Evolution is most likely; homosexuality is natural

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by Mustafa

Actually there was a man by the name of Malthus who a couple of hundred years ago concerned himself with population control for overpopulated species. Homosexuality was not one of them but in my humble opinion these 3 laws hold as true in his day as these laws to this very day. Malthus seemed to think that these three laws to control populations are as natural as the law of gravity, time, quanta or any other law that is known at this time.

1) If you were to take small white mice, usually very playful, into a box in which they are crowded together with no extra room what do they do? They kill one another. (WAR) Same for humans

2) STARVATION. History has had times when large populations have been thinned out from this phenomena. When there is little food in the woods, the deer population becomes much thinner due to poor reproduction.

3) DISEASE. Today we have a disease called AIDS. Scientists and researchers around the world are working on a cure for this disase that kills in the tens of thousands and is growing exponentially. The closer they seem to get to solving the problem of this fragile virus, the faster it changes to prevent treatment.

In the middle ages Bubonic plaque killed millions of people in Europe and other places. No one knew about bacteria or the effects of these microscopic organisms. It appears that after enough people died, the disease attenuated itself and those still living had a form of immunity. This third law seemed to thin the population and then disappear. Hopefully this will happen with AIDS.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Mustafa
Actually there was a man by the name of Malthus who a couple of hundred years ago concerned himself with population control for overpopulated species. Homosexuality was not one of them but in my humble opinion hold as true in his day as they are to this. Malthus seemed to think that these three laws to control populations are as natural as the law of gravity, time, quanta or any other law that is known at this time.

1) If you were to take small white mice, usually very playful, into a box in which they are crowded together with no extra room what do they do? They kill one another. (WAR) Same for humans

2) STARVATION. History has had times when large populations have been thinned out from this phenomena. When there is little food in the woods, the deer population becomes much thinner due to poor reproduction.

3) DISEASE. Today we have a disease called AIDS. Scientists and researchers around the world are working on a cure for this disase that kills in the tens of thousands and is growing exponentially. The closer they seem to get to solving the problem of this fragile virus, the faster it changes to prevent treatment.

In the middle ages Bubonic plaque killed millions of people in Europe and other places. No one knew about bacteria or the effects of these microscopic organisms. It appears that after enough people died, the disease attenuated itself and those still living had a form of immunity. This third law seemed to thin the population and then disappear. Hopefully this will happen with AIDS.

While I do indeed understand what you are talking about with the whole Malthusian Growth Curve and Catastrophe and I agree with you say.

However, he did indeed imply homosexuality, along with other then taboos of abortion and contreception as means to avoid the Mal. Catastrophe in his essay Essay on the Principle of Population.

"the sort of intercourse which renders some of the women of large towns unprolific; a general corruption of morals with regard to the sex, which has a similar effect; unnatural passions and improper arts to prevent the consequences of irregular connections,"

 

[rtwngAvngr]

unnatural passions.

Bwahahahaha!

He was using unnatural to mean, "against conventional social mores", for any of you smart alecks out there.

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
While I do indeed understand what you are talking about with the whole Malthusian Growth Curve and Catastrophe and I agree with you say.

However, he did indeed imply homosexuality, along with other then taboos of abortion and contreception as means to avoid the Mal. Catastrophe in his essay Essay on the Principle of Population.

It may be because Thomas Malthus attended Jesus College in 1784 and graduated in 1788; in 1791 he earned his master's degree. His religious background may have had something to do with his contentions that homosexuality had some effect on population principles. The following site seems to imply that his assumptions on agriculture and population are flawed. Unfortunately, there have been times in recorded history when his theory proved to be true when thousands upon thousands have died of starvation.

http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa033001a.htm

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr

unnatural passions.

Bwahahahaha!

He was using unnatural to mean, "against conventional social mores", for any of you smart alecks out there.

Sir you are a one great reason for post-natal abortion.

 

[NewGuy]

A physician and surgeon claiming to be following God advocating abortion.

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by NewGuy
A physician and surgeon claiming to be following God advocating abortion.

You are kind of dim witted aren't you? Don't you know the meaning of POST NATAL ABORTION?

Well your the poster boy.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Mustafa
You are kind of dim witted aren't you. Don't you know the meaning of POST NATAL ABORTION?

Well your the poster boy.

Abortion is abortion. By plane, train, scalpel, poison, or gun.

Dim witted? I think we have already shown enough about how much medical knowledge I have that you don't. Pick an area of education. We can do this infinitely.

The fact you are in a profession where people depend on you for their lives and you advocate taking it does you no justice especially when you claim to follow God.

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Abortion is abortion. By plane, train, scalpel, poison, or gun.

Dim witted? I think we have already shown enough about how much medical knowledge I have that you don't. Pick an area of education. We can do this infinitely.

The fact you are in a profession where people depend on you for their lives and you advocate taking it does you no justice especially when you claim to follow God.

Post-natal abortion is the killing of a large green hulk after they are long born.

Here is a question for that large brain of yours.

Give me one place in the New or Old Testament where abortion or the taking of life before birth is a sin.

I can give you two good ones in favor of abortion.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Mustafa
Here is a question for that large brain of yours.

Give me one place in the New or Old Testament where abortion or the taking of life before birth is a sin.

I can give you two good ones in favor of abortion.

Fine.

First we need to clarify your challenge:

"where abortion or the taking of life before birth is a sin." indicates life exists before birth.

If life exists, then taking it unjustly (meaning without it being warranted by broken law) is called murder. Last I checked, we both agree on this.

If murder is killing wether before or AFTER birth, killing is the question.

You ask where it is called a sin?
Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

Do we need to go further?

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Fine.

First we need to clarify your challenge:

"where abortion or the taking of life before birth is a sin." indicates life exists before birth.

If life exists, then taking it unjustly (meaning without it being warranted by broken law) is called murder. Last I checked, we both agree on this.

If murder is killing wether before or AFTER birth, killing is the question.

You ask where it is called a sin?
Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

Do we need to go further?

Sorry for misspeaking about life existing before birth. According to the Bible of G-d it does not now or ever has.

Sorry but your quote in Exodus 20:13 refers to human life and does not refer to prenatal cell zygote formation.

Your Chapter and verse does not refer to ABORTION....

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Mustafa
Sorry for misspeaking about life existing before birth. According to the Bible of G-d it does not now or ever has.

Sorry but your quote in Exodus 20:13 refers to human life and does not refer to prenatal cell zygote formation.

Your Chapter and verse does not refer to ABORTION....

Psalms 139:

1 [To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.] O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me.
2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.
3 Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.
4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.
5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!

Jerimiah 1:4 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Alive or dead?

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Psalms 139:

13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

So what has this to do with a human SOUL in the forming foetus? This simply says that the formation of cells differentiating into organs, neurons and systems. Your verse 3 simply says that the soul-less human is covered in it's mother' womb. The rest of your OT Bible verse has nothing whatsoever have to do with human life requiring the SOUL that makes humans different fromt the animals.

Jerimiah 1:4 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

You are reading something into these lines that has nothing to do with abortion. It simply says that the L-rd G-d knows the person's soul while the body is being formed out of the dust of the earth. Nothing more or less....

Alive or dead?

Neither. The preborn has no human SOUL. Life can be found in trees, chickens, mice, monkeys and even mankind while they are in the process of forming from cells (just like fish or zebras) but the human soul is what is being talked about here.

You still don't understand that the Bible is very exact as to when human beings get a living soul.

There are two Biblical verses where the answer to the question is very clear. You and so many want to think that you know more than G-d when it comes to the human soul and therefore make stupid statements about "Pro-Life". But you haven't the vaguest idea of what G-d really says.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Mustafa
So what has this to do with a human SOUL in the forming foetus? This simply says that the formation of cells differentiating into organs, neurons and systems. Your verse 3 simply says that the soul-less human is covered in it's mother' womb.

Gee, that's odd. -Didn't see the word "soul" anywhere in there.

The rest of your OT Bible

MY? Last you admitted, you followed Old Testament too.

Now you have your own?

verse has nothing whatsoever have to do with human life requiring the SOUL that makes humans different fromt the animals.

The question you posed was killing -not having a soul. The answer you stated was that life does not exist before birth. You just have been proven wrong again, soul or not.

You are reading something into these lines that has nothing to do with abortion. It simply says that the L-rd G-d knows the person's soul while the body is being formed out of the dust of the earth. Nothing more or less....

The relevancy is in the life......as directed by your question, is it alive? That is all your stance has declaired relevant.

Newguy:Alive or dead?

Drunk:Neither. The preborn has no human SOUL. Life can be found in trees, chickens, mice, monkeys and even mankind while they are in the process of forming from cells (just like fish or zebras) but the human soul is what is being talked about here.

Gee. And above you just said things being formed have life. -and then say they aren't alive. And then again say they are. Which is it? Stuff containing organic material is either alive or dead. You are waffling. First you claimed the text talked about the "soul-less" and then say I inferred something that wasn't there, now you claim that if something has no soul, it is neither alive nor dead.

Pretty cool. How does THIS work then -"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."-----When he had no soul because he wasn't BORN? He must have been alive or dead, but you claim neither yet you claim not having a soul is death.

You are so screwed in this, you can't even see daylight.

You still don't understand that the Bible is very exact as to when human beings get a living soul.

I guess so since you cannot prove your point with scripture nor prove Biblical Old Testament which you claim to follow false.

There are two Biblical verses where the answer to the question is very clear.

Prove it then "mouthoffa".

You and so many want to think that you know more than G-d when it comes to the human soul and therefore make stupid statements about "Pro-Life". But you haven't the vaguest idea of what G-d really says.

Again:

Prove it Mouthoffa.

You drunk SOB.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Mustafa
It may be because Thomas Malthus attended Jesus College in 1784 and graduated in 1788; in 1791 he earned his master's degree. His religious background may have had something to do with his contentions that homosexuality had some effect on population principles. The following site seems to imply that his assumptions on agriculture and population are flawed. Unfortunately, there have been times in recorded history when his theory proved to be true when thousands upon thousands have died of starvation.

http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa033001a.htm

Indeed. Malthus assumed a linear approximation to food production over the years, whereas an exponential approxamation is more close to real production. Nonetheless, I believe (as I cannot prove) our advances can only keep so far ahead of the curve before social change is necessary to reduce the slope of the population growth curve.

I believe, either we hit the Malthusian Catastrophe without change or we avoid it by change.

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by NewGuy

Gee, that's odd. -Didn't see the word "soul" anywhere in there.

Now you do..... That is what this whole thing is about anyway.

MY? Last you admitted, you followed Old Testament too.

Now you have your own?

Your giant intellect is amazing for all to see. Let's see, how long did it take for you to get that light bulb to turn on in that space you have for a cranium?

The question you posed was killing -not having a soul. The answer you stated was that life does not exist before birth. You just have been proven wrong again, soul or not.

Have you ever stepped on an ant or chopped a tree or caught a fish before? If you have you are a killer as you have taken a life. Even your lord Jesus killed innocent life when he destroyed a living fig tree and living swine. Of course you both are guilty of taking LIFE and must go to hell for it.

The relevancy is in the life......as directed by your question, is it alive? That is all your stance has declaired relevant.

By whom? You? What a joke? Your ignorant stance and you are quite irrelevant.

Gee. And above you just said things being formed have life. -and then say they aren't alive. And then again say they are. Which is it? Stuff containing organic material is either alive or dead. You are waffling. First you claimed the text talked about the "soul-less" and then say I inferred something that wasn't there, now you claim that if something has no soul, it is neither alive nor dead.

Life takes many forms but only the born human has what you call LIFE. Even you are alive but it appears brain dead.

Pretty cool. How does THIS work then -"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."-----When he had no soul because he wasn't BORN? He must have been alive or dead, but you claim neither yet you claim not having a soul is death.

Your own bible verse proves my contention. Even before he formed man and women in the womb or even while the human was forming, the L-rd knew the soul which he would later place into the new baby once the first breath is taken. Before that the forming embryo has no more life than a bacteria, which is alive but as far as we know has no human soul. Once you were alive but now you are stupid.

You are so screwed in this, you can't even see daylight.

I see you don't want to know what the Bible says about this subject as that would be too much for you to grasp. It all rests in symantics and what you and anti-life people believe. It is better to kill a living doctor than to terminate a non-Soul bearing piece of flesh.

I guess so since you cannot prove your point with scripture nor prove Biblical Old Testament which you claim to follow false.
Prove it then "mouthoffa". Again: Prove it Mouthoffa. You drunk SOB.

From the King James VERSION of the New Testament

Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 7:22
All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

Exodus 21

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [1] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.

23 But if there is serious injury (death of the pregnant woman), you are to take life for life,

1) The SOUL which is the LIFE of man occurs from the first man ADAM to every human being to this very day and only after the dust that is used to form the human body in the womb gets its life (SOUL) once it takes it's first breath.

2) If a women misscarries because she is accidentally struck by two men fighting, the penalty for loss of the non-living future human is a fine to the father because of a lost future worker but if the living (SOUL bearing woman) is killed or injured then a life has been lost and can be payed for with a 'life for a life.'

Take a deep breath now, sip your Kentucky wiskey and go the bathroom.

These facts about when a person becomes ALIVE and has that part of G-d which we call a SOUL is placed into that lump of dust or flesh. It does not say that killing a tree is taking a life but nevertheless the tree is as alive as that embryo forming in the womb.

It is very possible that when Dr. Frankenstein was thinking of you when he said, "Its Alive, Its Alive!"

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock

Indeed. Malthus assumed a linear approximation to food production over the years, whereas an exponential approxamation is more close to real production. Nonetheless, I believe (as I cannot prove) our advances can only keep so far ahead of the curve before social change is necessary to reduce the slope of the population growth curve.

I believe, either we hit the Malthusian Catastrophe without change or we avoid it by change.

I don't think that there is a Malthusian catastrophe in the offing. His premis was that all specie populations are controlled by natural forces and that when a balance is again achieved, the threat disappears.

That slope or curve is that science is progressing so rapidly that life itself may be prolonged to such an extent that Malthusian type events may be necessary to keep us from pushing each other into the sea for lack of earth. Much like the movie Solient Green.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Mustafa
I don't think that there is a Malthusian catastrophe in the offing. His premis was that all specie populations are controlled by natural forces and that when a balance is again achieved, the threat disappears.

I believe you are correct about his premise, but I'm not entirely convinced we're heading towards a balance by any means. Stratification and increased consumption are the rule, rather than the exception. While I believe technology may be able to help in some occaisions, I do believe in does have a limit, especially factored into the world's stratified distribution of wealth.

If anything, I believe social advances have had the most impact on avoiding the Catastrophe rather than the scientific one. Of course now I'm terribly off topic... so I digress.

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock

I believe you are correct about his premise, but I'm not entirely convinced we're heading towards a balance by any means. Stratification and increased consumption are the rule, rather than the exception. While I believe technology may be able to help in some occaisions, I do believe in does have a limit, especially factored into the world's stratified distribution of wealth.

If anything, I believe social advances have had the most impact on avoiding the Catastrophe rather than the scientific one. Of course now I'm terribly off topic... so I digress.

Isaac you digress not. But if there are fundamental physical laws governing the universe then scientific, social or comet disasters will not ultimately alter the course.

Wealth distribution has historically changed from one group to another over the centuries. The haves and the have not change with regime changes but the immutible laws of population control will inevitably take over and the human specie and the animal specie will return to acceptable levels.

But that is my humble opinion and I also digress.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Socialism is not an advancement. It will eventually fall by the wayside, as it ignores fundamental immutable truths of ALL nature, not just human.