One of my best friends, a male, will be wearing a bridesmaid dress at my wedding.
Eep. :shock:
boo boo ! why you gotta edit what you say ? don't let nobody tell you what to say ! WERK !
and plus I'm gonna pray for you and ask god to give you to as much D as possible girl !! you be about that life and that is what makes me love the gays they are just so FABULOUS HONEY YESS!!!
One of my best friends, a male, will be wearing a bridesmaid dress at my wedding.
Eep. :shock:
boo boo ! why you gotta edit what you say ? don't let nobody tell you what to say ! WERK !
and plus I'm gonna pray for you and ask god to give you to as much D as possible girl !! you be about that life and that is what makes me love the gays they are just so FABULOUS HONEY YESS!!!
Hi. There's a lot of things human beings are not able to understand because of the way we've been programmed to think. And no, I'm not talking about the slavery every government has going on. But I'm not sure I feel too comfortable discussing that right now. And reason is, because I'm pretty sure most people on here will automatically go into denial mode and try to find excuses to hide the truth. (it is a lot to take in, and most people are not capable of that)
Anyways, it's not about being happy(or last least not the way you may be thinking), it's about being in peace with yourself(in and out), as well as with everybody else, and everything around you. Once you learn to be in peace, once you learn to accept everything for what it is, and to see that everything depends on everything else, once you let yourself get into the state of oneness and see the connection of everything, you'll realize that that peace is the happiness you're looking for.
In other words, don't stress yourself too much :P
mm.. eh.. uh... hehh.. *looks both ways nervously*
...
Okay, I feel really compelled to respond to this! I tried. Sorry guys.
So what I'm picking up is that it's not actually about being "happy," its about finding peace in the "fact" that we don't really have a purpose.
I am amazed that you can really believe that. What makes you so sure that we don't have a real purpose, though? I don't really know if you can believe that, but, of course, that is only speculation on my part.
But, being totally content with believing that you having no purpose is not something that is impossible, factually. So I bring to the table more points to consider:
1) How did we get here? What "created" us? Did we come from nothing? Many scientists just tell us that we came from nothing, like that answer doesn't go against logic or science at all.
2) Everything makes sense when you let God into the picture. It makes sense for everything to work orderly, it perfectly explains how we all got here, and gives us a purpose. Beliefs that don't include God just have so many holes in them, but when God it put into the picture, there are no holes in the story. Everything adds up right and makes sense.
Also, I am not stressing about myself. I feel so sure in what I believe, I am just incredibly curious as to how others can not believe it.
p.s. I just had to add that I noticed that I used incorrect grammar when I said, "there's two reasons," I should have said, "there are two reasons." Bah. so much for intelligent posts :P .
Sorry, but by that logic, isn't God just something to fill a hole in the creationism argument? Without God, the creationist argument would have just as many holes as you say the science argument has, the science argument just haven't come up with something to fill them. Religion only started as a way to explain things we couldn't, at that point, understand, such as why the sun rises and sets. But now we have proof of scientific explanations for a lot of those things, for example, that the sun rises and sets as the Earth rotates on it's axis.
No explanation for why we exist is perfect, not even the religious explanation - but the science argument isn't that humans just happened to be here, as creationism sometimes says, it's that how we are has evolved through every dominant species right back to simple single-cell beings.
There is proof - bones - that there have been species before human beings, which is not what religion tells us. So why would God make those animals die out? Why are there not still, for example, dinosaurs alive today?
The elusive "they" reckon that human beings are the only species alive today with the brain capacity to contemplate their own existence. No other species wonder about whether they evolved or were made. That, to me, suggests that the idea of God is a creation of man. But that's just my beliefs on the matter.
Here's a thought - why can the two not work together? How do we know that God did not invent single-cell beings, place them on the Earth, and then leave them to evolve? After all, we have beliefs, but there is no proof that either the science or the creationism arguments are correct, or that they are individual explanations.
Anyway, this post has gone way off on a tangent that I didn't intend, so I'll stop now :P
Sorry, but by that logic, isn't God just something to fill a hole in the creationism argument? Without God, the creationist argument would have just as many holes as you say the science argument has, the science argument just haven't come up with something to fill them. Religion only started as a way to explain things we couldn't, at that point, understand, such as why the sun rises and sets. But now we have proof of scientific explanations for a lot of those things, for example, that the sun rises and sets as the Earth rotates on it's axis.
No explanation for why we exist is perfect, not even the religious explanation - but the science argument isn't that humans just happened to be here, as creationism sometimes says, it's that how we are has evolved through every dominant species right back to simple single-cell beings.
There is proof - bones - that there have been species before human beings, which is not what religion tells us. So why would God make those animals die out? Why are there not still, for example, dinosaurs alive today?
The elusive "they" reckon that human beings are the only species alive today with the brain capacity to contemplate their own existence. No other species wonder about whether they evolved or were made. That, to me, suggests that the idea of God is a creation of man. But that's just my beliefs on the matter.
Here's a thought - why can the two not work together? How do we know that God did not invent single-cell beings, place them on the Earth, and then leave them to evolve? After all, we have beliefs, but there is no proof that either the science or the creationism arguments are correct, or that they are individual explanations.
Anyway, this post has gone way off on a tangent that I didn't intend, so I'll stop now :P
Okay, I'm really sorry everyone...but this will be my last post here, I promise, even if I really really want to respond to something else. I really feel bad about derailing this thread so much.
God isn't something to "fill a hole" in the creationist "argument." That doesn't make sense; there would be no idea of creationism without a Creator. That's like suggesting the idea of evolution without evolution, or alcoholism without alcohol. Of course the creationist's "argument" would have holes without God! (more like a really, reallybighole)
I normally would agree that no explanation is perfect; nothing is perfect. But that got me thinking, "Why is something not perfect? because it has imperfections." I've yet to see any imperfections in the idea of creationism, and honestly don't think there are any. But the scientific explanation is just, anti-science. I am not talking about evolution; I am talking about first cause. "The big bang" makes no sense. And I mean that literally.
Biblical religion (at least that I've ever heard) actually does not not tell us that there were species before human beings. It certainly never implies that there weren't, and even does suggest that there were. (the book of Job comes to mind; "behemoth" could easily have been a type of dinosaur.) Why did God "make" those animals (like dinosaurs) die out? Well, I don't really know, but I don't see any reason for Him not to. Do you?
The fact that no other species seems to care about the origin of their existence really to me implies the idea of a Creator. But I can see how you could interpret it that way. I think the way we interpret that just depends on our presuppositions.
There is a big ole hole in the theory that God used evolution to make us. According to the Bible, (the Creationist part) God stepped back and saw that what He had made was "good." If there was evolution going on, animals fighting for survival, animals dying, weaker animals dying off, stronger animals surviving, (evolutionist part) do you really think a loving God that He says He is would call that "good"? And what about the part when Adam and Eve sinned, ate the fruit of the forbidden tree? The Bible says that after that they would surely die, (not necessarily right then and there, but eventually) but that would mean nothing if they already were going to die. The two stories just don't coincide.
No no, don't put words in my mouth lol. I don't blame you for doing so, since I'm holding back a lot of 'information' (aka, personal beliefs ).
I've noticed you rely on the big sky daddy to fill in the blank spaces to your puzzle (a lot of people do the same), and I don't blame you for doing so, nor am I gonna say your beliefs are wrong and mine are right. They're just beliefs at the end of the day. History goes much, much further back than you can possibly imagine. Try to do your own research. Dig real deep. By the way, public libraries are not always a reliable source of information for everything; you don't want to keep contaminating yourself with false human information.
That's really all I'm going to say. If you want to keep talking to me, you're more than welcomed to ddo so. Just not here. This is a thread about unisex clothes for the sims, and we've already taken way too much space talking about personal beliefs
Oh and, ever heard of the phrase, "god is an astronaut"?
Feel free to message me if you will.
I really am not sure what you're getting at, lol, probably because you are holding back your "personal beliefs". But I'll let my "big sky daddy" solve my puzzle because nothing else seems to solve it so perfectly, and I see no reason not to.
I'll try to contaminate myself with factual non-human information instead. ( <- that was kind of a joke :P )
Yeah, I agree. I'm not going to post in this thread anymore, I promise.
No, I've never heard that phrase, until now. Just looked it up on Google, and it looks like some rock band. :-)
I really appreciate your offer, but I think I just will leave this topic alone for awhile. Thanks though for the offer, you seem really nice :-) .
Sorry, but by that logic, isn't God just something to fill a hole in the creationism argument? Without God, the creationist argument would have just as many holes as you say the science argument has, the science argument just haven't come up with something to fill them. Religion only started as a way to explain things we couldn't, at that point, understand, such as why the sun rises and sets. But now we have proof of scientific explanations for a lot of those things, for example, that the sun rises and sets as the Earth rotates on it's axis.
No explanation for why we exist is perfect, not even the religious explanation - but the science argument isn't that humans just happened to be here, as creationism sometimes says, it's that how we are has evolved through every dominant species right back to simple single-cell beings.
There is proof - bones - that there have been species before human beings, which is not what religion tells us. So why would God make those animals die out? Why are there not still, for example, dinosaurs alive today?
The elusive "they" reckon that human beings are the only species alive today with the brain capacity to contemplate their own existence. No other species wonder about whether they evolved or were made. That, to me, suggests that the idea of God is a creation of man. But that's just my beliefs on the matter.
Here's a thought - why can the two not work together? How do we know that God did not invent single-cell beings, place them on the Earth, and then leave them to evolve? After all, we have beliefs, but there is no proof that either the science or the creationism arguments are correct, or that they are individual explanations.
Anyway, this post has gone way off on a tangent that I didn't intend, so I'll stop now :P
Okay, I'm really sorry everyone...but this will be my last post here, I promise, even if I really really want to respond to something else. I really feel bad about derailing this thread so much.
God isn't something to "fill a hole" in the creationist "argument." That doesn't make sense; there would be no idea of creationism without a Creator. That's like suggesting the idea of evolution without evolution, or alcoholism without alcohol. Of course the creationist's "argument" would have holes without God! (more like a really, reallybighole)
I normally would agree that no explanation is perfect; nothing is perfect. But that got me thinking, "Why is something not perfect? because it has imperfections." I've yet to see any imperfections in the idea of creationism, and honestly don't think there are any. But the scientific explanation is just, anti-science. I am not talking about evolution; I am talking about first cause. "The big bang" makes no sense. And I mean that literally.
Biblical religion (at least that I've ever heard) actually does not not tell us that there were species before human beings. It certainly never implies that there weren't, and even does suggest that there were. (the book of Job comes to mind; "behemoth" could easily have been a type of dinosaur.) Why did God "make" those animals (like dinosaurs) die out? Well, I don't really know, but I don't see any reason for Him not to. Do you?
The fact that no other species seems to care about the origin of their existence really to me implies the idea of a Creator. But I can see how you could interpret it that way. I think the way we interpret that just depends on our presuppositions.
There is a big ole hole in the theory that God used evolution to make us. According to the Bible, (the Creationist part) God stepped back and saw that what He had made was "good." If there was evolution going on, animals fighting for survival, animals dying, weaker animals dying off, stronger animals surviving, (evolutionist part) do you really think a loving God that He says He is would call that "good"? And what about the part when Adam and Eve sinned, ate the fruit of the forbidden tree? The Bible says that after that they would surely die, (not necessarily right then and there, but eventually) but that would mean nothing if they already were going to die. The two stories just don't coincide.
You're misunderstanding my post - of course creationism wouldn't even exist without God, but there are just as many flaws in the creationism theory as there are in the science theory - the difference is that with creationism, people can use God to fill them.
The big bang does make sense when you look at it in detail, it's not just that there was a big explosion and everything came into being as some people think... but I won't go into that.
And, yeah, I see a reason for God not to kill off the dinosaurs... I thought he loved all of his creations? Why would he then kill loads off?
That is one of my problems with creationism, and one of the imperfections with it - if God loves everyone, and everything that happens is God's will, why does he cause so much pain, death and destruction? In fact, why does sinning even exist? Surely, if everything that happens is His will, then people sin according to His will?
But my original post was never intended to cause an argument, and I apologise if you took it that way. It was more of a general interest post than anything. I choose not to believe in creationism, but I do believe that everyone should have the right to choose what they do or don't believe, and shouldn't have something else forced down their throat. All there is to this argument is belief, and no proof either way, which means it isn't one that anyone can "win". This thread has been derailed enough, and I certainly haven't done anything to make it better, so I think this is something we should just agree to disagree on, and leave it at that.
One of my best friends, a male, will be wearing a bridesmaid dress at my wedding.
Eep. :shock:
boo boo ! why you gotta edit what you say ? don't let nobody tell you what to say ! WERK !
and plus I'm gonna pray for you and ask god to give you to as much D as possible girl !! you be about that life and that is what makes me love the gays they are just so FABULOUS HONEY YESS!!!
and there ain't never enough D
xoxo
Okay you are killing me with every post you make!
You crack me up! And I know this is off topic but are you really from Compton? I've never met anyone from there.
One of my best friends, a male, will be wearing a bridesmaid dress at my wedding.
Eep. :shock:
boo boo ! why you gotta edit what you say ? don't let nobody tell you what to say ! WERK !
and plus I'm gonna pray for you and ask god to give you to as much D as possible girl !! you be about that life and that is what makes me love the gays they are just so FABULOUS HONEY YESS!!!
and there ain't never enough D
xoxo
Okay you are killing me with every post you make!
You crack me up! And I know this is off topic but are you really from Compton? I've never met anyone from there.
glad i can make you laugh !
born & raised !
it's funny because the people in Compton don't leave Compton. it's super close & so that's probably why you haven't really seen anybody.
tbh you ain't missing a thing ! stay away, it's not a cute place ! but i can't escape it as it's my home. lots of people think i'm kidding when i say i live in Compton. i guess people just think Compton is full of ghetto, ratchet, gang people...which it is, but it's not as bad as it was. lord when i was a baby it was really bad ! back in the '90s !
I don't think I would like this option in my game, as it would make me feel uncomfortable. In the sims 3, random sims generate and are wearing random clothes. I honestly would not like random male sims to be walking around in skirts. Yes male sims can wear makeup, but that's completely different from wearing female clothing. I never make any of my male sims use makeup, unless I am creating a joker type sim. Even then, the joker is still obviously male, even if he has makeup on his face.
One of my best friends, a male, will be wearing a bridesmaid dress at my wedding.
Eep. :shock:
boo boo ! why you gotta edit what you say ? don't let nobody tell you what to say ! WERK !
and plus I'm gonna pray for you and ask god to give you to as much D as possible girl !! you be about that life and that is what makes me love the gays they are just so FABULOUS HONEY YESS!!!
and there ain't never enough D
xoxo
Okay you are killing me with every post you make!
You crack me up! And I know this is off topic but are you really from Compton? I've never met anyone from there.
glad i can make you laugh !
born & raised !
it's funny because the people in Compton don't leave Compton. it's super close & so that's probably why you haven't really seen anybody.
tbh you ain't missing a thing ! stay away, it's not a cute place ! but i can't escape it as it's my home. lots of people think i'm kidding when i say i live in Compton. i guess people just think Compton is full of ghetto, ratchet, gang people...which it is, but it's not as bad as it was. lord when i was a baby it was really bad ! back in the '90s !
not cute at all !
Yeah I figured that. Compton is very confusing. I heard if you don't where the right hat, people might think you're a rival gang member and shoot you. It's scary. But again that's a whole other topic.
I don't think I would like this option in my game, as it would make me feel uncomfortable. In the sims 3, random sims generate and are wearing random clothes. I honestly would not like random male sims to be walking around in skirts. Yes male sims can wear makeup, but that's completely different from wearing female clothing. I never make any of my male sims use makeup, unless I am creating a joker type sim. Even then, the joker is still obviously male, even if he has makeup on his face.
I think my post got swallowed up in the heated discussions earlier in the thread, but I suggested that we have a tick box or tagging system to determine whether sims are allowed to wear clothing meant for the other gender.
I think my post got swallowed up in the heated discussions earlier in the thread, but I suggested that we have a tick box or tagging system to determine whether sims are allowed to wear clothing meant for the other gender.
Don't worry, I saw you! I just haven't had the chance to add my thoughts until now.
I'm not sure how a tick box or tagging system would work. In The Sims 3, do we even have to ability to choose options for individual sims?
If I remember correctly, in your other post you said something about having a trait, right? I don't think that's a good idea.
We don't know how many traits a sim is going to get yet. Personally, I wouldn't want to have to sacrifice the complexity of my sim's personality just so I could let him or her crossdress.
It also bothers me in movies/TV/literature when non-straight sexualities and transgenderism are treated as character traits. Like when creators try to make flat characters more dimensional by making them gay or dress like the opposite sex. I'm probably overreacting to this, but I just don't like the idea of making "crossdresser" a personality trait. :?
In my opinion, it would be much simpler to allow any sim to wear clothes meant for the opposite gender, but make it optional and not autonomous for sims outside of the active family.
I think my post got swallowed up in the heated discussions earlier in the thread, but I suggested that we have a tick box or tagging system to determine whether sims are allowed to wear clothing meant for the other gender.
Don't worry, I saw you! I just haven't had the chance to add my thoughts until now.
I'm not sure how a tick box or tagging system would work. In The Sims 3, do we even have to ability to choose options for individual sims?
If I remember correctly, in your other post you said something about having a trait, right? I don't think that's a good idea.
We don't know how many traits a sim is going to get yet. Personally, I wouldn't want to have to sacrifice the complexity of my sim's personality just so I could let him or her crossdress.
It also bothers me in movies/TV/literature when non-straight sexualities and transgenderism are treated as character traits. Like when creators try to make flat characters more dimensional by making them gay or dress like the opposite sex. I'm probably overreacting to this, but I just don't like the idea of making "crossdresser" a personality trait. :?
In my opinion, it would be much simpler to allow any sim to wear clothes meant for the opposite gender, but make it optional and not autonomous for sims outside of the active family.
Edit: Spelling
There are several mods for Sims 3 devoted to controlling what clothes are and are not available for sims, townies, etc. So, I don't see any reason this can't be done with Sims 4.
I think my post got swallowed up in the heated discussions earlier in the thread, but I suggested that we have a tick box or tagging system to determine whether sims are allowed to wear clothing meant for the other gender.
Don't worry, I saw you! I just haven't had the chance to add my thoughts until now.
I'm not sure how a tick box or tagging system would work. In The Sims 3, do we even have to ability to choose options for individual sims?
If I remember correctly, in your other post you said something about having a trait, right? I don't think that's a good idea.
We don't know how many traits a sim is going to get yet. Personally, I wouldn't want to have to sacrifice the complexity of my sim's personality just so I could let him or her crossdress.
It also bothers me in movies/TV/literature when non-straight sexualities and transgenderism are treated as character traits. Like when creators try to make flat characters more dimensional by making them gay or dress like the opposite sex. I'm probably overreacting to this, but I just don't like the idea of making "crossdresser" a personality trait. :?
In my opinion, it would be much simpler to allow any sim to wear clothes meant for the opposite gender, but make it optional and not autonomous for sims outside of the active family.
Edit: Spelling
That makes sense. I suggested tick boxes or traits as a way to circumvent random sims showing up in odd outfits. I hate it when a sim wears the traffic cone helmet. You're quite right about not wanting to sacrifice a trait slot, though. I definitely think it needs to purely by the player's choice if a sim does this.
I personally don't know anything about crossdressing myself (beyond the fact of female crossdressing for practical/disguise purposes in history) but it seems to be a much more accepted thing now, so perhaps it will crop up.
I've no idea how they'd manage coding for allowing you to make, say, a wedding dress wearable by either males or females. Mostly because the female shape for the dress is pretty specific and are you going to want your male Sim to look like he has a female body in that dress? Ditto with female Sims wearing a tux, the body shape is very different so I'm not sure how it would translate. I haven't waded all the way through this thread to see if anyone has mentioned this potential problem or not. I DO like the idea of having unisex clothing but that would really be a more androgynous thing, not a cross dressing thing. With gender bending there's just a whole ton of variation. Eddie Izzard wore women's clothing and make up but never altered his body (or wore a padded bra) to make himself look female like a more traditional 🐸🐸🐸🐸 would. So really, it depends on what you are going for. I support the idea but I remain uncertain as to how EA would be able to make it work.
I've no idea how they'd manage coding for allowing you to make, say, a wedding dress wearable by either males or females. Mostly because the female shape for the dress is pretty specific and are you going to want your male Sim to look like he has a female body in that dress? Ditto with female Sims wearing a tux, the body shape is very different so I'm not sure how it would translate. I haven't waded all the way through this thread to see if anyone has mentioned this potential problem or not. I DO like the idea of having unisex clothing but that would really be a more androgynous thing, not a cross dressing thing. With gender bending there's just a whole ton of variation. Eddie Izzard wore women's clothing and make up but never altered his body (or wore a padded bra) to make himself look female like a more traditional 🐸🐸🐸🐸 would. So really, it depends on what you are going for. I support the idea but I remain uncertain as to how EA would be able to make it work.
The creators of saints row did it. It doesn't matter if you are male or female, you get the same clothes. It sucks because the clothing options are very limited to those who want their characters clothing to match their gender. You end up finding out that there are like two pairs of men's shoes and an abundant amount of high heels. (I may be exaggerating a little bit.)
Small thought: Saying "Homosexuality is a sin" is not hate speak. It is a statement of belief. Agree with it or don't but it does not advocate hate or violence. Now some of the things it can be followed up with....
Not to argue, but when you call something a sin, what you're saying is that it's immoral. You're saying that it's shameful, deplorable, wrong, or downright evil. Sins are things you get sent to hell for-- you get to suffer agonizing torture eternally for.
Even outside of religion, a sin is a crime against nature or humanity. It is something that is grotesque or horrific for a person to do. Sins are something you look down on somebody for. Sins are things people are punished for.
It's not saying "I don't like or agree with that", it's saying "that is reprehensible and disgusting" and often carries the added connotation of "and you will burn forever if you don't stop it".
So yeah, it may be a belief, but it's a pretty hateful belief if you ask me.
Not getting involved in the argument about homosexuality, but on I will argue on whether saying something is sin is hateful, I think a lot of people misunderstand what the word 'sin' means.
A sin is simply something that turns us away from God it is not a crime against nature or some disgusting as you put it. It can be big & also evil to society (say murder) or it can be small and not something we would blink twice at (say yelling at a car that almost ran you over).
Everybody is a sinner and everybody and sins a lot in lifetime, so it is hardly hateful to say something is a Sin. If all of us were not sinners then all of us would not need to be saved, that is all of us.
Therefore is a big difference between saying X is a sin and saying x is disgusting and you should burn in hell for it.
There are cultures who have the concept of sin without the concept of god. That's why I spoke of both religious and non-religious meanings.
Speaking specifically of judeo-christian religions, something that turns you away from god is considered to be evil. Some evils are small and forgivable, some are big and unforgivable. Usually if you repent there's forgiveness, even for big ones.
When people say that homosexuality is a sin, they either mistakenly think that it's a choice, or they believe that people are capable of being born so evil that there is no hope of them being saved. Either way it's still an incredibly hateful sentiment, and has no place in civilized discussion.
Edit: and it's not that they're saying "you should burn in hell for it". They're saying "you will burn in hell for it".
I think either your own preconceptions are clouding your judgement of what I said or maybe I just wasn't clear enough.
Either way, since I'm not fast enough at typing [ sorry, ] to have proper discussion we can agree to disagree on the intent of a the statement of saying X is a sin.
Please note X could be anything such as 'eating ham and cheese pizza' to 'participating in a guessing competition' to the commonly discussed 'woohoo without marriage'. As I mentioned, I'm not getting involved in the argument about homosexuality and please do not assume my opinions on the matter.
Edit - Fixing the quoting so it was correctly marked,
I'd love unisex clothing!
I've always had trouble making my simself, she always ends up looking too much like a girl XD
...While we're at it, could we maybe, possiblely get some more body sliders? :shock:
I hate how it is now, that females are always ultra feminine I used to always download custom sliders :P
(Just throwing out the idea )
Comments
boo boo ! why you gotta edit what you say ? don't let nobody tell you what to say ! WERK !
and plus I'm gonna pray for you and ask god to give you to as much D as possible girl !! you be about that life and that is what makes me love the gays they are just so FABULOUS HONEY YESS!!!
and there ain't never enough D
xoxo
No explanation for why we exist is perfect, not even the religious explanation - but the science argument isn't that humans just happened to be here, as creationism sometimes says, it's that how we are has evolved through every dominant species right back to simple single-cell beings.
There is proof - bones - that there have been species before human beings, which is not what religion tells us. So why would God make those animals die out? Why are there not still, for example, dinosaurs alive today?
The elusive "they" reckon that human beings are the only species alive today with the brain capacity to contemplate their own existence. No other species wonder about whether they evolved or were made. That, to me, suggests that the idea of God is a creation of man. But that's just my beliefs on the matter.
Here's a thought - why can the two not work together? How do we know that God did not invent single-cell beings, place them on the Earth, and then leave them to evolve? After all, we have beliefs, but there is no proof that either the science or the creationism arguments are correct, or that they are individual explanations.
Anyway, this post has gone way off on a tangent that I didn't intend, so I'll stop now :P
Okay, I'm really sorry everyone...but this will be my last post here, I promise, even if I really really want to respond to something else. I really feel bad about derailing this thread so much.
God isn't something to "fill a hole" in the creationist "argument." That doesn't make sense; there would be no idea of creationism without a Creator. That's like suggesting the idea of evolution without evolution, or alcoholism without alcohol. Of course the creationist's "argument" would have holes without God! (more like a really, really big hole)
I normally would agree that no explanation is perfect; nothing is perfect. But that got me thinking, "Why is something not perfect? because it has imperfections." I've yet to see any imperfections in the idea of creationism, and honestly don't think there are any. But the scientific explanation is just, anti-science. I am not talking about evolution; I am talking about first cause. "The big bang" makes no sense. And I mean that literally.
Biblical religion (at least that I've ever heard) actually does not not tell us that there were species before human beings. It certainly never implies that there weren't, and even does suggest that there were. (the book of Job comes to mind; "behemoth" could easily have been a type of dinosaur.) Why did God "make" those animals (like dinosaurs) die out? Well, I don't really know, but I don't see any reason for Him not to. Do you?
The fact that no other species seems to care about the origin of their existence really to me implies the idea of a Creator. But I can see how you could interpret it that way. I think the way we interpret that just depends on our presuppositions.
There is a big ole hole in the theory that God used evolution to make us. According to the Bible, (the Creationist part) God stepped back and saw that what He had made was "good." If there was evolution going on, animals fighting for survival, animals dying, weaker animals dying off, stronger animals surviving, (evolutionist part) do you really think a loving God that He says He is would call that "good"? And what about the part when Adam and Eve sinned, ate the fruit of the forbidden tree? The Bible says that after that they would surely die, (not necessarily right then and there, but eventually) but that would mean nothing if they already were going to die. The two stories just don't coincide.
I really am not sure what you're getting at, lol, probably because you are holding back your "personal beliefs". But I'll let my "big sky daddy" solve my puzzle because nothing else seems to solve it so perfectly, and I see no reason not to.
I'll try to contaminate myself with factual non-human information instead. ( <- that was kind of a joke :P )
Yeah, I agree. I'm not going to post in this thread anymore, I promise.
No, I've never heard that phrase, until now. Just looked it up on Google, and it looks like some rock band. :-)
I really appreciate your offer, but I think I just will leave this topic alone for awhile. Thanks though for the offer, you seem really nice :-) .
The big bang does make sense when you look at it in detail, it's not just that there was a big explosion and everything came into being as some people think... but I won't go into that.
And, yeah, I see a reason for God not to kill off the dinosaurs... I thought he loved all of his creations? Why would he then kill loads off?
That is one of my problems with creationism, and one of the imperfections with it - if God loves everyone, and everything that happens is God's will, why does he cause so much pain, death and destruction? In fact, why does sinning even exist? Surely, if everything that happens is His will, then people sin according to His will?
But my original post was never intended to cause an argument, and I apologise if you took it that way. It was more of a general interest post than anything. I choose not to believe in creationism, but I do believe that everyone should have the right to choose what they do or don't believe, and shouldn't have something else forced down their throat. All there is to this argument is belief, and no proof either way, which means it isn't one that anyone can "win". This thread has been derailed enough, and I certainly haven't done anything to make it better, so I think this is something we should just agree to disagree on, and leave it at that.
Okay you are killing me with every post you make!
You crack me up! And I know this is off topic but are you really from Compton? I've never met anyone from there.
glad i can make you laugh !
born & raised !
it's funny because the people in Compton don't leave Compton. it's super close & so that's probably why you haven't really seen anybody.
tbh you ain't missing a thing ! stay away, it's not a cute place ! but i can't escape it as it's my home. lots of people think i'm kidding when i say i live in Compton. i guess people just think Compton is full of ghetto, ratchet, gang people...which it is, but it's not as bad as it was. lord when i was a baby it was really bad ! back in the '90s !
not cute at all !
Yeah I figured that. Compton is very confusing. I heard if you don't where the right hat, people might think you're a rival gang member and shoot you. It's scary. But again that's a whole other topic.
I think my post got swallowed up in the heated discussions earlier in the thread, but I suggested that we have a tick box or tagging system to determine whether sims are allowed to wear clothing meant for the other gender.
Don't worry, I saw you!
I'm not sure how a tick box or tagging system would work. In The Sims 3, do we even have to ability to choose options for individual sims?
If I remember correctly, in your other post you said something about having a trait, right? I don't think that's a good idea.
We don't know how many traits a sim is going to get yet. Personally, I wouldn't want to have to sacrifice the complexity of my sim's personality just so I could let him or her crossdress.
It also bothers me in movies/TV/literature when non-straight sexualities and transgenderism are treated as character traits. Like when creators try to make flat characters more dimensional by making them gay or dress like the opposite sex. I'm probably overreacting to this, but I just don't like the idea of making "crossdresser" a personality trait. :?
In my opinion, it would be much simpler to allow any sim to wear clothes meant for the opposite gender, but make it optional and not autonomous for sims outside of the active family.
Edit: Spelling
There are several mods for Sims 3 devoted to controlling what clothes are and are not available for sims, townies, etc. So, I don't see any reason this can't be done with Sims 4.
That makes sense. I suggested tick boxes or traits as a way to circumvent random sims showing up in odd outfits. I hate it when a sim wears the traffic cone helmet. You're quite right about not wanting to sacrifice a trait slot, though. I definitely think it needs to purely by the player's choice if a sim does this.
I personally don't know anything about crossdressing myself (beyond the fact of female crossdressing for practical/disguise purposes in history) but it seems to be a much more accepted thing now, so perhaps it will crop up.
The creators of saints row did it. It doesn't matter if you are male or female, you get the same clothes. It sucks because the clothing options are very limited to those who want their characters clothing to match their gender. You end up finding out that there are like two pairs of men's shoes and an abundant amount of high heels. (I may be exaggerating a little bit.)
I think either your own preconceptions are clouding your judgement of what I said or maybe I just wasn't clear enough.
Either way, since I'm not fast enough at typing [ sorry,
Please note X could be anything such as 'eating ham and cheese pizza' to 'participating in a guessing competition' to the commonly discussed 'woohoo without marriage'. As I mentioned, I'm not getting involved in the argument about homosexuality and please do not assume my opinions on the matter.
Edit - Fixing the quoting so it was correctly marked,
Oh you~ How typical.
I've always had trouble making my simself, she always ends up looking too much like a girl XD
...While we're at it, could we maybe, possiblely get some more body sliders? :shock:
I hate how it is now, that females are always ultra feminine
(Just throwing out the idea