E-mail address to contact Admin direct is admin@religionethics followed by .co.uk.
SpudYou do realise that every post that you make on this thread makes you look more and more like a brainwashed idiot who talks (writes) like a parrot that has learned the words but has abso-bloody-lutely no comprehension of what thoser words actually mean in terms of emotion and human love and interaction!You would do well to hive yourself off to the nearest closed monastic-community and restrict your sexual ideas to solitary and hidden masturbation, I have absolutely no wish to see you procreate and brainwash your children with the sane load of old bollocks that you peddle here.I sometimes wonder why the God you worship and kow-tow to bothered to give his followers brains capable of logical reasoning or. alternatively, why you appear to be incapable of such reasoning.
Hi Owlswing,If you look back on this thread Spud spent quite some time defending genocide and slavery when his "God" does it or condones it. Trying to justify the unjustifiable is his speciality. As far as I'm concerned the immorality of many parts of the Bible is well demonstrated by every post he makes. I'm glad others are still challenging his nonsensical ideas. I find them disturbing.
Perhaps a lot of that can be described as foreplay? Touch, along with sight, sound, smell, are all good things. I'm not saying they should, however, I think they do better if they do restrict it to that, because otherwise it becomes more about lust than about love.It follows because it gives a clue as to what is the best form for it to take.The issue was not about what is penetrating what, but about behaving in accordance with one's sex (gender). Which shelf a book in a library is kept on will depend on its category, in order to enable customers to find what they are looking for. Keeping it on a different category shelf defeats the object of having a library. So if two men or two women kiss in public or on TV, they are creating disorder. People watching expect men to kiss women.The problem is that even if the setting is private, the effects spill out into society. The goal of society is to work towards and maintain order, so it helps if men and women act like what they are. Most of this I have answered. I am arguing without referring to God or the Bible. I don't think anyone should be ostracized, but people have to be able to say if they think something is wrong. And of course everyone has to remember the plank in their own eye before telling their brother about the speck in his eye.
Mouth foaming paganism at it's most entertaining.
Your usual running interference for homophobia
Wonder what Owlswing's reaction would be to someone posting the following to a gay poster on here: "You would do well to hive yourself off to the nearest closed monastic-community and restrict your sexual ideas to solitary and hidden masturbation, I have absolutely no wish to see you brainwash your children with the sane load of old bollocks that you peddle here."
Thank you ,weaponiser in chief.
What disturbs me most are the millions who agree with the load of old bol - - , rubbish that Spud preaches.I am not sure that some of his posts do not costiturte a hate crime!It is about time that such indoctrination of children be decalared illegal. those not of the Christian persuasion outnumber those of it considerably and a referendum on the subject might provide some interesting discussions on this Forum, especialy on how many of the other religions practised in the UK banded together with the Christians.All in all I think that Spud had been a living demonstration of the actuality of the thread title!
I don't think there is a clear equivalence. One, Owlswing's comment is the equivalent of talking about a racist. Your change would apply to someone talking about someone being black.
I agree no clear equivalence. It is hard to take Owlswing's post seriously though, as I wondered what this forum would become if everyone decided to write posts like that to each other when they disagreed with someone over values or behaviour. I think this forum works better by arguing the merits of the points being debated, rather than telling someone they should hide themselves away and not procreate because their ideas are out of step with current thinking.
If their views are very extreme it would definitely be better if they didn't procreate, imo.
The idea of controlling people's procreation because of their views is frightening.
I think the forum provides a number of different functions. If people want to let of some steam, while obeying the rules that seems reasonable. The idea that we are or could be just arguing without emotion doesn't seem possible to me.
So you think members of ISIS, for example, who are so extreme they are out of sight, should procreate and no doubt encourage their offspring to be extremists too?
Was that the argument for not letting Shamima Begum and her baby back into this country? Which side of that debate you come down on probably in part depends on if you think people can be persuaded to change their ideas or not. Presumably you think people are open to persuasion otherwise you would not be worried about ideas being passed on?
If you knew the first thing about Paganism you would know that you are talking total complere and utter bollocks - but from you, regardless of the subject, that is no surprise whatsoever!
I would vote against making the loving upbringing my mother gave me being made criminal. I find your suggestion deeply scary.
