I applaud everything you have said.

As a heterosexual man that does not like gay men due to too many passes made over the year I feel I have the right to say this in all fairness.

Re-examination of the texts on my part has convinved me that rather than homosexuality it was homosexaul RAPE that is a sin.

I appreciate you as someone against stating that you honor freedom enough to believe religion should be left out of it. I simply think the church has been teaching wrongly and practicing duplicity for many centuries as it had more homosexual men in it's ranks than any other surviving institution I ever heard of.

No one had told you that you were supposed to have seen enough or at least one naked woman in person before going to a clothing optional ceremony?

maybe they just wanted to know if you were serious?

Uhm Does it say coffeehouse, singles pick up bar, or dating forum? it's a religion chat forum...

We aren't supposed to post here unless we want a date or immediate hookup or instant relationship?

Darn it where did I miss my exit?

That much was obvious :)

Color me Shamanistic with Wiccan leanings...

I have a few thoughts about the bible and christianity if you are interested for anyone who is not please skip my entry.

1. Regardless of what is claimed by "blind faith" followers the bible was written by men rather than god. Even the bible itself indicates it was written by men, why people take a leap and call it the "word of god" as if it was etched into pages by fire is a mystery to me and a large percentage of the population. My great Aunt once put it pointedly well by saying the bible had been written by old men with failing memories because many of the passages were indeed written long after with specific goals or messages in mind.

2. What is in the bible so far as the passages used is a collection of letters or small books written by individuals. Some of it we can believe is complete text, while some is quite probably edited by those that put it all together. This is the way people put together books or "volumes" and the bible is not a book it is a volume or collection of books.

3. Many of the things said in the bible in general are not understood by modern people including most christians. The good feeling they get rewarded with by being good blind faith followers encourages them not to question and ruin that bliss. Most are taught from childhood just what to think by everyone in their church, preacher, priest, sunday school teacher, or congrgation member. Many of these people don't know the bible at all other from condensed sermons because they didn't read it completely, or understand the wording. Many phrases in the bible were translated repeatedly, and even if translated correctly still lost their significance. The bible is the most commonly read ancient work in exisitence that exists in a somewhat ancient form in many interpretations, and it takes hours and hours of reading third party sources just to understand what some of the phrases or language mean in context before even reading the passages themselves.

4. The Faith was dressed up, augmented, and completed by a group of people not approved by god or christ but enabled by political power. The bible is a reminder of something divine without being completely divine itself because it is a work of flawed man. (we are all flawed and all women were denied input from the bible so men take all the blame).

5. Even if you take the bible as the direct word of God, and then read it as if you know nothing about Christianity and then spend an extended amount of time among Christians the deviations of the church and taught following are mind boggling. it is far from being the fault of a individual other than not doing their homework. It is the fault of the church, that is the established dogma that taught rigid control for so many centuries and burned people to death for different opinions of faith that they accepted hostility which is against all teachings is staggering to the mind. It is not so easy to just re-vamp centuries of teachings even if they contradict the stated purpose of the teachings.

6. It has been the long standing practice of the organized church to stomp brutally any difference in opinion or non believer in the interest of preventing any soul searching that would be prone to point out the contradictions of the bible, or the fact that the church and congregations as a majority don't even follow the teachings of the bible, and practically ignore what Christ taught.

7. When youd dispute the bible even if you are trying to return someone to their true God even if you are fighting to free their soul from the shackles of imperfect men and return it to their God, you are facing 1500 years of unforgiving unwavering dogma. The Church built self protection into the belief system that never even existed in the time of the bible or Jesus, by declaring anyone who disagreed as a sinner or at war with the church. This has nothing to do with God, or Christ, or true Christianity, it has to do with a cultural slavery movement propogated by the church which operated on profit. (or did you never note all of those fine vestments and rings and jeweled pieces worn by bishops over the centuries?)

8. It takes more strength than many can muster to recognize the difference between seperation from their belief, and seperation from the dogma of church, because fear of death or fear as hell has been used as a powerful motivator throughout the centuries.

9. I am ok, you are ok, we are ok, and they are ok. Anyone who can't accept the differences is acting on animal fear instinct, and rightly so, because disputing the church or it's madates used to result in being executed so it was a matter of survival to pound the automatic reaction of rejection into everyone to prevent from having to have to watch your child executed before you. I know it's not right, but it is a lot to ask a person to overcome.

There is really a lot more to it than that though. The bible of course as anything else made by man has imperfections of one kind or another. As much as it is meant to convey the concept of a higher power it was still made by men.

What turns more and more people from christianity as an organized religion is churches, congregations, and christians in general that absolutely refuse to follow their own faith or even understand it.

In a decade of occasionally talking with Christians there is only one man I worked with that I confirmed to think of as a true christian. he might complain but was reasonable and did so without judging. He read his bible and understood what it meant. He examined religious practices and rejected those followed by christian churches that were decidedly non-christian. As a non Christian I enjoyed a number of chats we had discreetly about theological theories and from everything he said he seemed to truly have a real grasp on his own religion and try to impliment it in life. He invited me as someone who knew the bible better than most of our christian co-workers to attend his church rather than to convert me, but because he thought some of his congregation might enjoy some of my thoughts on the bible and it's passages. Because he as a true Christian sought self improvement and spiritual enlightenment.

I am a non Christian that rejects the christian church and congregations as an organized mob religion. I do however, resepect every last true Christian I know. They are known by their behavior, their interest in understanding what they believe in, in understanding the true teachings of Christ outside of the warped usage of the bible or the way the church has sacraliged itself in the name of violence, seperatism, and spiritual slavery.

A true christian is strong enough in their belief, and has studied CHRIST enough to understand that he spoke against violence, seperatism, and slavery. A true christian is able to accept other people without trying to bend them to profess their own beliefs or be banished or killed.

I left Christianity because they had left the teachings of Christ over a millinia ago.

All of this is my personal observation, and personal belief based on what I have experienced from Christians both as a Christian watching the treatment of outsiders from within, and from being on the outside watching what christian "gang mentalities" have a tendency to do. It is far from being an exclusively Christian sin it encompasses many groups around the world it's just that pride as a sin is something one or two religions have never been able to let go of.

If you are a fake or bad Christian I hope your life improves, and if you are a good Christian you know exactly what I am talking about it probably hurts you as much as it did me long ago.

Why Re-invent the wheel? Anyone that doubts the theoretical possibility of what I just said that claims to be christian need only read their own bible.

We are created per the bible in the image of god, making us children that it is hoped will eventually progress spiritually to a level of 'higher consciousness". (NOT A QUOTE)

Just as we were created if one believes in intelligent design we too care capable of creation. Technology and art are simply examples of our creation power. The organic brain and body are simply highly advanced mechanical functions. They exist in the physical world even if we are not yet capable of understanding their complete workings. A computer is A.I. created to immitate the thought processes (or enabling software to us it to do so). Whether we have done so or are now capable of doing so it is known that if we continue at our current rate of understanding and creating we as a race will eventually be capable of creating a mechanism just as complex.

So far as non believers that do not believe in intelligent design or some higher power that has had some hand in our creation or development why would they ever bother even engaging in a religion chat which is in essense theological discussion? Religion and philosophy are intertwined but somewhat different. The same people that say we can not prove a ghost exists for the same reasons must acknoledge lack of the proof of a soul.

In religion, just as sometimes with philosophy, a leap of faith, belief, or acceptance is required for any discussion to occur to begin with.

Let any person who is a god (or goddess) and capable of creating a soul or dividing their soul to share with another person, computer, car, animal, or any other thing in existence now acknowledge themselves as superior to all of us humans since they already know all of the answers beyond dispute and promplty lose interest in petty humans that claim they know anything or grasping at straws and discussing concepts because we are after all just collectively making guesses and theories.

(This long winded run on sentence basically is saying if you are a god and have all of the answers why would you debate the small matters with petty humans?) For those of us that are NOT gods (or goddesses) we must accept that we can theorize but are incapable of giving absolute answers from any authority other than personal pride.

I acknowledge someone's right to differ in belief or opinion, I can only state what I know and believe to be true. Rather than suggesting anyone was TRULY wrong in their belief about computers, brains, sentience, or souls, I was simply laying out what we as a populace believe to be facts, so the original example of a computer could be put to rest with or without agreement so you could all return to your original debate that computers were simply used as an illustration for just like a car was at one point.

The computer versus the organic brain and just what is a brain?

Well this will be simplistic, because I have seen how concepts can be twisted. I can only HOPE it may find some acceptance as decades of thinking have lead a mass of people to the same conclusion. I weigh in here only because I see a religious thread turned into a debate about compter/chemical brain function.

A computer, is a piece of equipment without soul, or organic content (speaking of course about a common computer). A brain, is an organic machine based on living cells operating with chemical reactions that do contain electrical current even if on a different scale. One is organic, one is non organic. Otherwise the two "brains" or "computers" function in the same way.

A Brain contains thought process, and although there have been documented cases of partial brains (or on one case someone lacking a brain from birth) there are many more cases of brain damage resulting in mental disability or death. Because of this we can assume that in most cases the brain is a needed platform for thought or conscious mental horsepower.

A computer contains software. In addition to the power of the computer, the memory, and processing strength required a computer relies on good software just like a brain. Bad software mucks up a computer, bad thoughts muck up a brain.

Now, the whole bit about soul, sentience, ect is one that we are not capable of answerering through technical examination. However, many people believe that a computer with the given needed CPU power and memory could enable software that if well written and complete enough could form the basis of a thought process capable of learning by itself (given input or sensors) and changing it's own programming. In theory if this reached a certain level it would constitute a self aware conscious computer. (Basic and brutal or benign and considerate would constitute the difference between selfish or consciencious thought which are levels of psychology humans go through.)

If any computer and software set capable of achieving sentience exists we are unaware of it and rightly so per my personal opinion. It scares the populace, in addition to raising freedom issues if something becomes classified as sentient. It is likely such technology could still take us decades or centuries but is a mathmatically proven possibility.

Whether this sentient software residing in a hardware environment when reaching sentience would be granted a soul (or have a soul decide to inhabit it) is a theological question that has been puzzled over for decades we are unlikely to solve it here.

The bottom line is I believe that a brain is the home or platform that our thoughts use to function and make our thoughts exist in a physical rather than non physical world. Our Mind is the summation of these thoughts and thought patterns. This is incapable of proving we have souls because souls are a theological theory, but it does prove the modern definition of sentience not by the fact that we have brains, but because of the way we use them.

This is all based on my personal understanding of the state of computers (which is basic but rather exhaustive) and my understanding of human brains (which is equally basic and exhaustive). I lack any claims to knowing better than anyone, I am simply trying to explain in a non offensive way a basic common ground that I would hope might be more reasonable for most discussing this here at this time, so the original thoughts can progress and be discussed.

Brain, MIND, Computer, SOFTWARE. None of this proves a soul anyway it only proves sentience the belief in souls is a matter of faith or personal experience encompassing much more than can be written in text.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate hoping this may help while pointing out that little if anything I said here should be a matter worthy of debate since it is all documented based on statistics and ignoring rare cases which we have no explaination for.

Single has to be better than some of the offers we turn down...

Maybe it's not the best place to live?

One interesting tendency is for married men to look better. People flourish with love, or in a good environment, and they often wither in a bad environment or without love. When you look at one of these men try to imagine them in better clothes (once they start caring or are happy again), better groomed (when they feel alive again), and shining with that glow that is a love of life from having joy in their hearts.

Although it isn't always easy I try to view people I meet with this "adjustment". I read on another posting list about people who are positive being more attractive, but in essense for the longest time rather than look for someone mindlessly happy, hip, popular, and motivated by greed I've been looking more for someone i can relate to, adore, and respect as a down to earth real person.

In truth I've seen a lot of people around, but normally if I approach someone I have nothing to do with it's someone that seems sad and needing someone to check on them. Happy content people don't need my attention. It's those people who have that sad look so many don't like that interest me in hopes that I could make it better, or somehow relate to them.

Speak for yourself, I gave up on finding a woman I like that I can respect and love mutually. I joined because I thought it was a chat site and was looking for a new chat room with better people.

lmao....

I was once "Christian", and now believe differently.

Ack...what a can of worms that should have been left closed!
If one believes in intelligent design it is easy to take a look at the big picture and understand quite a bit that it isn't easy to stomach as a human being.

Disease is a population control tool to keep numbers lower so that the population can survive without largescale chaos and cannabilism. If no one ever died we wouldn't even have room to breath or the oxygen we need to breathe. The more quickly man works to overcome the frail human condition through medical knowledge the faster natural forces or disease have had to progress to maintain any balance to control the population. It's far from hatred or cruelty, it's just logistic neccesity to counter the mandate from the RCC demanding people NOT use birth control causing mass overpopulation in entire regions of the world. So far as unatural disease such as many types of cancer caused by man made chemicals, poisons, pharmaceuticals, or food additives (which per some conspiracy theorists would include aids as a manufactured disease) they fall into the overall plan of population control but have nothing to do with the original intelligent design. The thought that disease is a punishment from the creator given to humankind as a punishment is incorrect. As much as people would like to use the creator as a scapegoat to blame for being cruel if one does the math it's impossible to miss out on the fact that a LOT of people have to die in order for the rest to live.

Before Critisizing the outrageous crimes against humanity take a look in our own back yard. Our govenernment does not protect people from big business, it doesn't protect human decency rights, or even honor the geneava convention rules. Sacrificing our population to dangerous drugs released by big pharma companies with politicians in their pockets, lying to the entire population about the results of experiments and testing, and disguising dictatorship methods while claiming it's in the name of national security when some of these rules serve no purpose whatsoever other than generating profit. Now if you want to really get going on this the U.S. was involved in two wars, and only two wars where white people were killed. EVERY LAST other conflict or war we were involved in had american racists soldiers tromping around the world killing, raping, and disrupting entire cultures based on the "american" way whether any of the people being invaded thought it had anything to do with freedom or not. I suppose the majority in power in the U.S. is more tolerant of destroying cultures if it's a non white non christian culture they can consider below themselves.

Hawaii wasn't adopted, it was invaded. Puerto Rico was taken because we wanted one of their islands as a nuclear testing ground and needed to control the area to do so. Korea and vietnam were more or less uesless conflicts born for profit.

I disagree with crimes against humanity but I think as Americans we need to stop talking about what they do in other countries when we can't face our own sins. Since this was brought up under a relgieous concept I will say point blank I think any caring higher power would care a lot more about the acceptance of killing, hatred, and racism whether applied socially or theologically than they would be sex outside of marriage.

If you go back and read the bible passages with real understanding and with fresh eyes almost all sins spoke of in the bible that I ever heard of had to do with doing wrong against others. Rather than sex without marriage it was rape or cheating on one's spouse that was evil.


Pardon me but did you just claim yourself equal to God by claiming to know his will and his exact meaning? The bible was written by men, even the bible states this. The only thing that god ever wrote in theory was commandments on tablets and even those were lost and had to be replaced almost immediately if I remember correctly. BLIND faith is following the words of men defining who your god is, and how your god should be followed. This would according to the bible be sacrilage I believe. I believe the term that used to be used was inspired by god, and the claim that god manifested himself on earth and wrote everything in the bible with it's own hand is a bit childish.

Were spanish conquistidors pardoned for their sins by their creator (if this process does indeed take place) and their rape, theft, and murder of the indigenous people forgiven because it was justified as the will of god under blind faith? Personally I think if there is a real hell they would be frying in it a lot longer for daring to blame their lust on a higher being. Cultural genecide disguised with or blamed on religion is still the same sin, it only sounds prettier.

The for or against concept in itself is a declaration of war against non believers or those that believe differently. This is a form of open hostility, and the cause of wars where entire peoples were hurt, tortured, or even killed.

So far as being a fence sitter I do believe that there is/are a higher power/powers in existence, but I reject the definition offered by others especially a church that has existed for it's own betterment and profit for 1500 years as to how that higher power should be defined. The idea that someone is FOR or AGAINST "God" is simply a mechanism born of the bloodthirsty wanting to kill people, take their property, or rob them of their own self identiy imposing theological slavery and then instead of facing these actions as a sin blaming it on god much like a four year old child might blame their "imaginary" friend. Personally I think that this alone if there is a vengeful judging side to god would earn someone eternity in hell. Notice I did say IF. This sin is one you don't even have to commit dirrectly when you commit it by proxy encouraging it in others. The idea of a holy war is a misconception. An all powerful being could wipe out any peoples it wanted to, if man kills it is for his own desire and bloodlust. If he strips another of power it is because of his own sadistic or controling nature. Leave god out of your lustful pursuites because if you believe you have to face your god, you can be sure that will be a point of major interest.

Unity requires acceptance of others, and their beliefs. Only slavery forces others to take your views. There is no invitation to life, you are already living it. How you choose to view it with a pure heart, or hatred and seperatism disguised as religion is up to you.

This is yet another example of modern people mucking around with theological philosophy without understanding what they are reading. In the way the bible was written many terms that were commonly used in communication meant something other than they do now.
Examples include:
"Son of" meant direct descendent of whether the relation was actually offspring of or far removed decendent seperated by endless generations.

"Heavens" meant the sky and it's content. It could mean the universe viewed from earth in an astronomical sense, or it could have simply meant the atmosphere depending on what the speaker had in mind. Depending on context or intent, in some cases heaven and earth could even simply mean a geographical location. If a volcano erupted destroying an area, it's peoples, and it's customs the earth and sky would perish. Per the writings of the bible the heavens and earth already perished during the great flood according to the understanding of the ancients.

"Divorce" was the practice of abandoning one's wife and possibly even her children because you were bored with her and wanted to be rid of her. This at that time was a known practice often implimented with no justified cause other than the man wanting to be free to enjoy life with another woman which would of course be cruel to the wife and a sin in that it was wrong and hurtful. (This is inprecise but if you go back and read the texts and the context in which divorce was mentioned things become very clear.)

Any time one wishes to discuss the bible, it's contents, or meaning one must actually do a bit more research than just reading the bible in order to even understand what was being said and the language of the times even after being interpreted into another language because the gramatical significance and the "slang" of the times are lost to most of the living population. Once this is done reasonably and one goes back (in some cases even without having done this) and reads with fresh eyes the passages can have entirely different meanings.

So far as what any real heaven may be I actually wrote a paper once explaining why the heaven described in sunday schools when experienced for eternity would be a intolerable hell. People can't even live a single life on earth without knowing everything without being bored yet think having all revealed and no change for an eternity would be pleasant?

Actually this is the form of general existance and art. When you create a child through union resulting in offspring you are not creating a full grown human being a but a child capable of growing fully into an adult human. When an artist creates they creat art according to what their mind, heart, and spirit desires. If the human race was created by a perfect or all knowing being to create a finished product would deviate from the "parental" concept and make the human race xerox coppies.

If one follows the creation theory obviously we would be created as a race capable of reaching perfection eventually rather than perfect from the start. Even texts about Eden indicate humankind were the imperfections of the garden. For them to be banished from Eden to learn and grow with less guidance and have self responsibility would be a neccesary step for these beings to learn and grow and reach whatever status on their own merit.

When thinking about religion, or the origin of mankind it's a good idea to use common sense rather than blind faith. After all the misconception is that blind faith is for God, and that is a lie. The blind faith is for other humans claiming to be able to define who your god is for you. It's better to throw that away completely, because if you did read the bible and the story of cain and able it teaches first and foremost that the god of the hebrews would prefer humble genuine worship than fake posturing or blunt expentancy.

So far as the ant farm analogy it is a good one because to a god we are perhaps that simple. The problem is that if they created perfection, or had complete control we would be remote controlled toys in an arena rather than living breathing self responsible beings. In addition, an ant farm must be nourished and fed, and we were given responsibility for caring for ourselves rather than just digging our own tunnels.

Whether we exist by accident or divine intervention either way we evolve physically, mentally, and spiritually on our own merit based on our experiences and our individual or collective potential. Evolution is the whole point because to believe we exist for only the "amusement" of the god or gods would make us pets rather than children.

"My argument here has been that one who was perfect had to know that creating a less than perfect being/human would result in exactly that. So, was the design perfect or was there a flaw?"


First of all the human race was not meant to be perfect. We were created as a race that had the potential to grow, evolve, and gain attributes that would eventually over the course of millinia evolve into higher beings we just never made that leap. It is quite possible that the whole progress was forseen before it ever started, adn that even the incident with banishment from Eden was part of the plan for human kind to evolve spiritually.

So far as the God depicted in the bible goes who made that god, or that bible? As much as some claim the bible is the word of god it is in truth written by men who lived in ancient times and had a different way of seeing the universe. Words that made sense to them and meant something may mean something else completely to us. Even at the times they were written many of the books were likely open to interpretation. A great aunt of mine once said before I get all steamed up about the contents of the bible I should remember it was written by old men with failing memories trying to interpret the message of God.

My point is that perfect can be a relative term. In the Ancient world any mind more civilized than the brute people we were would be considered perfect.

The God of the Hewbrews was a god that was written about by many inspired men and women. Then some other people long after the fact took a bunch of letters or theme papers and called them books, and decided that THEY signified the will and existance of God better than any other books. No modern teachings are accepted as word of god by the same people that take on faith without thought that the bible is the direct word of god. When I find the rare Christian that follows the true christian beliefs rather than what is taught in most churches I am impressed by them.

Christian means believe it or not follower of Christ. Relatively few churches follow Christ because he was a heretic for his time, encouraging others to go against spiritual establishement and examine their own hearts and spirits. He spoke against seperatism and judgement or control of others. He spoke against false worship, and the system of dogma that turned religion into a profit empire. Then his own "followers" killed his teachings by forming the church which from the first days was never able to follow or even by large encourage the followings of it's own icon because he encourage people to think and feel, instead of follow blindly. He gave his life in the name of spiritual freedom yet over the centuries the church was one of spiritual freedom's worst enemies.

Many laws and rules in the bible were written for the times. They were for the good and the salvation of the people as well as their souls. Most writtings were for the safety of the people whether it was social rules, or health rules (such as eating pork in an ancient world where many did not proerly wash or cook their meat, or divorce being denounced in a world where men could get bored with their wives and ship them off and abandon them to poverty or ruin without cause or reason).

It is strange that so many remember these simple rules that are now outdated in appropriateness, yet the very important rules and the nature of how the bible was made is not remembered.

Show me a good Christian and I will show you one very uncomfortable with many churches. Show me a Christian that takes the whole bible as the word of God from God's point of view and I will show you someone who hasn't read the whole thing and noticed the contradictions.

I like her shoes, but she doesn't like mine lmao

I used to sit in anguish going over websites trying to find someone I could relate to. Sometimes I would wonder why people couldn't like me for me, or I couldn't find a nice woman I find interesting that actually behaved well.

Eventually I just gave up. I realized that maybe I'm not meant to find that person that I can truly mesh with as a human being. I simply gave up on trying to find someone, and started ignoring the women that just wanted sex or to get inside my head.

It's silly to think there is something that wrong with us that no one would want us. Relationships whether friendship, romantic, casual, or even true love are all about compatibility. Only relationship satisfied people talk about how many there are out there because we all know it's not any easier than finding a needle in a haystack. As we get older we are more set in our ways, more defined so far as what type of people we are, and what kind of people we accept in your life. We all make choices and some of us would rather be alone (as painful as that can be) than be with the wrong person.

There are a few silver linings to the cloud though. All of the money I used to spend on dating I can spend on other things. No relationships or dating means there is no one to muck up your life details, or cause you serious relationship stress. I can do whatever I wish with my time, and answer to no one. I stopped having to deal with women that couldn't see their own problems but wanted me to change my life to please them. (Visit or move to other countries or states, wear polo brand clothes, ect ect). When I go to the fridge for something I know it's going to be there since I'm the only one raiding it. No women around means my shirts are safe and I get to keep them! I know these are small silly things, but it's meant to make you think, and make you laugh because I can't find what I need either.

Hope, does not float, it just makes the world look brighter. :)

Men can have the same problem you know. It isn't easy to find people with real integrity or interest in other human beings in a world that can't stop encouraging people to hurt each other to get ahead.

I've known people that polyamory works very well for and encourage it
for those it works for. It is SAD when someone confuses multiple loves
for multiple sex partners though...

Personally I'm with Adventurebegins and Wildflower I never could make it
work with a singular partner, how could I hope to make it work with
multiple partners?