So essentially what you're saying, is that gender is biological as well as cultural/social and that gender roles are also biological. Let's look here, as you can see Gender and Gender Identity are not Biological. Hormones, genitalia, etc as you described all fall under "Sex" and not "Gender". Every single thing you've said is in relation to "Sex", not "Gender". http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/gender-roleDefinition of gender role in English: noun The role or behavior learned by a person as appropriate to their gender, determined by the prevailing cultural norms: http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/gender%20identityMedical Dictionary gender identity noun Medical Definition of GENDER IDENTITY : the totality of physical and behavioral traits that are designated by a culture as masculine or feminine " Your entire premise relies on the idea that there is not only no biological basis for gender identity, and that gender identity is implanted completely by society via conditioning. The fact is that humans have TWO SEPARATE GENDERS as defined by nature and biology, not only by society. Because you believe that society is the only source of gender identity, you then abuse this premise to permit the behavior of stripping people with hetero-normative gender identities of the natural state they fall into because of BIOLOGY, not conditioning."
Except that there are more "two separate genders". Humans are not confined to having XX and XY chromosomes, there are those with less and more. There are those with both or no genitalia. And guess what? That is all biological and has nothing to do with "Gender". Gender roles are not based upon biological factors, they are based upon societal factors. This should be common knowledge. Go take a sociology and psychology class, maybe dabble in neurology as well, because what you're describing is all based on "sex", not "gender". http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/575/Sex-Roles.htmlhttps://www.boundless.com/psychology/textbooks/boundless-psychology-textbook/gender-and-sexuality-15/gender-414/gender-and-sociology-296-12831/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3131694/Sex and gender are synonyms. Again you are taking liberties redefining words. When I call you on this you move the goal posts and find new phrases that you claim support your argument by their mere existence. There are males, there are females, and there are others, I never denied that fact. However the fact remains that the VAST MAJORITY of humans fit within male or female gender identities, and this is largely the result of biology. "Humans are not confined to having XX and XY chromosomes, there are those with less and more. There are those with both or no genitalia. And guess what? That is all biological and has nothing to do with "Gender"." So what your saying is because of biology, there are more than two genders, but gender has nothing to do with biology? It is amazing how much you can punish your brain with conflicting statements and still manage to believe the words you say. It must create tremendous angst via cognitive dissonance which I am sure you gleefully unleash upon anyone you judge as being below your standards for ideological perfection. As far as your "sources" the first two were just persuasive writing, and the third was a study of the trends of studies published in a specific journal. If there are any specific studies in there you believe support your argument, please cite them. I didn't see any. I did however find this... "Finally, the vast majority of studies addressed cognitive and socialization processes. Only one published study directly focused on biological ideas about gender development (Rodgers et al. 1998). Studies focusing on biology may have been virtually nonexistent because such articles are more likely to be published in journals that are oriented to the biological sciences, and may be due to this journal’s greater emphasis on socialization and feminist perspectives." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3131694/ONE study from this journal about biological factors related to gender. Bias much? As far as scientific method is concerned the study of only the socialization processes and not examining the biological aspects violates the requirement for the ability to have a null hypothesis, one of the primary required tenets for a study to be called science. Sex is inextricably linked with gender no matter how inconvenient this fact is for your ideological goals. It's even more amazing when I didn't link Gender to my statement of there being people with chromosomes differing from the norm(xx.xy). Nice to see you putting "words in my mouth". I'm not sure what you're arguing about or whether you're confusing yourself, I stated that gender and sex are not synonymous, and I stated that gender is assigned due to a person's sex. Since you still refuse to accept that Gender is not biological, let's have a look here: (American Psychological Association) http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexuality-definitions.pdfSex refers to a person’s biological status and is typically categorized as male, female, or intersex (i.e., atypical combinations of features that usually distinguish male from female). There are a number of indicators of biological sex, including sex chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia. Gender refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex. Behavior that is compatible with cultural expectations is referred to as gender-normative; behaviors that are viewed as incompatible with these expectations constitute gender non-conformity. Gender identity refers to “one’s sense of oneself as male, female, or transgender” (American Psychological Association, 2006). When one’s gender identity and biological sex are not congruent, the individual may identify as transsexual or as another transgender category (cf. Gainor, 2000). There you go, "gender" is Not biological and Not synonymous with "sex". Go take a few basic classes in your nearest college before posting again please. This is technically a topic that cannot be place in either or due to various organizations having different meanings for the words "gender" and "sex", but the fact is that sex is largely biological and gender societal. Gender is assigned based on the sex of the person, but is Not synonymous with "sex". |
|
|
|
As I said before, if what you were saying was true, then both the males and females would have displayed bisexual tendencies, but only the females did. Therefore, everything you've said is false and has no bearing whatsoever in fact. Your conclusion has no basis in anything observational and therefore is total bullshit, to say the least.
At least come up with sensible arguments.
I already told you a leading theory is that males were often out fighting wars and not at home with the children and wives, so the wives would bond together to raise the children, and that explains why women are bisexual and men are mostly either straight or gay.
A prime example is ancient sparta, where the males would only see their wives once a month.
EDIT: You're right in the swearing, but I cannot have respect for you according to some intolerant comments you've previously made.
Well I know you don't want to hear the theories you think are hogwash. But here we go again. The world as a whole sees more female nudity and sexualization of women in movies and tv, even now "celebrities", and music stars, are overly sexual in their videos. So the world as a whole will see these images (unless they turn them off and don't tune in, but most won't since it's everywhere), and be far more likely to show arousal when seeing women. This leads to everyone being far more likely to show arousal for women versus men, they've been conditioned to think of women as sexual. (I gave a bunch of examples in post in this thread for these studies) Those who sin, and that's everyone, will be subject to demonic forces, those demonic forces want people to sin. They're related to the sins the person has committed. Why then do men not show an arousal to women if they're gay? Because that is being blocked from demonic forces. They hinder the natural arousal for women, and instead pump up the arousal for men. Continuing to sin, and reluctance to ask for forgiveness, will keep this going. Asking for forgiveness, prayers and trying to be less sinful has caused the man (who was going to have the sex-change op) I mentioned to actually be aroused by women, lose his breasts, and he was getting married. There are other examples of homosexuals becoming straight through that process too. Your theory of males fighting wars and bonding with other males, would lead men to be bi-sexual too for the same reason women would turn bi-sexual for bonding with women. Do you have any other reason? Please show me any intolerant comments I have made, and I will debunk that (if you're wrong), or apologize (if you're right). Christianity is about tolerance, and I don't want to be intolerant of anything but sin.  For the millionth time, that little theory or yours has been debunked, proven false, because Gay Men were not sexually attracted to women in these studies, so the whole myth about the over sexualized depiction of females in the media having any effect on sexuality is False. The males wouldn't turn bisexual and this is because of polygamy. Even in the bible it shows god allowing the males to take the women from lands they conquered as slaves(sexual). Geez, come up with better arguments. Both females and males are shown to learn towards polygamy on a sexual level, but are relatively monogamous romantically. And also, men being sexual with men has been generally frowned upon once they reached adulthood in different societies throughout the ages(Sparta against is a good example), and this may have caused them to be relatively either/or in sexuality(gay/straight). Queen Elizabeth even had a female lover, it was frowned upon with men but indifferent with women. My theory accounts for gay men not being attracted to women. You can re-read it. You just don't believe it. Not believing it, doesn't mean it's debunked. I agree with your assessment that social constructs may change why straight men don't have the same reaction when viewing males, just like I believe that social constructs change why women may have a reaction when viewing females. Even Chivers has a problem explaining why her results are the way they are: "Full of scientific exuberance, Chivers has struggled to make sense of her data. She struggled when we first spoke in Toronto, and she struggled, unflagging, as we sat last October in her university office in Kingston" ( link) Another theory is for those humans who are more sexual, they feel strongly one way or the other. Men are more sexual than women, so more men swing one way and one way only. Whereas women are less sexual and tend to be more bi. "Psychologist Richard Lippa teamed up with the BBC to survey over 200,000 people of all ages from all over the world concerning the strength of their sex drive and how it affects their desires. He found a similar inversion of male and female sexuality: for men, both gay and straight, higher sex drive increased the specificity of their sexual desire. Straight guys with higher sex drives tended to be more focused on women, while higher octane gay guys were more intent on men. But with women—at least nominally straight women— Lippa found the opposite effect: the higher her sex drive, the more likely a woman was to report being attracted to both men and women. Self-identified lesbians showed the same pattern as men: a higher sex drive meant more women-only focus. Perhaps this explains why nearly twice as many women as men consider themselves bisexual, while only half as many consider themselves to be exclusively gay." ( link) You'll think this strengthens your theory, but I believe that it goes to show there can be many reasons why the results would have shown up the way they did. However, researching this to discuss it with you, has only strengthened my theory. I personally see it as a result of the demonic influence of lust in women who would be seen as having a high sex-sex drive (to those who don't believe in the sin of lust or demonic influence), the more likely to turn bi/lesbian. You are making absolutely no sense. Your "theory" stated that the over sexualization of females in the media is what may have caused women to "become bisexual". I responded by saying Gay men were not sexually attracted to women in these studies, debunking your little "theory". Yes, the only sensible thing you've said so far is, "Another theory is for those humans who are more sexual, they feel strongly one way or the other. Men are more sexual than women, so more men swing one way and one way only. Whereas women are less sexual and tend to be more bi. ", but even that is just a theory and hasn't been proven or had much research done on it. For ex: it's sometimes thought that women with higher testosterone levels are more likely to be bisexual. So it goes either way. And regardless, they both show that women are bisexual. And again, I said if you want to test this yourself, get Any female friend you can find, relative, whatever, and have their sexual arousal tested by a sexologist(You can watch), while looking at lesbian porn. Hopefully then you'll see that women truly are by default, bisexual.
Also, men are not more sexual than women, it's actually the opposite. Women can achieve orgasms multiple times in a row, and get aroused by far more stimuli than men, even getting aroused by animals mating, as shown by Dr Chivers, Dr Diamond, and more. Please go research about this. |
|
|
|
Because the bible is inconsistent and contradictory. Some parts promote rape, some are "against it". Ugh, this has already been stated, the below shows that the bible allows for rape. Please open up your nearest bible and go read it. I've read the passages. What's your take on these?
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)
I'm sorry, but the bible promotes all the horrors that our society seeks to avoid, such as rape, murder, and the like(Same for the Torah). It's just one big mess and that shows the invalidity of it, there's some moments where laws entirely contradict each other, so it was clearly not inspired by "god".
Selling someone as a slave doesn't mean the person she is enslaved to is free to rape her. "Back than, it wasn't uncommon for poor families to give their children up to slavery. Slavery wasn't as bad as we think of it today. Instead of families letting their children starve or die from sickness, they would send them to be maids or farmers under a boss so that they could receive food, water, shelter, clothing, income, and more. These "slaves" were treated more like servants or workers contract rather than our definine of slaves. Now, in this particular passage, it is discussing the treament of female "servants" in specific. Women were highly protected under the Jewish law due to the fact that they were highly vulnerable in society. This is why we see so many extra laws of protection revolving around women. If a father gave up his daughter, than the 'boss' would have to take on the duties of a father. He was not allowed to sell her to foreigners (as that would endanger her life). If he was unpleased with her abilities to work, she was simply set free from the contract. He also wasn't able to just get rid of her when her time working was up. The men could simply be let free, because they could get jobs. Women couldn't back than, so the boss was not allowed to just let her leave, and end up in a life of poverty. Often times they would arrange marriages for these women (arrange marriages were common back than). The woman had many extra rights in this marriage that most other women didn't get.... for example, she could divorce him in a multitude of cases! If he mistreated her in any way she had the right to leave and she didn't have to give him anything (whereas a woman in todays society may have to give up half of her belongings to her ex after divorce). " Christians: can you explain this verse Exodus 21:7-8? And taking a damsel, doesn't mean they're free to rape them, versus rescuing them and allowing them to live. It's also another instance where people are saying that others are taking damsels, not that God is telling them to do so. Are there any examples in the bible where God tells someone to go rape someone? I don't think we've hit on one, and He does say to kill those who would rape others. Yes of course that's why this passage explicity says ," Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
" I guess "women ravished" doesn't mean "rape" in your language. Hint: It does. Also, while we're at it, here's a few passages from the bible that depict women as being second-class citizens to men. Hope your happy with the laws "God the father" gave that oh so treats women fairly /sarcasm.
"The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."- 1 Corinthians 14:34 "But every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven." 1 Corinthians 11:5
"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, ..." - Ephesians 5:22 So it seems "God the Father" is a mass murderer And a sexist. |
|
|
|
Again, all you're doing is showing that "God the Father" is a malevolent, hateful being who does not forgive. Nice god you worship there /s. As I shown before, the OT portion of the bible promotes rape, mass murder, etc. Please stop denying what's clearly written. It's childish. So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."
Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes. (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm God gave people plenty of time to ask for forgiveness, they didn't. He forgives when you ask nowadays too. He wiped evil from the world. That's what He does. He doesn't want evil to be running around and affecting those who love Him and give Glory to Him. As for the quote, I saw no mention of rape. "1) Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-Gilead (Judges 21. 10-24): First off I would like to ask a simple question: Where was the rape? It never says it outright in the verse, and therefore requires some very large assumptions from EvilBible in order to make this work for them, which they do without a thought. EB uses this syllogism: "The virgin's relatives were killed. The men who killed them took the virgins in. They got married, so it must have been equivalent to rape (notice EB also assumes the marriage was forced)" Syllogisms do not contain perfect logic, for example "fish can swim. I can swim. I must be a fish." Therefore, there is no reason to believe that this actually contained rape, let alone repeatedly. There were even regulations for how to deal with said regulation. Give them a peace offer (Deut 20.10-14). This verse even goes on to show how war captives were to be treated, as follows: Provide them with housing (taking them in) Allowing them 1 month to mourn. Then allow marriage If they divorce, no mistreatment. Where's the rape? You should know by now." ( Debunking evil-bible) The bible does not condone rape, and says not to do it. Please, read below, the bible promotes rape. It explicit says it, go open up your bible and look before posting again...Thanks. It's not clear from that Deuteronomy 22:25-29 quote that the killing of the rapist is mandated at all times, or just in self-defense, as they're in the act of committing the rape. Also, killing a serial rapist in self-defense stops any more women from being victimized by them.
What's your take on these? When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)I'm sorry, but the bible promotes all the horrors that our society seeks to avoid, such as rape, murder, and the like(Same for the Torah). It's just one big mess and that shows the invalidity of it, there's some moments where laws entirely contradict each other, so it was clearly not inspired by "god". It says that God will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle. Then it talks about what will happen. That does not necessarily mean to say He wants it all to happen. It says in the bible a lot of things He never wanted to happen, but do because of free will and evil. Even if it means rape (versus marriage/taking care of those who weren't killed), it doesn't say they should ravish women, just that they will be ravished (or another definition of the word used is violated). Or it could just be another translation problem. It may have just meant men would lie with their wives after they got married. ShakabThe bible is against rape. In the first book of the bible... Genesis 34:1 And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. 2 And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her. 3 And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel. 4 And Shechem spake unto his father Hamor, saying, Get me this damsel to wife. 5 And Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter: now his sons were with his cattle in the field: and Jacob held his peace until they were come. 6 And Hamor the father of Shechem went out unto Jacob to commune with him. 7 And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard it: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob's daughter: which thing ought not to be done.Also: Deuteronomy 22:25 "But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die."Why would God want His men to rape people when He believes men should die for raping someone? Because the bible is inconsistent and contradictory. Some parts promote rape, some are "against it". Ugh, this has already been stated, the below shows that the bible allows for rape. Please open up your nearest bible and go read it. It's not clear from that Deuteronomy 22:25-29 quote that the killing of the rapist is mandated at all times, or just in self-defense, as they're in the act of committing the rape. Also, killing a serial rapist in self-defense stops any more women from being victimized by them.
What's your take on these? When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)I'm sorry, but the bible promotes all the horrors that our society seeks to avoid, such as rape, murder, and the like(Same for the Torah). It's just one big mess and that shows the invalidity of it, there's some moments where laws entirely contradict each other, so it was clearly not inspired by "god". |
|
|
|
As I said before, if what you were saying was true, then both the males and females would have displayed bisexual tendencies, but only the females did. Therefore, everything you've said is false and has no bearing whatsoever in fact. Your conclusion has no basis in anything observational and therefore is total bullshit, to say the least.
At least come up with sensible arguments.
I already told you a leading theory is that males were often out fighting wars and not at home with the children and wives, so the wives would bond together to raise the children, and that explains why women are bisexual and men are mostly either straight or gay.
A prime example is ancient sparta, where the males would only see their wives once a month.
EDIT: You're right in the swearing, but I cannot have respect for you according to some intolerant comments you've previously made.
Well I know you don't want to hear the theories you think are hogwash. But here we go again. The world as a whole sees more female nudity and sexualization of women in movies and tv, even now "celebrities", and music stars, are overly sexual in their videos. So the world as a whole will see these images (unless they turn them off and don't tune in, but most won't since it's everywhere), and be far more likely to show arousal when seeing women. This leads to everyone being far more likely to show arousal for women versus men, they've been conditioned to think of women as sexual. (I gave a bunch of examples in post in this thread for these studies) Those who sin, and that's everyone, will be subject to demonic forces, those demonic forces want people to sin. They're related to the sins the person has committed. Why then do men not show an arousal to women if they're gay? Because that is being blocked from demonic forces. They hinder the natural arousal for women, and instead pump up the arousal for men. Continuing to sin, and reluctance to ask for forgiveness, will keep this going. Asking for forgiveness, prayers and trying to be less sinful has caused the man (who was going to have the sex-change op) I mentioned to actually be aroused by women, lose his breasts, and he was getting married. There are other examples of homosexuals becoming straight through that process too. Your theory of males fighting wars and bonding with other males, would lead men to be bi-sexual too for the same reason women would turn bi-sexual for bonding with women. Do you have any other reason? Please show me any intolerant comments I have made, and I will debunk that (if you're wrong), or apologize (if you're right). Christianity is about tolerance, and I don't want to be intolerant of anything but sin. For the millionth time, that little theory or yours has been debunked, proven false, because Gay Men were not sexually attracted to women in these studies, so the whole myth about the over sexualized depiction of females in the media having any effect on sexuality is False. The males wouldn't turn bisexual and this is because of polygamy. Even in the bible it shows god allowing the males to take the women from lands they conquered as slaves(sexual). Geez, come up with better arguments. Both females and males are shown to learn towards polygamy on a sexual level, but are relatively monogamous romantically. And also, men being sexual with men has been generally frowned upon once they reached adulthood in different societies throughout the ages(Sparta again is a good example), and this may have caused them to be relatively either/or in sexuality(gay/straight). Queen Elizabeth even had a female lover, it was frowned upon with men but indifferent with women. |
|
|
|
Look, I don't care about your bullshit, irrational opinions. It's a fact that biological women are bisexual. If you want to test this yourself, go to a sexologist and have any female you know blood flow to their vagina measured(Your sexual arousal) while watching lesbian porn, and see what happens. You'll sure be in for a surprise as this arugment is a waste of time, you're sprouting off illogical statements and frankly you make no sense. Everything has been answered so far. This fact in itself should show the bible is entirely false(Not gonna mention the indefinite amount of inaccuracies and contractions in it as well).
"Does the study even give any reasons why they come to the conclusion they do? You still haven't explained why men don't show up as bi more than women. "
I already told you that in these studies, the men did not display any sexual arousal to both sexes, they preferred one(gay or straight). The women however were aroused by both sexes during sexual acts, but only aroused when viewing pictures of naked women(doing non sexual acts) and not aroused at all when viewing images of naked men(doing non sexual acts). Hence, men are mostly either gay or straight, and women are entirely bisexual on a purely sexual level.
There's really no need to swear while posting to me, which you have been doing more recently. I've just been peacefully answering your questions and posting back to the things you have accused me of with examples to prove what I've said. You have given the results of the test, but you have not given a reason as to why you or the person who ran the test, believe the results should give the conclusion that women are all bi-sexual. I never argued the results, I was arguing with the conclusion based on the results. I've already given my conclusion based upon the results and why I think it. But you don't want to hear that. But you have not given me a reason (that I haven't debunked) for why women would all be bi-sexual and men wouldn't. If you believe these results mean that conclusion, why? Why should men not be bi-sexual just as much as women? As I said before, if what you were saying was true, then both the males and females would have displayed bisexual tendencies, but only the females did. Therefore, everything you've said is false and has no bearing whatsoever in fact. Your conclusion has no basis in anything observational and therefore is total bullshit, to say the least. At least come up with sensible arguments. I already told you a leading theory is that males were often out fighting wars and not at home with the children and wives, so the wives would bond together to raise the children, and that explains why women are bisexual and men are mostly either straight or gay. A prime example is ancient sparta, where the males would only see their wives once a month. EDIT: You're right in the swearing, but I cannot have respect for you according to some intolerant comments you've previously made. |
|
|
|
Again, all you're doing is showing that "God the Father" is a malevolent, hateful being who does not forgive. Nice god you worship there /s. As I shown before, the OT portion of the bible promotes rape, mass murder, etc. Please stop denying what's clearly written. It's childish. So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."
Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes. (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm God gave people plenty of time to ask for forgiveness, they didn't. He forgives when you ask nowadays too. He wiped evil from the world. That's what He does. He doesn't want evil to be running around and affecting those who love Him and give Glory to Him. As for the quote, I saw no mention of rape. "1) Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-Gilead (Judges 21. 10-24): First off I would like to ask a simple question: Where was the rape? It never says it outright in the verse, and therefore requires some very large assumptions from EvilBible in order to make this work for them, which they do without a thought. EB uses this syllogism: "The virgin's relatives were killed. The men who killed them took the virgins in. They got married, so it must have been equivalent to rape (notice EB also assumes the marriage was forced)" Syllogisms do not contain perfect logic, for example "fish can swim. I can swim. I must be a fish." Therefore, there is no reason to believe that this actually contained rape, let alone repeatedly. There were even regulations for how to deal with said regulation. Give them a peace offer (Deut 20.10-14). This verse even goes on to show how war captives were to be treated, as follows: Provide them with housing (taking them in) Allowing them 1 month to mourn. Then allow marriage If they divorce, no mistreatment. Where's the rape? You should know by now." ( Debunking evil-bible) The bible does not condone rape, and says not to do it. Please, read below, the bible promotes rape. It explicit says it, go open up your bible and look before posting again...Thanks. It's not clear from that Deuteronomy 22:25-29 quote that the killing of the rapist is mandated at all times, or just in self-defense, as they're in the act of committing the rape. Also, killing a serial rapist in self-defense stops any more women from being victimized by them.
What's your take on these? When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)I'm sorry, but the bible promotes all the horrors that our society seeks to avoid, such as rape, murder, and the like(Same for the Torah). It's just one big mess and that shows the invalidity of it, there's some moments where laws entirely contradict each other, so it was clearly not inspired by "god". |
|
|
|
Again, this is all personalized and your opinion(Obviously wrong). The catholic church disagrees with you, there's less than 100 exorcisms a year. So you're obviously wrong on the fact that there's a lot of "demons" on earth. The reason why there's so little exorcisms(I also highly doubt any of the exorcisms performed by the church have anything to do with "supernatural demons") is because 99% of people claiming to be possessed actually have had some sort of mental illness, and has been treated with medication, not faulty "exorcisms".
Bisexual males aren't common, at least according to studies done on male sexuality. Males are either straight or guy, mostly. However, all studies done on female sexuality show that biological females are all Bisexual.
Therefore, according to your logic, god made males superior to females in the fact that if they were born straight/heterosexual, then they're not sinning in the eyes of god. But females don't have such luxury, right? So that means every female is a sin itself in the eyes of god.
Just admit it, as this pathetic argument is getting tiresome and you'e answered none of my points, and instead referring to opinionated information with no objective basis.
I'd believe the bible over the Catholic Church any day. I already gave reasons, but because of your closed-mind you won't listen to it. My theory is a combination of demonic influences and media influences. But since you ignore one, you can't see it a whole theory. That's ok. I never thought you'd believe it. I just wanted to post another alternative to the theory of yours. I fully know you think you're right 100%. I don't agree, and I bet many people reading don't believe the conclusion for those results. They may believe the results, but the conclusion doesn't fit. If it was true that all women were bi, ignoring demonic influences, then all men should be bi too. Can you even give a logical reason why men wouldn't be bi in your opinion? I figured I'd give another theory that explains the results, the only reason I posted in this thread. There are plenty of theories as to why men are not as likely to be bisexual with the main one being below. 1) Men often fought wars and were away from home, leaving women alone with the children(Countries like Sparta were a perfect example where the husbands only saw the wives once a month). This means that the women would bond together to raise the children, and of course there would need to be sexual attraction for them to get along. The fact of the matter is that all the studies done on female sexuality already show that women are by default, bisexual, and man are much more likely to be either straight or gay. Your "theories" about "demons" have absolutely no evidence behind them, and even according to the Church is a bunch of hogwash, as shown by the trivial amount of so called "exorcisms" carried out each year. You obviously don't follow the bible, as the OT is as relevant as the NT. What you are, is a superficial christian who selectively chooses what to listen to in the bible, nothing more. 1) Men fighting in wars with other men, would likely bring them together just as much as women being alone with women. I don't believe that, but your theory doesn't make sense because the same reason you would claim women would bond and grow bi would be the same reason men should, but they don't, so you haven't explained why women do and men don't. You believe the results come to that conclusion that women are bi, I don't. There's a difference between having results, and having a conclusion. Results can be for many reasons. Does the study even give any reasons why they come to the conclusion they do? You still haven't explained why men don't show up as bi more than women. You think demons are hogwash, the bible is full of demon verses, and those Christians who do not believe in them, are ones who aren't following the bible. Your line about me not following the bible, is silly when it's not backed by anything, and people can clearly read all my posts. Everything I've written has bible verse backing. 25 verses about casting out demonsMatthew 10:5 "These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,a drive out demons. "Mark 16:17 "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues"For more reading on getting rid of demonic oppression, here are some books:  Christianity with Power Defeating Dark Angels: Breaking Demonic Oppression in the Believer's Life Power Encounters: Reclaiming Spiritual Warfare Though, these are just a couple, they quote others also. Anyone can look up spiritual warfare and deliverance for more viewpoints and examples. Look, I don't care about your bullshit, irrational opinions. It's a fact that biological women are bisexual. If you want to test this yourself, go to a sexologist and have any female you know blood flow to their vagina measured(Your sexual arousal) while watching lesbian porn, and see what happens. You'll sure be in for a surprise as this arugment is a waste of time, you're sprouting off illogical statements and frankly you make no sense. Everything has been answered so far. This fact in itself should show the bible is entirely false(Not gonna mention the indefinite amount of inaccuracies and contractions in it as well). "Does the study even give any reasons why they come to the conclusion they do? You still haven't explained why men don't show up as bi more than women. " I already told you that in these studies, the men did not display any significant sexual arousal to both sexes, they preferred one(gay or straight). The women however were aroused by both sexes during sexual acts, but only aroused when viewing pictures of naked women(doing non sexual acts) and not aroused at all when viewing images of naked men(doing non sexual acts). Hence, men are mostly either gay or straight, and women are entirely bisexual on a purely sexual level(With a slight preference for other women sexually). |
|
|
|
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/genderGender: The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones): traditional concepts of gender http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/sexSex: Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions: The two words are similar but in different context. Gender in relation to things such as aesthetics, paralanguage, manner of speech, etc, sex in relation to the biology, anatomy, genitalia. Gender is given based on the sex of the person, but is not synonymous with the sex of the person. Also, while where at it, I think you should go search up the definition of "robbing". Because what I advocate isn't "Robbing children of their gender identities", it's not giving children gender roles in the first place. Society is the one that pushes gender roles from the moment of birth(Blue blankets for boys, pink for girls). Your saying "natural biological tendencies", yet haven't mentioned that various societies throughout the past and present that have/have had differing gender roles. Get it? There is no universal standard of how males and females should act as shown throughout history, various societies had gender different roles for each sex. The most you can say is boys have a tendency to be more aggressive and act "masculine", and girls "feminine", but pushing roles on them is not the way to do it. They should come into the decision to act however they choose without fear of prejudice for going against the norm. Do you like things being forced on you? So then why would you want for people, from birth, to have predefined societal gender roles forced on them. Having to align to a certain behavior without room to maneuver for fear of rejection, that's what gender roles do. I like how you conveniently edited the parts out of the definition that don't fit your argument. "Synonyms: sex" Sorry but you don't get to rewrite the dictionary to fit your arguments. The word gender does not have that context, you are applying context to the word. Words have many contexts, in this case you are pretending that some of the dictionary definitions of the word don't exist. Additionally you don't get to tell me in what context I am using words sorry. Also you forgot that in all definitions the word TYPICALLY prefaces the idea of gender in the way you describe it. That word is put there to clarify that there are MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS OF GENDER, and just because you want to push your pet definition and ignore the rest doesn't change the fact that it means many things. Because what I advocate isn't "Robbing children of their gender identities", it's not giving children gender roles in the first place. Society is the one that pushes gender roles from the moment of birth(Blue blankets for boys, pink for girls). Your saying "natural biological tendencies", yet haven't mentioned that various societies throughout the past and present that have/have had differing gender roles. Get it? Really? Well your theory hinges upon the idea that gender identity has no biological basis. Because the fact that gender identities have a biological basis means your theories about society being the sole provider of gender identities is false. Just because societies in the past have managed to condition people against their natural biological states does not some how mean gender is only a social construct. Some parts of gender identity are a social construct, and some parts are not. Denying the biological basis for gender identity IS IN FACT robbing children of the sense of self that is not a social construct but an innate part of their being and self. You denying them the ability to have that for themselves is nothing but a disgusting social experiment with no scientific backing that treats children as guinea pigs. Just because I reject your premise does not mean I am incapable of understanding your words. Get it? There is no universal standard of how males and females should act as shown throughout history, various societies had gender different roles for each sex. The most you can say is boys have a tendency to be more aggressive and act "masculine", and girls "feminine", but pushing roles on them is not the way to do it. They should come into the decision to act however they choose without fear of prejudice for going against the norm. You are right, there are no universal standards for how men or women should act, but that does not mean that there are not biological drivers pushing individuals in certain directions. Hormones play a large role in emotions and behavior for one, and males and females clearly share different hormone profiles. The most I can say is much more than that, because there are scientific studies showing that gender has biological basis, as demonstrated in the sources I provided. Your entire premise relies on the idea that there is not only no biological basis for gender identity, and that gender identity is implanted completely by society via conditioning. The fact is that humans have TWO SEPARATE GENDERS as defined by nature and biology, not only by society. Because you believe that society is the only source of gender identity, you then abuse this premise to permit the behavior of stripping people with hetero-normative gender identities of the natural state they fall into because of BIOLOGY, not conditioning. You believe that it is possible to have no gender identity, but I argue that is patently false, and proceeding with such a mindset in order to try to condition natural gender identities out of children is destructive and abusive and will serve no one. Some people may feel like they do not belong in either gender, and that is fine, they have the right to be whatever they want to be. This however does not grant permission for you to recondition all of society to supposedly solve the unease of these people where they exist as a minority. Not just because they are a minority, but because you have zero scientific evidence backing your premises. I keep asking for scientific studies to back this argument, but no one seems to be able to provide them. Until there is some fact based reasoning behind trying to recondition the children of the world into some idealist utopian idea of a genderless society, it is pretty reckless to move forward with these ideas and just kind of see what results. Do you like things being forced on you? So then why would you want for people, from birth, to have predefined societal gender roles forced on them. Having to align to a certain behavior without room to maneuver for fear of rejection, that's what gender roles do. Yet you wish to force people who naturally have gender identities to not have them any longer. I am not arguing that because you are born with a certain set of genitals that you can only act along with your default gender role. I am arguing that gender roles, for the most part, are based upon biological factors that directly influence our behavior, emotions, and sexual drives. I am not advocating that people "have to to align to certain behavior", but on the other hand by demanding that no one be allowed to have a gender role very clearly is telling people that they have to align to certain behavior. I would hope you could see the conflict in your logic, but like most social justice warriors, ideology usually trumps logic. So essentially what you're saying, is that gender is biological as well as cultural/social and that gender roles are also biological. Let's look here, as you can see Gender and Gender Identity are not Biological. Hormones, genitalia, etc as you described all fall under "Sex" and not "Gender". Every single thing you've said is in relation to "Sex", not "Gender". http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/gender-roleDefinition of gender role in English: noun The role or behavior learned by a person as appropriate to their gender, determined by the prevailing cultural norms: http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/gender%20identityMedical Dictionary gender identity noun Medical Definition of GENDER IDENTITY : the totality of physical and behavioral traits that are designated by a culture as masculine or feminine " Your entire premise relies on the idea that there is not only no biological basis for gender identity, and that gender identity is implanted completely by society via conditioning. The fact is that humans have TWO SEPARATE GENDERS as defined by nature and biology, not only by society. Because you believe that society is the only source of gender identity, you then abuse this premise to permit the behavior of stripping people with hetero-normative gender identities of the natural state they fall into because of BIOLOGY, not conditioning."
Except that there are more "two separate genders". Humans are not confined to having XX and XY chromosomes, there are those with less and more. There are those with both or no genitalia. And guess what? That is all biological and has nothing to do with "Gender". Gender roles are not based upon biological factors, they are based upon societal factors. This should be common knowledge. Go take a sociology and psychology class, maybe dabble in neurology as well, because what you're describing is all based on "sex", not "gender". http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/575/Sex-Roles.htmlhttps://www.boundless.com/psychology/textbooks/boundless-psychology-textbook/gender-and-sexuality-15/gender-414/gender-and-sociology-296-12831/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3131694/ |
|
|
|
It's not clear from that Deuteronomy 22:25-29 quote that the killing of the rapist is mandated at all times, or just in self-defense, as they're in the act of committing the rape. Also, killing a serial rapist in self-defense stops any more women from being victimized by them.
What's your take on these? When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)I'm sorry, but the bible promotes all the horrors that our society seeks to avoid, such as rape, murder, and the like(Same for the Torah). It's just one big mess and that shows the invalidity of it, there's some moments where laws entirely contradict each other, so it was clearly not inspired by "god". |
|
|
|
Generational curses. Wow, so you're admitting that "God the Father" in the bible is an evil god, since he kills innocent children and babies because of acts that there father or grandmother, or great great grandfather might have committed.
Look, your entire argument makes no sense and you're standing up for cruelty and evil here. Absolutely fucking pathetic, not that I can expect much from the likes of yourself. I'm done with you. Why don't you go try getting yourself raped and see how it feels, and just have the man pay your father as if you're a ride at the carnival.
You ignore the fact that a generational curse can only happen if someone in the family did evil, and children of such families can break them in the name of Jesus nowadays. You also totally ignored that the bible does not condone rape in anyway. 2 Samuel 13:14 "However, he would not listen to her; since he was stronger than she, he violated her and lay with her." Violated is not a good word, so that rape was not condoned. Deuteronomy 22:25-29 "But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. "But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. So the man who rapes should die, so that rape was not condoned. Also, the bible is full of verses were people are only supposed to be with their wife. So any sex out of marriage is wrong. Again, all you're doing is showing that "God the Father" is a malevolent, hateful being who does not forgive. Nice god you worship there /s. As I shown before, the OT portion of the bible promotes rape, mass murder, etc. Please stop denying what's clearly written. It's childish. So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."
Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes. (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm |
|
|
|
Again, this is all personalized and your opinion(Obviously wrong). The catholic church disagrees with you, there's less than 100 exorcisms a year. So you're obviously wrong on the fact that there's a lot of "demons" on earth. The reason why there's so little exorcisms(I also highly doubt any of the exorcisms performed by the church have anything to do with "supernatural demons") is because 99% of people claiming to be possessed actually have had some sort of mental illness, and has been treated with medication, not faulty "exorcisms".
Bisexual males aren't common, at least according to studies done on male sexuality. Males are either straight or guy, mostly. However, all studies done on female sexuality show that biological females are all Bisexual.
Therefore, according to your logic, god made males superior to females in the fact that if they were born straight/heterosexual, then they're not sinning in the eyes of god. But females don't have such luxury, right? So that means every female is a sin itself in the eyes of god.
Just admit it, as this pathetic argument is getting tiresome and you'e answered none of my points, and instead referring to opinionated information with no objective basis.
I'd believe the bible over the Catholic Church any day. I already gave reasons, but because of your closed-mind you won't listen to it. My theory is a combination of demonic influences and media influences. But since you ignore one, you can't see it a whole theory. That's ok. I never thought you'd believe it. I just wanted to post another alternative to the theory of yours. I fully know you think you're right 100%. I don't agree, and I bet many people reading don't believe the conclusion for those results. They may believe the results, but the conclusion doesn't fit. If it was true that all women were bi, ignoring demonic influences, then all men should be bi too. Can you even give a logical reason why men wouldn't be bi in your opinion? I figured I'd give another theory that explains the results, the only reason I posted in this thread. There are plenty of theories as to why men are not as likely to be bisexual with the main one being below. 1) Men often fought wars and were away from home, leaving women alone with the children(Countries like Sparta were a perfect example where the husbands only saw the wives once a month). This means that the women would bond together to raise the children, and of course there would need to be sexual attraction for them to get along. The fact of the matter is that all the studies done on female sexuality already show that women are by default, bisexual, and man are much more likely to be either straight or gay. Your "theories" about "demons" have absolutely no evidence behind them, and even according to the Church is a bunch of hogwash, as shown by the trivial amount of so called "exorcisms" carried out each year. You obviously don't follow the bible, as the OT is as relevant as the NT. What you are, is a superficial christian who selectively chooses what to listen to in the bible, nothing more. |
|
|
|
So then "god" promoting the murder of babies, children, the raping of young women, the murder of the elderly, the murder of adulteres, the murder of his own priests, means that, "it is right and good and not evil."?
Murdering those who sin, is seen everywhere, and as I said is not done anymore. But it was done because those who were killed were evil (the Lord knew), and he didn't want His people to sin. It doesn't say women were raped in the bible. Here are a couple of references discussing what some say was rape: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/numbers31.htmlhttp://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html"Weren't the virgin women raped? There are two parts to this objection: did God instruct or permit the soldiers to rape the women, and did the soldiers actually rape them? It's clear that God didn't intend for the soldiers to rape the women, but rather to take them captive. The law God had given to the Israelites condemned rape, in some cases punishing it with death (Dt 22:25-27). Also, immediately following the command to spare the virgin women, the soldiers were instructed to purify themselves and their captives (31:19), and rape (or consensual intercourse) would have violated this command (Lev 15:16-18). In the rest of the chapter, the women are usually referred to as people (using the masculine adam), not women or virgins, underscoring the notion that they were seen as captives rather than sexual objects." ( link) Unfortunately, your interpretation of the bible is wrong, as there are passages that explicitly show otherwise. There are numerous cases of rape being promoted in the bible. Numerous cases of innocent babies, children, and the elderly being killed because of god's orders. Your god is a evil god, there is no "ifs" or "buts" about it. I advise you go read through the OT portion of the bible carefully. EX: If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her - (Deuteronomy 20:10-14) Reading the above says, that if someone rapes someone, he is supposed to pay her father money (for the sin he's committed) and then marry her and take care of her because he violated her. Which means rape is a sin and the man is supposed to repay for his sin. "Together, these passages clearly state that if a man has sex with a virgin who is not betrothed (regardless of whether or not it was rape or consensual) he is obliged to marry her. He should have sought her father's permission first, negotiated a bride-price, and taken her as his wife. Because he did not, he is punished for this—he now must pay up (he can't opt out any more) and marry her (which could be a major punishment in itself if this was a foolish, spur-of-the-moment act and she really wasn't the right woman for him!). Also note that "he may not divorce her all his days" – this initially doesn't seem significant but is actually a major punishment. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (restated more clearly in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9) allowed for divorce, but only in the case of sexual immorality (the word "uncleanness" refers to this and was translated as such in the LXX). This man now may not divorce his wife even for this reason, but is obliged to continue to support her all his life whatever she does. But her father is ultimately in authority over her, as her head, until he hands this authority over to her husband. If the man is unsuitable, the father can refuse to give his daughter to him. How many fathers would give their daughter to a rapist? Not many. So, in general, a rapist would actually have to pay a 50 silver shekel fine to her father, and not get a wife at all. The answer to the question is in Exodus 22:17 - the woman does NOT have to marry a rapist, she must only do what her father says." ( Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist?) And as I said before, children and babies are surely exempt from "sin" and cannot be compared to Adults in the matter of sinning. Therefore, your god killing innocent babies and children just proves my point, your not worshiping "god the father", you're worshiping "satan".
Just because you think children and babies are innocent from sin, doesn't mean it's true. According to the bible, there are generational curses, which means children have to pay for the sin of their mother/father. But this explains it pretty well, he was trying to save those who believed in Him, and keeping those who didn't, who would sin with no regret from passing it on and "infecting" others with that sin, thereby showing love: "In regard to the Canaanites, God commanded, “However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them — the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites — as the LORD your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 20:16-18). The Israelites failed in this mission as well, and exactly what God said would happen occurred (Judges 2:1-3; 1 Kings 11:5; 14:24; 2 Kings 16:3-4). God did not order the extermination of these people to be cruel, but rather to prevent even greater evil from occurring in the future. Probably the most difficult part of these commands from God is that God ordered the death of children and infants as well. Why would God order the death of innocent children? (1) Children are not innocent (Psalm 51:5; 58:3). (2) These children would have likely grown up as adherents to the evil religions and practices of their parents. (3) By ending their lives as children, God enabled them to have entrance into Heaven. We strongly believe that all children who die are accepted into Heaven by the grace and mercy of God (2 Samuel 12:22-23; Mark 10:14-15; Matthew 18:2-4)." ( Why did God command the extermination / genocide of the Canaanites, women and children included?) Generational curses. Wow, so you're admitting that "God the Father" in the bible is an evil god, since he kills innocent children and babies because of acts that there father or grandmother, or great great grandfather might have committed. Look, your entire argument makes no sense and you're standing up for cruelty and evil here. Absolutely fucking pathetic, not that I can expect much from the likes of yourself. I'm done with you. Why don't you go try getting yourself raped and see how it feels, and just have the man pay your father as if you're a ride at the carnival. |
|
|
|
So now you're just making up bullshit. The Catholic Church has less than 100 exorcisms every year. If you believe in demons and angels, etc, then the # of demons on Earth is extremely small and most people definitely do not have "demonic forces affecting them".
I already told you that social conditioning has nothing to do with it, because gay men are not sexually attracted to the female form that you so believe to have an effect on sexuality. You're simply wrong...in everything. Accept it.
You're making zero sense, I don't even know why I continue bothering to respond to you...Well I'm a bit bored and it's always interesting to respond to irrational/illogical people such as yourself.
1) The number of demons on Earth is not small. One third of all angels are fallen angels, from an innumerable amount of angels (too many to count): Hebrews 12:22 22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angelsDaniel 7:10 A river of fire was flowing And coming out from before Him; Thousands upon thousands were attending Him, And myriads upon myriads were standing before Him; Matthew 26:52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. 53"Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 "How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?" legion meaning a unit of 3,000–6,000 men in the ancient Roman army or a vast host, multitude, or number of people or things. And of course by the time Jesus said that the angels who He would have called, their number was 2/3 of all angels (since 1/3 were fallen). 2) The number of demons should never be related to how many exorcisms there are a year in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church over the years has tended to shy away from granting them when asked. They have left people who may have benefited from it, to fend for themselves over and over. It may be out of fear of looking foolish. You changed your tone when I mentioned demons existing as the bible says they do. Lots of people do. 3) However, exorcisms are on the rise. Exorcism Thriving in U.S., Say Experts, How Pope Francis and the Vatican deal with the devil (2014). Also I never said all people are possessed, which is usually what exorcism brings to mind. Just that there are demonic forces that get a little more power with every sin (oppression versus possession). Asking for forgiveness for those sins takes away their power. If anyone is interested, Christians are looking into deliverance from other Christians versus an exorcism from the Catholic Church. Deliverance can be peaceful, just asking for forgiveness and prayers, etc. "Though many people confuse deliverance with exorcism, they are not the same.....Deliverance ministries seek to remove any influences that allow the demon to take control over the individual. The individual must take responsibility and be involved in the process" ( Deliverance ministry) The man who was going to have the sex change operation was prayed for, and had a lessening of impure thoughts of men, and started to get sexually attracted to women and was looking forward to getting married to a wife. It's the only reason I bring it up. Just wanted to counter your theory with another theory. You can call it crackpot all you like, but it would be a bit disingenuous for me to say I believe the bible and ignore Jesus calling out demons and commanding His followers to do the same in the future. Mark 16:17 "These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues"Again, this is all personalized and your opinion(Obviously wrong). The catholic church disagrees with you, there's less than 100 exorcisms a year. So you're obviously wrong on the fact that there's a lot of "demons" on earth. The reason why there's so little exorcisms(I also highly doubt any of the exorcisms performed by the church have anything to do with "supernatural demons") is because 99% of people claiming to be possessed actually have had some sort of mental illness, and has been treated with medication, not faulty "exorcisms". Bisexual males aren't common, at least according to studies done on male sexuality. Males are either straight or guy, mostly. However, all studies done on female sexuality show that biological females are all Bisexual. Therefore, according to your logic, god made males superior to females in the fact that if they were born straight/heterosexual, then they're not sinning in the eyes of god. But females don't have such luxury, right? So that means every female is a sin itself in the eyes of god. Just admit it, as this pathetic argument is getting tiresome and you'e answered none of my points, and instead referring to opinionated information with no objective basis. |
|
|
|
And there goes your argument. Innate gender roles has nothing to do with socially enacted gender roles. Every society has different gender roles for males and females. As I said before, it is true that males tend to gravitate towards being more masculine and women towards being more feminine, but the various "extras" imposed upon each sex by societies is the problem. Get it? The point of this is because societies forcing down socially defined gender roles on male/females may leave negative results. Such as males being afraid to show their emotions for fear of being viewed as "weak", or females afraid to stand for their rights in a male dominated society(Look at India).
Again, I highly, enormously, advise that you go search up the words "gender" and "sex" in your local dictionary. What you're describing, for the millionth time, is Sex. Sex is the biological factor, gender the social one. You're talking about somewhat predefined roles based on the person's Sex, not gender.
I rather that society change to at least accommodate to help all of the people, than stick to the "majority" and ignore everyone else. Of course you don't care, because well, you're a sheep.
Please, if you're gonna continue typing, at least know what you're typing about. This is honestly disappointing. Ugh.
If only you could simply declare my argument over for me, that would make everything so simple for you wouldn't it? My very argument is that biological sex and gender behavior are inextricably linked regardless of your denial of this fact. They are different, but very closely interrelated things, and forcing some one to go against their natural biological tendencies can be extremely harmful. You wouldn't advocate reconditioning of a gay boy into the gender norms of a heterosexual boy would you? So why is it appropriate to strip children of their natural gender identity to appease some mythical utopian gender standards that you believe are superior, having no proof of this fact? Robbing children of their gender identities to play out some sick social experiment based on beliefs is beyond abuse. I understand what you are trying to tell me. I reject your premise. Get it? So I looked up the definitions of gender and sex for you, since you obviously haven't bothered. gendernoun gen·der \ˈjen-dər\ : the state of being male or femalegrammar : one of the categories (masculine, feminine, and neuter) into which words (such as nouns, adjectives, and pronouns) are divided in many languages Full Definition of GENDER 1 a : a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms b : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass c : an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass 2 a : sex <the feminine gender> b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gendersexnoun \ˈseks\ : the state of being male or female: men or male animals as a group or women or female animals as a group : physical activity in which people touch each other's bodies, kiss each other, etc. : physical activity that is related to and often includes sexual intercourse Full Definition of SEX 1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures 2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females 3 a : sexually motivated phenomena or behavior b : sexual intercourse 4 : genitalia http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexGee, interesting, the first definition of both words are EXACTLY THE SAME, meaning that in some circumstances the words are completely interchangeable. Gender is even directly defined as sex! Turns out I was using the words correctly, too bad the dictionary doesn't have revisionist social justice warrior foot notes in there for you. Accommodating people and making most living humans suffer for the satisfaction of a small number is not justice, sorry. I don't care what mental gymnastics you use to justify it or how much blame and shame you throw around like so many shit slinging monkeys. The world is harsh. We should work on changing that, but disabling others in order to feed the self esteem of people who feel victimized regardless of it being true or not is pretty much sociopathic, and you are unknowingly enabling this behavior (at least I would hope unknowingly). Call me a sheep a few more times. Clearly you are above the mainsteam and anyone who disagrees with you must me a mainstream mindless sheep right? What do you have to learn from anyone? You are smarter than the rest! Its possible that the distinction between hard and soft sciences is a bit of a false dichotomy.
Social science is able to employ the scientific method also. And in empirically testing falsifiable theories, using various social research methods, it is able to arrive at valid and reliable conclusions.
It has been said of the "natural" (hard) sciences that at best they only ever attain a verisimilitude - that is, an approximation to truth (or falsity) - and so, in this sense are not so far removed from the social sciences as might first appear to be the case.
What you say is true to a degree, but the main factor people forget is that social sciences are first of all based (mostly) on human behavior, thoughts, feelings, and emotions, all things which are not physically quantifiable and are measured in very unreliable ways as opposed to something like chemistry or engineering. If you read in my post previous, most social sciences studies do not meet the requisite standards for truly being defined as a scientific study. Requirements: procedure, performance, duplication, and peer scrutiny The procedure must obey scientific method. The test needs to be set up in a way as to eliminate human error or influence. When studying human behavior, how do you remove that element? The experiment must be repeatable with predictable results. Then finally the study must be peer reviewed. These are the bare bones basics that are required before you can call something science. We can debate about hard vs soft science all day, but the fact of the matter is the op has not bothered to present ANY studies which support his hypotheses, yet he claims the backing of the scientific community. Gender: The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones): traditional concepts of gender http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/sexSex: Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions: The two words are similar but in different context. Gender in relation to things such as aesthetics, paralanguage, manner of speech, etc, sex in relation to the biology, anatomy, genitalia. Gender is given based on the sex of the person, but is not synonymous with the sex of the person. Also, while where at it, I think you should go search up the definition of "robbing". Because what I advocate isn't "Robbing children of their gender identities", it's not giving children gender roles in the first place. Society is the one that pushes gender roles from the moment of birth(Blue blankets for boys, pink for girls). Your saying "natural biological tendencies", yet haven't mentioned that various societies throughout the past and present that have/have had differing gender roles. Get it? There is no universal standard of how males and females should act as shown throughout history, various societies had gender different roles for each sex. The most you can say is boys have a tendency to be more aggressive and act "masculine", and girls "feminine", but pushing roles on them is not the way to do it. They should come into the decision to act however they choose without fear of prejudice for going against the norm. Do you like things being forced on you? So then why would you want for people, from birth, to have predefined societal gender roles forced on them. Having to align to a certain behavior without room to maneuver for fear of rejection, that's what gender roles do. |
|
|
|
So then "god" promoting the murder of babies, children, the raping of young women, the murder of the elderly, the murder of adulteres, the murder of his own priests, means that, "it is right and good and not evil."?
Murdering those who sin, is seen everywhere, and as I said is not done anymore. But it was done because those who were killed were evil (the Lord knew), and he didn't want His people to sin. It doesn't say women were raped in the bible. Here are a couple of references discussing what some say was rape: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/numbers31.htmlhttp://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html"Weren't the virgin women raped? There are two parts to this objection: did God instruct or permit the soldiers to rape the women, and did the soldiers actually rape them? It's clear that God didn't intend for the soldiers to rape the women, but rather to take them captive. The law God had given to the Israelites condemned rape, in some cases punishing it with death (Dt 22:25-27). Also, immediately following the command to spare the virgin women, the soldiers were instructed to purify themselves and their captives (31:19), and rape (or consensual intercourse) would have violated this command (Lev 15:16-18). In the rest of the chapter, the women are usually referred to as people (using the masculine adam), not women or virgins, underscoring the notion that they were seen as captives rather than sexual objects." ( link) Unfortunately, your interpretation of the bible is wrong, as there are passages that explicitly show otherwise. There are numerous cases of rape being promoted in the bible. Numerous cases of innocent babies, children, and the elderly being killed because of god's orders. Your god is a evil god, there is no "ifs" or "buts" about it. I advise you go read through the OT portion of the bible carefully. EX: If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her - (Deuteronomy 20:10-14) And as I said before, children and babies are surely exempt from "sin" and cannot be compared to Adults in the matter of sinning. Therefore, your god killing innocent babies and children just proves my point, your not worshiping "god the father", you're worshiping "satan". So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."
Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes. (Judges 21:10-24 NLT) http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm |
|
|
|
You know what that article on jezebel says? It talks about romantic attraction, not sexual. Sexual attraction defines you sexuality no matter how you look at it, and every single study done on female sexuality shows there there is No such thing as a straight woman. Want to test it yourself? Get your mother, daughter, aunt, whatever, to go to sexologist and have their arousal "rate" taken while watching lesbian porn. Wake up and smell the coffee body, because over 50% of people on this earth are Bisexual. Dr Meredith Chivers identifies as a "straight woman" romantically, she has a husband. So stop lying please, you seem all the more childish and pathetic. In fact, did I type correcty? Every single study done on female arousal since the Kinsey era in the 1960s shows that all biological women are bisexual. Not just Dr Chivers, every one. Take a quick google or read a few books, it'll help you.
The studies don't show women are lesbians, they show that women are not sexually attracted to males physically, but they are very sexually attracted to other women physically. This means on a sexual level, they are bisexual.
All those religions that talk against homosexuality are wrong, or has a evil god who seeks to suppress the true sexuality of females, and that's been confirmed by science.
Knowing full well you won't believe this, I simply am going to post this as an alternative reasoning for the skewed results. This also shows that Christians should be tolerant of those who sin (no matter what the sin), and pray for them. Not hurt them (physically or emotionally) for sinning. From Archives of Sexual Behavior, VoL 6, No. 5, 1977 http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Rogue%20Theories/Exorcism/Exorcism%20of%20Transsexualism.htmlThe case features a man, who felt he should be a women. Psychiatrists had him dressing up as a women during the day to see if that went well, and acting like a woman. They got to the point they said he should have the surgery to fully become a woman. "The physician shared with the owner of the restaurant a fundamental Protestant religion quite foreign to John, who had been brought up as a Baptist but was not religious. The physician administered a total physical exam and said that he could live quite well as a woman, but the real problem was possession by evil spirits. After some discussion of this, John reported a session which lasted 2-3 hr and involved exhortations and prayers over John by the physician and laying on a hands on John's head and shoulders. During this period, John reported fainting several times and arising to the continuing of the prayers and exhortations, resulting in the exorcism of 22 evil spirits which the physician called by name as they left his body. During and after this session John felt waves of God's love coming over him but was physically drained. A letter to us, from the physician, confirmed this basic process. The physician noted in his letter that he showed John that his life was a fake and that Jesus could redeem him and that a standard prescription of Scripture readings caused the spirit of the woman in John to disappear.
Immediately after the session John announced he was a man, discarded his female clothes (hiding his breasts as best he could), and went to the barber shop to have his long hair cut into his current short, masculine style. After this session John returned home and live with his mother for approximately 2 weeks but remembers the beginning of some doubts about his conversion and the reoccurrence of some feminine feelings. At this point he accompained his employer to services of a very well-known faith healer in another state where the miracles that he saw renewed his faith and reaffirmed the correctness of his decision. After waiting 3 hr in line, he confronted the healer who told the patient that he was having sexual problems (having perhaps seen his breasts?) and began the healing process, including praying and laying on of hands once again. During this period, which John estimated as 10 or 15 min, he fainted, regained consciousness, fainted again, and, as he stood to step off the platform down into the audience, realized that his breasts were gone."Then there are some charts showing his gender reversal scores. " Examination revealed no residual gynecomastia, although the interval of time between cessation of hormonal therapy and examination was adequate for this "shrinkage" to occur naturally.
He started dating several months later, and at the last interview in December 1975 reported that he had dated approximately ten gifts intermittently but had dated one girl for an extended period of time. He reported some sexual arousal toward these girls but did not masturbate, nor did he consider sexual intercourse, because of his religious beliefs. He did admit having some sexual thoughts of males for several months after returning from his faith healing, but attributed these to the Devil and has not had thoughts of men for almost 2 years. He continued to do extremely well in his job, benefiting from- several promotions, and was looking forward to getting married."In this particular "convo", I'm talking about non-personalized behavior. I don't care about what the man thinks or feels, I'm talking about our very biology, our very sexuality. Transgender-ism is not a sexuality, in-case you didn't know. So what you've put here is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. You can't take someone's word for anything regarding sexual acts, as shown by the studies done, many participants lie about their attractions. You have to use instruments to record their arousal, and that's what's been done on males and females. Sexologists may take some account of their own feelings into play, but it's entirely miniscule compared to actually recording their sexual arousal. When it comes to just sexual arousal, there is No such thing as a straight female, and since sexuality is primarily defined by sexual attraction, that means that means heterosexuality in biological females does not exist. Romantic and sexual attraction are two very different things, with the former being somewhat flexible and the latter simply being out of our control. You should also note that the biggest organizations that were focused on "changing people's sexuality through faith", all shut down. It doesn't work, not even a bit, and actually causes negative effects on the participants. I understand what you're saying about instruments testing things. It was said already that women have been conditioned by the world to see the naked female body more than male. I've always wondered while watching tv and movies, why there is soooooooooooooooo much female nudity and barely any male nudity. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/22/women-film-study-annenberg_n_1107899.htmlhttp://www.bustle.com/articles/50955-why-there-should-be-more-male-nudity-on-tv-starting-with-game-of-throneshttp://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/sexual-politics-full-frontal-nudity-hbos-hit-television-shows-84737"Differences in the hyper sexualization of male and female characters were explored. Females (30.2%) were far more likely than males(9.7%)to be shown in sexualized attire(i.e., tight or revealing clothing). Females (29.5%) were more likely than males to be shown with partial or full nudity (11.7%). It was also the case that females were more likely than males to be referenced as physically attractive (13.2% vs. 2.4%)" ( link) So, lets go back to why women are more bi than males in this study you're citing. Either: 1) Women are really more bi than men because of something innate or 2) Women are showing up as more bi than men, because of their social upbringing I think it is far more likely that it's from their social upbringing, otherwise why wouldn't males show up as just as "bi" as women are? As for the Christian "Re-programing" ... it doesn't shock me that it didn't work out. People are sinful and do things incorrectly, shaming someone for something they think is themselves, if a horrible approach. Also no matter of praying will stop demonic forces if the person doesn't believe in Jesus and doesn't want to change. What you're saying is also not true because gay men are not sexually attracted to the female form. Guess what that means? That means that the whole story about how women are overly shown in the media and that has an effect on sexuality, is entirely false. It has nothing to do with social upbringing, because gay men in these studies were only sexually attracted to other men. Your theory would hold up if they weren't but they are, so you're wrong. The fact is that all biological females on this planet are bisexual, there is no if's or but's and the OT is against homosexuality of that kind(women laying with woman), so therefore, god purposely made women bisexual only to restrict their sexual desires? What a nice, benevolent god you have there /s. If you want to test this firsthand yourself, get any woman you want, and bring them to a sexologist and have their arousal "tested"(blood flow to the vagina) when looking at pictures/videos of nude women, and see what happens. It's a fact, plain and simple. I already discussed the other points about homosexuality and demonic forces, you just don't believe them. I've given examples that can explain these results in another way. But I always knew you wouldn't believe it. So then according to your logic, all women on this planet have demonic forces in them? Wow, interesting theory you have there. What a nice god to have implanted demons in all biological females on earth /s. Also stop trying to slyly maneuver the conversation. Your initial proposal was that it was environmental factors that led to female bisexuality, to which I obviously shown you to be wrong since gay men aren't sexually attracted to the female form. You only mentioned "demonic forces" in regards to "changing sexuality". So you have nothing to say, and are now going on a random tangent about demonic forces, of which you hardly mentioned. Look, if you have nothing thoughtful to say, and are going to act like a child that dances around, cease responding. All people who sin have demonic forces affecting them (that's everyone). Whenever someone sins they let demonic forces in, in some way (not easily detectable for sure!). That's not God adding them, that's sin making us fall from God's grace. If you believe in Jesus (and forgive others), you can ask for forgiveness, and be freed from any consequences of sinning. My initial proposal was the demonic forces can change people's perceived and shown sexuality (as a man losing his breasts when he was freed). I also attempted to show you reason in addition to that. Men who clearly show tendencies one way, are going to show those tendencies when tested. (my first post, that covers the gay men that show up as gay) Those women who are straight, are showing tendencies based upon social conditioning. (second post) I know some Christians may even be shocked to hear that theory, but it was the bible that clearly states Jesus drove out demons. To not believe in demonic forces, would be to not be following the bible. So now you're just making up bullshit. The Catholic Church has less than 100 exorcisms every year. If you believe in demons and angels, etc, then the # of demons on Earth is extremely small and most people definitely do not have "demonic forces affecting them". I already told you that social conditioning has nothing to do with it, because gay men are not sexually attracted to the female form that you so believe to have an effect on sexuality. You're simply wrong...in everything. Accept it. You're making zero sense, I don't even know why I continue bothering to respond to you...Well I'm a bit bored and it's always interesting to respond to irrational/illogical people such as yourself. |
|
|
|
Again, the OT has cruel/evil laws, Jesus supports them. They are equally as relevant as the commands given by Jesus in the NT(love thy neighbor, god). Step 1: Go to your nearest Bible Step 2: Open it up and look inside Step 3: Go to this site, http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/, or any other site detailing the atrocious acts and laws by god and his prophets in the OT, and look in your bible for them. "God the father" and his prophets promote; rape, pedophilia, mass murder, incest, and more. If God promoted it, then it is right and good and not evil. Go to your nearest Bible and see the ways that God promoted anything. If the things He promotes apply to you, then obey. If they don't, then don't. But don't consider God evil. Everything in the universe and beyond belongs to God, and you are badly mistaken when you say that He is evil. If you say such, then you are pushing yourself against God, the Maker and Owner of everything. It will wind up being you that are evil by opposing God. So then "god" promoting the murder of babies, children, the raping of young women, the murder of the elderly, the murder of adulteres, the murder of his own priests, means that, "it is right and good and not evil."? You are the most delusional, pathetic man I have ever met. I'm done here. Now everyone can see why religious people are the bane of this world, we need freedom From religion.EDIT: You're now on ignore BADecker, I don't talk to delusional sheep. In the context that a true god actually exists, the "god" your following now BADecker would actually be Satan, just so you know. Stupid man. |
|
|
|
Again, the OT has cruel/evil laws, Jesus supports them. They are equally as relevant as the commands given by Jesus in the NT(love thy neighbor, god). Step 1: Go to your nearest Bible Step 2: Open it up and look inside Step 3: Go to this site, http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/, or any other site detailing the atrocious acts and laws by god and his prophets in the OT, and look in your bible for them. "God the father" and his prophets promote; rape, pedophilia, mass murder, incest, and more. Feel free to list any laws we are supposed to be following currently. There was definitely mass murder in the bible in the OT of those who were sinful, again those who are sinful now, just ask for forgiveness and it's given, because Jesus already died for those sins. No, God in the OT allowed for the rape of young women, the murder of babies, children, and the elderly. I assume that babies and children are supposed to be innocent by default, correct? Every single one of those laws are supposed to be followed, since the OT is as equally relevant as the NT. |
|
|
|
The whole Bible is relevant for all people. Those who consider themselves Jews are supposed to obey the whole O.T. forever, or until the Judgment Day, whichever comes first. The rest of the people in the world are supposed to obey the moral laws in the O.T., especially with regard to not harming other people or damaging their property. Everyone is supposed to gain wisdom about God and how their lives operate from the O.T. The N.T. is for clarity with regard to salvation. It is given to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, because the Jews have failed in their mission to remain the pure nation that God wants. The biggest part of the New Testament has to do with the peace between mankind and God through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. The whole N.T. has to do with peace among all people because there is peace with God. Ok nice selective reasoning /s. You either obey all the laws in the bible, including the cruel/evil ones, or none. You BADecker, are not a true christian. I have and am obeying all the laws in the Bible that apply to me. Since I am not a Jew (although I might have some Jew in my ancestry), I am not required to obey all the laws of the O.T. - only the moral ones. Since I am obeying the only important N.T. law - to believe in Jesus as my Savior - the good works of Jesus are being applied to me. Though I make mistakes in a practical sense, it is as though I didn't, because Jesus' righteousness covers them. It doesn't matter if you're a Jew or not, Jesus supported the laws in the OT. Therefore the OT and NT are equally relevant, by you not following the OT, you're not truly following Jesus. You are not a true christian. A person who believes in Jesus salvation DOES obey all the laws, even though in a practical sense he might not. He obeys because any and every mistake he makes is covered by the righteousness of Jesus. Thus, he is essentially as though he had not sinned, had not broken any laws, even though he does. If you want to accept that the Ceremonial Laws of the O.T. which were for the Jews apply to you, go ahead and do them. Really, they don't apply to anyone except the Jews and those who say they are Jews. So you're admitting that you don't truly believe in Jesus. The fact of the matter is that Jesus supported the OT, making the OT as relevant as the NT. If you obey the NT's laws, then obey the OT's laws. If you don't obey both, then you are not a true christian, just a superficial "believer". |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
