UndecidedFrog

Candice, I think you are misinformed. Project 10 is not marketing anything of the kind. They are a resource for the LGBT community that provides counseling services and health referrals. The only advocacy activity they do is: I very much doubt this is any campaign to spread anything about homosexuals being 10% of the population. I think they got their name from that notion, but from their own website and their mission statement, they have nothing to do with furthering that notion, as you have claimed. Their self-definition: Their self-defined mission: There is no marketing of anything in those descriptions. From their website, they provide mainly counseling services and health referrals as well as support groups. Regards, UndecidedFrog

No matter how you attempt to portray biblical slavery as not slavery similar to the experience of Africans in the 1700s, you will not convince me that it is not ownership of humans. Biblical slavery is ownership of humans, and with such ownership comes the right to trade them as chattal for other goods and services in the open market. Are you saying that the christians who supported Apartheid in South Africa in that era, did not have their god stamp them likewise? Why do you think so, if this is the case? LOL, you do not allow for differing interpretations of what is correct from what is not? How then must you view the christians who supported African slavery in the 1700s? Were they not following their god? How then must you view the christians in South Africa who supported Apartheid? Were they not following their god? How then must you view the christians who support the prohibition of homosexual marriage today? Are they not following their god? Perhaps you should consider that all christians follow their particular interpretation of what they think is their god's position on a matter. As evidenced from objective review of the past events, we know these interpretations to change over time. The view/interpretation of what is correct is dependent on culture, society and time. Different cultures, societies at different times will interpret/view one thing correct, while another will view it as incorrect, and vice versa. Examples: Prohibition of interracial marriage; Slavery, Apartheid; the Final Solution; the prohibition of homosexual marriage. What was interpreted to be correct at one time is viewed as wrong now. Take any of the examples I provided. Given this experience, how can any say that what they now interpret as correct is actually correct for all time? I don't think they can with any honesty. Again, you fail to recognize the difference between ones interpretation of what is correct from anothers interpretation. You equate your interpretation of what is correct to be correct. That may not be the case. And as history has proven oftentimes, ones interpretation of what is correct has been shown to be incorrect. I support marriage between two consenting adults who want to join their lives together in a committed relationship. You may attempt to redefine what I support or what I do not support as much as you want. It doesn't change what I support. I believe I understand it better than you do for you have no concept of 'best' because best is the ideal and unless you understand 'the best' you don't know the ideal. I find you have not answered any of my questions. Regards, UndecidedFrog

You are mistaken, because from my experience with people, the majority do not feel that homosexuality is wrong, as you attempted to claim. So you think that acts of sodomy are unnatural? Do these acts occur in nature? If they do, then they are natural. It is indeed natural for loving couples to explore each others' bodies. Even in heterosexual relationships these acts of sodomy occur. Waste-pleasure relationship is the same as the Eating-pleasure relationship. It is a mistake to consider that acts that do not produce progeny are unnatural. Consider couples who cannot produce progeny, do you think to forbid them to marry? Do you think to impose laws to forbid couples who are fertility-challenged from having sex? In the society in which I live, these things are unlawful as determined by my society. I don't necessarily agree with these laws, but, understanding that I need to live in society, I accept them as laws. My personal view is that homosexuality between two consenting adults does not harm anyone anymore than heterosexuality between two consenting adults. Polygamy is the marrying of multiple wives. From my perspective, if women view this as an attractive lifestyle for them, let them decide for themselves if they are adults. We would have to do some tinkering with the legal benefits associated with marriage to equilibrate between polygamy versus 2 party marriages. Bestiality is sex with animals. I don't think animals have the ability to consent. Incest is sex with a near relative. Aside from the increased potential genetic consequences of consanguinous progeny, if this is between two consenting adults, I have no issue with it, much like how the daughters of Lot bore their father's children. If someone, suffering with the pain of end-stage cancer, I have no problems allowing another to kill them, if they consent to it. Where do you draw the line to determine what is outside of norm? Is it 2 standard deviations? If so, homosexuality is well within 2 standard deviations. Homosexuality accounts for about 10% of the general population. The DSM does not view homosexuality as an aberration. The bible is not as concrete as you think, as evidenced by your equivocation on the various biblical laws that you now consider as not applicable. In addition, you now consider that slavery (the ownership of a human by another) to be morally wrong, yet the bible permits it, and even have some laws on how you may beat your slaves. I consider this as evidence of shifting. I consider this as evidence that proves that biblical morality is not a solid base. You agree today based on your god's standards that interracial marriage is allowed. However, just several decades ago, many christians agreed based on their god's standards that interracial marriages should be prohibited. So much for solid, non-shifting bases of morality. I base allowing mixed marriages on the priniciple of non-hypocrisy. Do I want someone to prohibit me from marrying someone outside of my race? No, I don't. Therefore, I will not be in favor of prohibiting others from marrying outside of their race. Do I want someone to prohibit me from marrying my chosen partner? No, I don't. Therefore, I will not be in favor of prohibiting others from marrying their chosen partner. Do I want someone to own me as a slave? No, I don't. Therefore, I will not be in favor of others being owned as slaves. Regards, UndecidedFrog

Hi Peter, Thanks for your response. Who is right is determined by the people in power. One society determines that littering carries a $50 fine. Another determines littering carries a $250 fine. Who is right? They are both right, limited to their respective societies at the respective time. If one society permits cannabalism, it is right for that society at that time. If one society permits slavery, it is right for that society at that time. What is good, but the subjective interpretation of what is right, which differs from one person to the next? What is law but the codified morality of each society. If one society allows its laws to permit genocide (a la Hitler), that is the moral of that particular society, and reflects what is acceptable and good to the people who abide by it. Remember, Hitler could not possibly commit every act of murder by himself. He relied on the support of his minions and the active and tacit approval of his citizenry (predominantly christian) to implement the final solution. If the majority in the society in which he lived viewed such action as bad, they would revolt against him (and some did). 'Should' is loaded. It is better to see it for the facts that are there. Why was Hitler successful in his final solution? Why would I attempt to impose my subjective good on others who may feel differently? I would not. However, knowing that most of us do not live as hermits, isolated from society, there is some compromise. We voice our subjective differences to determine what the cumulative laws of our society will be. In my particular society, I vote for various representatives, and several issues via direct referendum. No god/s are required in this process. Generally, I hope that we have evolved enough to recognize the importance of what Confucius recognized in 500 BCE: Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself. If we all approached treating others this way, I think we would be very happy. Each individual determines what happiness is for himself/herself. The particular society in which an individual lives, determines what is permissible and what is not in their laws. No, there is no definite standard of what happiness means. No, there is no definite standard of what laws are proper. Different societies have different laws. People usually tend to gravitate to the societies that have laws that coincide with their perspective of what is permissible. Example: Since Proposition 8, many homosexual couples looking to marry have migrated to NY from CA. Regards, UndecidedFrog

And what of the two do you fall under? Dear Isaiah, It does not matter which I am, for whichever I am, it does not affect the definitions of the words. However, since you are so interested in my status, I consider myself an atheist. Regards, UndecidedFrog

That's very interesting. To clarify, is it okay for me to tell someone he's acting like an idiot as long as I genuinely believe that is the case, since I'm telling the truth, or is it only safe when I'm telling that to a non-Christian and I know that there will be a moderator willing to look the other way? Dear Exaeus, Yes, it is an interesting phenomena, that is oft repeated on these forums. For some evidence of this, you may want to take a peek into the pinned notice "To the Believers" in the Outer Court. Apparently, only some people understand that the claim of "acting like an idiot" is an insult. We do not know the intent of the person who made the claim. Only he can say whether it was meant as an insult (and therefore against the TOS) or not. Some moderators are more impartial than others. In any case, I find christian behavior much more interesting when compared to their professed beliefs. Regards, UndecidedFrog

It entirely depends on what you take as acceptable definitions of each word. For me, atheism is the lack of belief in any god/s. For me, antitheism is the opposition to beliefs in any god/s. From my perspective, they are different. However, from past conversations with christians, I understand that some of them equate the two, similar to the thinking that if you are not for us, you are against us, a 0/1 paradigm. Yet the bible claims: Luke 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us. My purpose is not to convince you. You will believe whatever you "choose" to believe. I am just providing my perspective, for those who might be interested. Regards, UndecidedFrog

Hi Isaiah, Thanks for the clarification. So, if I were to claim that you are acting like an idiot, you won't consider that an insult? Just because it is an insult doesn't mean it isn't true. If I am acting like an idiot, and someone tells me that I am acting like an idiot, while it would be insulting, it is still the truth. shiloh, Thank you for agreeing that it is indeed an insult. Regards, UndecidedFrog

Steven, Thank you for your answer. I shall now know how to categorize your responses in the future. Regards, UndecidedFrog

Hi Steven, If you love me enough, you will tell the truth when I ask you: Do you consider this an insult?: You are acting like an idiot. I shall learn much from your answer. Regards, UndecidedFrog

Hi Isaiah, Thanks for the clarification. So, if I were to claim that you are acting like an idiot, you won't consider that an insult? I am thinking I am beginning to understand what apologetic mental gymnastics is all about. Regards, UndecidedFrog

Thank you for admitting defeat. To sort out the reasonable from the others, who fling ad hominems and run away. Wonderful Dialog. Regards, UndecidedFrog

Some christian reminded me of a little piece of wisdom in another thread, whose corollary also applies: Rule #1: Do not personally attack the christian. Rule #2: Claim victory and walk away when the christian insults you. Thank you for providing me with another fine example of your special christian attitude towards me, OES. I always appreciate such fine examples of christian attitude wherever and whenever I encounter it. Regards, UndecidedFrog

Yes, I really understand the message of the cross, and how you believe it to be the crux of everything you believe. LOL, allow me to quote a worthy forum moderator on your question: If you believe I am here to mock and play games, you can lobby to have me banned. You don't have to respond to anything you do not feel comfortable discussing. Regards, UndecidedFrog

Hi OES, No, I am not worried about blood being spilt 2000 years ago. What would gross me out is if anyone spilt any blood in front of me. No, I have no idea what you mean by spiritualized nature of blood. I have seen blood before. There is nothing spiritual about its nature. I think animal sacrifices are barbaric. What was Jesus' sacrifice? How can a god die? I think immortality is one of the characteristic definitions of what it means to be a god. If a god cannot die, then what exactly was sacrificed? Animal sacrifices are still practiced in Santaria, and some pagan religions. You don't have to be sympathetic to my squeamishness over spilling blood. Just as I don't have to accept the notion of vicarious redemption. Isn't that just another way of describing scapegoating? Oh, in that case, then please feel free to not die for them. Regards, UndecidedFrog