Originally posted by ðµhµl gê†ñåh
i dont see how monogamy could possibly be natural.... staying with one mate an animal would not be fulfilling its basic and unconsience drive to advance the species.
If staying with one mate produces offspring it does.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
… but it is often teh male that wanders first.
That’s actually debatable…
I think that if people find a “good” (whatever that means) mate, they may choose to stay with that mate if it’s beneficial. But sociological studies show, that females may seek out other potential “alpha”-males to ensure themselves and their possible off-spring in case they loose their own male.
Originally posted by The Omega
That’s actually debatable…
Oh, totally debatable. But, I'm a guy, and most of my friends are too. And, whether it be the truth or not, it always seems to be the guy who wanders first. Maybe the chick is lying. But, I only have my own perspective and experience on which to operate.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Oh, totally debatable. But, I'm a guy, and most of my friends are too. And, whether it be the truth or not, it always seems to be the guy who wanders first. Maybe the chick is lying. But, I only have my own perspective and experience on which to operate.
Well...I somehow assumed that it is always the guy that wanders first.......in male homosexual relationships.
Originally posted by Wonderer
Ok, then it's unnatural. If that's the case. Why does it matter?
Well, I'd say for two reasons, first because Christians (at least the radicals) pretend it was natural and the way things were since God created the earth 7234 years ago....ans second....because it is the topic of this thread.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I'd say for two reasons, first because Christians (at least the radicals) pretend it was natural and the way things were since God created the earth 7234 years ago....ans second....because it is the topic of this thread.
Firstly, God didn't create the earth, God is the earth. Secondly, I think the topic of this thread was sexually inspired, which is a bit mindless in the first place, which is why sex is so pleasurable... 😱
Originally posted by Wonderer
Firstly, God didn't create the earth, God is the earth. Secondly, I think the topic of this thread was sexually inspired, which is a bit mindless in the first place, which is why sex is so pleasurable... 😱
Firstly, prove it!
Secondly, I doubt it, I think it came about in one of the many gay marriage threads when the idiots that can't even spell "polygamy" correctly, decided it would be a good idea to pretend that monogamy is natural.....and that only man-woman monogamy is.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Firstly, prove it!Secondly, I doubt it, I think it came about in one of the many gay marriage threads when the idiots that can't even spell "polygamy" correctly, decided it would be a good idea to pretend that monogamy is natural.....and that only man-woman monogamy is.
Secondly, Good one! I agree.
Firstly, to proof that God is existence is akin to proving I exist, or that there is existence as such. God is everything, the earth, universe, etc. It's not something you can proof, as one cannot logically prove existence - we can't proove Nature, right? So, if God is nature, then we can't prove that either. It's just something you know.
Am I making any sense? You Germans have lots of brains, so you should understand what I'm talking about.
Originally posted by Wonderer
Secondly, Good one! I agree.Firstly, to proof that God is existence is akin to proving I exist, or that there is existence as such. God is everything, the earth, universe, etc. It's not something you can proof, as one cannot logically prove existence - we can't proove Nature, right? So, if God is nature, then we can't prove that either. It's just something you know.
Am I making any sense? You Germans have lots of brains, so you should understand what I'm talking about.
I think I might understand what you are talking about, but I don't understand how the reasoning goes that God is everything? I mean, lets just assume for a second that everything exists...why is it god? Isn't that just an additional attribute that is actually of no importance. I mean what does this "God" do? Just exist? If so, then it is no "God"....
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think I might understand what you are talking about, but I don't understand how the reasoning goes that God is everything? I mean, lets just assume for a second that everything exists...why is it god? Isn't that just an additional attribute that is actually of no importance. I mean what does this "God" do? Just exist? If so, then it is no "God"....
Ok, you are looking for a definition, right? By attributing the label "God" to "everything", I mean that God is the source of all consciousness and all that is. The very specific awareness that humans have of themselves, connects to the higher form of awareness, energy and meaning, which is God. This feeling of "I/we exist" has its origin inside God, who is not seperate from everything, but who is everything. It is one infinite sentient being.
Please don't ask me to "prove" this, because it's not categorically provable. It's something one becomes aware of the moment you start realising your own synonymous vibration with nature, the intimate realisation that you are nature, that you are God. It's all about knowing yourself and then at the same time knowing the truth and that you are the truth.
Originally posted by Wonderer
Ok, you are looking for a definition, right? By attributing the label "God" to "everything", I mean that God is the source of all consciousness and all that is. The very specific awareness that humans have of themselves, connects to the higher form of awareness, energy and meaning, which is God. This feeling of "I/we exist" has its origin inside God, who is not seperate from everything, but who is everything. It is one infinite sentient being.Please don't ask me to "prove" this, because it's not categorically provable. It's something one becomes aware of the moment you start realising your own synonymous vibration with nature, the intimate realisation that you are nature, that you are God. It's all about knowing yourself and then at the same time knowing the truth and that you are the truth.
Well, I understand where you are coming from, but the thing is that Christians use the same arguments...they feel that there is a God....why do you think you can trust your feelings and not theirs?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I understand where you are coming from, but the thing is that Christians use the same arguments...they feel that there is a God....why do you think you can trust your feelings and not theirs?
I'm not saying my feelings are more truthful or more right than their's. WHen it comes to life, nobody's right or wrong. Anyone can trust their own feelings, no matter what it is. And I don't think it's an argument, but rather a feeling, or an awareness...like when you listen to the miraculous music of Bach or Mozart.
Originally posted by Wonderer
I'm not saying my feelings are more truthful or more right than their's. WHen it comes to life, nobody's right or wrong. Anyone can trust their own feelings, no matter what it is. And I don't think it's an argument, but rather a feeling, or an awareness...like when you listen to the miraculous music of Bach or Mozart.
Okay, I'm happy you have this awareness I just can't really follow it. And I think when it comes to life someone is right and someone is wrong...we just can't know which is right or wrong.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, I'm happy you have this awareness I just can't really follow it. And I think when it comes to life someone is right and someone is wrong...we just can't know which is right or wrong.
No, there's no absolute point of reference concerning right and wrong, so right and wrong don't exist, right?
Originally posted by Bardock42
You are assuming there is no absolute point. There might be.
Oh, yes. Now I see it, it was hiding behind that big, fluffy cloud. Sorry, I must have missed it. Ok, so then you're wrong and I'm right! 😉 The absolute point of reference (or should that be reverence) have just informed me that I'm right.