I agree with Melissa, 100%.. the rights of the minority shouldn't be decided by the majority. Just as Jean Chretien once said, if every minority right will always be subjected to a national referendum, what will happen to their rights? They will never get their rights at hand... Elizabeth, the minority rights are for the minority of the population... that's why it has to be initiated by them. Who else will? You won't, I am sure... because you are not a minority.
@jkadams1983 she was talking about the election this mixed race man (Obama) and this woman(Palin). She was not talking about if being gay was a choice, I love how people twist what other say to justify what they already believe. its not a choice, we are born this way, i never had a moment were i said I think Im going to be a lesbian, i did have a moment where i was like omg i am a lesbian, because guys are gross to me and women are sexy, I cant help who i am attracted too.
@Fireflygamer to act on a preference is a choice in the same way that a person who prefers to have more than one spouse might attempt to marry more than one person. The "born this way" is a simple mantra that is scientifically unfounded.
@redgoldbluephantom actually there is a far amount of evidence that points to that fact that gay people are born gay and a lot more evidence that suggest that it is not caused sexual abuse or how they were raised. not to mention my own personal experience, I knew i as different when i was in kindergarten, did not realize i was gay until 8th grade but i was most defiantly always this way as far back as i can remember and i never choose to be gay, just to be open about it.
@Fireflygamer Scientific inquiry has found genes that determine physical characteristics and even behavioral dispositions, but a gay gene has yet to be found.
@redgoldbluephantom first were did i claim that they did, I'm not sure if they have or not, I hear conflicting reports, but if they have identified the gene or not,it dose not matter. All the evidence suggest that being gay or straight is inborn and that it is not caused how you are raised or a symptom of abuse. To ignore the mountains of evidence simply because they have not identified the gene, just because of your personal feelings towards gays is to be ignorant.
@Fireflygamer For a trait to be scientifically deemed inborn, there has to be empirical evidence. The only way this can be proven (empirically) is on the genetic level. "Suggested evidence" is not recognized by science as fact.
@redgoldbluephantom your just wrong, it was a scientific fact that parents pass traits onto there children long before we even knew what a gene was. also when did i say it being in born was a scientific fact. what is a scientific fact is that if one identical twin is gay there is a 50% chance the other is gay and with non identical twins its only 10% that suggests a genetic factor. Its a scientific fact that being sexually abused as a child dose not make you gay, because...
studies have been do to show that people that are sexually abused are no more likely to be gay then the general population and that gay people are just as likely as straight people to have been abused no more and no less. all the evidence points to the fact that being gay is inborn and none of it points to nurture, ignoring this evidence in favor of a 2000 year old book that says the sun goes round the earth is ignorant. what evidence to you have that its a learned behavior?
@Fireflygamer The idea of homosexuality being "inborn" deals directly with science to which there is no empirical evidence to verify such a premise. The Bible's teaching on homosexuality is a moral question, not a scientific one.
@redgoldbluephantom "which there is no empirical evidence to verify such a premise." when the all the empirical research and studies show that it is not a learned behaviour and that it is more likely that both twins will be homosexual if they are identical instead of non identical, that adds up to a very good case that it is in born, but you choose to ignore that evidence and claim the unsupported idea that it is a learned behavior, you have no idea how science is done.
@Fireflygamer A behaviorist could look at the twins study and conclude that children who look identical are more likely to be treated identically. A cognitive psychologist could use the same study to support the cognitive model. The only way the correlation could be identified as having a genetic cause would through the identification of a gay gene. Until that happens, the gay gene idea remains conjecture or a theory at best, but not an established scientific fact.
@redgoldbluephantom There is no gay gene that's not what gene's do. Gay more that likely come from a last parting gift from Mom at birth and that gift is an extra shot of hormones just at birth. You need to read Robert Sapolsky the top scientist in how hormones change us in oh so many ways, but since you won't do that here's a link to one of his TED talks.
Goto ted.com then search Robert Sapolsky the uniqueness of humans
@stephenpaquet Much of the efforts to find a "gay gene" are still being carried on by geneticists because the idea that hormones (e.g. Sapolsky's theory) are the sole or at least a major factor in determining sexual preference would imply that homosexuality could be altered through prenatal hormonal therapy. Such theories also imply that homosexuality is a defect caused by hormonal imbalance or environmental pollutants. This idea isn't generally well received by homosexuals.
@redgoldbluephantom Hi and thanks for the come back. Yah I know that the Gay community will look on this in a negative light but I don't see why. Designing a hormone therapy would be just as daunting as a genetic treatment. In other words not any time soon if ever. It's way to early to say.
@stephenpaquet Homosexuals do not want to look at their preference as something negative (resulting from a hormone imbalance) or as something even potentially changeable. It doesn't matter how remote the possibility is; many would argue that prenatal and/or postnatal therapy is more attainable than any effort to alter genetics. After all, hormone therapy is already being done for other conditions and procedures more widely than procedures aimed at altering genes.
@redgoldbluephantom What I'm trying to say I guess is saying there's a gay gene is like saying there is a breast cancer gene, I no they say they found one but and he's the big but why is it that woman with this gene only get cancer at the same rate or lower as woman with out the gene. I think looking in or gene's for disease is a dead end.
@stephenpaquet The whole point was to expose the silliness of the hype about the "gay gene" that was never found. But once people begin speaking about hormones, many homosexual become very nervous because there is the tendency to equate homosexuality with disease or disorder (e.g. homosexual tendency being compared to cancer).
@Fireflygamer Inborn traits are only passed on through genetics. The awareness of genes does not "create" the effects of genes. Statistics that "suggest" an idea are not empirical evidence. The same statistics about twins have also been used by behaviorists as well as geneticists to support opposing theories, not scientific conclusions. Both ideas remain theories, but are not facts until there is empirical evidence. To this date, there is none.
@redgoldbluephantom "Inborn traits are only passed on through genetics." This is simply not true there are lots of things that can effect the development of a fetus, for example a child with fetal alcohol syndrome has that as in inborn trait, but it was not genetic. Hormones have a huge effect on a developing fetus despite its genetic code.
@Fireflygamer "Inborn" is a term that refers to characteristics that are passed on genetically from parents to children irrespective of environmental factors with the exception of those that actually harm or alter the genetic code of the fetus. Those factors that don't alter the code are not considered hardwired or unchangeable (e.g. a fetus exposed to classical music is not destined to be a child prodigy, etc.).
@redgoldbluephantom so I did a little reading and it turns out that the original gay gene research was correct and they have found the set of genes that all the gay men in the study shared, and all the straight men did not, the only issue is they have not been able to pin point the exact base pair yet and this is being use by conservatives to say they have not found it yet. But they have found the group of genes its hiding in and they know it exists, there is your evidence.
@Fireflygamer Santa Clause really exists! I know he is somewhere in the North Pole, in a glacier up there... somewhere (because that is what the researcher said). The only issue is that researcher (Frosty the Snowman) has not been able to pin point the exact place he is hiding in. Even though he has not been found, I know he exists, there's the evidence.
NOTE: This argument is silly, but at least a name of the researcher was cited so that the silliness could be verified.
Let me think. The word "ad hominem," means to insult a person character. By calling me a moron is to use ad hominem. Second, your anger against God is perhaps some sin. God always touches the hearts of men and even the late Christopher Hitchens who has been judged by God. Also, your concept of "love they neighbor," is completely out of context. Yes, we are to love our neighbor but to rebuke them when they do wrong, when they sin. To stay quiet when sin is happening is to hate your neighbor.
@sgal88 -If thats true - You should learn to Love thy neighbour :) Or ye shall burn in the eternal pits of hell! Mark my words Christian. Mark them well. ;)
@sgal88 lol as complicated as you may think it is, the people with IQ's above mental retardation don't find the concept of love thy neighbor that hard to understand. Moron.
@MAZ1N00 Your ad hominem proves my point. You must also be ignorant of the law that passed about premeditative crime. Before you start insulting people, maybe you should actually do some research especially about the quote you are obviously misquoting.
@sgal88 You don't even know how to use"ad hominem" in a sentence why would I expect you to understand the concept? Obviously I am going to assume you are speaking on the bible, when your previous comment speaks on kneeling before god.
@Mintsauce27 The is not a direct comparison, but a stark contrast to highlight the poor logic of that line of thought. God made people who are inclined to violence and dishonesty as well so He must be "cool" with murder and deception?!
@redgoldbluephantom wait wait hold up, there is a huge assumption here "god made", prove god made us, come on lets here your scientific evidence that god even exists let alone made us. you want scientific proof that gays are born gay, I want scientific proof that god made us. because all of the scientific evidence points to evolution as our origins and not special creation and if thats the case, being gay is just part of the verity of life and there is nothing wrong with it.
@Fireflygamer The comment was a reply to Mintsauce27 whose comments have a basis in the belief in a deity as it relates to the issue at hand. The argument/reply followed that premise. Mintsauce27's poor attempt to use the belief in God as a basis for arguing against Christian morality is incongruous.
1. Success is not judged by looks, appearances or money. But even so, ellen is way more successful between her talk show, product endorsements, etc. But even more so is the way she stands for rights, such as animal rights, that makes her more admirable.
2. You go with Elizabeth's opinion because she's hotter/more successful? You need a new decision making rationale.
@jshowa5 So he sacrificed himself in the form of man to allow us to join him as the way. You who do not understand and do not want to choose to mix messages with what God did in response to what we did. You painted a one sided coin and called it the whole. This is dishonest and untrue. By the way at the bottom of my other answer on Daosim I mistakenly replied to myself so you need to read that part too.
@jshowa5 God created souls in his likeness and housed them in human frames. He stated for us to love him and each other. He punished Cain for murdering Abel for he was his brother. He stated that we are all brothers and sisters and we should love each other and if we mistreat one another God will take his vengence on the offender. He made covenants with us which we broke and still he forgave us and realized that we must learn through hardship and pain.
@jshowa5 After organized religion, Buddhism, spread to China, Some Taoists organized themselves into a religion in the second century CE. Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism were the three main religions in Chinese history ever since. Chinese people usually visited their temples to worship but did not officially joined any of those religions. They could go to a Buddhist temple one day, and a Taoist temple next day.
Here is more conclusive evidence for you to chew on.
@Ryooken Taoism did not exist as an organized religion until the Way of the Celestial Masters sect was founded in 142 C.E. by Zhang Daoling, who based the sect on spiritual communications from the deified Laozi.
@Ryooken The Way of the Celestial Masters and other later sects of Taoism engaged in complex ritual practices, including devotion to a wide range of celestial divinities and immortals, and thousands of Taoist religious texts were produced over the centuries. Taoists also engaged with Chinese politics in a variety of ways throughout Chinese history.
@Ryooken At one time, scholars in both China and the West distinguished philosophical from religious Taoism, but more recently a continuity of belief and practice between these has been recognized.
Well that kills that theory. This is what I was saying before you don't know what you're talking about but you want to question religion and it's origins. Daoism is an organized religion and has been so for 2153 years.
@jshowa5 No I didn't miss it. Wikipedia is a nice resource but not always accurate. So I am very careful which part I quote. Here is the historical reference and it should dispel the notion of Daoism not being an organized religion. Taoist philosophy, as a school of thought or a way of life, was established during the Axial era of China, 770-221 BCE.
@jshowa5 I believe I answered this before. There are people that practice Daoism as a religion hence the Daoist monks. There are those that practice the philosophy Daosist martial artists. The principles of the philosophy while tied to the religion is dealt with seperately because many practicioners of the philosophy don't follow the religion.
@jshowa5 Again you seem to want to repeat yourself. You can say this a hundred times a day but right to life is not and never has been a secular concept. The fact that the founding fathers used the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as their mantra for white people only has no bearing on our discussion. Your claims that it does is what makes you non-credible.
@jshowa5 A trial as you put it is unecessary since he already knows what you did and therefore, you don't have to prove guilt or innocence. We as people must hold trials and way the evidence because we can't read minds. So again you are comparing yourself to God. Did you create the universe? Did you cause the mountains to rise up? Did you cause the stars to form? Then you cannot compare yourself to the one that did. You can claim God doesn't exist but you have no evidence just your belief.
@jshowa5 Show me in the bible where God says he will not kill. In fact, the opposite is true. God says that if you choose to violate the law, it will carry dire consequences and I will punish you and all nations for I created the heaven and the earth. Here is something else you fail to consider in your own arrogance, God knows who you are and what you are. He can see through you because God's power allows him to do so. You who cannot read minds cannot.
@jshowa5 Well that's your opinion to believe who does or doesn't answer to God. You will find out when you die. However, that's not my problem. God could prove his existence sure but that would defeat the point. He could make you believe but that would destroy free will and that's not something God will do. He keeps his own laws. You have the ultimate freedom of choice and you could receive a mountain of evidence and you still would think God is a delusion.
@jshowa5 All you had to do was pull the text and google it. That source would have come up. You didn't bother so you put the burden on me to provide you with a link. I would do that if youtube let us post links. However, it's not my responsibility to do all your work for you. That's your job.
@jshowa5 Sorry I am back now. I was busy. I can't seem to argue with two idiots at the same time anymore. It takes too much energy and I am losing my desire to do it. Now let's be clear all I did was repost what I stated earlier and all you had to do was go back and read what I said about it. I even started off with I didn't interpret anything, then I postedthe source first then the interpretation. You being so charged up to refute me, didn't bother to read the source.
@jshowa5 No in my case I don't mix the laws of man which change and vary and fall into corruption and the laws of God remain the same. Wrong the right to life was born out of a belief that all people were created equal and that was ordained by God. Thomas Jefferson changed the language to a secular definition because he wanted seperation between church and state. However, the premise came directly from christianity.
@jshowa5 LOL! I pulled that from Wikipedia, so if you should know then you should have read it for yourself instead of pretending to. It states that Daoism is based on Chinese Gods and the 12 immortals. The reason it's seperated is because religious belief and religious practice two seperate things. You can practice Daoist philosophy as expressed in many forms like for example Daoist Martial arts and not practice the religion. Understand? Guess not. I will answer the rest later.
@jshowa5 God didn't murder anyone. God destroyed the evil that was produced by human's disregard for God's law. It's just that simple. The right to life under the constitution doesn't apply to God. God doesn't answer to us, we answer to God. So there is no contradiction.
@jshowa5 Will you please stop posting such nonsense! The more you talk the more you show you don't know what you are talking about. Taoism is an organized religion. It's one of the oldest religions in the world. Taoism is based on traditional polytheistic pantheon. What you are talking about is Taoist philosophy. I should know I studied it.
@jshowa5 Wrong I named my source the very first time I we talked about this. I renamed my source two more times because in your ignorance, you decided to ignore what I said the first time.
@jshowa5 Here is the interesting part you can practice the philosophy of the religion without practicing the religion itself. For example, there are many practicioners of the Daosist philosophy while they believe in other relgions. Now are you done being ignorant or do you want silly somemore?
@jshowa5 Philosophy of religion Philosophy of science Political philosophy is the study of government and the relationship of individuals (or families and clans) to communities including the state.
Aesthetics deals with beauty, art, enjoyment, sensory-emotional values, perception, and matters of taste and sentiment.
If you didn't learn this in your philosophy class in the very first week, I would ask for my money back.
Philosophy of language explores the nature, the origins, and the use of language.
Philosophy of law (more commonly called jurisprudence) explores the varying theories explaining the nature and the interpretations of the law in society.
Philosophy of mind explores the nature of the mind, and its relationship to the body, and is typified by disputes between dualism and materialism.
@jshowa5 Sorry ran out of room. As such to say that there is no religious philosophy in your class, shows not only a flawed education on your part but disengenous teaching on theirs.
The main branches of philosophy are as follows:
Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality.
Epistemology is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge.
Ethics, or "moral philosophy",is concerned primarily with the question of the best way to live.
@jshowa5 Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Now you can study religious philosophy as a valid science. However, philosophy itself doesn't have to be based on religion. You have cultural philosophies, and they can vary from one place to another. So any general philosophy class may not discuss religious philosophy as part of their curriculum because of the broadness of philosophy.
@jshowa5 That's complicated. While there are philosphies that have no religious basis, there are few religions that don't have philosophies. Religious philosophy is philosophical thinking that is inspired and directed by religion. Depending on religion, there are different philosophies for each religion: Buddhist philosophy Christian philosophy, Hindu philosophy, Islamic philosophy, Jewish philosophy, Daoist philosophy etc.
@jshowa5 Oh when has science somehow declared free will invalid? This should be good because our entire democracy is based on freedom of will and freedom of choice. Wow!
@jshowa5 No, you haven't gone to them because you are really not interested in doing so. It's that simple, if you wanted to know the truth then you would be consulting biblical experts and biblical historians.
@jshowa5 Oh? That's your belief not actual fact. People don't worship the book, they worship God. Whether you believe or not isn't pure opinion and not my problem. However, you claiming that there is no evidence that Jesus did or didn't exist is a fallacious argument based solely on your opinion.
@jshowa5 Well unlike you I don't pull interpretations out of my ass because I unlike you I actually studied biblical history, biblical culture and I fully understand it. I also don't read something and take it literally because I am mature enough to know that communication is not always literal. I named my source and the fact that you accused me of not naming it is laughable. It shows clearly that you really aren't interested in a honest dialogue.
@jshowa5 I am not talking about the majority of the USA. I said that we have killed mass murderers. For example during the Nuerenburg trials. Please stop showing your ignorance by only talking about the present. Clearly you have a Peter Pan mentality. Ever been to prison? When have we ever reformed mass exterminists? Mass warmongers? etc? I see you still haven't read the book of Enoch have you? I suggest you stop running your mouth until you do.
@jshowa5 The same response as anyone that lays down the rules and tells you that even though you have free will there are consequences to your actions, and those consequences don't just effect you but everyone around you into the distant future. If you actually understood the bible, you would know this. Like I said before you need to study biblical history, and the philosophy there in. You won't because you aren't interested in doing so.
@jshowa5 Again more ignorance. I really don't care what you studied, if you failed to understand that a book can have philosophy as well as religious principles contained in it then you have some serious problems and gaps in your education. That's not my problem but yours.
@jshowa5 LOL! I don't believe you said this. Did I say the bible was worshipped? No, you did. I wouldn't be so foolish as to say something so ignorant. Let's be clear here dieties are worshipped. The bible is a book of rules, history, philosophy and a method of recording our historical relationship between us and the living God. If you can't understand that then you have some serious problems. I see you haven't gone to that scholar yet. I wonder why?
@jshowa5 Oh I didn't make a mistake. You did. You ignored what I posted then claimed I didn't post anything. Now you are claiming something different. I gave you the source of the commentary and then I posted what was said because you claimed it was my opinion.
@jshowa5 Actually I provided the text and the citation. I put forth where that citation then I posted the text. So don't pretend that you couldn't find it, and I didn't name my source because I did. If you want to play childish and immature games try it with someone else.
@jshowa5 Like I said before read the book of Enoch. Mass murder, bloodletting, wanton destruction etc comes with a price. We execute mass murders don't we? Warmongers we kill them too don't we? So let's not pretend the people eliminated were killed because they jaywalked.
@jshowa5 It's not that simple if you had bothered to read the book of Enoch then you would know that what the human population did was committ vast atrocities on a global scale forcing God to take action. I suggest you read the book of Enoch then you can see what happened.
@jshowa5 Oh I see did the part when I posted this? "Actually it's not my interpretation. It came from the Treasury of Scripture. It states. "they saw. Matthew informs us that this tree grew by the way-side, and was therefore not private, but public property; so that the destruction of it really injured no one." I seem to recall posting this. So are you telling me you couldn't google this? So much for thinking for yourself. Wow!
@jshowa5 Oh please spare me, you have proven that you neither understand nor care about morals. If you had bothered to go to a biblical scholar and seek wisdom then you might be taken seriously as it stands though, you have no credibility.
@jshowa5 Then you should practice what you preach. In short, you not using your brains are questioning a religious belief without understanding the principles behind it and not caring enough to learn them. It's silly and shows your lack of maturity.
@jshowa5 There again lies in your problem by taking the bible literally, you are ignoring the nuances and the messages of the bible as you don't bother to seperate what it philosophy and what is actual history. What is endorsed by God and what is done despite God's wishes. In short, you fail to understand the basics. Not suprising because you're not really intersted in understanding but in judgement and condemnation.
@jshowa5 You are aware that in Africa stories are told by one person and they learn the oral history to such a degree that they can repeat it verbatum without distortion so when it's taught to the next generation there is no variation? Like I said before you need to grow up and stop pretending to know what you're talking about since it's obvious you don't.
@jshowa5 Actually what you are doing is showing that you neither understand the religion because you haven't looked at the biblical history, the culture and haven't learned to understand the difference between God's law and our response to it. It's that simple. So in other words you are immitating the worse behavior of Jehoviah's witnesses. Trying to argue what you believe is true without understanding what is really going on.
@jshowa5 Well my problem with people like you, you don't understand what you are reading, you either take the entire bible literally, or you deliberately misenterpret something because you want to question others faith to support your lack of belief in anything but you. So here is the deal. Jesus killed a tree. You and I can argue all day over why but neither of us was there. If you really want to know why he did it, which I doubt, I suggest you go and consult a biblical scholar.
@jshowa5 LOL! You really need to grow up. People have used religion to promote their own agenda for many years that's not knew. However, there are versions of the bible that are more trustworthy than others. The Coptic bible is one of them. All religios and historical text are subject to interpretation through agenda. It's that simple but what you are doing is using that to play a game to deny religious validity for your own purpose.
@jshowa5 Well since the commentary is from religious experts I didn't really think it was necessary to cite the biblical passage since it was understood. Since I was you could look up the actual citation from the source I figured googling would not be so hard from you. Particularly since I cannot post the website here on youtube.
@jshowa5 The problem with most people and you included is that you don't understand the bible. The bible is one part history, one part religious text, one part philosophy and one part a living document. The bible has been through many incarnations because the people that were supposed to translate the bible accurately did so with their own agenda in mind.
@jshowa5 I find it increasingly hilarious that you forget that I have referenced things in the bible. What we are discussing is the translations and what they mean. You claimed I made something up but when I sourced my reference, you are now trying to deflect the issue of it not coming directly from the bible. While you claim I am brainwashed when it is you that have an axe to grind. I am aware of the problems in the bible. That's because it was translated incorrectly.
@jshowa5 You said " I serve willingly = groveling servant. Well that's you opinion not actual fact. As to your other statements I answer this already.
@jshowa5 under greater advantages than any other people enjoyed at that day; and, like all the rest of his miracles, it was done with a gracious intention, to alarm his countrymen, and induce them to repent.
As you can see he had a reason. By the way we destroy trees for trivial or no reason at all despite you claims to the contrary.
@jshowa5 "He didn't say barren trees were like faithless people. " Actually it's not my interpretation. It came from the Treasury of Scripture. It states. "they saw. Matthew informs us that this tree grew by the way-side, and was therefore not private, but public property; so that the destruction of it really injured no one." Our Lord was pleased to make use of this miracle to prefigure the speedy ruin of the Jewish nation, on account of its unfruitfulness
@jshowa5 We went over this, he destroyed the tree because it was barren. As a lesson to his disciples he taught them about barren trees being like faithless people. It's that simple, you don't have to like it, but we kill trees for less reason than them being sick and not producing fruit.
@jshowa5 That depends on the translation. It also depends on the commentary as well. The tree was barren as implied. Remember Jesus asked the tree to grow fruit and it didn't therefore, it was barren. Again it's in the syntaxx it depends on the translation. Just because the tree was barren doesn't mean it isn't alive. You mean grovel and not I don't grovel. I serve willingly.
@jshowa5 The tree was barren and produced no fruit, thus Jesus destroyed it. I don't believe he actually did make other trees grow as a man but as God he did. You are so silly if you don't have faith then you destroy yourself. By the way what you failed to mention is Jesus healing the sick, making the lame walk, curing leporacy, bringing back the dead all things he did based on faith.
@jshowa5 LOL! Again you are missing the point. Yes, he said blessed be those who have not seen but what you also failed to understand is the wording of blessed be. He is saying praise to those that believe. Not that he will punish you if you don't believe but he is saying that the people who believe without having to bear witness are special because they can transcend through faith. We do have monarchies on this planet and what does that have to do with democracies?
@jshowa5 That too is a lesson in faith, meaning those without faith will ultimately lead to destruction. Yes, he could have revived the tree but that wasn't his intention. Again you need to understand what was being taught. It's no different than us learning about what happens when we do something in science.
@jshowa5 That's not why he destroyed the fig tree. It was a lesson in faith. Don't you think he could have made the tree produce the fruit as he has done other times. No, he was using the tree as a lesson of faith. 20:29 Jesus said to him, “You believe because you see me. Great blessings belong to the people who believe without seeing me!” Again he is talking about those who have faith and how Jesus will bless not only those of his disciples that see and believe but those that haven't seen.
Here is my problem with Elizabeth. She is saying that in a Democracy that the people right to vote supercede the constitutional rights of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. So what she is doing is using one part of the constitution to destroy another. This same tactic was used in denying the rights of African American freedom and it's wrong.
@jshowa5 That's not exactly true. Jesus said that no one gets to the father except through him and he will decide who is and isn't known to him. He stated that there are two ways to be known by him and the first is through good works and the second is direct belief. So it's not accurate to say that.
When it comes to the issue of Gay Marriage, I know people hate when this is said but its true, Replace the word gay, with interracial etc, even when you talk about gay rights, if u make the word women, it gives u a extremely accurate view on how people actually feel on this issue who are gay, I want to Marry my man, we have been loyal and devoted and I just want what my Parents have.
heterosexuals are also the majority so let us thank them for making this nation run by corporate interests and therefore making the poor poorer and the rich heterosexual white males richer. clearly GOD and JESUS were all about RICH PEOPLE right? Like in the bible where Jesus hung out with all the well off people in their palaces? And not the lepers and the down-trodden? Homosexuality has nothing to do with "godless state" and everything to do with Hetero's inability to look beyond themselves.
yea this is Godless nation like all others so really anything could and will probably happen like maybe in a few years they will allow materialistic sexuality marriage or bestiality marriage, its really all the weird things that society makes up.
@jasonmarden you don't have to worry about homosexuals making this nation godless, heterosexuals are doing a fine job of that on their own. the divorce rate is what again? how many single moms are out there? millions, oh that's right. but thank god we have christians around to tell us that we are not human beings but just worthless sacks of flesh walking around.
at least when gay people adopt a baby they are having one not because the condom broke.
@vindemiatrix Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." matthew 19:24 so yeah i don't think Jesus hung out with all the rich ppl and you know a sin is a sin whether it be gay or thief or murderer or a person is in deep lust with materialistic items if you choose to stay away from God, then it should make for you not wanting to be with him when you die.
@sexychrisb oh its great to talk somebody who knows every single thing about everything to make that conclusion to say there is no god. tell me, how many stars are in space, oh and also tell me how many hairs are on my head, one more thing how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?
I'd like to see Melissa and Elisabeth have lesbian sex. The title is misleading. They didnt argue. Melissa is getting kind of raggedy and old though. Elisabeth still looks good.
@quezcatol Sorry, I'm Canadian. It's cold here too but I'm happy because we love gay people, straight people, and hockey, and any person who loves another person has the right to get married here.
@quezcatol Also, your argument is idiotic. If marriage doesn't have anything to do with religion, then polygamy still shouldn't be allowed because their religion is the BASIS for why they believe men should have multiple wives.
@quezcatol Sorry, I didn't word that well. What I mean is, polygamy is outlawed for reasons other than religion, so taking religion out of the marriage equation to allow gays to marry doesn't mean that polygamy should be allowed if gay marriage is allowed.
I'm not saying that the government should dictate how many people you can be married to at a time, although I don't generally think that polygamy leads to very good things. Polygamist cultures tend to also have a lot of coercion of young women, sexism, and abuse.
However, the government deciding how many people we can be married to at a time STILL doesn't have anything to do with the government deciding that only heterosexual couples can marry. They are separate arguments.
@KennedyDenys and I think that gay marriage will lead to even more people taking marriage as not a religious institution but rather just something on a piece of paper and divorces will then climb. but what we think doesnt matter, and neither should the goverment be telling us what you can or not. If marriage is open to basically anyover over 18 then it should also be open for many people to join it, who says that only 2 people can live together, who made up that rule? please tell me.
@quezcatol You totally missed my point but that's cool.
Gay marriage has nothing to do with all of the hetero people (Kim Kardashian??!) not taking it seriously and divorces climbing. If you want your marriage to be religious then go for it, but for the rest of it, it should be a HUMAN RIGHT, not related to religion or gender.
I'm not going to tell you who made the "rule" that you can only be married to one person at a time, you can look on Wikipedia and find out yourself.
@KennedyDenys it doesnt matter if religion made sure polygamy was banned all around the world, if marriage isnt about religion, if the law shouldnt care what the religion says, then go back to make polygamy open again.
Even the f'ing nazis allowed it. ps! im not personally intrested in polygamy, I think 1 women is more then enough for me, and I will never have time for anyone else anyway.
and btw my oldest sister has gay friends (not we others in the family) so im def no homophobic.
Wow ! Look how skinny Whoopi was back then....
JoshuaTaylor 3 days ago
freakin queers
Texan2995 3 days ago
Hasselbeck must get memos every morning with GOP talking points.
AceSkepTik 4 days ago
It's more appropriately known as "The Mormon Proposition". Seek out that film for the truth on the issue.
AceSkepTik 4 days ago
I agree with Melissa, 100%.. the rights of the minority shouldn't be decided by the majority. Just as Jean Chretien once said, if every minority right will always be subjected to a national referendum, what will happen to their rights? They will never get their rights at hand... Elizabeth, the minority rights are for the minority of the population... that's why it has to be initiated by them. Who else will? You won't, I am sure... because you are not a minority.
qrod06 5 days ago
There is no gene for being gay. The end.
enshams92 6 days ago
@enshams92 sources???
MrThoughtsfortoday 4 days ago
Elizabeth is just a foul backward twit. She is a truly deeply stupid lady. And so confident.
rhudsonrte66 6 days ago
what we need to do is start passing laws that fuck with the social righties the same way they like to fuck with everybody else.
Hey bubba ray jim, today, you have to pray to mecca in arabic
M15949 6 days ago
ElizaCUNT would not answer Melissa's question. Little fuckin cunt bitch was afraid to say that she's against gay marriage.
brama1969 1 week ago
Ok first thing she said was "we have a great choice of this man or this woman, we just have all these choices" Being a gay is a choice. She said it!
jkadams1983 1 week ago
@jkadams1983 she was talking about the election this mixed race man (Obama) and this woman(Palin). She was not talking about if being gay was a choice, I love how people twist what other say to justify what they already believe. its not a choice, we are born this way, i never had a moment were i said I think Im going to be a lesbian, i did have a moment where i was like omg i am a lesbian, because guys are gross to me and women are sexy, I cant help who i am attracted too.
Fireflygamer 1 week ago
@Fireflygamer to act on a preference is a choice in the same way that a person who prefers to have more than one spouse might attempt to marry more than one person. The "born this way" is a simple mantra that is scientifically unfounded.
redgoldbluephantom 1 week ago
@redgoldbluephantom actually there is a far amount of evidence that points to that fact that gay people are born gay and a lot more evidence that suggest that it is not caused sexual abuse or how they were raised. not to mention my own personal experience, I knew i as different when i was in kindergarten, did not realize i was gay until 8th grade but i was most defiantly always this way as far back as i can remember and i never choose to be gay, just to be open about it.
Fireflygamer 1 week ago
@Fireflygamer Scientific inquiry has found genes that determine physical characteristics and even behavioral dispositions, but a gay gene has yet to be found.
redgoldbluephantom 6 days ago
@redgoldbluephantom first were did i claim that they did, I'm not sure if they have or not, I hear conflicting reports, but if they have identified the gene or not,it dose not matter. All the evidence suggest that being gay or straight is inborn and that it is not caused how you are raised or a symptom of abuse. To ignore the mountains of evidence simply because they have not identified the gene, just because of your personal feelings towards gays is to be ignorant.
Fireflygamer 6 days ago
@Fireflygamer For a trait to be scientifically deemed inborn, there has to be empirical evidence. The only way this can be proven (empirically) is on the genetic level. "Suggested evidence" is not recognized by science as fact.
redgoldbluephantom 6 days ago
@redgoldbluephantom your just wrong, it was a scientific fact that parents pass traits onto there children long before we even knew what a gene was. also when did i say it being in born was a scientific fact. what is a scientific fact is that if one identical twin is gay there is a 50% chance the other is gay and with non identical twins its only 10% that suggests a genetic factor. Its a scientific fact that being sexually abused as a child dose not make you gay, because...
Fireflygamer 6 days ago
studies have been do to show that people that are sexually abused are no more likely to be gay then the general population and that gay people are just as likely as straight people to have been abused no more and no less. all the evidence points to the fact that being gay is inborn and none of it points to nurture, ignoring this evidence in favor of a 2000 year old book that says the sun goes round the earth is ignorant. what evidence to you have that its a learned behavior?
Fireflygamer 6 days ago
@Fireflygamer The idea of homosexuality being "inborn" deals directly with science to which there is no empirical evidence to verify such a premise. The Bible's teaching on homosexuality is a moral question, not a scientific one.
redgoldbluephantom 5 days ago
@redgoldbluephantom "which there is no empirical evidence to verify such a premise." when the all the empirical research and studies show that it is not a learned behaviour and that it is more likely that both twins will be homosexual if they are identical instead of non identical, that adds up to a very good case that it is in born, but you choose to ignore that evidence and claim the unsupported idea that it is a learned behavior, you have no idea how science is done.
Fireflygamer 5 days ago
@Fireflygamer A behaviorist could look at the twins study and conclude that children who look identical are more likely to be treated identically. A cognitive psychologist could use the same study to support the cognitive model. The only way the correlation could be identified as having a genetic cause would through the identification of a gay gene. Until that happens, the gay gene idea remains conjecture or a theory at best, but not an established scientific fact.
redgoldbluephantom 5 days ago
@redgoldbluephantom There is no gay gene that's not what gene's do. Gay more that likely come from a last parting gift from Mom at birth and that gift is an extra shot of hormones just at birth. You need to read Robert Sapolsky the top scientist in how hormones change us in oh so many ways, but since you won't do that here's a link to one of his TED talks.
Goto ted.com then search Robert Sapolsky the uniqueness of humans
stephenpaquet 2 days ago
@stephenpaquet Much of the efforts to find a "gay gene" are still being carried on by geneticists because the idea that hormones (e.g. Sapolsky's theory) are the sole or at least a major factor in determining sexual preference would imply that homosexuality could be altered through prenatal hormonal therapy. Such theories also imply that homosexuality is a defect caused by hormonal imbalance or environmental pollutants. This idea isn't generally well received by homosexuals.
redgoldbluephantom 1 day ago
@redgoldbluephantom Hi and thanks for the come back. Yah I know that the Gay community will look on this in a negative light but I don't see why. Designing a hormone therapy would be just as daunting as a genetic treatment. In other words not any time soon if ever. It's way to early to say.
stephenpaquet 1 day ago
@stephenpaquet Homosexuals do not want to look at their preference as something negative (resulting from a hormone imbalance) or as something even potentially changeable. It doesn't matter how remote the possibility is; many would argue that prenatal and/or postnatal therapy is more attainable than any effort to alter genetics. After all, hormone therapy is already being done for other conditions and procedures more widely than procedures aimed at altering genes.
redgoldbluephantom 33 minutes ago
@redgoldbluephantom What I'm trying to say I guess is saying there's a gay gene is like saying there is a breast cancer gene, I no they say they found one but and he's the big but why is it that woman with this gene only get cancer at the same rate or lower as woman with out the gene. I think looking in or gene's for disease is a dead end.
stephenpaquet 23 hours ago
@stephenpaquet The whole point was to expose the silliness of the hype about the "gay gene" that was never found. But once people begin speaking about hormones, many homosexual become very nervous because there is the tendency to equate homosexuality with disease or disorder (e.g. homosexual tendency being compared to cancer).
redgoldbluephantom 29 minutes ago
@Fireflygamer Inborn traits are only passed on through genetics. The awareness of genes does not "create" the effects of genes. Statistics that "suggest" an idea are not empirical evidence. The same statistics about twins have also been used by behaviorists as well as geneticists to support opposing theories, not scientific conclusions. Both ideas remain theories, but are not facts until there is empirical evidence. To this date, there is none.
redgoldbluephantom 5 days ago
@redgoldbluephantom "Inborn traits are only passed on through genetics." This is simply not true there are lots of things that can effect the development of a fetus, for example a child with fetal alcohol syndrome has that as in inborn trait, but it was not genetic. Hormones have a huge effect on a developing fetus despite its genetic code.
Fireflygamer 5 days ago
@Fireflygamer "Inborn" is a term that refers to characteristics that are passed on genetically from parents to children irrespective of environmental factors with the exception of those that actually harm or alter the genetic code of the fetus. Those factors that don't alter the code are not considered hardwired or unchangeable (e.g. a fetus exposed to classical music is not destined to be a child prodigy, etc.).
redgoldbluephantom 5 days ago
@redgoldbluephantom so I did a little reading and it turns out that the original gay gene research was correct and they have found the set of genes that all the gay men in the study shared, and all the straight men did not, the only issue is they have not been able to pin point the exact base pair yet and this is being use by conservatives to say they have not found it yet. But they have found the group of genes its hiding in and they know it exists, there is your evidence.
Fireflygamer 5 days ago
@Fireflygamer Santa Clause really exists! I know he is somewhere in the North Pole, in a glacier up there... somewhere (because that is what the researcher said). The only issue is that researcher (Frosty the Snowman) has not been able to pin point the exact place he is hiding in. Even though he has not been found, I know he exists, there's the evidence.
NOTE: This argument is silly, but at least a name of the researcher was cited so that the silliness could be verified.
redgoldbluephantom 5 days ago
lizzy believes in seperate but equal - which history tells us does NOT work
nsdtr01 1 week ago
We're all the same, when are people going to understand that its so simple.
betamturewno24 2 weeks ago 3
Not much of an argument.
irvingklaw57 2 weeks ago
Apparently Hasselback has never heard of the "Tyranny of the majority".
azbed129 2 weeks ago
Is Whoopie still pretending to be straight?
codownni 3 weeks ago
i really liked Elisabeth on survivor but since she became famous i hate her
MrSilentNinga 3 weeks ago
whoa, whoopi ACTUALLY looks decent here, as opposed to now when she wears trash bags.
GlennPatrickStory 3 weeks ago
there was actually no real "argument" here. Melissa may have misunderstood Elisabeth's point of view and got confrontational.
tbizone2002 1 month ago
Hasselback is such a worthless fucking cunt.
metronomic1 1 month ago 6
If the majority can vote on the rights of the minority then the minority has no rights.
superjtrdr 1 month ago
i agree with melissa though
AGpixar2000 1 month ago
elisabitch strikes again.
mndwyer08 1 month ago
Let me think. The word "ad hominem," means to insult a person character. By calling me a moron is to use ad hominem. Second, your anger against God is perhaps some sin. God always touches the hearts of men and even the late Christopher Hitchens who has been judged by God. Also, your concept of "love they neighbor," is completely out of context. Yes, we are to love our neighbor but to rebuke them when they do wrong, when they sin. To stay quiet when sin is happening is to hate your neighbor.
sgal88 1 month ago
All i know is we are all naked apes on this little rock flying through space.
Mintsauce27 1 month ago 29
I am impressed that Sheri is not against gay marriages being a JW who are conservative in those manners.
sgal88 1 month ago
Human rights...What about the rights of God?
sgal88 1 month ago
@sgal88 - God is cool with it. She made em after all! :)
Mintsauce27 1 month ago 13
@Mintsauce27 You obviously want to mock God. Eventually all will kneel before God.
sgal88 1 month ago
@sgal88 -If thats true - You should learn to Love thy neighbour :) Or ye shall burn in the eternal pits of hell! Mark my words Christian. Mark them well. ;)
Mintsauce27 1 month ago
@Mintsauce27 And you obviously have no idea what "love thy neighbor" even means.
sgal88 1 month ago
@sgal88 lol as complicated as you may think it is, the people with IQ's above mental retardation don't find the concept of love thy neighbor that hard to understand. Moron.
MAZ1N00 1 month ago
@MAZ1N00 Your ad hominem proves my point. You must also be ignorant of the law that passed about premeditative crime. Before you start insulting people, maybe you should actually do some research especially about the quote you are obviously misquoting.
sgal88 1 month ago
Comment removed
MAZ1N00 1 month ago
@sgal88 You don't even know how to use"ad hominem" in a sentence why would I expect you to understand the concept? Obviously I am going to assume you are speaking on the bible, when your previous comment speaks on kneeling before god.
MAZ1N00 1 month ago
@Mintsauce27 The is not a direct comparison, but a stark contrast to highlight the poor logic of that line of thought. God made people who are inclined to violence and dishonesty as well so He must be "cool" with murder and deception?!
redgoldbluephantom 1 week ago
@redgoldbluephantom wait wait hold up, there is a huge assumption here "god made", prove god made us, come on lets here your scientific evidence that god even exists let alone made us. you want scientific proof that gays are born gay, I want scientific proof that god made us. because all of the scientific evidence points to evolution as our origins and not special creation and if thats the case, being gay is just part of the verity of life and there is nothing wrong with it.
Fireflygamer 1 week ago
@Fireflygamer The comment was a reply to Mintsauce27 whose comments have a basis in the belief in a deity as it relates to the issue at hand. The argument/reply followed that premise. Mintsauce27's poor attempt to use the belief in God as a basis for arguing against Christian morality is incongruous.
redgoldbluephantom 6 days ago
@redgoldbluephantom - Psssssst - I'm an Atheist ;) = God + Logic = Not Good Bedfellows.
Mintsauce27 1 week ago
@Mintsauce27 Anybody can write equations that don't add up.
redgoldbluephantom 6 days ago
@Mintsauce27 thanks to her in all her greatness
michmexnut 1 week ago
@Mintsauce27 you're an idiot. this country needs to be cleansed of homos, dikes, religitards, and minorities.
UltraProle21 6 days ago
@UltraProle21 I Love you man! :)
Mintsauce27 6 days ago
@sgal88 Imaginary people don't get rights.
MissRamble 1 month ago
@MissRamble So thoughts and ideas are not real yet the law can persecute your for premeditative crime.
sgal88 1 month ago
Elizabeth is way hotter and more successful that Ellen, Melissa or any other dykidy dykidy dyke I know so I go with Elizabeth's opinion.
MarathonVeteran 1 month ago
@MarathonVeteran Smart. Justin Bieber is better looking that Pythagoras was, too. Take this reasoning to its natural conclusion.
And no, Elizabeth isn't worth a fraction of what Ellen is in terms of money. You're a fucking idiot.
MussyPagnet 1 month ago
@MussyPagnet Suck my balls.
MarathonVeteran 1 month ago
@MarathonVeteran
1. Success is not judged by looks, appearances or money. But even so, ellen is way more successful between her talk show, product endorsements, etc. But even more so is the way she stands for rights, such as animal rights, that makes her more admirable.
2. You go with Elizabeth's opinion because she's hotter/more successful? You need a new decision making rationale.
3. You have absolutely no class.
Shawnstra 1 month ago
@Shawnstra Cool story bro, tell it again.
MarathonVeteran 1 month ago
@jshowa5 So he sacrificed himself in the form of man to allow us to join him as the way. You who do not understand and do not want to choose to mix messages with what God did in response to what we did. You painted a one sided coin and called it the whole. This is dishonest and untrue. By the way at the bottom of my other answer on Daosim I mistakenly replied to myself so you need to read that part too.
Ryooken 1 month ago
@Ryooken Good reply! Homosexuality will the epitome which God will chastise us all. We are actually going to be chastised soon as a whole.
sgal88 1 month ago
@jshowa5 God created souls in his likeness and housed them in human frames. He stated for us to love him and each other. He punished Cain for murdering Abel for he was his brother. He stated that we are all brothers and sisters and we should love each other and if we mistreat one another God will take his vengence on the offender. He made covenants with us which we broke and still he forgave us and realized that we must learn through hardship and pain.
continued
Ryooken 1 month ago
@jshowa5 After organized religion, Buddhism, spread to China, Some Taoists organized themselves into a religion in the second century CE. Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism were the three main religions in Chinese history ever since. Chinese people usually visited their temples to worship but did not officially joined any of those religions. They could go to a Buddhist temple one day, and a Taoist temple next day.
Here is more conclusive evidence for you to chew on.
continued
Ryooken 1 month ago
@Ryooken Taoism did not exist as an organized religion until the Way of the Celestial Masters sect was founded in 142 C.E. by Zhang Daoling, who based the sect on spiritual communications from the deified Laozi.
continued
Ryooken 1 month ago
@Ryooken The Way of the Celestial Masters and other later sects of Taoism engaged in complex ritual practices, including devotion to a wide range of celestial divinities and immortals, and thousands of Taoist religious texts were produced over the centuries. Taoists also engaged with Chinese politics in a variety of ways throughout Chinese history.
continued
Ryooken 1 month ago
@Ryooken At one time, scholars in both China and the West distinguished philosophical from religious Taoism, but more recently a continuity of belief and practice between these has been recognized.
Well that kills that theory. This is what I was saying before you don't know what you're talking about but you want to question religion and it's origins. Daoism is an organized religion and has been so for 2153 years.
Ryooken 1 month ago
@jshowa5 No I didn't miss it. Wikipedia is a nice resource but not always accurate. So I am very careful which part I quote. Here is the historical reference and it should dispel the notion of Daoism not being an organized religion. Taoist philosophy, as a school of thought or a way of life, was established during the Axial era of China, 770-221 BCE.
continued
Ryooken 1 month ago
@jshowa5 I believe I answered this before. There are people that practice Daoism as a religion hence the Daoist monks. There are those that practice the philosophy Daosist martial artists. The principles of the philosophy while tied to the religion is dealt with seperately because many practicioners of the philosophy don't follow the religion.
Ryooken 1 month ago
@jshowa5 Again you seem to want to repeat yourself. You can say this a hundred times a day but right to life is not and never has been a secular concept. The fact that the founding fathers used the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as their mantra for white people only has no bearing on our discussion. Your claims that it does is what makes you non-credible.
Ryooken 1 month ago
@jshowa5 A trial as you put it is unecessary since he already knows what you did and therefore, you don't have to prove guilt or innocence. We as people must hold trials and way the evidence because we can't read minds. So again you are comparing yourself to God. Did you create the universe? Did you cause the mountains to rise up? Did you cause the stars to form? Then you cannot compare yourself to the one that did. You can claim God doesn't exist but you have no evidence just your belief.
Ryooken 1 month ago
@jshowa5 Show me in the bible where God says he will not kill. In fact, the opposite is true. God says that if you choose to violate the law, it will carry dire consequences and I will punish you and all nations for I created the heaven and the earth. Here is something else you fail to consider in your own arrogance, God knows who you are and what you are. He can see through you because God's power allows him to do so. You who cannot read minds cannot.
continued
Ryooken 1 month ago
@jshowa5 Well that's your opinion to believe who does or doesn't answer to God. You will find out when you die. However, that's not my problem. God could prove his existence sure but that would defeat the point. He could make you believe but that would destroy free will and that's not something God will do. He keeps his own laws. You have the ultimate freedom of choice and you could receive a mountain of evidence and you still would think God is a delusion.
continued
Ryooken 1 month ago
@jshowa5 All you had to do was pull the text and google it. That source would have come up. You didn't bother so you put the burden on me to provide you with a link. I would do that if youtube let us post links. However, it's not my responsibility to do all your work for you. That's your job.
Ryooken 1 month ago
@jshowa5 Sorry I am back now. I was busy. I can't seem to argue with two idiots at the same time anymore. It takes too much energy and I am losing my desire to do it. Now let's be clear all I did was repost what I stated earlier and all you had to do was go back and read what I said about it. I even started off with I didn't interpret anything, then I postedthe source first then the interpretation. You being so charged up to refute me, didn't bother to read the source.
Ryooken 1 month ago
@jshowa5 No in my case I don't mix the laws of man which change and vary and fall into corruption and the laws of God remain the same. Wrong the right to life was born out of a belief that all people were created equal and that was ordained by God. Thomas Jefferson changed the language to a secular definition because he wanted seperation between church and state. However, the premise came directly from christianity.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 LOL! I pulled that from Wikipedia, so if you should know then you should have read it for yourself instead of pretending to. It states that Daoism is based on Chinese Gods and the 12 immortals. The reason it's seperated is because religious belief and religious practice two seperate things. You can practice Daoist philosophy as expressed in many forms like for example Daoist Martial arts and not practice the religion. Understand? Guess not. I will answer the rest later.
Ryooken 2 months ago
Gary glitter will be on soon demanding pedo rights
BEARARMZ 2 months ago
@jshowa5 God didn't murder anyone. God destroyed the evil that was produced by human's disregard for God's law. It's just that simple. The right to life under the constitution doesn't apply to God. God doesn't answer to us, we answer to God. So there is no contradiction.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 Will you please stop posting such nonsense! The more you talk the more you show you don't know what you are talking about. Taoism is an organized religion. It's one of the oldest religions in the world. Taoism is based on traditional polytheistic pantheon. What you are talking about is Taoist philosophy. I should know I studied it.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 Wrong I named my source the very first time I we talked about this. I renamed my source two more times because in your ignorance, you decided to ignore what I said the first time.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 Here is the interesting part you can practice the philosophy of the religion without practicing the religion itself. For example, there are many practicioners of the Daosist philosophy while they believe in other relgions. Now are you done being ignorant or do you want silly somemore?
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 Philosophy of religion Philosophy of science Political philosophy is the study of government and the relationship of individuals (or families and clans) to communities including the state.
Aesthetics deals with beauty, art, enjoyment, sensory-emotional values, perception, and matters of taste and sentiment.
If you didn't learn this in your philosophy class in the very first week, I would ask for my money back.
continued
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5
Logic is the study of valid argument forms.
Philosophy of language explores the nature, the origins, and the use of language.
Philosophy of law (more commonly called jurisprudence) explores the varying theories explaining the nature and the interpretations of the law in society.
Philosophy of mind explores the nature of the mind, and its relationship to the body, and is typified by disputes between dualism and materialism.
continued
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 Sorry ran out of room. As such to say that there is no religious philosophy in your class, shows not only a flawed education on your part but disengenous teaching on theirs.
The main branches of philosophy are as follows:
Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality.
Epistemology is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge.
Ethics, or "moral philosophy",is concerned primarily with the question of the best way to live.
continued
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Now you can study religious philosophy as a valid science. However, philosophy itself doesn't have to be based on religion. You have cultural philosophies, and they can vary from one place to another. So any general philosophy class may not discuss religious philosophy as part of their curriculum because of the broadness of philosophy.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 That's complicated. While there are philosphies that have no religious basis, there are few religions that don't have philosophies. Religious philosophy is philosophical thinking that is inspired and directed by religion. Depending on religion, there are different philosophies for each religion: Buddhist philosophy Christian philosophy, Hindu philosophy, Islamic philosophy, Jewish philosophy, Daoist philosophy etc.
continued
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 Oh when has science somehow declared free will invalid? This should be good because our entire democracy is based on freedom of will and freedom of choice. Wow!
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 You are forgetting the 5 commandment. Thou shall not murder. Did that slip your mind while you were so busy pretending to be clever.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 No, you haven't gone to them because you are really not interested in doing so. It's that simple, if you wanted to know the truth then you would be consulting biblical experts and biblical historians.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 Oh? That's your belief not actual fact. People don't worship the book, they worship God. Whether you believe or not isn't pure opinion and not my problem. However, you claiming that there is no evidence that Jesus did or didn't exist is a fallacious argument based solely on your opinion.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 Oh? Really how many books are in the bible now?
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 Well unlike you I don't pull interpretations out of my ass because I unlike you I actually studied biblical history, biblical culture and I fully understand it. I also don't read something and take it literally because I am mature enough to know that communication is not always literal. I named my source and the fact that you accused me of not naming it is laughable. It shows clearly that you really aren't interested in a honest dialogue.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 I am not talking about the majority of the USA. I said that we have killed mass murderers. For example during the Nuerenburg trials. Please stop showing your ignorance by only talking about the present. Clearly you have a Peter Pan mentality. Ever been to prison? When have we ever reformed mass exterminists? Mass warmongers? etc? I see you still haven't read the book of Enoch have you? I suggest you stop running your mouth until you do.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 The same response as anyone that lays down the rules and tells you that even though you have free will there are consequences to your actions, and those consequences don't just effect you but everyone around you into the distant future. If you actually understood the bible, you would know this. Like I said before you need to study biblical history, and the philosophy there in. You won't because you aren't interested in doing so.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 Again more ignorance. I really don't care what you studied, if you failed to understand that a book can have philosophy as well as religious principles contained in it then you have some serious problems and gaps in your education. That's not my problem but yours.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 LOL! I don't believe you said this. Did I say the bible was worshipped? No, you did. I wouldn't be so foolish as to say something so ignorant. Let's be clear here dieties are worshipped. The bible is a book of rules, history, philosophy and a method of recording our historical relationship between us and the living God. If you can't understand that then you have some serious problems. I see you haven't gone to that scholar yet. I wonder why?
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 Actually it's a living document because it's been modified over the years and retranslated.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 Oh I didn't make a mistake. You did. You ignored what I posted then claimed I didn't post anything. Now you are claiming something different. I gave you the source of the commentary and then I posted what was said because you claimed it was my opinion.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 Actually I provided the text and the citation. I put forth where that citation then I posted the text. So don't pretend that you couldn't find it, and I didn't name my source because I did. If you want to play childish and immature games try it with someone else.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 Like I said before read the book of Enoch. Mass murder, bloodletting, wanton destruction etc comes with a price. We execute mass murders don't we? Warmongers we kill them too don't we? So let's not pretend the people eliminated were killed because they jaywalked.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 It's not that simple if you had bothered to read the book of Enoch then you would know that what the human population did was committ vast atrocities on a global scale forcing God to take action. I suggest you read the book of Enoch then you can see what happened.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 Oh I see did the part when I posted this? "Actually it's not my interpretation. It came from the Treasury of Scripture. It states. "they saw. Matthew informs us that this tree grew by the way-side, and was therefore not private, but public property; so that the destruction of it really injured no one." I seem to recall posting this. So are you telling me you couldn't google this? So much for thinking for yourself. Wow!
Ryooken 2 months ago
everybody is gettng at Ryooken
donklue 2 months ago
@donklue Nah just some idiot that thinks he is clever but really is quite immature.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 Oh please spare me, you have proven that you neither understand nor care about morals. If you had bothered to go to a biblical scholar and seek wisdom then you might be taken seriously as it stands though, you have no credibility.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 Then you should practice what you preach. In short, you not using your brains are questioning a religious belief without understanding the principles behind it and not caring enough to learn them. It's silly and shows your lack of maturity.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 There again lies in your problem by taking the bible literally, you are ignoring the nuances and the messages of the bible as you don't bother to seperate what it philosophy and what is actual history. What is endorsed by God and what is done despite God's wishes. In short, you fail to understand the basics. Not suprising because you're not really intersted in understanding but in judgement and condemnation.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 You are aware that in Africa stories are told by one person and they learn the oral history to such a degree that they can repeat it verbatum without distortion so when it's taught to the next generation there is no variation? Like I said before you need to grow up and stop pretending to know what you're talking about since it's obvious you don't.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 Actually what you are doing is showing that you neither understand the religion because you haven't looked at the biblical history, the culture and haven't learned to understand the difference between God's law and our response to it. It's that simple. So in other words you are immitating the worse behavior of Jehoviah's witnesses. Trying to argue what you believe is true without understanding what is really going on.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 I did give you the source but you were so busy trying to argue what you think you ignored it. Here it is again. Treasury of Scripture
I even provided the text from Treasury of scripture so you can find it. What do you do? You claim I didn't provide it. That's really sad.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 Well my problem with people like you, you don't understand what you are reading, you either take the entire bible literally, or you deliberately misenterpret something because you want to question others faith to support your lack of belief in anything but you. So here is the deal. Jesus killed a tree. You and I can argue all day over why but neither of us was there. If you really want to know why he did it, which I doubt, I suggest you go and consult a biblical scholar.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 Actually I did answer this question. You didn't like my answer there is a difference.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 LOL! You really need to grow up. People have used religion to promote their own agenda for many years that's not knew. However, there are versions of the bible that are more trustworthy than others. The Coptic bible is one of them. All religios and historical text are subject to interpretation through agenda. It's that simple but what you are doing is using that to play a game to deny religious validity for your own purpose.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 Well since the commentary is from religious experts I didn't really think it was necessary to cite the biblical passage since it was understood. Since I was you could look up the actual citation from the source I figured googling would not be so hard from you. Particularly since I cannot post the website here on youtube.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 The problem with most people and you included is that you don't understand the bible. The bible is one part history, one part religious text, one part philosophy and one part a living document. The bible has been through many incarnations because the people that were supposed to translate the bible accurately did so with their own agenda in mind.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 I find it increasingly hilarious that you forget that I have referenced things in the bible. What we are discussing is the translations and what they mean. You claimed I made something up but when I sourced my reference, you are now trying to deflect the issue of it not coming directly from the bible. While you claim I am brainwashed when it is you that have an axe to grind. I am aware of the problems in the bible. That's because it was translated incorrectly.
continued
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 You said " I serve willingly = groveling servant. Well that's you opinion not actual fact. As to your other statements I answer this already.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 under greater advantages than any other people enjoyed at that day; and, like all the rest of his miracles, it was done with a gracious intention, to alarm his countrymen, and induce them to repent.
As you can see he had a reason. By the way we destroy trees for trivial or no reason at all despite you claims to the contrary.
Ryooken 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jshowa5 "He didn't say barren trees were like faithless people. " Actually it's not my interpretation. It came from the Treasury of Scripture. It states. "they saw. Matthew informs us that this tree grew by the way-side, and was therefore not private, but public property; so that the destruction of it really injured no one." Our Lord was pleased to make use of this miracle to prefigure the speedy ruin of the Jewish nation, on account of its unfruitfulness
continued
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 We went over this, he destroyed the tree because it was barren. As a lesson to his disciples he taught them about barren trees being like faithless people. It's that simple, you don't have to like it, but we kill trees for less reason than them being sick and not producing fruit.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 That depends on the translation. It also depends on the commentary as well. The tree was barren as implied. Remember Jesus asked the tree to grow fruit and it didn't therefore, it was barren. Again it's in the syntaxx it depends on the translation. Just because the tree was barren doesn't mean it isn't alive. You mean grovel and not I don't grovel. I serve willingly.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 The tree was barren and produced no fruit, thus Jesus destroyed it. I don't believe he actually did make other trees grow as a man but as God he did. You are so silly if you don't have faith then you destroy yourself. By the way what you failed to mention is Jesus healing the sick, making the lame walk, curing leporacy, bringing back the dead all things he did based on faith.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 LOL! Again you are missing the point. Yes, he said blessed be those who have not seen but what you also failed to understand is the wording of blessed be. He is saying praise to those that believe. Not that he will punish you if you don't believe but he is saying that the people who believe without having to bear witness are special because they can transcend through faith. We do have monarchies on this planet and what does that have to do with democracies?
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 That too is a lesson in faith, meaning those without faith will ultimately lead to destruction. Yes, he could have revived the tree but that wasn't his intention. Again you need to understand what was being taught. It's no different than us learning about what happens when we do something in science.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 That's not why he destroyed the fig tree. It was a lesson in faith. Don't you think he could have made the tree produce the fruit as he has done other times. No, he was using the tree as a lesson of faith. 20:29 Jesus said to him, “You believe because you see me. Great blessings belong to the people who believe without seeing me!” Again he is talking about those who have faith and how Jesus will bless not only those of his disciples that see and believe but those that haven't seen.
Ryooken 2 months ago
Here is my problem with Elizabeth. She is saying that in a Democracy that the people right to vote supercede the constitutional rights of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. So what she is doing is using one part of the constitution to destroy another. This same tactic was used in denying the rights of African American freedom and it's wrong.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 That's not exactly true. Jesus said that no one gets to the father except through him and he will decide who is and isn't known to him. He stated that there are two ways to be known by him and the first is through good works and the second is direct belief. So it's not accurate to say that.
Ryooken 2 months ago
@jshowa5 Because Jesus taught us to have love and tolerance for everyone, and those things are never old.
BayAreaOrBust 2 months ago
@jshowa5 The Bible says a lot of things that are completely irrelevant by today's standars. And I can't stand the WBC by the way.
BayAreaOrBust 2 months ago
@jshowa5 God an dJesus don't hate homosexuals, they love them just as much as everyone else.
BayAreaOrBust 2 months ago
i've had the pleasure of meeting ms ethridge. amazing lady. i was 18 and she was as sweet and articulate as could be. totally love her.
TeddySalamander 2 months ago
When it comes to the issue of Gay Marriage, I know people hate when this is said but its true, Replace the word gay, with interracial etc, even when you talk about gay rights, if u make the word women, it gives u a extremely accurate view on how people actually feel on this issue who are gay, I want to Marry my man, we have been loyal and devoted and I just want what my Parents have.
darkfenix898 2 months ago
Same religious arguments made about interracial marriage... when will the right ever learn.
kingme99 2 months ago
heterosexuals are also the majority so let us thank them for making this nation run by corporate interests and therefore making the poor poorer and the rich heterosexual white males richer. clearly GOD and JESUS were all about RICH PEOPLE right? Like in the bible where Jesus hung out with all the well off people in their palaces? And not the lepers and the down-trodden? Homosexuality has nothing to do with "godless state" and everything to do with Hetero's inability to look beyond themselves.
vindemiatrix 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Every-time I hear an interview that Hasselbeck, there is a persistent sound of her: Hmm, hmm hmmm
Kinda like that scene in "Forest Gump" were Forest is imitating his mother having sex.
Yep, that's what comes out of her every-time, so annoying.
wewatch007 2 months ago
Comment removed
wewatch007 2 months ago
elisabeth = ignorance
mroy88 2 months ago 5
yea this is Godless nation like all others so really anything could and will probably happen like maybe in a few years they will allow materialistic sexuality marriage or bestiality marriage, its really all the weird things that society makes up.
jasonmarden 2 months ago
@jasonmarden you don't have to worry about homosexuals making this nation godless, heterosexuals are doing a fine job of that on their own. the divorce rate is what again? how many single moms are out there? millions, oh that's right. but thank god we have christians around to tell us that we are not human beings but just worthless sacks of flesh walking around.
at least when gay people adopt a baby they are having one not because the condom broke.
vindemiatrix 2 months ago
@vindemiatrix Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." matthew 19:24 so yeah i don't think Jesus hung out with all the rich ppl and you know a sin is a sin whether it be gay or thief or murderer or a person is in deep lust with materialistic items if you choose to stay away from God, then it should make for you not wanting to be with him when you die.
jasonmarden 2 months ago
@jasonmarden So having sex with the same sex is as bad as robbing someone AND murdering them after?... Please, never come near me, psycho.
Oh, and there's no God. Grow up. You don't still believe in Santa, right? (I hope).
sexychrisb 2 months ago
@sexychrisb oh its great to talk somebody who knows every single thing about everything to make that conclusion to say there is no god. tell me, how many stars are in space, oh and also tell me how many hairs are on my head, one more thing how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?
jasonmarden 2 months ago
No, I stopped believing in Santa when I was 10, but I've never stopped believing in God and never will
dzanier 2 months ago
I'd like to see Melissa and Elisabeth have lesbian sex. The title is misleading. They didnt argue. Melissa is getting kind of raggedy and old though. Elisabeth still looks good.
JawsJaws 2 months ago
if marriage doesnt hjave anything to do with religion, let the people in utah reinstate polygami.
quezcatol 3 months ago
@quezcatol Poligami? Is that anything like origami?
KennedyDenys 2 months ago
@KennedyDenys I said polygami, and sure the english word is "POLYGAMY" but the swedish is Polygami, so I mixed the swedish with the english.
And you know what it means... it means that you can openly be in a marriage with more then one wife.
quezcatol 2 months ago
@quezcatol And I made a joke, so I mixed the serious with the funny, you know what it means. It means you can laugh and not be so uptight.
KennedyDenys 2 months ago
@KennedyDenys im swedish, we have no humor, its cold & dark here wtf am I supposed to be happy over?
The only blonde women who talk to me are my sisters & mom.
IM very angry... very,very.
:)
quezcatol 2 months ago
@quezcatol Sorry, I'm Canadian. It's cold here too but I'm happy because we love gay people, straight people, and hockey, and any person who loves another person has the right to get married here.
:)
KennedyDenys 2 months ago
@quezcatol Also, your argument is idiotic. If marriage doesn't have anything to do with religion, then polygamy still shouldn't be allowed because their religion is the BASIS for why they believe men should have multiple wives.
KennedyDenys 2 months ago
@KennedyDenys wait, so the gov should say you can only be with 1 person at a time? based on what?
quezcatol 2 months ago
@quezcatol Sorry, I didn't word that well. What I mean is, polygamy is outlawed for reasons other than religion, so taking religion out of the marriage equation to allow gays to marry doesn't mean that polygamy should be allowed if gay marriage is allowed.
KennedyDenys 2 months ago
I'm not saying that the government should dictate how many people you can be married to at a time, although I don't generally think that polygamy leads to very good things. Polygamist cultures tend to also have a lot of coercion of young women, sexism, and abuse.
However, the government deciding how many people we can be married to at a time STILL doesn't have anything to do with the government deciding that only heterosexual couples can marry. They are separate arguments.
KennedyDenys 2 months ago
@KennedyDenys and I think that gay marriage will lead to even more people taking marriage as not a religious institution but rather just something on a piece of paper and divorces will then climb. but what we think doesnt matter, and neither should the goverment be telling us what you can or not. If marriage is open to basically anyover over 18 then it should also be open for many people to join it, who says that only 2 people can live together, who made up that rule? please tell me.
quezcatol 2 months ago
@quezcatol You totally missed my point but that's cool.
Gay marriage has nothing to do with all of the hetero people (Kim Kardashian??!) not taking it seriously and divorces climbing. If you want your marriage to be religious then go for it, but for the rest of it, it should be a HUMAN RIGHT, not related to religion or gender.
I'm not going to tell you who made the "rule" that you can only be married to one person at a time, you can look on Wikipedia and find out yourself.
KennedyDenys 2 months ago
@KennedyDenys it doesnt matter if religion made sure polygamy was banned all around the world, if marriage isnt about religion, if the law shouldnt care what the religion says, then go back to make polygamy open again.
Even the f'ing nazis allowed it. ps! im not personally intrested in polygamy, I think 1 women is more then enough for me, and I will never have time for anyone else anyway.
and btw my oldest sister has gay friends (not we others in the family) so im def no homophobic.
quezcatol 2 months ago