November 10, 2005

More sex on US screens

Crash-SexScene.jpgYes please is what I bet I'll hear most of in response to this story...I know I would. Yet there seems to be a big problem in America, watching people gunned down in the streets, seeing charred bodies in the middle of a warzone, or just plain pumping out tons of gases in order to destroy the planet are all acceptable, but heaven forbid you watch pictures of people making love, or even the smallest portion of bare flesh. As soon as that happens people are shouting and complaining about the country going down the tubes.

Wait a moment, aren't war, famine, genocide and pollution a bit more concerning that the number of scenes on TV featuring sex? Oh, and by sex I mean such things as a portion of naked flesh, not full intercouse on screen.

According to the BBC it does appear to matter.

The survey for US health pressure group the Kaiser Family Foundation showed there were 3,783 scenes in a 1,000-hour sample, compared with 1,930 in 1998.

It found that 70% of shows had sexual content, ranging from a reference to full depiction, with five sex-related scenes per hour on average.

The foundation's survey found the number of sex-related scenes in the leading teen TV shows was nearly seven per hour.

That would be because they are discovering sex, and heaven forbid, actually having it!

It cited examples including a discussion of sex on the WB's Gilmore Girls to a depiction of sexual intercourse in Fox's The OC.

Frankly I'd rather that my kids (when I have them) would watch and talk about these lose references to sex rather than knifing someone in the playground, or learning to hate, or picking up a gun. Don't these people realise that life is all about sex? It's one of the most natural and beautiful things in the world, and we should be doing more of that (even if it is just talking about it) rather than killing, hating and polluting?


Posted by at November 10, 2005 10:50 AM


Comments

It's such a big deal because many people think that promiscous sex is morally wrong. i belong to that crowd. I, being a Christian, believe that sex is only beautiful and right when done with the marriage partner. I also don't think that life is all about sex. It's about living righteously according to the Bible. I really wish that TV and movies would stop showing promiscous sex as being right.

Posted by: Brian at November 10, 2005 12:21 PM

Well that's fine, but we can destroy countries, the world, kill people, preach race and religion hate, but please don't have sex outside marriage?

I'm living with my partner and we have sex, how wrong is that?!

All the other animals on the planet have sex out of marriage...there's nothing that makes us so special.

Anyway. We should ban everything on TV and Film that is against Christian values. Oh, wait, that'll offend other religions, okay let's remove all literature and cover everything off in one go!

Posted by: Richard Brunton at November 10, 2005 12:28 PM

ding ding ding!!

naked woman!!

ding ding ding!

.....

what were we talking about?

Posted by: miles at November 10, 2005 12:51 PM

Sorry to offend you, Richard. I don't care about the welfare of the planet. it's just a temporary home before heaven. Oh, wait, you're not Christian. I also don't care about other religions. I'm from America, and you're not. That's a big part of my reasoning. My country was founded on the Bible, and the fact that we show crap like this is proof that we are falling away from what we stand for. It breaks my heart. There are lots of other things that are shown on TV and movies that are wrong as well, but that's not what this discussion is about. Also, you can't compare animals to humans. Humans have emotions and morals. Animals do not. Having sex outside of marriage is wrong according to the Bible. You do not agree with me, and I must once again apologize if i have offended you.

Posted by: Brian at November 10, 2005 01:07 PM

I love the way the Christian commentator above ignored your whole point about the violence on screens. I have never understood how violence is fine, but sex is so terrible. You can let you kid own a gun, but would get mad if they own a condom.

Posted by: Bullet in the head at November 10, 2005 01:11 PM

"I don't care about the welfare of the planet" - Wow! What a statement. Slash and burn the countryside now.

"I also don't care about other religions." - Isn't there something in the bible about tolerance and understanding?.

"Humans have emotions and morals. Animals do not." - That's a huge debate that you're definitely not on the winning side of. They most definitely do have emotions, and morals although not like our Victorian influenced ones.

No offence. This type of thing amuses me. I'll definitely have to take this to my own site. Hope you won't mind if I take some quotes from your comments there.

Topic in hand though, most of these shows are having to reflect society to keep an audience. I think that's a lot to do with the reason why they mention a lot of sex. Whether TV is responsible for creating that sexual promiscuity is an old and dated debate.

Posted by: Richard Brunton at November 10, 2005 01:16 PM

(I'm not the other Brian, by the way.)

This sounds like that violence study which found a billion "impalings" in Jaws. What exactly does "sex-related" mean? That scene in Seinfeld where Bookman mentions pee-pees and wee-wees is probably "sex-related" by their definition.

Another phony study by the censorship crowd I'll wager.

Hmmm, maybe violence is okay because it gets us to heaven that much quicker?

Posted by: Brian at November 10, 2005 01:58 PM

Americans are WAY too uptight. People having sex is NORMAL. That's how we are all here! Blowing shit up isn't normal, although it's fun.

Posted by: Kristina at November 10, 2005 02:06 PM

........

am i the only one who can tottally see that woman's bad spot?

Posted by: miles at November 10, 2005 02:25 PM

I have always gotten a kick out of this debate. How is it that violence and gang warfare are glorified and made to look so dramatic and heroic, but as soon as a couple is portrayed with any sexual reference whatsoever...everybody freaks out?!? It is not a question of morales or politics...it is a question of how well you raise your children. We live a very sexually infused society...does that make it right to sleep around with everyone...NO...I do agree a little with what Brian (#1) says up there...but this is an issue that will never end. My children will be raised to only sleep with their husband/wife and that is how it should be done. If you dont want to watch it then turn it off. But personally, I would rather it be sex than something about racial hatred and gang disputes and gun offenses.

Posted by: MechoPower at November 10, 2005 02:26 PM

I'm NOT saying that we should burn the countryside. i just don't think that it is SO important that you should spend your life devoted to it. I don't care if i'm "on the winning side" of an argument. does that mean that every winning argument is correct? Oh, brother. I didn't avoid the violence, that's just not the topic of this discussion. Of course we shouldn't let kids have guns or promote murder.Use common sense, people! About that tolerence thing ,Richard, any religion that doesn't 100% agree with the Bible, in my belief, is wrong, so I don't tolerate it. Richard, if you're going to use my quotes, use them in context, please. I plan to join that discussion.

Posted by: Brian at November 10, 2005 03:04 PM

Bloody hell Miles! You're right! I didn't realise that at all...okay time to change the photo!

Brian. I'm amazed that some people think religions like Muslim are so intolerant and fanatical when we have so many right on our doorsteps.

Definitely one for my site. Let's take it there once I get a post up this weekend. (That's after a weekend of drinking and un-married sex!)

Posted by: Richard Brunton at November 10, 2005 03:22 PM

Sorry, you feel that way, Richard. i'm a fanatic for Jesus, and that's the way I am.God bless.

Posted by: Brian at November 10, 2005 04:35 PM

I could never understand why sex is beautiful and yet we close our eyes to it. I would rather see people making love. Then the death and rape of the people and our planet.
I believe we have only one chance in life. After that it is darkness. That is why people believe in the here after. It's the candel for the darkness. And that is nothing wrong with that. The US really needs to grow up and not be afraid of sex.
Donna A.

Posted by: Donna A. at November 10, 2005 06:12 PM

I'm a devoted Christian, too. But, unlike Brian, I don't have too much of a problem with sex and violence being shown on television. I don't necessarily agree with it, but hey, not everyone agrees with me, and they're free to do that.

Do I think it's a good thing that more sex will be shown on television? No, not really. Though it is true that television and film are a bit hypocritical when it comes to violence and sex. As Jack Nicholson once put it (I'm paraphrasing here): "If you suck on a tit, the movie gets an R rating, but if you chop it off, it gets a PG rating."

I'm all for violence and sex, as long as it's not gratuitous. Unfortunately, I have a feeling most of it will be. But oh well. That's Hollywood for you.

Posted by: arjcandyman [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 10, 2005 07:18 PM

"I also don't care about other religions." - Isn't there something in the bible about tolerance and understanding? -Richard

Uhh...no. Not in this case, Richard. Hint: it is the first of the Ten Commandments.
Good, now that we got that out of the way, let's get back on point.

The problem of some organization, whether it is a special intest on the far right or PC Orwellian police on the far left, one thing is for certian. Most programs, if all they have going for them is shock value then all you have to do is not watch. You or another person may not care for it, I may not care for it. But nobody twists my arm to watch it.

There are other shows on various networks (and cable,too) that could be watched. I even have heard of- and know of- Christians who don't even bother to watch TV, with the exception of sporting events and/or the local and national news.

I, too, am born again in Christ, but I got to call it like I see it. I don't watch soaps, but those daytime characters are the kings and queens of bedhopping, nobody kid yourselves.
So, there really isn't anything new. You watch, you don't watch. It's that simple.

Most sex scenes, when I see them on TV or movies, don't turn me into a peeping tom, but most of them bore me. Story going bad? Bring on the strippers. Plot non existent? The two leads hit the sack. Never fails. Boring. Sometimes it is for exploitation purposes. I do think it is a shame, no a disgrace, that thanks to Entertainment Tonight and E! we as a society know female porn stars and Playboy playmates by name. A few years ago, you couldn't turn on Entertainment Tonight with hearing something about a soft core something or other at least three times a week.

I have more trouble with stuff like that than I do most fictitious shows.

By the way, sex on TV is FAR different in the US than it is in the UK, because in the States they won't show a *beaver* shot (the pic with this blog) on any non-pay cable network.

Posted by: darren seeley at November 10, 2005 09:04 PM

Thank God! I thought I was the only Christian on this site. Hey, Darren, what happened to the spiderman discussion we were having? Yup, same Brian.

Posted by: Brian at November 10, 2005 09:12 PM

Have a kid, let them get to about 8 or 9 years old and then revisit your thoughts on the topic.

Vic

Posted by: Screen Rant at November 10, 2005 09:49 PM

Um, that's a beaver shot up there.

Posted by: chark hammis at November 10, 2005 09:58 PM

Interesting opinion, but I don't understand the anger.

As for myself, for all the separation of church and state, the United States is a very religious country, making many morals and values faith-based. Since sex outside marriage is frowned upon there will be people who don't like it being depicted on television with such increasing frequency. It's their cause, I hardly think it's worth mocking them over.

Second, the the people who want less sex on television probably aren't laughing gleefully over charred bodies in the Middle East or snickering because people get gunned down in the streets. They probably don't even think these are non-issues which can be swept aside. But sex in the media is their issue and I see no reason why they should stop focusing on it because of all the other problems in life.

Do I agree with their opinion? I don't know. Do I care? Not terms of myself. If I don't like something I'll turn if off. But if I have a kid will I want her to watch teenagers having sex? Definitely not. Kids are sexualized enough as it is these days.

Posted by: Sara at November 10, 2005 10:53 PM

*sigh*

This nation (America) is full of bullshit. We're a country of hypocrities. Who's buying tons of porn - Americans. It wouldn't be billion dollar industry if people weren't buying it. There are abortions having everywhere. Nah, not by faithful. It's by OTHERS. Sure. Yeah, right.

Drug use is another one. Mommy and daddy are hooked on pills, but their modifiers are from a prescription, so it's OK. They don't take any of those bad, street venders who try to snare kids into becoming user. NO, the doctor says it's fine, it makes me feel happy, 'cause I don't ever want to feel sad. That would make me human. And humans give into temptation, like porn, drugs and abortions.

I look at this mess and I'm gland I'm an atheist. I wish people, the patriotic/fanatical (it's turning into one and the same) folks could be more like Father John Francis Patrick Mulcahy from M.A.S.H.. Being faithful and letting people be. Did anyone watch that FOX show, "Trading Spouses"? Everything that could be quantified, wrong with US is in that woman.

I like that quote, "The search for truth is true religion and the man searching for truth is the only religous man." Common sense, respect and tolerance should be... Should be.

Posted by: JohnIan at November 11, 2005 12:47 AM

Well said Johnlan.

Darren - I have no idea what the Commandments are.

Vic - Take your point, a lot of people have said the same thing about so many other topics "when you have kids...". However I know that I have a similar and more relaxed attitude than my parents, and my parents brought both their kids up in an open, caring, explanatory enviroment. We turned out okay. Well, okay my Brother's a serial killer, but he's working on that one.

Posted by: Richard Brunton at November 11, 2005 02:59 AM

What ever happened to parental responsibility, as a parent you have a responsibility to monitor the things your children view on TV, The internet etc. Television is not a replacement for human company and education; too many people leave their kids unmonitored in front of the screen and then complain about the things they see. I hate it when people use children as an excuse for their own prudishness, how long does it take to check the TV schedule and make sure the upcoming shows are fit for your children, you can even buy digital boxes which you can program to make sure the content on your screen is child safe.

Posted by: Bullet in the head at November 11, 2005 09:24 AM

Richard, I completely agree with you. I'm really embarrassed that these narrow-minded people think they're being good representatives of the United States. It's also important to note that the organization that conducts this survey represents the beliefs of some of the American people and not all of them.

Brian, you say our country was founded on the Bible... uh, our country was founded on the freedom of religion. By not tolerating other people's religions, you're not really following or protecting that freedom, are you? And furthermore, if you don't respect other people's beliefs then why should they respect yours?

Posted by: k-slice at November 11, 2005 03:07 PM

The best analogy I've found for the "before kids vs. after kids" is the exchange between McCoy and Spock in Star Trek III:

McCoy: Come on, Spock. It’s me, McCoy! You really have gone where no man has gone before. Can’t you tell me what it felt like?
Spock: It would be impossible to discuss the subject without a common frame of reference.
McCoy: You’re joking!
Spock: A joke is a story with a humorous climax.
McCoy: You mean I have to die to discuss your insights on death?

:-)

Vic

Posted by: Screen Rant at November 11, 2005 03:41 PM

Sex in movies is fine as long as it's to do with the story. Gratuitous sex is, however, just a bore and indicative of the creative bankruptcy of the film maker. Oh, and about that woman who a few posts back, says blowing up things is fun, I'm guessing madam that you have never visited a war cemetery.

Posted by: Jack Black at November 11, 2005 04:26 PM

Sara-why do you think I'm angry? I'm just expressing my beliefs.

Richard-First Commandment- "Thou shalt have no other god before Me."

Johnlan-You are completely correct when you say that the country is full of hypocrits. I myself have had "prescription drugs" ruin relationships, so i know what its like. You think I haven't given into temptation? Of course I have. It's human nature like you said. That does not make it right. we do bad things because we are bad, which is why i believe in a saviour.

k-slice- what religion were we being persecuted for and came here to be free to worship? Christianity. Read the Declaration Of Independence. I can respect people who have made wrong decisions, but I don't have to respect those decisions. Why should they accept my faith? If i kindly and respectfully show them how this faith can change their life, then it's up to God to convict them.

Posted by: Brian at November 11, 2005 08:45 PM

I was sitting on the toilet a little while ago. I do most my thinking there, it's my Fortress Of Solitude. It is.

Anyhow, I was thinking about this. Something popped in my head, genetics. In the same fashion of a biological clock in women or as in normal aging.

Lets says that those who are fevorish about the evils of sex and the non-interest in violence are acting on a genetic engram, very base level.

It's no secret, this plant is over populated. The poorest nations are the ones with the most populace. Sex is cheap.

What if this engram is coming to play in them? Their efforts to stop people from having sex, only inside of marriage = less births. The blindeye to violence = thinning out the herd. More deaths, less masses. A driving force within them, like birds needing to migrate.

Posted by: JohnIan at November 11, 2005 09:36 PM

Who's me?

Posted by: Richard Brunton at November 12, 2005 05:30 AM

The entire reason sex before marriage is wrong is because marriage bonds two people in a special relationship that they can have with no other. Just having a partner doesn't do that. You can imagine it does, but it doesn't. Every little girl dreams of the day that they get married. It's the pinnacle of many people's lives. If it wasn't so important, then why do so many want to get married? It EMOTIONALLY attaches us to a person. If it's not bad to have sex out of marriage, then why don't you have 35 partners at one time, or why don't you cheat on your spouse with 20 different people? That would completely warp a relationship.

Posted by: Brian at November 12, 2005 05:40 PM

It's a philosophy, sex after marriage. People need to be fully or near self-being before engaging in something as deep and long lasting as marriage. One ring to bind them both, well two...

The old cliché is correct, you wouldn't want to buy a car without lifting the hood or kicking the tires. Sure, I guess for some taking that journey together is empowering. But lets look at the Philippines. In March of this year a report came out saying many as thirty percent of couples there had no idea, sex = babies. Health Secretary Manuel Dayrit, "They do not know how pregnancy happens". Many believed babies were the gift of God. Grand.

Unless you're taking about some kind of lession plan before getting married. I think you can guess where I'm going with this, so I'll move on. That would fix that error. And be kinda entertaining.

As for the comment "then why don't you have 35 partners at one time, or why don't you cheat on your spouse with 20 different people"; some people have open marriages who have more than one partner. Fact. Love is flexible. As for the latter, the concept of marriage is consent, each agreeing to parameters, be it socially or by conversation. If no such approval is given then, that partner is breaking a promise, a promise is that the backbone of the agreement. That's wrong, no "if" "and" or "but"s about it.

I'm pretty sure the next exchange concerns STDs. I don't have much to add there, common sense should be exercised. The arguement can be made that condoms don't always pervent desease, but than again having an airbag in your car won't save your life 100% either. Life is dangerous. Look at the animal kingdom, you're minding your business one minute, getting killed for lunch the next. Life sucks. Happiness is elusive, find it where you can. Be loved and give love. No secret.

Posted by: JohnIan at November 12, 2005 06:37 PM

Rock on!, Reserving sex until after marriage, a personal choice. But NEVER EVER force anything on anybody else because you think its better for them. Live you're life, don't stick you're filthy nose in other peoples lives. Which is exactly what the problem is in our world. Everyone likes to do what they think is best for everyone else. If you don't like it change the channel. But if i want to see some booty on TV it is my human right to allow my children to view it if i deem it appropriate, not some shithead who thinks its unreligious.

Posted by: Peter at November 14, 2005 12:01 PM

Peter, I'm not forcing anything on anyone. It's my freedom to show my beliefs in my opinions. Johnlan, you obviously adhere to a different set of morals than i do. You have a different belief of what marriage is, what marriage is about, and generally about the world itself. You can't compare the phillipines to America today. There is a huge barrier when it comes to technological and intellectual advancement. Not all phillipinos are primitive, but it's obvious that the group you are referring to is. That has absolutely nothing to do with the rising amount of sexuality in the media. the fact that sex sells reflects the time and age we live in. If people just wanted a little "booty" every now and then, like you said, porn would not be a multibillion dollar business. We all just have to face the fact that there will always be those who fight against the media showing these things to the public. You all say i'm narrow minded and i have no idea what the "real world" is like. reality check:i live in it just like you, i just don't accept everything it throws at me as being right.

Posted by: Brian at November 14, 2005 12:48 PM

I was thinking and can't help but bringing this up cause I happen to think it very funny...sorry if my sense of humor offends some of you but it comes with the territory!!! What do you do when you wait and save yourself for marriage for that "special bond" and after a little while your husband/wife doesnt want to "do it" anymore cause they aren't in the mood...ever...maybe once in a few months...FUCK THAT!!! Too many horror stories from married couples, both men and women, to wait for that bomb to happen!!! And I do bring this up to start arguments so don't say I didn't warn you!!!

Posted by: MechoPower at November 15, 2005 11:18 AM

In marriages, feelings come first. Spouses are supposed to care about each other, and if one dosn't want to have sex, the other must be understanding. Also, a lack of sex represents a lack of love. Like i said before, it is a special bond. So, MechoPower, you get into relationships just for sex. I think there is a word for that...shallow. Of, course, these types of marriages don't happen anymore, so wer'e supposed to just adjust to the changing times? NO WAY!!! Why would you want to just accept the crap this world has to offer just because there is nothing you can do about it? You all think life sucks and you have to make the best of it. Why? Life is good. That is why they call it LIFE! Take the red pill people. See how far the rabbit trail goes.

Posted by: Brian at November 15, 2005 12:19 PM

Brian, I totally agree with everything you are saying...I just happen to be one of those people who have been all over the world from Thailand to Japan to Iraq and Kuwait to Germany and back and forth all over the USA and I have seen cultures and subcultures with customs and curtesies that would make you gag and wonder why the world hasnt ended yet...as a matter of fact I will tell you about one time that I was in Iraq doing a humanitarian mission in Ad Diwaniya and I was talking to one of the civilians who could speak good english and he was telling me how his 12 year old sister just married a 36 year old man and that that is the custom over there...I was shocked to say the least...but when expaining our customs to him...he got all offended and said Allah will curse you and some stupid shit like that. I am a Jarhead man so things just look different to me...but...here is where fate sets in...I had a daughter. So my conquests of panties ended due to the fact that one day my daughter will be out in the big world and running around will be guys who were just like me and I will have to kill a motherfucker if they put their hands on my daughter. I only brought the subject (above) up cause I happen to think it is hilarious and I wanted to see some more arguing...sorry...I am bored and get my kicks this way!!!!!! In my line of work...it is very rare to see the proper marriage and faithfulness and all that happy horseshit when we are constantly deployed. Do I think cinema or TV helps to add fuel to the fire with sex...yeah I do...it is portrayed as happy go lucky, everyone is doing it, and all the cool people are doing it kinda thing. But I would rather see sex than violence...unless of course it is portraying past wars ACCURATELY!!! But anyways...that is enought for now...I look forward to responses!!!!!!!!

Posted by: MechoPower at November 15, 2005 01:43 PM

Times sure do change, don't they?.Sometimes people get caught in the enjoyment. Yeah, that's part of it. But that's not the whole thing. I believe that there are three reasons for sex. 1. to reproduce. it was God's very first commandment to his people: Be fruitful and multiply. 2. Establish a bond between spouses. This is the reason i disagree with the media's representation. 3. enjoyment. I do agree with you on your war statement, MechoPower. God bless!

Posted by: Brian at November 15, 2005 02:24 PM

Can u fuckers just shut the fuck up!

Posted by: Kenny at November 15, 2005 11:15 PM

You know Kenny, some of us are having a discussion. If you don't want to read these comments, don't. No one is forcing you. Point and click elsewhere.

Posted by: JohnIan at November 16, 2005 04:55 AM

Elsewhere on the site that is!

Posted by: Richard Brunton at November 16, 2005 08:40 AM

I'm curious, Brian.

Unrelated topic.

Where you do stand on Intelligent Design?

Posted by: JohnIan at November 16, 2005 08:43 PM

I'd rather call it creation. That kinda gives you the gist of what i believe. i believe that God created the earth in 6 days, then rested on the seventh. This all happened about 6,000 years ago. He created all of the life forms how they are now. No evolution. Maybe Richard can create a post on his site dedicated to controversies such as this. Do, please, Richard, I would appreciate it!

Posted by: Brian at November 17, 2005 09:07 AM

Alright.

New Q.

How do you feel about the whole ID being thought in school?

Posted by: JohnIan at November 18, 2005 12:49 AM

You mean being taught in school? I think it's great. People are finally opening their minds a little more. I really don't consider either Creation or Evolution a science. Neither can be scietifically proven. Both require faith, each of a different kind. Intelligent Design being taught in schools is not really giving credit to God,however, it is giving credit to some intelligent being that somehow made the universe. it's not full-blown Creation, but it's getting there.

Posted by: Brian at November 18, 2005 09:24 AM

My feelings is that ID should not be taught in school as you wrote, it's not based on science - faith. Materials such as that should be kept at church. While the program doesn't outright say deity (be it Ra, Zeus, Allah, Odin, Adonai, ect...) it bothers me that it want to push this belief agenda. The same way the phrase "God Bless America" bugs me. That's moronic, how arrogant is that?

Kids are raised by their parent(s) under whichever religion, they go to church to be either reinforced or seeking more imagery. School, should be, must be about the facts, science. This is where the religous followers fail. The driven desire to extinguish mention of the removal of God from the explaination. People need to make up their own minds; to be individuals not flock. That is the biggest problem I have with organized religion.

My mom is a Catholic. As a boy I used to go to Sunday school. I hated it. I asked quetions. They didn't want to hear it. Finally she gave up on me.

Schools need to skip ID to broaden the scope for students. They get creation at home and at church. It's not the only answer. It sadden me that this nonsense is getting acceptance. Open minds, not closed.

Posted by: JohnIan at November 19, 2005 05:41 AM

I like this. Funny and logical.

http://www.geocities.com/bobmelzer/gc10cx.html

Posted by: JohnIan at November 19, 2005 05:49 AM

Again, I must say, you have a completely different belief system. Just as i don't accept the fact that there is no God, you don't accept the fact that there is God. You speak a lot of open minds. How is it open only to think of yourself, to think of this one world we live on, and to think that life in itself is unimportant. That is close minded. If ID as you call it should be taken out of school, so should evolution. They are BOTH based on faith. Creation has much more evidence leaning towards it. the Bible, which was written thousands of years ago, states that the Earth is round. How was that known? No one had equipment back then to know that. It's because God told them it was. i could go on, but you would just keep on convincing yourself that i am full of bs.

Posted by: Brian at November 19, 2005 02:25 PM

I guess this wouldn't be the time to start a post on Jurrasic Park then?

Anyone?

Posted by: ISH at November 19, 2005 07:28 PM

Well, that's one of my favorite movies, but not right now. Pretty funny, though.

Posted by: Brian at November 19, 2005 08:37 PM

I never said life was unimportant. And this is one world. Unless you're talking about a multiverse? Then yeah.

Going back to that life topic. What if life is what it is? Not, unimportant, but simply IS. That's like saying Pet Rocks have no use. It's not a devalue, but common. Our speices hasn't really seen beyond our own solar system, probes landing on other planets. So who's to really say that life somewhat common? If you live in a desert all your life, dirt and sand from horizon to horizon, the ocean might be a myth. Doen't mean it doesn't exist.

Creation vs. Evolution. While evolution isn' t perfect, there are whole sections missing, it presents evidence charting change. Creation doesn't have that claim.

One of the favorite examples used to present Creation are those fossiled footprints of a man next to that of a dinosaur, walking. The arguement going that it proves man existed with dinosaurs (I'm working that JP topic in), that science is wrong. Do I think those footprints are authentic? Yeah, I kinda do.

But my conclusion isn't error, but time travel. Do a Google search on historical or time anomalies, they're all over the place. Stuff that shouldn't be there. From metal spears to shoe soles. One one about the cell phone need to be furthered explored. Fascinating stuff.

As for the round Earth, bible. No big deal. Lucky guess. Same could be mentioned to the likes of H.G. Wells and Jules Verne, not prophets. Good and logical guesses.

Posted by: JohnIan at November 20, 2005 05:51 AM

Maybe it is a lucky guess. But ponder this. the sun is losing 5 million tons of mass per second. if the earth was millions of years old, we would have been sucked in by the massive amount of gravity and destroyed.

The moon is slowly but surely getting farther away with each revolution. if the earth is millions of years old, it would be underwater due to the tides.

Sure, creation has it's gaps, too. but Johnlan, sometimes logical thinking doesn't give us what we need as the human race-hope. You can rationalize whatever you want. you can rationalize that we never landed on the moon. You can rationalize that elvis isn't dead. You can rationalize anything and everything. You have reasoned that life just is. nothin' special. That leaves no hope, no faith, no morals. It leads a sad life. You have made a decision, and so have i. maybe my faith is just a crutch, a feeble attempt to escape the pain and suffering so prevelant in the world.If so, ignorance is bliss. if i'm right, then i will live forever in heaven. Thank you for giving me a chance to express my beliefs. You're in my prayers.

Posted by: Brian at November 20, 2005 01:19 PM

Alright.

Posted by: JohnIan at November 22, 2005 02:32 AM