Is is just me, or does this title fit a good portion of the people that post in the Rant & Raves? Personally, I am a Heterosexual Conservative, God-fearing Christian, but to each their own. Before you get all froggy & jump, I have many friends from all walks of life & that includes homosexual liberal.....well, I don't know any atheists.

Basically, I just wanted a reason to post this pic. Ya'll can Rant & Rave about it. Have fun & I'll enjoy reading.

That conjures up quite a mental image,TOM. Kind of like the admonition (incentive?) to keep one's penis clean. I think a boy (or man) is allowed to wash it as fast as he wants to, don't you?

LOL!!

You know, I collect antiquarian medical books and they are really funny. Sad too, actually.

Do you know why they started routine circumcisions in the 1800s? It was to prevent males from .. washing their penis quickly. :success1: They felt it was a clean issue as well as if they did this the baby would associate pain with his penis.

They also believed the the reason 'cleaning a penis quickly' was so bad was because a male is only born with so much sperm. If he uses it all up before he gets married that was a disgrace to his future wife. Thus, it was a bad thing.

For years I questioned why it was simply routine to circ boys and nobody could answer it. It was always, "We just do." It wasn't until I found so many of the same references in these old medical books that I finally realized where the practice started from. I'm not referring to Jewish babies, but others instead.

Kinda like the Readers Digest letter from a woman who questioned why she cut the ends off her ham. She didn't actually know why she did it so she called her mother. Mom said she didn't know why but that is how her mother did it. Mom calls Grandma and asked why she always cuts the ends off the ham and Gma explains that is the only way it would fit in the pan. Same thinking I suppose.

Wow. What a time to be without internet access. I missed a LOT.

Laurend could speak better than I as to current theories, but last I was a student we just didn't have anything else that fit into the existing evidence and could be taken as a theory.

That's still true today. A lot of people who don't really know much about evolution think that scientists just sit around and say, "Well, this sounds good, so we won't bother looking for other possibilities." That's not what happens. Over the years, we've gone through many different possible explanations of how we came to be. We don't just say "eeny meeny miny moe" and randomly pick what we think sounds the best. Over many years, lots of observation, lots of research, and lots of experiments, we refine our theories and throw out the ones that don't work. That's why we no longer believe in Lemark's idea of aquired characteristics, for one example. (Lemark believed that certain characteristics were aquired during an organism's lifetime and are then passed down through its offspring. The classic example is a giraffe's neck. He thought that the neck stretched during a giraffe's lifetime, and that the lengthened neck was then inherited by the offspring, eventually causing all giraffes to have long necks.)

Another thing I want to say is that a layman's "theory" is not the same as a scientific "theory". In everday language, people use "theory" to mean that they have an idea, but they don't necessarily have evidence supporting it. In science, "theory" is a term that indicates the idea is supported by a lot of evidence. Otherwise, the term "hypothesis" is used. The scientists' "hypothesis" is the equivalent of the layman's "theory".

There is nothing more revolting and frightening than mean-spirited, self-righteous, judgemental, intolerant "Christians" (Christ would never talk the way you do) who have nothing better to do than label people.

Ugh.

I came on this forum for help and support, not to listen to garbage from homophobes.

lap_dancer: I'm not sure about the two belly buttoned born agains, but if you have a tummy tuck, you have two. (First one is relocated to your groin)

actually, I have had a tummy tuck and I dont have ANY belly button

My husband says I was cloned, not born

There is nothing more revolting and frightening than mean-spirited, self-righteous, judgemental, intolerant "Christians" (Christ would never talk the way you do) who have nothing better to do than label people.

Ugh.

I came on this forum for help and support, not to listen to garbage from homophobes.

JeninCo, don't go away mad. This is the part of the site that gets all sorts of weird stuff posted in it, and as ... interesting ... as it gets sometimes I hope it doesn't detract from the main focus of the site. All the other sections are dedicated to banding issues, and I'm sure you'll find answers and inspiration there. This section is for ranters and ravers, and the opening post in this thread certainly fits that description, doncha think? :success1:

Did they drop your bellybutton on the floor or something?....lol

Every tummy tuck I have seen on TV, they just relocate the old bellybutton. I didn't know you could come out without one:omg: .

I saw the thread headline and it made me angry. I guess people like to bait each other, but I'm really nervous about my surgery (just got scheduled today), so perhaps I'm hypersensitive. I'm taking things too seriously, I guess.

Thanks!

Did they drop your bellybutton on the floor or something?....lol

Every tummy tuck I have seen on TV, they just relocate the old bellybutton. I didn't know you could come out without one:omg: .

It went away with the 5 pounds of hanging fat !

It's really not bad looking at all . I dont ever have to worry about that sweaty belly button smell!!!!!

There is nothing more revolting and frightening than mean-spirited, self-righteous, judgemental, intolerant "Christians" (Christ would never talk the way you do) who have nothing better to do than label people.

Ugh.

I came on this forum for help and support, not to listen to garbage from homophobes.

I could be wrong, but I think "homophobe" might be a label.

God, if you believe the Old Testament, went through the trouble of making "Thou Shalt Not commit Adultery" as one of his 10 Commandments.

How come he didn't bother to write "Thou Shalt Not commit Homosexual acts" on one of those tablets?

Maybe because men didn't have eleven fingers to count 11 Commandments?

Maybe God was afraid that men (being basically stupid) would use their fingers as a crutch for the first 10 Commandments and their penis to count the 11th.

Would that be the 11th DIGIT?

My guess on the Commandments is God didn't get into specifics because it would have resembled a grocery list instead of tenants for moral behavior. (just a guess is all)

Why did you read Purpose Driven Life?

Would that be the 11th DIGIT?

My guess on the Commandments is God didn't get into specifics because it would have resembled a grocery list instead of tenants for moral behavior. (just a guess is all)

Why did you read Purpose Driven Life?

I read it to become more knowledgeable.

Also, I had seen Rick Warren on TV and he seemed different than the Falwell's, Dobson's, Haggard's and Robertson's of this world, so I gave it a try.

It was worth while reading it, if only to find out what I didn't like about it and so I could speak intelligently about the book and Reverend Warren.

I also read the "Holy Qur'an" and "The Book of Mormon" though Ii have no inclination to convert.

I read it to become more knowledgeable.

Also, I had seen Rick Warren on TV and he seemed different than the Falwell's, Dobson's, Haggard's and Robertson's of this world, so I gave it a try.

It was worth while reading it, if only to find out what I didn't like about it and so I could speak intelligently about the book and Reverend Warren.

I also read the "Holy Qur'an" and "The Book of Mormon" though Ii have no inclination to convert.

Interesting. I'm of the inclination if I don't think I will like what I read I don't read it. That would be the case with the Falwell, Swaggert and Robertson crowd. Dobson has some good parenting books, I think because he isn't solely Theological in his studies. I was most impressed by his interview with Ted Bundy. That is an excellent viewing/reading.

My daughter studied Mormonism and did convert for a time. She left that faith however when they talked about the aliens and the young boy having visions in the woods. I couldn't get past the term "Elder" in their church as a boy of 15 years old.

One thing that disturbs me about any persuasion, it's broad spectrum when it comes right down to the "ism", no tolerance of an individual's beliefs is equally as offensive as well, no tolerance of an individual's beliefs. No matter which side you are on, I've seen discrimination and broad swipes at intolerance from both camps of liberal and conservative.

Seems each side feels justified in their condemnation of the other. (same coin, different side)

So far, has anyone said that they are a homosexual liberal atheist??? The thread starter seemed to think that lots of people fitting that description were posting here, yet I've yet to see one.

Oh, where oh where are the homosexual liberal atheists?

Interesting. I'm of the inclination if I don't think I will like what I read I don't read it. That would be the case with the Falwell, Swaggert and Robertson crowd. Dobson has some good parenting books, I think because he isn't solely Theological in his studies. I was most impressed by his interview with Ted Bundy. That is an excellent viewing/reading.

My daughter studied Mormonism and did convert for a time. She left that faith however when they talked about the aliens and the young boy having visions in the woods. I couldn't get past the term "Elder" in their church as a boy of 15 years old.

One thing that disturbs me about any persuasion, it's broad spectrum when it comes right down to the "ism", no tolerance of an individual's beliefs is equally as offensive as well, no tolerance of an individual's beliefs. No matter which side you are on, I've seen discrimination and broad swipes at intolerance from both camps of liberal and conservative.

Seems each side feels justified in their condemnation of the other. (same coin, different side)

I had hoped that I would like it when I bought "Purpose Driven Life". As you may notice, I like to post and maybe rant, but I try to speak from knowledge. Let me put it this way, when I express my opinion, I like to have something to base it on rather than "that's what I think because that's what I feel".

Nothing has frustrated me in life more than spending a lot of time doing research on both sides of a topic, suggesting a course of action and then to hear, "well I'm no expert, but I would rather do it another way". And then when things go wrong, "I have no luck".

Yes, Liberal and conservatives can both be discriminatory. I am a liberal and generally don't agree with conservatives, but I know some conservatives who are very intelligent and they have as much right to their feelings and conclusions as any liberal. Even when they are not intelligent, they have a right to their feelings and conclusions, though I might respect those feelings and conclusions less. I didn't say respect the person less.

So far, has anyone said that they are a homosexual liberal atheist??? The thread starter seemed to think that lots of people fitting that description were posting here, yet I've yet to see one.

Oh, where oh where are the homosexual liberal atheists?

In my experience, your typical conservative Christian homophobe places two types of individuals into the category "Homosexual." These two types are:

a. Homosexuals, and

b. Anyone who does not despise homosexuals.

That is what I think paladin was really driving at. From his point of view there are just too many people on this forum who so wrongfully refuse to despise homosexuals, and that therefore they are, in his mind, homosexuals.