R
ReapReason
Guest
What’s wrong with demanding that your wife must have 200 kids before menopause?
- Status
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
LOL.
Starsmurf, I was not innocent, but not necessarily guilty per se either. There’s a logical reason why I’m not in prison just as there’s an understandable reason the cop shot me. Truth be told he was trained like other cops to put 2 to the head and not just 3 to the body when a suspect is as close as I was when their gun is drawn. So, he was charitable with respects to his training.
The cop I think is a good man and a good cop. I don’t think he should have shot me - let alone 3 times - but we are humans and make mistakes even under stress. Like I said… I was not innocent but drunken, scary, and posing a threat.
I disarmed myself (knife) but refused to go down. Instead I walked toward him quickly. He made a player choice and did what he felt he needed to. By the laws of the street you stand up to a man with a gun you fall or die by the bullets. I cam out well… so, I’m not going to cry over spilled milk.
There are a lot more people throughout the city I dislike. Maybe they dislike me, or maybe they just want something I have, or maybe they would just prefer to make a point - violently - to me and about me. But that’s life. Battle will come and we either win or we lose.
My point is there are consequences always. One reason why so many young black men are in prison. Consequences. One reason some promiscuous homosexual and heterosexual people have HIV. Consequences.
I don’t lose sleep over people in prison - no more than those in heaven lose sleep over those in hell.
S
Scapegoat
Guest
Hey a new reality show idea! Move over “Jon & Kate Plus 8” its time for “Tom & Mildred Plus 200”.
I
IanGE
Guest
I guess having five wives would share the load: 40 kids each! When the Nizam of Hyderabad was well over 80 the many ladies in his harem were still producing children. The Nizam was proud of himself, but the harem officers wore huge, satisfied, smiles!
C
Crescentinus
Guest
S
starsmurf
Guest
I wasn’t suggesting that God played any part in the evolution process, in the sense of a behind-the-scenes controller. I think if God had given women large breasts, he’d have been more generous to some of us
. I was stating that female humanoids evolved engorged breasts as a defence mechanism against strange males. That is something that is accepted as part of the evolution of humans, to the best of my knowledge. As no other primate has engorged breasts, it would seem likely that they were a late development that had some benefit.I do not support Intelligent Design. It requires a “God of Gaps” and it is unscientific with no place in a science classroom. I feel a great deal of pity for science teachers who are forced to teach it as a “rival theory” and to call evolution an “unproved theory which some scientist believe”. If people want it to be taught in schools, then it belongs in a religious studies course, not biology.
I’m actually trying to write a book on science and the Bible, not in the sense of “the Bible shows that science is wrong” but as a way of showing that, when read correctly, the Bible is in agreement with science. I would like to help Christians see that science isn’t some scary thing that is going to take your belief away but that it is something that can help you make sense of the world and is of great benefit to us. For example, most people never notice that Genesis chapter 1 is actually describing an evolution of lifeforms.
I always find it amazing that when most Young-Earth Creationists get very sick or are injured, they go to a doctor. If science is such a bad thing, they shouldn’t be taking benefit of it. They’ll probably call their priest or pastor and ask for prayers. Then after being given fantastic care and treatment by the hospital, they attribute their recovery to prayer :banghead:
S
starsmurf
Guest
LucyLight, I was saying that other primates go from having flat chests to large ones when they are feeding young. Humans are unique in already having large breasts which simply increase in size slightly when lactating. This developed because a roving male would see a female with a large chest and think that she was feeding young, a situation that would mean she was probably unable to conceive (obviously there are exceptions to that, but it is a general rule). Therefore, it protected the female against an unwanted mating and helped ensure that she bore the offspring of the mate she had chosen.No, it’s not. Humans don’t go from having flat chests to large chests when they are feeding. They do get bigger but it’s not that huge of a difference. Also, you seem to believe that men are not attracted to large breasts.How would you explain why women get breast implants and wear bras that make their breasts look bigger?
Of course some men do prefer smaller breasts but saying that men are unattracted to larger ones is not true.
Having a small waist on the other hand would signal that a woman is potentially fertile.
Why are men attracted to large breasts? Why are women wearing enhancing bras and having implants? Because society tells them that is what they should be doing. I was simply refuting the argument that it is “natural” for men to be attracted to large breasts and they have “no control” over it. If you look at portraits from the past, you’ll see that the ideal of beauty was for a woman to have small breasts. King Henry VIII married one of his wives by having an artist sent all over Europe and then choosing a wife from the results. When he found on the wedding night that, contrary to her portrait which showed her with small breasts, his new wife actually had large breasts, he was repulsed. I don’t know if the marriage was ever consumated but he did get a divorce. I don’t know what happened to the offending artist either!
I believe that wide hips are the best indicator of potential fertility in human females, but it is a controversial area. As female hormones make the hips widen in puberty, it would be a strong signal that a female was able to bear children. Those with a low waist-to-hip ratio are thought to be most fertile, so the waist does play a part but only in relation to the hips. Wide hips would also make for an easier, safer birth, reducing the risk of mother and child dying in labour, due to the baby getting stuck in the birth canal.
S
starsmurf
Guest
Time Entrance, I’m really sorry to hear about your being shot, lots of prayers are coming your way for a speedy and total recovery. Obviously there are times in our lives (like now for you) where we don’t have the energy to devote ourselves to others. You’re not being selfish in admitting that you have limits. I wasn’t suggesting that you get out there and give a home to the homeless (and you’ve already done far, far more than 99% of Christians), it’s more a matter of attitude. It’s not about you saving them, it’s about praying that they will be saved and hoping that they will be.
I found that when I went from a “Meh, they chose to do the crime, so they have to do the time” attitude to an understanding of why Christ told us to visit and (by extension in those days) care for prisoners, when I worked with young offenders. Seeing the kind of homes they had come from, the kind of “parenting” they got and hearing about the experiences they’d had left me amazed that they weren’t out there killing people every day. I think the instruction in Matthew 25 was about understanding where prisoners come from, being concerned for their spiritual, physical and emotional welfare and praying for them.
Obviously, you know far more prisoners than I do. And you’re obviously willing to put your money (plus home, possessions etc) where your mouth is. That is a wonderful thing and speaks volumes about the kind of person that you are. I wasn’t suggesting that you take in every homeless person or that you have to give everything you have all the time to others. You may find that you have a vocation to live a life of poverty, chastity and obedience and be asked to give a lot of yourself or you may be called to the diocesan priesthood and have to be available, emotionally and spiritually, to your parishoners. God will only ask you to do that when you have recovered physically, emotionally and spiritually from being shot.
I am really sorry to hear about the circumstances of your being shot. I can only guess that the officer thought that you were going to try and harm him physically and that’s why he shot you. It must be horrendous to try and live a Catholic life in a “kill or be killed” world. Awful as it is, it will help you to become a better priest, if that is what God calls you to be.
Perhaps this is the time for you to concentrate on your relationship with God? Have you read St Therese’s autobiography? She has helped millions of people start seeing God as a loving Father rather than a Judge. While it is not for everyone at every stage of their lives, it depends on the person’s spirituality and their experience of their own father. It’s no use telling someone God is their father, if that person’s father was an terrifying, neglectful, violent and abusive man. Please don’t judge yourself too harshly. God understands your limitations, perhaps better than you do yourself.
Please let me know how your recovery is going, I hope that you’re not having pain from nerve damage. I’ll be praying for you.
D
DaveBj
Guest
I had forgotten about this:
L
LucyLight
Guest
Lots of women have large breasts fertile or infertile, lactating or not. And guess what lots of men are attracted to them.Women even evolved permenantly engorged breasts as a way of putting off men, as the only time other primate females have large breasts is when they’re lactating and therefore would not be fertile (sorry guys
It’s not just waist to hip ratio but chest to waist ratio as well. Think of an hourglass figure.
Obviously a lot of men like smaller breasts, but your argument that men don’t like larger ones doesn’t hold up.
God gave lots of women large breasts.I think if God had given women large breasts, he’d have been more generous to some of us
L
lerapt78
Guest
No anger on my part - it’s an interesting discussion!LOL.
Without responding directly to each individual that made a response to my post - hope no one thinks I’m ignoring them or that I dislike them - I was surprised by the number of people that agreed with LOL. Usually, I get people of both sexes responding with anger at me if I bring up sexual selection.
Really?
My observation is that they are celebrated for the fun they can provide before a man is willing to settle down, and yet their supposed worth is re-calculated when a man is discerning marriage. Something along the lines of the old saying “There are the women you “mess around with”, and then there are the women you marry.” (though I substituted a more polite euphemism in there).Many women today don’t cook *because *they work (outside the home, that is). Though I agree that some SAHMs neglect or seem to look down upon domestic chores - an unfortunate symptom of our spoiled, entitled society.
Are most women in the pornographic business respected, courted and happily married?
I would actually think the subject of pornography perfectly illustrates the opinion men have of women who have been with multiple men. Just think about the titles alone of most pornographic movies - are they respectful of women, or do they seek to convey a sense of degradation?I’m not sure if a contradiction to sexual selection has been made, but I personally don’t completely disagree with the generalized theories. Sexual selection is all about trading value and maximizing the opportunities for reproduction and survival. So, on the topic of men offering wealth for beauty, I agree. This however, only serves to show that which is sought by one individual to another. I’m not understanding how this is an argument for male polygamy/female monogamy though, which is a separate category of sexual behavior. And I would even dare to offer the opinion that of the desire for wealth and the desire for beauty, that of wealth is far less shallow. Wealth signifies many things - the ability to purchase food, shelter, clothing. It enables one to hire protection, it can be indicative of ambition and determination and self-discipline. All of these can be considered to be key for human survival and longevity (barring illness). Beauty, on the other hand, offers nothing outside the realm of aesthetics, because it is independent of the cognitive/intellectual capacities that aid in survivalist behavior. It is not even indicative of fertility, as a beautiful face is not correlated with a higher egg count or early menarche/late menopause.
(With the above, I in no way mean to imply that a lack of wealth is correlated with with a lack of discipline or intelligence or creative means to survive and provide for - not at all - but simply that wealth is often an outwardly and easily *noticeable *manifestation of these characteristics.)
I agree wholeheartedly with you on this viewpoint, if you are speaking in *modern *terms and with regards to developed nations. Women of *today *(in the US, at least) have little to complain about in terms of oppression, IMO. In fact, I think in many ways the scales have tipped favorably on the side of women, often and unfortunately to the disfavor of men.
But that doesn’t negate the fact that male polygamy IS oppressive to women (and most men).
I
IanGE
Guest
I can go along with reading Genesis 1 in terms of evolution: have you noticed how our planetary system resembles Bohr’s model of the atom. It takes time for electrons and neutrons to settle into an orbit around proton sun. It takes time for the ginormous supernova which God created to cool into planets; more time for vegetation to sprout and provide fodder for fish, birds and animals that were to come. But even Darwin baulked at the absence of “the missing link”. The first five days can be stretched to cover an apparently evolution THEORY - and it is STILL an unproved theory. But on the sixth day, when all was prepared and ready for His beloved people, God said, “let us make mankind in our image.” In Genesis 1 verse 7: “the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living being.” Note that the Holy Spirit is originally called pneuma agios (breath/wind Holy): one puff from the Lord was enough to power generation after generation from Adam and his rib-wife right down to us know-alls today
. When people call gorillas our kith and kin i tell them “you’re welcome to your ancestry, chum: I was made by God.”PS I used to brag, “I am made in the image of God” but then realized God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit made all the generations of mankind, male and female, into their image. Yes, God is that big! A Born Again preacher (can’t remember his name, but he’s the witty one), claimed to have been taken up to Heaven and taken to the throne of God. He says God was ENORMOUS, VAST: angels go round Him in fast jets that take light years to encircle the Lord and each time they come around they see a different face of God. He adds, no wonder they continuously exclaim, “HOLY HOLY HOLY” its the constant wonder!
L
LucyLight
Guest
Intelligent design does not = creationism. Intelligent design means that we are not random accidents instead we are intentionally created by an intelligent being.
Intelligent design does not exclude or include evolution. Catholics believe in intelligent design because we believe that God intentionally created us.
R
ReapReason
Guest
So people who accept natural evolution don’t believe that God intentionally created us?
A
austenbosten
Guest
Depends, the term “Intelligent Design” is bogus because 50 years ago a Christan could believe in evolution because universally the world saw God as the beginning of all forms of life. Sure four billion years blah blah…it all started with God saying “let there be Light” and boom there goes the Big Bang and the formation of life.
Because of the militant Atheists
They hijacked it and made it their own and so now we as Christians have to use the term Intelligent design to basically describe evolution as it was perceived 50 years ago. 
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
Smartsmurf, thank you for your kind words.
The tight jeans, the skirts, all are more sexually provocative than in the 1800’s or how most women dressed in the 1940’s. Not to mention… very few men today expect their finances to be virgins. And as we see from Hollywood actresses to the streets of America… women that jump from the bed of one man to the next to next to the next have no shortage of men courting them.
The phrase you speak of reminds me of the acronym MILF. Something teenage boys like to say. But women marry even after they pass the age of 30.
And most men aren’t very discriminating. Alpha males are unlikely to marry a woman in porn because they can obtain the Cote de Pablos’ with ease. The further down the male pyramid you go the less discriminating the male is - because he can’t afford to be so.
If a man finds an impoverished woman in Latin America he is drawn too due in large part to her physical beauty, and a woman in the U.S. working as a high school teacher, or going to medical school or law school is drawn to a middle-level drug dealer because he makes $70,000 or so a year and has the social prestige (and I speak from personal knowledge of women from of all 3 backgrounds with criminals), then I don’t conclude your women as any more morally superior than that man fallen in love with that impoverished Latina.
Then few to no men would marry any Western women. Because as I said… Western women today due to the Sexual Revolution dress and behave in fashions that would have marked them as “whores” many decades ago. Today they are regarded as morally correct and excellent wife and girlfriend material.Really?
The tight jeans, the skirts, all are more sexually provocative than in the 1800’s or how most women dressed in the 1940’s. Not to mention… very few men today expect their finances to be virgins. And as we see from Hollywood actresses to the streets of America… women that jump from the bed of one man to the next to next to the next have no shortage of men courting them.
The phrase you speak of reminds me of the acronym MILF. Something teenage boys like to say. But women marry even after they pass the age of 30.
Darwinian. Sodomy and “doggy style” which most contemporary “respectable” men and women enjoy is predicated on the degradation of “top” and “bottom.”Are most women in the pornographic business respected, courted and happily married?
And most men aren’t very discriminating. Alpha males are unlikely to marry a woman in porn because they can obtain the Cote de Pablos’ with ease. The further down the male pyramid you go the less discriminating the male is - because he can’t afford to be so.
Beauty is God. Hence the great Cathedrals of Europe. People can be born into wealth. You could be poor Like Jesus and rich like Caesar, so what? I fail to see your position as no more than a subjective opinion. News flash: very few people in the U.S. live in abject poverty. Security is paid for by the tax payers for all in the form of the police and fire departments.
If a man finds an impoverished woman in Latin America he is drawn too due in large part to her physical beauty, and a woman in the U.S. working as a high school teacher, or going to medical school or law school is drawn to a middle-level drug dealer because he makes $70,000 or so a year and has the social prestige (and I speak from personal knowledge of women from of all 3 backgrounds with criminals), then I don’t conclude your women as any more morally superior than that man fallen in love with that impoverished Latina.
No it isn’t. This is common female rhetoric that attempts to make females look innocent. Economics on a macro level is not that simple. The economies of nations and cities affect the individuals within their respective countries and cities. Both my grandfathers earned livings that could support large families without their wives working (although one of them drank and gambled all his weekly checks away). Neither ever finished grade school. That was when the City of Milwaukee was booming with factory jobs. But today I have a younger brother with a master degree and working on his second master degree that only has 3 kids (2 biologically his), works, but his wife has to work too just for them to get by. They rent, they don’t have a mortgage.
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
Women in the U.S. and in England are not as “ahead” of all women in the world as they like to think. Latina America has female Presidents. The female President of Chile (a conservative Catholic nation) was a single mother, agnostic, and a medical doctor with a number of other degrees. I think she spoke several languages too.I agree wholeheartedly with you on this viewpoint, if you are speaking in *modern *terms and with regards to developed nations. Women of *today *(in the US, at least) have little to complain about in terms of oppression, IMO. In fact, I think in many ways the scales have tipped favorably on the side of women, often and unfortunately to the disfavor of men.
In Brazil more than half the dentists are women. In the U.S.? I think less than 15% of the dentists are women. And dentistry is one of the high paying professions. I think the City of Sao Paulo even had a female mayor at onetime. That means a woman was governing over an economy the size of Mexico and twice the size of Chile. Not to mention Sao Paulo makes up have the economy of Brazil.
Women in the U.S. and England just make the loudest noise complaining publicly. Kind of like New York Italians. Sao Paulo has more Italians than New York but you’d never know it because the one’s in New York publicly have the loudest mouths in the media.
Identity politics is also a much bigger part of the political game in the U.S. than it is in a place like Brazil.
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
As Lucy basically said… but with additional explanation from me:
Intelligent Designer = intent to create objects human and arm.
The theory of evolution explains the objects of human and arm through randomness and algorithms.
So, you have all the letters of the alphabet in no particular order. Over the course of years, millions, or billions, at some point the probability odds are that you will get a combination of letters arraigned that spell out human and arm.
Therefore.
No Intelligent Designer = randomness on a slot machine with the eventual lettered combinatory hit of human and arm.
S
starsmurf
Guest
That’s the point, LucyLight! I’m not saying that women have large breasts only when they are lactating, I am actually saying the opposite. Neither am I saying that men do not find them attractive (see below), or that large breasts are somehow unattractive. I’m commenting on the reason women evolved breasts that made them appear to be lactating, as it made them appear temporarily infertile. I was writing about the difference between human females and female primates and showing that it evolved as part of monogamy and therefore humans are naturally monogamous.
I have pointed these things out several times, but you don’t seem to get that I am not saying any of the things you are accusing me of.
No, chest-to-waist hasn’t been shown to be a part of that. The classic hourglass figure isn’t the most fertile, it’s the pear-shaped figure with a larger hip measurement than chest measurement. That isn’t my opinion, but what science has shown, so please don’t see me as in some way biased. While there is debate about just how much of a sign of fertility waist-to-hip ratios are, I believe they found no evidence for a link between chest-to-waist ratio and fertility. That is not saying that women with another bodyshape are infertile, simply that there may be a slightly better fertility rate among those with a pear-shaped figure. So please don’t think that I said only pear-shaped women can have kids or argue against it with a story of someone with an hourglass figure having 12 children.
I’m not saying that men don’t find large breasts attractive, I’m making a joke, (as shown by the
) that science proves that men cannot claim that it is “natural” for them to do so. It is society that makes features of the female body ***supposedly ***“attractive” or “unattractive” to men. The science simply disproves the argument of some men that they “can’t help it”. Nor does the science support the small number of men who claim that it is “natural” for them to want their flat-chested girlfriend/wife/partner to have breast-implants and that by not doing so, she would somehow be depriving him or denying his “needs”.The fact is that when human females first evolved large breasts, it was unattractive to males, as it would indicate lactation and hence temporary infertility. I did not suggest that they were infertile, simply that it gave a visual signal that they weren’t. It’s like the creatures that have evolved to look like they are venomous or poisonous, like the moths that have a pattern on their wings that looks like a snake’s head.
R
ReapReason
Guest
I don’t understand why God has to directly create an arm or a leg in order to be an intelligent designer. God can create the laws, the information, and the meaning, and yet allow the universe to evolve naturally according to those laws, information, and meaning.
- Status