Eljay, what about the bonobo chimps?


While they may appear chimpanzee-like to the untrained eye, bonobos are different. "In terms of body mass, they are very similar to chimpanzees," de Waal explains. "But they're much more gracile.

They have longer legs, they're slender, they don't have the huge shoulders and thick neck [of chimps], and they have a smaller head. They're also more elegantly built and move more elegantly than chimps. And when the bonobos stand upright, they look very human-like because they have these different body proportions." It's their social behaviour, however, that's the real pièce de résistance.

"In terms of social behaviour, bonobos are almost the opposite of the chimpanzee in that they're relatively peaceful," de Waal remarks. "As far as we know, they don't have inter-group warfare going on, they eat a little bit of meat but much less than chimpanzees, and they're not great hunters." But here's where it gets interesting: "Male dominance is not there. It's rather the opposite where females dominate the show." And it doesn't stop there!

"They seem to resolve a lot of their conflicts with sexual behaviour," he says. "If two bonobos have a fight, they may make up with a sexual reconciliation, which is typical for their species. So there's a lot of sexual activity that goes on that has more social meaning than reproductive meaning." Their sexuality also mirrors humans in a couple of other ways, too.

"Bonobos have a greater variety of sexual postures," he reveals. "The bonobos can do it any way they want – and they can do it face to face also. So positionally – so to speak – they have a richer repertoire. And their sexual behaviour is not just male to female. It's also female-to-female and male-to-male and male-to-juvenile." In fact, they make the human sexual revolution of the sixties and seventies look tame.

But what does this all mean for theories of human evolution? "The bonobo is almost a complete contrast to the chimpanzee, even though the two species are so closely related," de Waal explains. "So there's no reason, from the biological perspective, to suggest that the chimps are a more important model than the bonobo, because they're equidistant to us."

As de Waal suggests, "it's possible that the common ancestor was not exactly like the chimpanzee, but it may have been something in between a chimp and a bonobo. That means maybe there was aggression and male dominance [as some theories suggest], but it's very well possible there were maybe lots of other tendencies that have not been emphasised so much in models of human evolution." …like the propensity for pleasureful sexual activity, for instance!


http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/4451/BonobosLikeHumans.html

Original sin is the most ridiculous sort of idea. It amazes me its taken seriously. Its circular and only makes god a hypocrite.

Ok...let's say he IS aware of Jesus, but has still never commited a single sin. Greatest person to ever walk the Earth besides Jesus himself. BUT...he dies and never accepts Jesus as his savior.



Is he still going to hell?

A man is born and spends his entire life free from sin, helping and loving others. He doesnt commit even one little sin. Never smokes, drinks, cusses, steals, lusts after another woman, etc... He doesnt even THINK about these things.

He is unaware of any religion, and therefore has no reason to repent or accept Jesus as his savior.



Is he going to hell?

This post illustrates a vast misunderstanding of the idea of species.

The bottom line is this, if you don't understand what makes two similar creatures different species, then you have no business talking about evolution, breeding ect.

Actually evolution from one species into another has already been shown in both bacteria and fruit flies.

The fact of the matter is that this is precisely the same kind of thing that happened when the Church was trying to refute the Sun-centered solar system. The evidnece was OVERWHELMING yet they continued to be stubborn for YEARS until they finally had no choice but to give in.

It's just religious resistance of TRUTH in favor of unproven dogman.

In fact, how utterly silly that someone who worships an unproven dogma should ask for 'proof' of anything.

It's absurd.

You're refusing to believe in something for which there is OVERWHELMING evidence, in favor of believing in something that has no evidence at all. None, zip, zilch.

It's truly religious.

In fact, I've personally given so much evidence of why the Bible can't possibly be the word of any consistent all-wise God that as far as I'm concerned I've "proven" beyond any shadow of a doubt that it can't possibly be true.

Not only is there no good reason to believe it, but there are a myriad of really SOUND REASONS to recognize that it is necessarily the made up demagogurey of men.

It use it as an arugment against the OVERWHELMING evidence for evolution it turly insane. Even the Pope knows better.

I do love that you are soooooo firm in your anti anything but god/bible/creatonism Elijay.

It's admirable....

I still dont get why everyone has to try so dismally to prove each other wrong...

why is it not ok to say it's possible....either way...?

How does that shake anyone's foundations....scientific or religious?

or do you believe that noah captured 2 of every creature on one large boat to survive a great storm?

Have you heard of the scientific studies on spontaneous evolution?


No magic wands, no dust with air blown into them, no spare ribs to make another one crap...

evidence................*insert ominous dom dom dommmmmmmmm music here*

ah ha! yes! thank you jess!
there is more proof in this world to evolution being truth than not.
my point is that religion is in more ways than one simply a hoax!

Well, I would totally differ with you there. Christianity is all about personal gain!

It's all about getting on the 'good side' of God for the purpose of being "saved" from eternal damnation and being rewarded with the prize of eternal life!

It's all about being SAVED Eljay!

Only an athiest who does good things without any belief that they will be "saved" or anything like that could claim not to have motives of personal gain.

Christianity is all about personal gain.

That's what it's based on.

Will the real Christian please stand up.



I remember this from a book I once read in English class in high school. It was all about religious people and how judgmental and mean they were to their fellow man. But this one guy who didn't believe in god (obviously an atheists), was generous to everyone and forgiving and never judged anyone. The book was used in part to teach us the concept of irony.

I fully understand your point of view Eljay. However, to carry it to the ulimately level you'd need to recognize that by your definition of Christian then many atheists, Wiccans, Buddists, and anyone else who just happens to be a good person would technically be a "Christian" even if they didn't believe in the Bible or that Jesus was God.

All you are claiming is that 'works' or 'behavior' is what makes a good "Christian". But most Christians (especially clergy) would disagree with you on that point. They would claim that the only way to be a Christians is to confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of the God of Abraham and that the Bible is the word of this God of Abraham.

I do believe that there are man people who believe like you. They believe that to be a "Christian" has to do with behavior moreso than what you believe. But most will also claim that you must accept Jesus as your savior. But that would eliminate anyone who doesn't believe in the Bible.

You're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

In fact, you're precisely where I was many years ago!

I tried to do precisely the same thing. I tried to claim that being a "Christian" had to do with being a Good Person. But the hardcore fundamentalist have PROVEN to me that the Bible will NOT permit that interpretation.

It's simply doesn't fit with what the book claims. At least not if you're going to hold that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of the God of Abraham.

They only way you can truly make your version of Christianity truly work is to do away with that concept. You must forfeit the divinity of Jesus and view him as nothing more than a Buddha who rejected the God of Abraham.

The view that you would LIKE to call "Christianity" would NOT FLY in the "Christian world", you would be labeled a HERETIC and denounced by Christian Clergy.

Because they refuse to accept your view that works or behavior trump a confession that Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords AND the SON of the God of Abraham!

That's their highest trump card. Anything less will be trodden out of existence and proclaimed to be heresy.

Even Bishop Carlton Pearson was metaphorically crucified by the Christians for believing that God had given him an epiphany that hell does not exist.

The "Christians" will simply not allow for anything less than a very rigid interpretation that Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of the God of Abraham and that the entire Bible is the word of the God of Abraham.

To pretent that "Christianity" can be something other than this is to truly kid yourself. You'd be far better off inventing your own religion because MAINSTREAM Christianity would never recognize your interpretations on this matter.

In short, you don't speak for "Christianity", you speak for Eljay. Period.

Heck I would have become a "Christian Preacher" if I could preach love and acceptance. The reason I reject the religion is because that's NOT ALLOWED! If you don't preach hatred against heathens you can't be a Christian Preacher. And by that I simply mean to say that you MUST preach that the ONLY way to become a Christian is to accept Jesus as the Sacrificial Lamb of the God of Abraham and in DOING SO you MUST also accept the the Bible is indeed the WORD of this GOD!

Anything LESS than that cannot be condone by any Christian clergy as being representative of a TRUE Christian.

So I feel for you, becuase you would LIKE Christianity to be something other than what it IS!

As would most "Designer Christians". Then want to save Jesus and toss the God of Abraham in a lake of FIRE!

But that's just not possible. That's NOT what the religion called "Christianity" is all about.

If you want to call yourself a "Christian" you better get with the program. Otherwise you're just making up your own ideologies and calling that "Christianity".

But that's NOT "Christiainity". Christianity is a HISTORIC RELIGION. It's not something you can just re-define yourself.

You're truly living in a dream world if you think you can just denounce Catholicism as "Christianity".

What would that leave?

The myriad of Protestant demoninations? I'm sure you're not going to agree with all of those either. So you just pick and choose which ones YOU LIKE and call those, "True Christianity".

You have nothing more than a Salad Bar religion. You just pick an choose what YOU would like Christianity to be!

But the orthodoxed religions don't agree with you. You're just STEALING THEIR LABEL and redefininging it. Good luck with that.

This is precisely why the religion became meaningless as soon as the protestant protested against it. Clearly it can't be from God if you need to PROTEST against it in order to make it WORK.



You're in the same boat I was in, you're just refusing to give up the label and you've decided to just redifine it to SAVE JESUS.

That's what I tried to do. But you can't Save Jesus! He's been nailed more firmly to the OLD TESTAMENT than he was to the cross.

It's truly an all-or-nothing religion. You either need to accept the Old Testament as the word of God, or recognize that Jesus was not the Son of that God.

That's the cold hard TRUTH.

There really is no way to save Jesus from the Old Testament whilst simultaneously clinging to the notion that he's the sacarifical lamb of the God of Abraham.

Something's got to give. It just can't work the way it is.

I denounce the connection to the God of Abraham. I think it's crystal clear that Jesus did too. He clearly taught the teachings of Buddha (not the God of Abraham!).

But I'm not going to pretend that this view is "Christianity" because it's not. Christianity is based solely on the idea that the Jesus is the SON of the God of Abraham and was indeed his sacarificial lamb to pay for the sins of man.

That's the notion I reject Eljay.

All the rest is moot.

Dear Eljay,

You are showing serious signs of '... intellectual bankcrupty...'

The degree of twisting, misinterpretations, ignoring other people's simple points, and spinning a web of lies and deceit, is clearly pointing to someone 'spendng more intellectually than one is worth'.

And that my friend is the point you are missing, ignoring, by-passing, or simply incapable of 'getting'!!!

Your comments and observations lately are tainted with a degree of pompous 'self-importance' that is ridding your posts of any and all credibility.

To come back with :

'... What I determine the point is that you are making is attempting to guess what and how I think...'

... besides the fact that the formulation itself is most confused, is the clearest indication that you haven't a clue about the point being made.

I truly couldn't be less interested in '... what and how you think...' !!!
I simply read some posts on these forums, and address as respectfully as can be, some points of agreement, or points of incoherence, confusion and inconsistency as I see them.

My 'pro' or 'con' 2 cents worth against yours!!!
No more! No less!

Inside that 2 cents worth of ours, you do not have what it takes to lay or imply most of the 'claims' (very different than a personal opinion) that you make.

i.e.: let's say that : '... to you personally, that you have no doubt that the bible is the word of (YOUR) god, and therefore represents the foundation of your own personal faith...'
That experience of faith (dealing with that which IS NOT!!!) makes whatever you elevate your mind to believe 'as true', to be true FOR YOU, BUT NOT TRUE IN THE MATERIAL AND FACT-BASED WORLD.

The bible 'is the word of god' FOR YOU, as a personal belief, but it isn't true in fact. In fact, the bible is a book period. To imply anything else is being guilty of 'intellectual bankcrupty'.

'evolution is a religion', might be elevated as true to you, as a matter of personal belief TO YOU, but in fact, and in the real world, this claim is nothing other than a delusion. It has no foundation whatsoever. To imply anyting else as you do, is being guilty of 'intellectual bankcrupty'.

(your words) '... While there may be numerous Catholics who are christains - claiming to be a Catholic does not make one a christain. Ditto for Protestantism!!!...'

Again, elevate your mind to believe whatever you wish, but in fact, a catholic claiming he is a catholic, IS A CHRISTIAN.
Again, your own personal standards, viewpoint, moral judgment, based on your interpretation of the book on this matter, change nothing with the fact that catholics whom claim to be catholics, ARE CHRISTIANS!!! Again, to imply anyting else as you do, is being guilty of 'intellectual bankcrupty'.

We could go on endlessly picking statements and claims of yours which are oblivious to the 'FAITH - FACT' distinction, creating confusion, deceit, mischaracterizations, etc.
It wouldn't change the fact that they are all given by the syndrome of 'intellectual bankrupty', or insisting unintentionally in giving oneself a 'larger than can be supported' degree of self-importance.

That is the point you have been missing for the longest time. However YOU might value your faith, beliefs and convictions, which is your HUMAN privilege, the universe ISN'T a faith based orgamism, and couldn't care less.

I think I understand perfectly well what you're trying to say.

You're trying to say that you believe your version of Protestantism.

Whatever version that might be.

And I don't know why you insist on 'dumbing things' down for people. Do you think your so smart that we can't understand what you're trying to say?


I understand precisely what you are trying to say. I simply disagree with you. That's all.

You say:



But that's my WHOLE POINT Eljay.

I'm arguing along PRECISELY THE SAME LINES as you!

Jesus and the God of Abraham were supposed to be the SAME GOD.

Do they both seem like the SAME GOD TO YOU?

They most certainly don't seem like the same God to me!

The God of Abraham had mortal men judging each other and he had them carrying out the excutions.

But Jesus said not to judge and don't throw stones.

Does that sounds like the SAME GOD to you?

It doesn't sound like the same God to me!

The God of Abraham had everyone seeking vengence via an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Jesus said, no. Don't seek revenge! Turn the other cheek and FORGIVE.

That's my WHOLE POINT Eljay. Jesus and the God of Abraham were as different as Mother Teresa and Stalin (to use your example).

Jesus COULD NOT have been the Son of the God of Abraham.

And that's my only point.

But that's the very BASIS of Christianity!

You look at JESUS and say, "That's Christianity!"

But it CAN'T work like that Eljay. Because the idea behind CHristianity is that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of the God of Abraham.

It's makes absolutely no sense to believe in Jesus and reject the God of Abraham.

In fact, believing that the OLD TESTAMENT is the "Word or God" is precisely what Christinaity DEMANDS! That's there they get all the crap about homosexuality, a six-day creation, the fall of man, and even the very idea that Jesus is the "messiah" born of a virgin and sent by the God of Abraham as a sacrifical lamb to pay for the sins of man.

It makes ABSOLUTLEY NO SENSE, to believe that Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of God if you don't also believe in the GOD!

What you seem to be doing is simply sweeping the God of Abraham under the carpet and trying to worship Jesus as a BRAND NEW GOD.

And that'd be GREAT if Christianity could be made to work like that.

But it CAN'T work like that!

As soon as you sweep the God of Abraham under the carpet you loose the divinity of Jesus.

It's all one continuous package.

The very thing that Jesus is supposedly saving you from is the WRATH of the God of Abraham!

But if Jesus and the God of Abraham are one in the SAME then Jesus is attempting to save you from HIS OWN WRATH.

It just can't work. Also the idea that Jesus would sit at the Right-Hand of God is ludicous. That implies that he's something OTHER THAN GOD.

Who's idea was it for Jesus to save mankind? Was it Jesus' IDEA?
Or was it GOD'S ORIGINAL PLAN!

This is like the THREE FACES OF EVE. God would need to be schizophrenic for this to work.

We denounced Greek Mythology mainly because it's absurd. But how is this Biblical picture and LESS ABSURD?

It's not less asburd at all. It has God betting with fallen angels and letting them beat up on his most devoted servents. It has God telling people to judge each other and stone each other to death. It requires that we believe in angels with wings. It has God's Son lusting to be the King of Kings and Lord of Lords over all humans.

And where's God in all of this? Christians aren't waiting for the God of Abraham to come back, they're waiting for JESUS to come back!

But why would anyone worship the sacrificial lamb of a God. If Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of God then he's NOT GOD.

The story just doens't work and my point is that the Jesus and the God of Abraham truly were as different as Mother Teresa and Stalin.

So it's not that I don't undestands what you are trying to say. I understand COMPLETELY. You view Christianity solely thought the picture of JESUS and you totally refute the God of Abraham.

But that's not what Christianity is based on.

Jesus stands on the shoulder of the divinity of the God of Abraham. Jesus cannot be any more divine than the God of Abraham.

They are supposedly one in the same God.

I've told you my historical interpretation many times. Jesus did NOT teach the teachings of the God of Abraham. In fact, he REJECTED THEM!

What did he teach?

He taught the very same things that Buddha taught!

Jesus wasn't the Son of the God of Abraham. And therefore he's not the sacrifical lamb of that God. Jesus did NOT die to pay for anyone's sins. Jesus was a rebel HE WAS THE FIRST PROTESTANT!

He protested against the GOD OF ABRAHAM!

And he was crucified for it and then used as a dead marionette doll to prop up that Old Time religion and give it a brand new shot in the arm.

Jesus was NOT the son of the God of Abraham.

But that's the CORNERSTONE of "Christianity".

If you want to following the teachings of Jesus just do what Buddha taught. That's where Jesus got his material anyway. He most certainly didn't get it from the God of Abraham. That's crystal clear.

Stubborn believers will NEVER denounce the word of God, no matter what. You could show them a hand written note by GOD HIMSELF that the bible is false...and they still wouldnt believe it.

Well before making personal attacks 'Eljay', and declaring ME a 'hypocrite', or '... just not too bright...', it would be important for you to first address the point I am making.

In the case above, you are completely missing the point I am making,
... which might evoke the 'not too bright' epithet to which you are referring,
or maybe you are conciously avoiding the point,
... which might evoke yet the 'hypocrite' epithet you have also coined.

Anyhow, personal attacks simply don't work 'Eljay'.

Attacking, or offering counter arguments of caustic genre to ideas, observations, beliefs, or convictions that we do not agree upon is to be expected,
... but let's stay away from personal attacks.

Especially when those personal attacks are based on misunderstood or misinterpreted claims. They end-up backfiring on the attacker, and I don't enjoy seeing that happen to you 'Eljay'.

You're going to dumb this down for us?

All you're staying here Eljay is that you are the most arrogant person in the world. You claim that while everyone else may actually be a Christian, you're the ONLY ONE who has the actual low-down on how Christianity SHOULD BE DEFINED.

All you're saying is that YOU DECIDE what Christianity should be.

I think you've just lost all credibility from every possible sector. Christians and non-Christians alike.

I would also advise that you start your own religion if that's truly how you feel. I have no idea why you bother using the label "Christianity" when you claim to disagree with how most other people use the religion.

Also, you say:



Abviously not. You don't require that God=good. I most certainly do and my reasoning is quite simple. If God is not Good then it's not a God!

All you're basically saying is that you allow that the creator of this universe might actually be a madman.

And of course, to believe in the Bible you defininely need to leave the door open to that option because the Bible basically demands that it's so.

So yes, we'll never agree.

I require that God is GOOD. Otherwise it wouldn't be a God at all as far as I'm concerned.

I mean, I would actually AGREE WITH YOU if Christians allow that God is not Good. Then the Bible makes SENSE!

But they refuse to agree that God is anything BUT Good!

Clearly you have an extremely different view of God than most Christians.

My argument with the Bible is that God can't be SIMULTANEOUSLY good, AND still fit the Biblical description.

You seem to actualy be in AGREEMENT WITH ME! You also seem to recognize that if the Bible is true God cannot be GOOD. You handle that problem by just accepting that God isn't GOOD. I handle the problem by simply rejecting the Bible as having been written by God, and recognize that it is the made-up thoughts of men.

So I think we are both coming from the very same place. You just refuse to give up the Bible, you'd rather accept that God is bad.

I'd rather believe that the Bible is not the word of God.

Finally we recognize our major differences in thought.

But you are unlike MOST CHRISTIANS because most Christians demand that God is PERFECTLY GOOD (and that the Bible represents God's will).

I believe that those two concepts are incompatible.

You seem to simply accept that God is not Good.

No wonder you can accept the Biblical Picture so easily!

The Bible would be easy to believe if I was willing to believe that God is not good.

This is true.

I have no problem with your beliefs Eljay other than to say that I personally don't accept them.

You MAIN PREMISE appears to be that science is nothing more than faith-based conjecture.

It really doesn't matter what you do personally. Christianity is a finger-pointing religion that denounces anyone who doesn't accept that the Bible is the word of God. And that's the bottom line. What you do personally is a moot point. The Bible is the book that claims that God hates heathens. If you disagree with that, then you disagree with the Biblical God. Period.



Clearly no problems have been solved by that. The world is apparently just as evil as it is today as it's ever been. The real TRUTH is that mankind is not the source of sin. The world was dog-eat-dog and filled with disease and death long before mankind ever came onto the scene. Jesus clearly did not solve anything. In fact, more atrocities have been carried out in Jesus name than in any other religion. So where you get the idea that Jesus solved any problems is beyond me. There's just no evidence for that at all.



Well, clearly you seem to be equating God with GOOD and anything that is 'Evil' is not God. So just look inside and try to find GOOD and you'll find God.

This is going by your own standards since you seem to equate GOOD with God and Evil with something other than God. I'm only going by what you seem to be obcessed with.



Well, you can't go by what any one particular group has to say. After all, you denounce Catholics as not being "Christians". I'm sure there are many Christian 'organizations' and churches that you'd disagree with. So just becasue you found a bunch of kooks who claim to be practicing Eastern based religions doesn't mean a thing. In fact this is a huge problem with religions in general. Any hardcore fundamentalist can stand up and claim to speak for Jesus holding a Bible in his hand and claiming that it denoucnes Gays, Evolution, "heathens" (or non-believers) and a host of other horrible things. So is that Christianity?

Clearly you have a huge problem if you're going to just use some religious group to be representative of a religion. You denounce that Catholics for Christ's sake! That's extremely arrogant of a protestant to do since Protestantism was based on the idea that no many can speak for God, yet you're claiming that Catholisim isn't representative of Jesus. Isn't that nothing more than claiming to be a self-appointed Pope who speaks for what is and isn't from Jesus?

I think your whole approach to religion is self-destructive.



As far as I'm concerned it's incorrect to call it a 'theory'. That's old hat. Sure there is a theory of evolution, but today we no longer need the theory because we have evidence. Today we can actually speak about the evidence of evolution. No theory required.

We still call Realtivity a 'Theory' too, but time dilation has been proven to occur in our universe, and atomic power plants, (not to meantion the bomb) have proven E=mc^2 too. Yet we still call it a 'theory'.

Well, it's the same way with evolution. The evidence is in. The facts are crystal clear that evolution occurred on this planet over billions of years. To continue to claim that it's "just a theory" is to ignore the facts.

That's an old cliché that simply isn't valid any longer. It's an utterly weak argument that is no longer applicable. The evidence is in and it's overwhelming. Life evolved on planet Earth. That's a fact. Reject it until you're blue in the face, but claiming that it's "Just a Theory" is truly outdated. Wake up and look at the EVIDENCE!

Well, it's the same way with evolution. The evidence is in. The facts are crystal clear that evolution occurred on this planet over billions of years. To continue to claim that it's "just a theory" is to ignore the facts.