| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
06 Aug 2007 08:56:41 AM |
| Object: |
rape is natural |
Scientific Study Concludes: Rape is a Natural Product of Evolution
Scripps Howard News Service - January 11, 2000
Rape is not, typically, the crime of male domination it has been portrayed
as by sociologists and feminists in recent years, says a University of New
Mexico biology professor.
Instead, UNM's Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer
have developed a new theory that rape is a complex sexual crime with
strong roots in human evolution.
Moreover, contend Thornhill and Palmer, rape "prevention efforts will
founder until they are based on the understanding that rape evolved as a
form of male reproductive behavior."
"We have to get real about rape," Thornhill said in a recent interview.
The two scientists co-authored an article titled "Why Men Rape" in the
current issue of the journal The Sciences. The journal is published by the
New York Academy of Sciences.
Thornhill and Palmer are to expound on their research in an upcoming book,
A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, scheduled
for release in April by MIT Press.
In the article, Thornhill and Palmer take aim at the prevailing societal
notion that rape isn't about sex but about male power and is "a symptom of
an unhealthy society in which men fear and disrespect women."
Palmer and Thornhill say some sociologists advance a view that, they
think, incorrectly assumes that rape is "unnatural behavior that has
nothing to do with sex and one that has no corollary in the animal world."
They counter that rape is part of the male mental sexual psyche; was at
least part of a successful male reproductive strategy in human
evolutionary history; and is strong enough to survive today despite strong
social sanctions and legal penalties.
But they do not equate "natural" as good and agree that their public
mission is to make rape extinct as a trait in human beings.
In an interview, Palmer said the article aims to convince "those who
accept evolution but don't see it as applying to the brain and behavior
and particularly the behavior of rape.
"We have to convince them that behavior, including sexual, evolved, just
like our morphology and anatomy," he said. "The brain evolved along with
the rest of the body."
Palmer said they aren't arguing that men who rape are "genetically
predisposed to rape" or that there is a rape gene. Rather, they say that
all males appear to be genetically capable of rape, and it is an act which
can be triggered by environmental conditions or interactions in life.
The two scientists contend that current thinking about what causes rape is
so bankrupt that it ignores the reality that by definition rape requires
sexual arousal of the rapist.
Thornhill cites his own study of insects called scorpionflies, in which
males are equipped with an appendage used solely to grab a female's
forewing and prevent her escape during involuntary mating. The "rape
clamp" is used when a male scorpionfly fails to attract a female through
the alternative reproduction strategy of offering nuptial gifts, such as a
dead insect.
Palmer said the argument actually might get greater acceptance among lay
people than in some scientific quarters because people instinctively know
that men and women are not just biologically different but think
differently, have different sexual agendas or goals and "respond to
certain behaviors in different ways."
"These differences are what lie at the basis of rape and what made it a
possibility in our evolutionary history," he said.
The scientists say this broke a long tradition of professional journals'
sidestepping the issue of rape's evolutionary underpinnings as being
politically incorrect.
jabriol
.
|
|
| User: "Quadibloc" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
11 Aug 2007 10:06:13 PM |
|
|
quoted, in part:
Rape is not, typically, the crime of male domination it has been portrayed
as by sociologists and feminists in recent years, says a University of New
Mexico biology professor.
Instead, UNM's Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer
have developed a new theory that rape is a complex sexual crime with
strong roots in human evolution.
Moreover, contend Thornhill and Palmer, rape "prevention efforts will
founder until they are based on the understanding that rape evolved as a
form of male reproductive behavior."
That men commit rape as a result of their desire for sex, and that the
desire for sex is a natural drive resulting from the need to
reproduce, is just common sense. So, yes, some of the feminist
theories are to be rejected.
But that doesn't mean rape is "natural". It is still an abominably
evil crime, and so executing convicted rapists by slow torture, if it
would prevent a few rapes, is well worth it.
Thornhill and Palmer are to expound on their research in an upcoming book,
A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, scheduled
for release in April by MIT Press.
April of which year? I think I saw that book in a local bookstore last
year.
But they do not equate "natural" as good and agree that their public
mission is to make rape extinct as a trait in human beings.
It's just unclear to me, though, that the feminist received wisdom
about rape is really doing much of anything to interfere with rape
prevention efforts. As if anyone really has a good idea of what to do,
other than simply having more police out there.
John Savard
.
|
|
|
| User: "ike milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
11 Aug 2007 10:57:07 PM |
|
|
"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:1186887973.585715.209080@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
jabr...@hideme.org quoted, in part:
But that doesn't mean rape is "natural". It is still an abominably
evil crime, and so executing convicted rapists by slow torture, if it
would prevent a few rapes, is well worth it.
In fact, let's torture them before they even commit rapes. Then kill them
and they will never even start raping.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Jabriol Is a Natural Moron |
12 Aug 2007 07:18:47 PM |
|
|
On Aug 11, 10:57 pm, "ike milligan" <accordion...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
"Quadibloc" <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:1186887973.585715.209080@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
jabr...@hideme.org quoted, in part:
But that doesn't mean rape is "natural". It is still an abominably
evil crime, and so executing convicted rapists by slow torture, if it
would prevent a few rapes, is well worth it.
In fact, let's torture them before they even commit rapes. Then kill them
and they will never even start raping.
What we need to do is torture jabbers by forcing him to sit in a
classroom 16 hours a day whilst people read science textbooks and
feminist literature to him.
Maybe he'd learn something. I know the odds are heavily stacked
against it, but greater odds have been overcome. Once in a while. On
very rare occasions.
If that's not possible then the best torture is for all of us to
absolutely and completely ignore him.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: Jabriol Is a Natural Moron |
13 Aug 2007 12:14:59 AM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1186964327.743655.296510@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
What we need to do is torture jabbers by forcing him to sit in a
classroom 16 hours a day whilst people read science textbooks and
feminist literature to him.
He'd have a fatal seizure from fact and truth overload.
Maybe he'd learn something. I know the odds are heavily stacked
against it, but greater odds have been overcome. Once in a while. On
very rare occasions.
One in a several million to be more precise. ;-)
If that's not possible then the best torture is for all of us to
absolutely and completely ignore him.
That's hard to do when he hides behind remailers, impersonates people and
uses new nyms every day.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Jabriol Is a Natural Moron |
12 Aug 2007 09:30:16 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in news:1186964327.743655.296510
@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
What we need to do is torture jabbers by forcing him to sit in a
classroom 16 hours a day whilst people read science textbooks and
feminist literature to him.
Maybe he'd learn something. I know the odds are heavily stacked
against it, but greater odds have been overcome. Once in a while. On
very rare occasions.
Name just one such occasion.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
A theologian is like a blind person in a dark room searching for a black
cat which isn't there -- and finding it!
-- unknown
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
11 Aug 2007 10:31:21 PM |
|
|
On Aug 11, 10:06 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
<snip>
John Savard
You should be aware you're responding to Jabriol, a known troll.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
16 Sep 2007 01:29:11 AM |
|
|
On Aug 11, 11:06 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
jabr...@hideme.org quoted, in part:
Rape is not, typically, the crime of male domination it has been portrayed
as by sociologists and feminists in recent years, says a University of New
Mexico biology professor.
Instead, UNM's Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer
have developed a new theory that rape is a complex sexual crime with
strong roots in human evolution.
Moreover, contend Thornhill and Palmer, rape "prevention efforts will
founder until they are based on the understanding that rape evolved as a
form of male reproductive behavior."
That men commit rape as a result of their desire for sex,
According to all the studies I have read on the issue of rape and
other sexual crimes...it's not about desire for sex, it's about
control.
and that the
desire for sex is a natural drive resulting from the need to
reproduce, is just common sense. So, yes, some of the feminist
theories are to be rejected.
But that doesn't mean rape is "natural". It is still an abominably
evil crime, and so executing convicted rapists by slow torture, if it
would prevent a few rapes, is well worth it.
Thornhill and Palmer are to expound on their research in an upcoming book,
A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, scheduled
for release in April by MIT Press.
April of which year? I think I saw that book in a local bookstore last
year.
But they do not equate "natural" as good and agree that their public
mission is to make rape extinct as a trait in human beings.
It's just unclear to me, though, that the feminist received wisdom
about rape is really doing much of anything to interfere with rape
prevention efforts. As if anyone really has a good idea of what to do,
other than simply having more police out there.
John Savard
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
16 Sep 2007 01:19:54 PM |
|
|
In article <1189924151.763333.77000@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
On Aug 11, 11:06 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
jabr...@hideme.org quoted, in part:
Rape is not, typically, the crime of male domination it has been portrayed
as by sociologists and feminists in recent years, says a University of New
Mexico biology professor.
Instead, UNM's Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer
have developed a new theory that rape is a complex sexual crime with
strong roots in human evolution.
Moreover, contend Thornhill and Palmer, rape "prevention efforts will
founder until they are based on the understanding that rape evolved as a
form of male reproductive behavior."
That men commit rape as a result of their desire for sex,
According to all the studies I have read on the issue of rape and
other sexual crimes...it's not about desire for sex, it's about
control.
Really on top of things, aren't you?
This has been well known by even the uneducated, for years. And YOU
just heard about it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
16 Sep 2007 03:24:43 AM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
On Aug 11, 11:06 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
jabr...@hideme.org quoted, in part:
Rape is not, typically, the crime of male domination it has been portrayed
as by sociologists and feminists in recent years, says a University of New
Mexico biology professor.
Instead, UNM's Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer
have developed a new theory that rape is a complex sexual crime with
strong roots in human evolution.
Moreover, contend Thornhill and Palmer, rape "prevention efforts will
founder until they are based on the understanding that rape evolved as a
form of male reproductive behavior."
That men commit rape as a result of their desire for sex,
According to all the studies I have read on the issue of rape and
other sexual crimes...it's not about desire for sex, it's about
control.
Of course.
Rapists, after all, are pathetic losers unable to enter into loving
sexual relationships with women, so instead of fixing what is wrong
with themselves, or committing seppuku, they blame women for their
failures and rape them to "get even".
Michael
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
13 Aug 2007 10:28:48 AM |
|
|
On Aug 11, 8:06 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
jabr...@hideme.org quoted, in part:
Rape is not, typically, the crime of male domination it has been portrayed
as by sociologists and feminists in recent years, says a University of New
Mexico biology professor.
Instead, UNM's Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer
have developed a new theory that rape is a complex sexual crime with
strong roots in human evolution.
Moreover, contend Thornhill and Palmer, rape "prevention efforts will
founder until they are based on the understanding that rape evolved as a
form of male reproductive behavior."
That men commit rape as a result of their desire for sex, and that the
desire for sex is a natural drive resulting from the need to
reproduce, is just common sense. So, yes, some of the feminist
theories are to be rejected.
Indeed, men who commit rape are pathetic losers who can not get
into a sexual relationship, so instead of fixing what is wrong with
them, or even just killing themselves, they commit rape.
How many rapes can be prevented if we encouraged pathetic losers
who can not get girlfriends to commit suicide instead?
Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
13 Aug 2007 12:38:52 PM |
|
|
"Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187018928.417186.150700@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
How many rapes can be prevented if we encouraged pathetic losers
who can not get girlfriends to commit suicide instead?
They wont commit suicide when they can enjoy raping someone. It give them a
feeling of power. A feeling they can get no other way being the social
misfits they are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
13 Aug 2007 08:31:16 PM |
|
|
On Aug 13, 10:38 am, "Kathy" <Kathy9...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Michael Ejercito" <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187018928.417186.150700@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
How many rapes can be prevented if we encouraged pathetic losers
who can not get girlfriends to commit suicide instead?
They wont commit suicide when they can enjoy raping someone. It give them a
feeling of power. A feeling they can get no other way being the social
misfits they are.
We could tell them to be like everyone else so that they can get
into a sexual relationship like everyone else did; they just do not
want to take responsibility for themselves and their actions.
Michael
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "elizabeth" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
06 Aug 2007 04:08:03 PM |
|
|
On Aug 6, 6:56 am, wrote:
Rape is as natural as genocide.
Genocide has always been used to "improve the species"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ResLight" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
12 Aug 2007 06:36:18 PM |
|
|
What is "natural" scripturally does not mean that it is not sin, or that
what comes naturally should be acceptable behavior.
The world of mankind condemned in Adam have become "by nature" children of
disobedience, children of wrath, thus it is natural for mankind to sin, but
it does not make sin right, nor does it mean that any natural tendencies
toward sin should not be fought against. One, by nature, may feel compelled
to steal, that does not mean that we should sit back and let that person
steal. Another, by nature, may feel compelled to kill; it does not mean that
we should sit back and let that person indulge in his natural desire to
kill. One may, by nature, feel compelled to commit fornication or adultery;
it does not mean that such conduct is acceptable to God. -- Genesis 3:17;
5:29; Ecclesiastes 1:1-14; 2:11,17; Ephesians 2:1-3.
As far as insect life is concerned, I am not sure that they offer any
representation of how humans should conduct themselves. It is possible that
most of the insect life has developed under, or in anticipation of, the
curse, and do not represent what God desires of his creatures.
Only in the age to come will mankind and the lower creation be able to be
released from the natural inclinations of the bondage of corruption. --
Romans 8:19-21; Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:6-9; Revelation 22:3.
Christian love,
Ronald
<jabriol@hideme.org> wrote in message
news:1984de4d7138b8c719b250acaff6a883@pseudo.borked.net...
Scientific Study Concludes: Rape is a Natural Product of Evolution
Scripps Howard News Service - January 11, 2000
Rape is not, typically, the crime of male domination it has been portrayed
as by sociologists and feminists in recent years, says a University of New
Mexico biology professor.
Instead, UNM's Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer
have developed a new theory that rape is a complex sexual crime with
strong roots in human evolution.
Moreover, contend Thornhill and Palmer, rape "prevention efforts will
founder until they are based on the understanding that rape evolved as a
form of male reproductive behavior."
"We have to get real about rape," Thornhill said in a recent interview.
The two scientists co-authored an article titled "Why Men Rape" in the
current issue of the journal The Sciences. The journal is published by the
New York Academy of Sciences.
Thornhill and Palmer are to expound on their research in an upcoming book,
A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, scheduled
for release in April by MIT Press.
In the article, Thornhill and Palmer take aim at the prevailing societal
notion that rape isn't about sex but about male power and is "a symptom of
an unhealthy society in which men fear and disrespect women."
Palmer and Thornhill say some sociologists advance a view that, they
think, incorrectly assumes that rape is "unnatural behavior that has
nothing to do with sex and one that has no corollary in the animal world."
They counter that rape is part of the male mental sexual psyche; was at
least part of a successful male reproductive strategy in human
evolutionary history; and is strong enough to survive today despite strong
social sanctions and legal penalties.
But they do not equate "natural" as good and agree that their public
mission is to make rape extinct as a trait in human beings.
In an interview, Palmer said the article aims to convince "those who
accept evolution but don't see it as applying to the brain and behavior
and particularly the behavior of rape.
"We have to convince them that behavior, including sexual, evolved, just
like our morphology and anatomy," he said. "The brain evolved along with
the rest of the body."
Palmer said they aren't arguing that men who rape are "genetically
predisposed to rape" or that there is a rape gene. Rather, they say that
all males appear to be genetically capable of rape, and it is an act which
can be triggered by environmental conditions or interactions in life.
The two scientists contend that current thinking about what causes rape is
so bankrupt that it ignores the reality that by definition rape requires
sexual arousal of the rapist.
Thornhill cites his own study of insects called scorpionflies, in which
males are equipped with an appendage used solely to grab a female's
forewing and prevent her escape during involuntary mating. The "rape
clamp" is used when a male scorpionfly fails to attract a female through
the alternative reproduction strategy of offering nuptial gifts, such as a
dead insect.
Palmer said the argument actually might get greater acceptance among lay
people than in some scientific quarters because people instinctively know
that men and women are not just biologically different but think
differently, have different sexual agendas or goals and "respond to
certain behaviors in different ways."
"These differences are what lie at the basis of rape and what made it a
possibility in our evolutionary history," he said.
The scientists say this broke a long tradition of professional journals'
sidestepping the issue of rape's evolutionary underpinnings as being
politically incorrect.
jabriol
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
13 Aug 2007 12:18:52 AM |
|
|
"ResLight" <rday888@reject.reslight.net> wrote in message
news:UPMvi.21129$MC6.18609@fe82.usenetserver.com...
What is "natural" scripturally does not mean that it is not sin, or that
what comes naturally should be acceptable behavior.
As far as insect life is concerned, I am not sure that they offer any
representation of how humans should conduct themselves. It is possible
that most of the insect life has developed under, or in anticipation of,
the curse, and do not represent what God desires of his creatures.
Huh? Does the bible not claim God created all things? That would include
the insects and bugs, even those deadly to man.
Only in the age to come will mankind and the lower creation be able to be
released from the natural inclinations of the bondage of corruption. --
Romans 8:19-21; Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:6-9; Revelation 22:3.
So now you're claiming that the other creatures on earth are corrupt? And
it's offensive for you to claim all people are corrupt when the numbers are
actually quite small.
Christian love,
Ronald
.
|
|
|
| User: "ResLight" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
15 Sep 2007 04:34:05 PM |
|
|
"Kathy" <Kathy9045@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46bfe9bb$0$1339$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
"ResLight" <rday888@reject.reslight.net> wrote in message
news:UPMvi.21129$MC6.18609@fe82.usenetserver.com...
What is "natural" scripturally does not mean that it is not sin, or that
what comes naturally should be acceptable behavior.
As far as insect life is concerned, I am not sure that they offer any
representation of how humans should conduct themselves. It is possible
that most of the insect life has developed under, or in anticipation of,
the curse, and do not represent what God desires of his creatures.
Huh? Does the bible not claim God created all things? That would include
the insects and bugs, even those deadly to man.
God created world of mankind, and all things in it, but not necessarily as
they are now.
Only in the age to come will mankind and the lower creation be able to be
released from the natural inclinations of the bondage of corruption. --
Romans 8:19-21; Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:6-9; Revelation 22:3.
So now you're claiming that the other creatures on earth are corrupt? And
it's offensive for you to claim all people are corrupt when the numbers
are actually quite small.
The animals were originally placed under the dominion of man. (Genesis
1:26,28; Psalm 8:5-8) Due to sin, however, mankind, however, never actually
used the authority given to him over the animals, for we do not yet all
things placed under man's feet (Hebrews 2:8), and thus the animals now have
a corrupted existence that is different from what was originally meant to
be, and what will eventually become. -- Isaiah 11:6-9.
I have no qualms in stating that all mankind came to be crooked (unstraight,
unjustified) through the sin of Adam. It is only in this recognition that
the ransom sacrifice of Jesus for all mankind can be understood. All were
condemned in one man, who was sinless until he sinned, and thus only one
sinless man is needed to satisfy justice in order to redeem mankind from
that condemnation -- Eclessiastes 12:2,13-15; Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians
15:21,22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6.
Christian love,
Ronald
.
|
|
|
| User: "kingdoodlesquat" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
15 Sep 2007 06:13:36 PM |
|
|
God created world of mankind, and all things in it, but not necessarily as
they are now.
That's evolution for you - a concept foreign to most theists except when it
suits them. I think this means that since your god can't control his
creation, he never created it in the first place. That means there is no
god.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ResLight" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
16 Sep 2007 12:56:42 PM |
|
|
"kingdoodlesquat" <neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote in message
news:Zdedna4K6v_W-nHb4p2dnAA@bt.com...
That's evolution for you - a concept foreign to most theists except when
it
suits them. I think this means that since your god can't control his
creation, he never created it in the first place. That means there is no
god.
The Bible is not against the theory of evolution, per se. It is against the
idea that the first man was created as a product of evolution. (Genesis 2:7)
Being a direct creation, and being made in the image of likeness of his
Creator, he was created differently from all the other living creation. "God
said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle,
creeping things, and animals of the earth after their kind,' and it was so."
(Genesis 1:25) This indicates that a process of evolution could have been
used in the original creation of these animals, within the limits their
"kind".
http://studies.reslight.net/c-b.html
http://studies.reslight.net/r-a.html
Christian love,
Ronald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
16 Sep 2007 09:13:59 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:56:42 -0400, "ResLight"
<rday888@reject.reslight.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<D7eHi.27180$S24.2215@fe03.usenetserver.com> wrote:
"kingdoodlesquat" <neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote in message
news:Zdedna4K6v_W-nHb4p2dnAA@bt.com...
That's evolution for you - a concept foreign to most theists except when
it
suits them. I think this means that since your god can't control his
creation, he never created it in the first place. That means there is no
god.
The Bible is not against the theory of evolution, per se. It is against the
idea that the first man was created as a product of evolution. (Genesis 2:7)
Being a direct creation, and being made in the image of likeness of his
Creator, he was created differently from all the other living creation. "God
said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle,
creeping things, and animals of the earth after their kind,' and it was so."
(Genesis 1:25) This indicates that a process of evolution could have been
used in the original creation of these animals, within the limits their
"kind".
Prove any of that.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification, not work permit or citizenship.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
16 Sep 2007 02:39:43 PM |
|
|
ResLight <rday888@reject.reslight.net> wrote:
"kingdoodlesquat" <neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote in message
That's evolution for you - a concept foreign to most theists except when
it
suits them. I think this means that since your god can't control his
creation, he never created it in the first place. That means there is no
god.
The Bible is not against the theory of evolution, per se. It is against the
idea that the first man was created as a product of evolution. (Genesis 2:7)
No it is not. NOTHING in the Bible is against evolution. It does not
say that God created mankind in his modern form.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "ResLight" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
16 Sep 2007 06:02:14 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:46ed867f$0$14106$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
ResLight <rday888@reject.reslight.net> wrote:
"kingdoodlesquat" <neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote in message
That's evolution for you - a concept foreign to most theists except when
it
suits them. I think this means that since your god can't control his
creation, he never created it in the first place. That means there is no
god.
The Bible is not against the theory of evolution, per se. It is against
the
idea that the first man was created as a product of evolution. (Genesis
2:7)
No it is not. NOTHING in the Bible is against evolution. It does not
say that God created mankind in his modern form.
I never said that God created mankind in his modern form. I said that the
first man was a direct creation of God, not a product of evolution. Of
course, since then, mankind has developed into different races, with
different physical features, etc., but man has remain man.
Christian love,
Ronald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
16 Sep 2007 09:14:34 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:02:14 -0400, "ResLight"
<rday888@reject.reslight.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<gCiHi.9394$I76.5792@fe15.usenetserver.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:46ed867f$0$14106$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
ResLight <rday888@reject.reslight.net> wrote:
"kingdoodlesquat" <neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote in message
That's evolution for you - a concept foreign to most theists except when
it
suits them. I think this means that since your god can't control his
creation, he never created it in the first place. That means there is no
god.
The Bible is not against the theory of evolution, per se. It is against
the
idea that the first man was created as a product of evolution. (Genesis
2:7)
No it is not. NOTHING in the Bible is against evolution. It does not
say that God created mankind in his modern form.
I never said that God created mankind in his modern form. I said that the
first man was a direct creation of God, not a product of evolution.
Prove it.
Of
course, since then, mankind has developed into different races, with
different physical features, etc., but man has remain man.
Christian love,
Ronald
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification, not work permit or citizenship.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
16 Sep 2007 06:37:11 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:02:14 -0400, in alt.atheism
"ResLight" <rday888@reject.reslight.net> wrote in
<gCiHi.9394$I76.5792@fe15.usenetserver.com>:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:46ed867f$0$14106$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
ResLight <rday888@reject.reslight.net> wrote:
"kingdoodlesquat" <neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote in message
That's evolution for you - a concept foreign to most theists except when
it
suits them. I think this means that since your god can't control his
creation, he never created it in the first place. That means there is no
god.
The Bible is not against the theory of evolution, per se. It is against
the
idea that the first man was created as a product of evolution. (Genesis
2:7)
No it is not. NOTHING in the Bible is against evolution. It does not
say that God created mankind in his modern form.
I never said that God created mankind in his modern form. I said that the
first man was a direct creation of God, not a product of evolution. Of
course, since then, mankind has developed into different races, with
different physical features, etc., but man has remain man.
There is no evidence to support your claim that man was created
separately. There is evidence that humans share a common ancestry with
the rest of life on earth. Because of those facts, your opinion isn't
worth considering.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
16 Sep 2007 07:29:55 PM |
|
|
ResLight <rday888@reject.reslight.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
ResLight <rday888@reject.reslight.net> wrote:
"kingdoodlesquat" <neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote in message
That's evolution for you - a concept foreign to most theists except when
it
suits them. I think this means that since your god can't control his
creation, he never created it in the first place. That means there is no
god.
The Bible is not against the theory of evolution, per se. It is against
the
idea that the first man was created as a product of evolution. (Genesis
2:7)
No it is not. NOTHING in the Bible is against evolution. It does not
say that God created mankind in his modern form.
I never said that God created mankind in his modern form.
Yes you do.
I said that the
first man was a direct creation of God, not a product of evolution.
You assume that God created man in his modern form and not through the
process of evolution. That is not from the Bible but is false dogma
from your church.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "lare" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
21 Sep 2007 02:41:49 PM |
|
|
I am in many respects rather darwinian, but the cavalier way in which
some who violently advocate what they claim to be "Darwinism" --
excuse or justify rape as natural. Should we not find that attitude
repugnant? Yes, Dawin himslef was human, tended to look down on
inferior cultures, and races, even Americans and Irish. Hey, he was a
man of his times, a respectable member of the anglican (Cambridge-
educated) British gentry. Those were the heady days of the British
Empire (on which the sun never set, the Empire so pervasively
ENCIRCLED the globe). Darwin predicted the inevitable extinction of
inferior races, which is why the Irish (and Americans??) baffled him,
their birthrates were booming, their families large and prolific, and
the more hardships they faced, somehow (inexplicably) they continued
to thrive and ENDURE.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
21 Sep 2007 09:19:14 PM |
|
|
lare <cott1388@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am in many respects rather darwinian, but the cavalier way in which
some who violently advocate what they claim to be "Darwinism" --
excuse or justify rape as natural. Should we not find that attitude
repugnant?
Shrug. Rape may be "natural", but so is throwing rapists in prison to rot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ResLight" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
15 Sep 2007 04:33:35 PM |
|
|
"Kathy" <Kathy9045@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46bfe9bb$0$1339$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
"ResLight" <rday888@reject.reslight.net> wrote in message
news:UPMvi.21129$MC6.18609@fe82.usenetserver.com...
What is "natural" scripturally does not mean that it is not sin, or that
what comes naturally should be acceptable behavior.
As far as insect life is concerned, I am not sure that they offer any
representation of how humans should conduct themselves. It is possible
that most of the insect life has developed under, or in anticipation of,
the curse, and do not represent what God desires of his creatures.
Huh? Does the bible not claim God created all things? That would include
the insects and bugs, even those deadly to man.
God created world of mankind, and all things in it, but not necessarily as
they are now.
Only in the age to come will mankind and the lower creation be able to be
released from the natural inclinations of the bondage of corruption. --
Romans 8:19-21; Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:6-9; Revelation 22:3.
So now you're claiming that the other creatures on earth are corrupt? And
it's offensive for you to claim all people are corrupt when the numbers
are actually quite small.
The animals were originally placed under the dominion of man. (Genesis
1:26,28; Psalm 8:5-8) Due to sin, however, mankind, however, never actually
used the authority given to him over the animals, for we do not yet all
things placed under man's feet (Hebrews 2:8), and thus the animals now have
a corrupted existence that is different from what was originally meant to
be, and what will eventually become. -- Isaiah 11:6-9.
I have no qualms in stating that all mankind came to be crooked (unstraight,
unjustified) through the sin of Adam. It is only in this recognition that
the ransom sacrifice of Jesus for all mankind can be understood. All were
condemned in one man, who was sinless until he sinned, and thus only one
sinless man is needed to satisfy justice in order to redeem mankind from
that condemnation -- Eclessiastes 12:2,13-15; Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians
15:21,22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6.
Christian love,
Ronald
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
15 Sep 2007 09:10:51 PM |
|
|
"ResLight" <rday888@reject.reslight.net> wrote in message
news:odYGi.83885$Ks.7168@fe65.usenetserver.com...
"Kathy" <Kathy9045@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46bfe9bb$0$1339$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
"ResLight" <rday888@reject.reslight.net> wrote in message
news:UPMvi.21129$MC6.18609@fe82.usenetserver.com...
What is "natural" scripturally does not mean that it is not sin, or that
what comes naturally should be acceptable behavior.
As far as insect life is concerned, I am not sure that they offer any
representation of how humans should conduct themselves. It is possible
that most of the insect life has developed under, or in anticipation of,
the curse, and do not represent what God desires of his creatures.
Huh? Does the bible not claim God created all things? That would
include the insects and bugs, even those deadly to man.
God created world of mankind, and all things in it, but not necessarily as
they are now.
Unless you consider that God created *everything* actually which includes
what some would consider evil because how else do you think He is capable of
visiting it in such events as destructive events on the earth and do you
also wonder how there are such rifts on the face of the planet as if a great
flooded creation had waters that receded such that it created the rifts and
valleys we see today and that erosion has occured through the years where we
see that all that exists even now is a direct result of that which was
originally created, a result of natural forces whether brought on by divine
intervention or by the physical equilibrium the earth must exist in at all
times.
Only in the age to come will mankind and the lower creation be able to
be released from the natural inclinations of the bondage of
corruption. -- Romans 8:19-21; Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:6-9; Revelation 22:3.
So now you're claiming that the other creatures on earth are corrupt?
And it's offensive for you to claim all people are corrupt when the
numbers are actually quite small.
The animals were originally placed under the dominion of man. (Genesis
1:26,28; Psalm 8:5-8) Due to sin, however, mankind, however, never
actually used the authority given to him over the animals, for we do not
yet all things placed under man's feet (Hebrews 2:8), and thus the animals
now have a corrupted existence that is different from what was originally
meant to be, and what will eventually become. -- Isaiah 11:6-9.
I have no qualms in stating that all mankind came to be crooked
(unstraight, unjustified) through the sin of Adam.
The original sin theory does not provide Adam his individual right to be
free of acts of those who came after him who erred more serioulsy then he
did, and how did he err at all if there were things that could be done while
not possessing any knowledge of good and evil which would involve tame acts
such as mastication, which involves 'destorying' one thing in order for the
living to survive.
Why would anyone want to blame Adam for anything other than his own personal
'error' which is only recorded as something that the woman had done whch he
partook of; and, does it say that he actually knew that what she gave him to
eat was forbidden fruit?
It is only in this recognition that the ransom sacrifice of Jesus for all
mankind can be understood. All were condemned in one man, who was sinless
until he sinned, and thus only one sinless man is needed to satisfy
justice in order to redeem mankind from that condemnation -- Eclessiastes
12:2,13-15; Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6.
Personally, I do not like teaching that Jesus must go to a cross to pay for
all persons' sins.
Is that the easy way out or do you think Jesus' words when he said "Let each
man bear hisi own cross." are more applicable?
Christian love,
Ronald
Appreciated, but Jesus really isn't into being your whipping boy all day
long, just as all other persons' are not into it; and I am sure he doesn't
want you acting as if you are supposed to tell everyone that He is there to
suffer for their transgression(s) all the time.
"Let each man bear His own cross" seems more applicable to me in the REAL
WORLD!
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
16 Sep 2007 01:36:15 AM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"ResLight" <rday888@reject.reslight.net> wrote in message
news:odYGi.83885$Ks.7168@fe65.usenetserver.com...
"Kathy" <Kathy9045@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46bfe9bb$0$1339$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
"ResLight" <rday888@reject.reslight.net> wrote in message
news:UPMvi.21129$MC6.18609@fe82.usenetserver.com...
What is "natural" scripturally does not mean that it is not sin, or that
what comes naturally should be acceptable behavior.
As far as insect life is concerned, I am not sure that they offer any
representation of how humans should conduct themselves. It is possible
that most of the insect life has developed under, or in anticipation of,
the curse, and do not represent what God desires of his creatures.
Huh? Does the bible not claim God created all things? That would
include the insects and bugs, even those deadly to man.
God created world of mankind, and all things in it, but not necessarily as
they are now.
Unless you consider that God created *everything* actually which includes
what some would consider evil because how else do you think He is capable of
visiting it in such events as destructive events on the earth and do you
also wonder how there are such rifts on the face of the planet as if a great
flooded creation had waters that receded such that it created the rifts and
valleys we see today and that erosion has occured through the years where we
see that all that exists even now is a direct result of that which was
originally created, a result of natural forces whether brought on by divine
intervention or by the physical equilibrium the earth must exist in at all
times.
You're operating on the assumption that some supernatural being created
everything - an assumption that has very little evidence for support.
Only in the age to come will mankind and the lower creation be able to
be released from the natural inclinations of the bondage of
corruption. -- Romans 8:19-21; Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:6-9; Revelation 22:3.
So now you're claiming that the other creatures on earth are corrupt?
And it's offensive for you to claim all people are corrupt when the
numbers are actually quite small.
The animals were originally placed under the dominion of man. (Genesis
1:26,28; Psalm 8:5-8) Due to sin, however, mankind, however, never
actually used the authority given to him over the animals, for we do not
yet all things placed under man's feet (Hebrews 2:8), and thus the animals
now have a corrupted existence that is different from what was originally
meant to be, and what will eventually become. -- Isaiah 11:6-9.
I have no qualms in stating that all mankind came to be crooked
(unstraight, unjustified) through the sin of Adam.
The original sin theory does not provide Adam his individual right to be
free of acts of those who came after him who erred more serioulsy then he
did, and how did he err at all if there were things that could be done while
not possessing any knowledge of good and evil which would involve tame acts
such as mastication, which involves 'destorying' one thing in order for the
living to survive.
Why would anyone want to blame Adam for anything other than his own personal
'error' which is only recorded as something that the woman had done whch he
partook of; and, does it say that he actually knew that what she gave him to
eat was forbidden fruit?
Why should anyone take such stories literally?
It is only in this recognition that the ransom sacrifice of Jesus for all
mankind can be understood. All were condemned in one man, who was sinless
until he sinned, and thus only one sinless man is needed to satisfy
justice in order to redeem mankind from that condemnation -- Eclessiastes
12:2,13-15; Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6.
Personally, I do not like teaching that Jesus must go to a cross to pay for
all persons' sins.
Why? Your Wholly Babble says as much.
Is that the easy way out or do you think Jesus' words when he said "Let each
man bear hisi own cross." are more applicable?
How about considering that maybe the whole thing is a fairy tale cobbled
together so as to enable some to gain power over many others?
Christian love,
Ronald
Appreciated, but Jesus really isn't into being your whipping boy all day
long, just as all other persons' are not into it; and I am sure he doesn't
want you acting as if you are supposed to tell everyone that He is there to
suffer for their transgression(s) all the time.
"Let each man bear His own cross" seems more applicable to me in the REAL
WORLD!
....which has nothing to do with fairy tales like the one you're slurping.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 6 vs. Chicago, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is natural |
16 Sep 2007 06:08:35 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkd4wj15i8.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"ResLight" <rday888@reject.reslight.net> wrote in message
news:odYGi.83885$Ks.7168@fe65.usenetserver.com...
"Kathy" <Kathy9045@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46bfe9bb$0$1339$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
"ResLight" <rday888@reject.reslight.net> wrote in message
news:UPMvi.21129$MC6.18609@fe82.usenetserver.com...
What is "natural" scripturally does not mean that it is not sin, or
that
what comes naturally should be acceptable behavior.
As far as insect life is concerned, I am not sure that they offer any
representation of how humans should conduct themselves. It is possible
that most of the insect life has developed under, or in anticipation
of,
the curse, and do not represent what God desires of his creatures.
Huh? Does the bible not claim God created all things? That would
include the insects and bugs, even those deadly to man.
God created world of mankind, and all things in it, but not necessarily
as
they are now.
Unless you consider that God created *everything* actually which includes
what some would consider evil because how else do you think He is capable
of
visiting it in such events as destructive events on the earth and do you
also wonder how there are such rifts on the face of the planet as if a
great
flooded creation had waters that receded such that it created the rifts
and
valleys we see today and that erosion has occured through the years where
we
see that all that exists even now is a direct result of that which was
originally created, a result of natural forces whether brought on by
divine
intervention or by the physical equilibrium the earth must exist in at all
times.
You're operating on the assumption that some supernatural being created
everything
True, which is no different that the pangaea hypothesis, logically speaking.
- an assumption that has very little evidence for support.
Other than recorded accounts of such having occured.
The pangaea hypothesis was developed much later than the recorded accounts
of creation.
Only in the age to come will mankind and the lower creation be able to
be released from the natural inclinations of the bondage of
corruption. -- Romans 8:19-21; Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:6-9; Revelation 22:3.
So now you're claiming that the other creatures on earth are corrupt?
And it's offensive for you to claim all people are corrupt when the
numbers are actually quite small.
The animals were originally placed under the dominion of man. (Genesis
1:26,28; Psalm 8:5-8) Due to sin, however, mankind, however, never
actually used the authority given to him over the animals, for we do not
yet all things placed under man's feet (Hebrews 2:8), and thus the
animals
now have a corrupted existence that is different from what was
originally
meant to be, and what will eventually become. -- Isaiah 11:6-9.
I have no qualms in stating that all mankind came to be crooked
(unstraight, unjustified) through the sin of Adam.
The original sin theory does not provide Adam his individual right to be
free of acts of those who came after him who erred more serioulsy then he
did, and how did he err at all if there were things that could be done
while
not possessing any knowledge of good and evil which would involve tame
acts
such as mastication, which involves 'destroying' one thing in order for
the
living to survive.
Why would anyone want to blame Adam for anything other than his own
personal
'error' which is only recorded as something that the woman had done whch
he
partook of; and, does it say that he actually knew that what she gave him
to
eat was forbidden fruit?
Why should anyone take such stories literally?
Because there is no verified counter example to replace that story.
Seems to me the person who wrote first account got the jump on all other
hypothesists.
It is only in this recognition that the ransom sacrifice of Jesus for
all
mankind can be understood. All were condemned in one man, who was
sinless
until he sinned, and thus only one sinless man is needed to satisfy
justice in order to redeem mankind from that condemnation --
Eclessiastes
12:2,13-15; Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6.
Personally, I do not like teaching that Jesus must go to a cross to pay
for
all persons' sins.
Why? Your Wholly Babble says as much.
The Bible does not require that Jesus must be executed to cover sins.
Is that the easy way out or do you think Jesus' words when he said "Let
each
man bear his own cross." are more applicable?
How about considering that maybe the whole thing is a fairy tale cobbled
together so as to enable some to gain power over many others?
I don't.
The Bible is such a historical record.
Whether you accept the 'stories' that some say have no evidence to support
them or not, there are so many verfiable 'stories' of a historical nature
that it would not be plausbile to consider it a fairy tale.
As for the system of control aspect, you can read it as if you are reading a
history book of another society and compare those societies and see that
most all societies have a system of control.
Christian love,
Ronald
Appreciated, but Jesus really isn't into being your whipping boy all day
long, just as all other persons' are not into it; and I am sure he doesn't
want you acting as if you are supposed to tell everyone that He is there
to
suffer for their transgression(s) all the time.
"Let each man bear His own cross" seems more applicable to me in the REAL
WORLD!
...which has nothing to do with fairy tales like the one you're slurping.
What fairy tale?
You want innocent persons to suffer while others are released from their
obligations?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
