not so much fun.

I guess if you're employed by the NHS then taxation makes a whole lot of sense. Personally, I prefer not to pay tax and not employ you nor pay for your ridiculous pension scheme. The NHS - looking after #1 ... and the Labour Party.

Apart from that, I'm being chased by taxation zombies whenever I pay for booze, tobacco, and fuel - 70% every time. The reason they don't let you have a gun in this c***ry is to stop you delivering a head shot to the flesh tearing monster of the state.

The Greater Good is a whole other religion, usually called communism. George Orwell sums it up nicely.

 

[Charles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Nov 1 2009, 07:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Sex is weird - especially when you give the gspot a healthy rub. But then you pay for the pleasure. Can't afford the consequences? Not so much fun.

I guess if you're employed by the NHS then taxation makes a whole lot of sense. Personally, I prefer not to pay tax and not employ you nor pay for your ridiculous pension scheme. The NHS - looking after #1 ... and the Labour Party.

Apart from that, I'm being chased by taxation zombies whenever I pay for booze, tobacco, and fuel - 70% every time. The reason they don't let you have a gun in this c***ry is to stop you delivering a head shot to the flesh tearing monster of the state.

The Greater Good is a whole other religion, usually called communism. George Orwell sums it up nicely.[/b]

What differentiates us from animals is that we have found a way to separate sex from procreation. I don't think you eat raw food and go around naked. You're also probably using electricity and such modern commodities. Yet for some reason SEX has to be different. The religions of the Book have such a problem with sex, women, and bodily pleasures it's not even funny.
Oh and btw, I don't think you would ask for a car advice to somebody who hasn't even got his license, right ?




Is this you ?

The greater good is called living in a society, and giving a part of your money to the state so he can manage things than you can't. Now if you don't give a **** about other people (are you a christian ?) you can always sod off to some deserted island...

 

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 31 2009, 08:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

but then you are full of crap and nothing you said was correct.[/b]

Thats twice now youve said, and twice youve expanded on it, but twice you still havent pointed out where I was incorrect.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 31 2009, 08:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Catholics don't argue that homosexuals are going to hell.[/b]

Would you stop. the two of you. Homosexuals are an abomination, they shall not inherit the kingdom of god etc. Its in the "good" book and I havent heard the vatican (them being the heads of the catholic church yeah?) refute any of that. I presume its still one of them big sins that can be forgiven if they give up their life of sin and be good again (which is great news for all the priests that seemed to enjoy practicing it on little boys around Ireland) but if they dont its an eternity burning in hell aint it?

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Nov 1 2009, 05:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Sex is weird - especially when you give the gspot a healthy rub. But then you pay for the pleasure. Can't afford the consequences? Not so much fun.

I guess if you're employed by the NHS then taxation makes a whole lot of sense. Personally, I prefer not to pay tax and not employ you nor pay for your ridiculous pension scheme. The NHS - looking after #1 ... and the Labour Party.

Apart from that, I'm being chased by taxation zombies whenever I pay for booze, tobacco, and fuel - 70% every time. The reason they don't let you have a gun in this c***ry is to stop you delivering a head shot to the flesh tearing monster of the state.

The Greater Good is a whole other religion, usually called communism. George Orwell sums it up nicely.[/b]

mate what are you on? What has paying for sex got to do with anything? And fine, we'll remove the NHS for shtove's benefit. We'll knock out the largest employer in Britain, just so we can divert the taxes into benefit money for the 1.3 million people in England who are newly unemployed. I presume you're then willing to divert more money into paying for extra police to cover the bump in crime that goes with a rise in unemployment?

Or shall we just get rid of any form of taxation? In which case, refer to Charles' source. Then, f*** off to Switzerland, Monaco and Dubai with all the other selfish c***s *Lewis Hamilton cough* who need to keep their greedy paws on every penny they get.