[quote]joe_r wrote:
it is a preference. [/quote]
As I said so is drinking and driving, drug dealing, etc.
Nope, that’s not in the bible. In fact, I have black and hispanic friends.
[quote] how about if i want to refuse to rent to flat-earther godheads like you? how would you feel?
[/quote]
It would be fine. I’m sure I could find someone else to rent to me.
Your logic is a little lose Joe, have you had a tree fall on your head recently or something. Better take it easy for awhile.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
jnd:
Science may “sustain us” physically, however it does not lift us up morally. And it’s not supposed to![/quote]
WHO believes that “science lifts us up morally”? I’ve known a few scientists and they NEVER (I mean NEVER, EVER) said (or intimated) that science plays that role. Just because they might support evolution does not mean that it replaces religion or faith…
Seems to me that people who have a strong faith believe that evolution (as a scientific principle) would negate their position- and it simply does not.
The issue that drives me crazy is when people want to discuss creationism and evolution in a scientific setting. Evolution belongs in a science class (warts and all), but creationism, being that it is unscientific, does not.
If you want to have a philosophy of science discussion, then I can see the value in comparison, but as far as which is scientific, there is no basis for comparison.
[quote]doogie wrote:
One of you Bible scholars who devote your life to the good book please tell me:
Does the Bible condem lesbians along with gay males?
I haven’t been able to get a clear answer in two years of asking.[/quote]
Yes it does
Romans 1:26-27
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Hope that helps.
[quote]steveowen wrote:
I voted against the ammendment proposal in Georgia. I feel that it is not the place of government to regulate moral issues. Who you or I choose to call mate should be our choice without governmental interference. What if the proposal was to restrict “marriage” to persons of like race or nationality? That could easily be the next step. [/quote]
In civilized life, Law floats in a sea of Ethics.
Each is indispensable to civilization. Without Law, we
should be at the mercy of the least scrupulous; without
Ethics, Law could not exist. Without ethical
consciousness in most people, lawlessness would be
rampant. Yet without Law, civilization could not
exist, for there are always people who in the conflict
of human interest, ignore their responsibility to their
fellow man…
Therefore, Society would come to grief without
Ethics, which is unenforceable in the courts, and cannot
be made a part of the Law… Not only does Law in
civilized society presuppose ethical commitment; it
presupposes the existence of a broad area of human
conduct controlled only by ethical norms and not
subject to Law at all.
There is thus a Law beyond the Law, as binding
on those of us who cherish our institutions as the Law
itself, although there is no human power to enforce it.
[quote]jnd wrote:
ZEB wrote:
jnd:
Science may “sustain us” physically, however it does not lift us up morally. And it’s not supposed to!
WHO believes that “science lifts us up morally”? I’ve known a few scientists and they NEVER (I mean NEVER, EVER) said (or intimated) that science plays that role. Just because they might support evolution does not mean that it replaces religion or faith…
Seems to me that people who have a strong faith believe that evolution (as a scientific principle) would negate their position- and it simply does not.
The issue that drives me crazy is when people want to discuss creationism and evolution in a scientific setting. Evolution belongs in a science class (warts and all), but creationism, being that it is unscientific, does not.
If you want to have a philosophy of science discussion, then I can see the value in comparison, but as far as which is scientific, there is no basis for comparison.[/quote]
jnd:
I will spell out my point: Many of those who rely on science for certain things (as they should) carry it to the extreme and look for all answers under the guise of science.
[quote]jnd wrote:
ZEB wrote:
jnd:
Science may “sustain us” physically, however it does not lift us up morally. And it’s not supposed to!
WHO believes that “science lifts us up morally”? I’ve known a few scientists and they NEVER (I mean NEVER, EVER) said (or intimated) that science plays that role. Just because they might support evolution does not mean that it replaces religion or faith…
Seems to me that people who have a strong faith believe that evolution (as a scientific principle) would negate their position- and it simply does not.
The issue that drives me crazy is when people want to discuss creationism and evolution in a scientific setting. Evolution belongs in a science class (warts and all), but creationism, being that it is unscientific, does not.
If you want to have a philosophy of science discussion, then I can see the value in comparison, but as far as which is scientific, there is no basis for comparison.[/quote]
If evolution is just a theory, and so far that is all it is. Then why does it belong in a science class and the theory of creation does not? Science is really just the art of discovering the truth. Well if Creation is true then it should be taught. If Evolution is true it should be taught. Since no one can say 100% which one is true why must one be excluded?
To Mr. Chen,
Maybe you need to rethink/question the root of your belief system. It always stuns me to see the lack of critical thinking in Christians who never evaluate the source of their guiding life philosophies. Using simple laws of deduction, the bible plainly has been shown to be both hypocritical and wrong in numerous statements. It is clear that both the bible had and still has today great power over human behavior and the shaping of sociological development. To take a passage from a book (an a translated one if that) and deem it as undeniable truth is not only naive, but also dangerous. Things like civil wars are the cause of such radical behavior. So let me ask you some questions and you can respond if you feel like doing so: 1. Assuming you take the Bible in it’s entirety into account, you believe that God has given us free will and that he has a possible devine plan. What happens to this thing free will when say a person has brain damage and loses their personality or is altered? What happens to this “new” person now if he/she acts totally different…even “immoral” in your account? How do you take into account “shaping” from a behaviorists viewpoint? So you don’t think then that our decisions are at all the influence of environment (one thing God supposidly created)? So if not, how can we interpret even sensory information to obtain any “knowledge” whatsoever? So if God has a plan, he already knows then who will act how and when (he is all-knowing)…so he knows that homosexuals are going to be born and eventually act on their sexual desires…so this God creates beings that he knows are going to act a certain way, then punishes them in a fiery pit of hell for following inevitable human nature? Nice guy. Oh, and I know you will say God has given them choice to act on it or not so let me ask you this then. Why did he allow some people to be more inclined to homosexuality then others? He unfairly and ruthlessly creates certain people so he can lazily sit back and observe if they will fall prey to his trap and take action on their natural inclinations (that he MADE)? So because of his errors or shall we say, twisted humor, some people are punished? Oh wait you might say (depending on your religion), the Devil has a part in this too. But wait, I thought that God was all-powerful and all-good. So that implies he is either less “forceful” than the devil or is not “all-good” to allow such hellacious misdoings. It is about time that society sees the Bible for what it is: something probably written by kings and rulers as a way to control members of society. There is not proof of anything the Bible mentions and yet individuals grasp its content with desparity and without scrutiny. It has caused horrible wrongdoings in the past that have led to thousands of deaths. This is not to say that it has no purpose, but rather to indicate such negative feats done in its name. There is a reason why many top neuroscientists and psychologists and philosophers fail to even believe in God and I have talked to many of them here at Vanderbilt U. Maybe its time that you buy an intro to philosophy or psychology book and get ready to think on your own. For me to say you are bad person because of your previous posts, would just deny my knowledge of human personality and behavior. However, I recommend that you seriously review some of your principles and the reason for truely retaining them.
another brain-washed college student. Your whole splurge regarding the Bible sounded as as if it was straight verbatim of a philosophy professor’s mouth. You tell him to think on his own yet you seem to be heavily influenced by your college professors. To tell you the truth, I used to be exactly where you were with the same arguments, and this was before my introduction to sociology and psychology professors. In actuallity, it was there arguments that pushed me to further my research even more and upon my research and understadning I have actually come to be a Christian. It takes a thorough understanding of the Bible to criticize it, and many theologens would be able to tear your arguments apart.
“Your whole splurge regarding the Bible sounded as as if it was straight verbatim of a philosophy professor’s mouth”-Well first of all, thank you for the compliment. I’ve always wanted to sound so prestigious and deep.
Actually, your guess is slightly off, I don’t rely heavily on my professors. I take what I agree with, reject what I don’t, and am constantly in pursuit of new ideas. I have studied philosophy for several years and have taken into account what I have seen with my own eyes. So of course, I have been influenced by different opinions. Haven’t you? How did you learn about the Bible? Out of thin air? I think not: you read about it through various authors who have numerous interprations and looked at the source itself.
You can say all you want about how you had the same arguments as me, but you can’t even answer the simple questions I put out. I guess you better get your expert theologians to fend for you.
Bottomline is this, a belief in God is not falsifiable and could never be proven. On the other hand, Christianity has proven a whole hell of a lot! It has shown how to be hypocritical, degrade distint members of human society for more than likely genetic traits, and engange in daily prayer for something that has never been seen by the human eye and I hesitate to say, experienced. Granted there have been times where I’ve seen christianity help people: people who are dying, have severe depression, etc.
But more than likely, I have seen Christiany being abused and used as a “crutch”-the religious folk pray and repent, “sin” and “sin”, then pray and repent. A great cycle of change eh?
My view comes down to this: If you want to endorse Christian beliefs, by all means, do so. If you practice what you preach, and do not try to apply your beliefs on others (or harm them due to your beliefs), I really have no problem with Chrisitianity. Yes, I think its short-sighted and a whimsical life philosophy, but if it helps you be more happy, and more “productive”, then follow it.
Unfortunately, I think religioun has for a long time and still today continues to seep over into government and hence into the laws and actions of our leaders. I see major potential problems in the future due to this as well.
If you have any more problems keep talking or we could settle it your way:
You go get your theologians and I will go get some of the best philosophers; we will see who leaves stumped.
[quote]haney wrote:
If evolution is just a theory, and so far that is all it is. Then why does it belong in a science class and the theory of creation does not?
[/quote]
Uhhh. Because it is a SCIENTIFIC theory about the nature of species and their development. The notion of evolution is scientifically testable, whereas creation is not.
Well, because one is SCIENCE and the other is FAITH. If you want to discuss creation- great, have a good old time- just do it in a religion class-not in a SCIENCE class.
BTW, science is the PROCESS of discovering the truth. To call it an art somewhat distorts its true intent.
[quote]jnd wrote:
Uhhh. Because it is a SCIENTIFIC theory about the nature of species and their development. The notion of evolution is scientifically testable, whereas creation is not.[/quote]
It is testable? For something to be tested by science it has to be repeatable(i.e. Theory A is most likely is true because the circumstances can be reproduced).I forgot that we have been able to test evolution and get it to repeat… oh wait we have not been able to. If you want to teach science that is true, and only what can be tested and true then we will have a lot of short science classes.
Just a nice little reminder that science does not have all the answers. History cannot be put up to the scientific method of testing does that mean History it just not true?
[quote]
Well, because one is SCIENCE and the other is FAITH. If you want to discuss creation- great, have a good old time- just do it in a religion class-not in a SCIENCE class.
BTW, science is the PROCESS of discovering the truth. To call it an art somewhat distorts its true [/quote]
That is great. The problem with only teaching evolution is people take a dogmatic approach that evolution is the only true THEORY because it is taught in a science class. What if creation is true? What will we teach in science class about how things came about? I would assume at that point it would be Creation. If they are both theories then they both deserve equal time in a class room, or neither of them do.
Forgive me for using the word art instead of process. I assumed that you would be able to clearly understand they idea I was trying to convey. The idea that science is in search of the truth and only the truth.
vandystudent18
Not that the answer to your question would change your mind. I have no doubt you could argue with anyone for hours about almost any subject you choose since you are studying philosophy.
The Biblical answer is God did not create man to be imperfect. He created a perfect place with a perfect life, and a perfect body. Gave us free will(i.e. the image of God) and told us we could choose to obey or not. We chose to not obey. God had already told us what would happen if we did not obey Him, and that is why those things happen.
As far as God being just it is a very complex question that requires a lot of correct wording, and a lot of theology.
I can give you an answer, but it will take a lot of time. If you really want to know you can PM me. This topic is one that could us a long time for you to see where the Christian perspective is coming from.
If evolution takes as much time as they say, how are you going to test it?
Just askin’.
Me Solomon Grundy
Haney,
Well first of all, let me say that you come across as a humble and courteous person. For that, I would gladly appreciate talking with you on a PM some day or whatever (even aim if it saves you time). I am a strong believer in several ethics; just not Christian moral. I also believe there are many things that are unexplainable and unknown about our existance and the capacity of our knowledge. You said “The Biblical answer is God did not create man to be imperfect. He created a perfect place with a perfect life, and a perfect body. Gave us free will(i.e. the image of God) and told us we could choose to obey or not. We chose to not obey. God had already told us what would happen if we did not obey Him, and that is why those things happen.” See, I am having a hard time with this free will concept, because even if it did/does exist, God still gave us the CAPACITY to choose. It seems fairly rational that if he made the perfect environment and life for us, he should have just given us the perfect mindframe (or choice). And why would he give us choice, when he would know that the only other option besides a perfect decision was the decision to shy away from him? So it seems as if he almost intended that. I also don’t see why if everything was perfectly laid out, we would have any reason to digress from his order? Now onto a more scientific point of view, determinists believe everything is due to a cause. And several stimuli do play into our attitudes; genetics, lifestyle, experiences, etc are not the only things that play into our personality and decisions, but also such factors as neurophysiology and a certain amount is still unattributed. I just do not see how humans would have nor should have been responsible if an event like that ever did play out. Thanks though for your input.
Actually, evolution epitomizes the very worst that science has to offer! However, since it’s the best thing that science has in this area it has been fully accepted by academe.
Creationism is the very best that Christianity has to offer in this area. However, since it can never be proven we will have a permanent divide.
Christianity is mythology… Teaching stories to help people understand the difference between right and wrong. All religions are mythology though. They also all have a common thread. Since basically all world religions have a universal theme, isn’t it possible that people all intuit God differently, in a frame of reference that is relavent to their experience? Joseph Campbell called all the different dieties “masks” of God. Perhaps there is one god, but there are many paths which all lead to the same ultimate goal.
Obviously science does not possess all the answers, and it doesn’t portend to. However, if you read that rather length post about evolution vs. creationism, you will see that creationists only tactic is to attack any perceived flaws in the evolution theory. So they aren’t testing anything whatsoever. Just trying to advance their dogma. And besides, who is to say that evolution isn’t testable? How do you think they came up with the theory? It didn’t just pop out of thin air. Perhaps since it happens so slowly we can’t observe it in real time, but it can and HAS been tested exhaustively by thousands of scientists.
Back to topic though, comparing homosexuality (which is really just a biological preference that some have and most don’t) to serious deviants like people who practice bestiality is not a fair comparison. Again I pose the question which no one has bothered to answer… How does it hurt hetero marriage if gays are permitted a civil union under the eyes of the state so that they have all the property rights, etc. of a regular married couple? I think that it only really disturbs a bunch of people who have too much time on their hands and don’t mind their own business. I personally could care less if two full grown, consenting adults of the same sex get hitched. Why can’t people just live and let live? What psychological need does it satisfy to impose your beliefs on someone else?
This raises yet another topic about something I have always disliked about organized religion. The need to convert “non-believers” (translated, non-Christians who probably are perfectly happy and spiritually secure about their beliefs). The entire concept of missionary work seems to me to be very presumptuous and arrogant. It says, “You are too stupid to make up your own mind about your immortal soul, so I am going to convert you, with force if necessary”.
Another thing that I find interesting is the “love triangle” between the faiths focused on the god of Abraham. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all share much of the same scripture, i.e., the same old testament. Why is it that all three of the religions based on the same roots are all the most warmongering, bent on converting others, and aggressive of all the world religions? The amount of blood spilled in God’s name is unmeasurable, and interestingly, all spilled in the name of the same root God. Right now we are friends of the Israelis and enemies of Islam, but the Muslims and the Jews once both lived together in peace before the Crusades, and in fact fought against the Christians side by side defending Jerusalem to their deaths. I just don’t get it. To sound completely cheesy and right out of the 1960’s, “why can’t we all just get along?”
[quote]Roy Batty wrote:
Christianity is mythology… Teaching stories to help people understand the difference between right and wrong. All religions are mythology though. They also all have a common thread. Since basically all world religions have a universal theme, isn’t it possible that people all intuit God differently, in a frame of reference that is relavent to their experience? Joseph Campbell called all the different dieties “masks” of God. Perhaps there is one god, but there are many paths which all lead to the same ultimate goal.
Obviously science does not possess all the answers, and it doesn’t portend to. However, if you read that rather length post about evolution vs. creationism, you will see that creationists only tactic is to attack any perceived flaws in the evolution theory. So they aren’t testing anything whatsoever. Just trying to advance their dogma. And besides, who is to say that evolution isn’t testable? How do you think they came up with the theory? It didn’t just pop out of thin air. Perhaps since it happens so slowly we can’t observe it in real time, but it can and HAS been tested exhaustively by thousands of scientists.
Back to topic though, comparing homosexuality (which is really just a biological preference that some have and most don’t) to serious deviants like people who practice bestiality is not a fair comparison. Again I pose the question which no one has bothered to answer… How does it hurt hetero marriage if gays are permitted a civil union under the eyes of the state so that they have all the property rights, etc. of a regular married couple? I think that it only really disturbs a bunch of people who have too much time on their hands and don’t mind their own business. I personally could care less if two full grown, consenting adults of the same sex get hitched. Why can’t people just live and let live? What psychological need does it satisfy to impose your beliefs on someone else?
This raises yet another topic about something I have always disliked about organized religion. The need to convert “non-believers” (translated, non-Christians who probably are perfectly happy and spiritually secure about their beliefs). The entire concept of missionary work seems to me to be very presumptuous and arrogant. It says, “You are too stupid to make up your own mind about your immortal soul, so I am going to convert you, with force if necessary”.
Another thing that I find interesting is the “love triangle” between the faiths focused on the god of Abraham. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all share much of the same scripture, i.e., the same old testament. Why is it that all three of the religions based on the same roots are all the most warmongering, bent on converting others, and aggressive of all the world religions? The amount of blood spilled in God’s name is unmeasurable, and interestingly, all spilled in the name of the same root God. Right now we are friends of the Israelis and enemies of Islam, but the Muslims and the Jews once both lived together in peace before the Crusades, and in fact fought against the Christians side by side defending Jerusalem to their deaths. I just don’t get it. To sound completely cheesy and right out of the 1960’s, “why can’t we all just get along?”[/quote]
Mythology to you, not so to others. Why don’t you respect that fact? Would it be fitting and proper for you to attack any other sort of organization, minority group etc? No. Chill.
You are right, Zeb, I am not meaning to come off like I am attacking Christianity. I do have some issues with all organized religion, and that was more the point of my thread. The main point is that I wouldn’t really care what anyone believed if they didn’t feel obligated to convert everyone else. I really do “live and let live”… It is my philosophy. But I have to get up in people’s faces when they challenge my (or anyone’s) right to do so by imposing their narrow interpretation of moral behavior as deemed by their diety. Some orthodox Jews or conservative Christians don’t think that they should ever have sex unless they are attempting to procreate, and they shouldn’t enjoy themselves either, hence some use a blanket with a hole in it. How sad is that? Now, by their definition, just about everyone in here is a filthy, immoral sinner. I don’t have a problem with people’s moral beliefs as long as they don’t want to force me to live by them.
[quote]Roy Batty wrote:
You are right, Zeb, I am not meaning to come off like I am attacking Christianity. I do have some issues with all organized religion, and that was more the point of my thread. The main point is that I wouldn’t really care what anyone believed if they didn’t feel obligated to convert everyone else. I really do “live and let live”… It is my philosophy. But I have to get up in people’s faces when they challenge my (or anyone’s) right to do so by imposing their narrow interpretation of moral behavior as deemed by their diety. Some orthodox Jews or conservative Christians don’t think that they should ever have sex unless they are attempting to procreate, and they shouldn’t enjoy themselves either, hence some use a blanket with a hole in it. How sad is that? Now, by their definition, just about everyone in here is a filthy, immoral sinner. I don’t have a problem with people’s moral beliefs as long as they don’t want to force me to live by them.[/quote]
Yea…that sex through a blanket deal is pretty odd. However, one man sticking his penis up another mans butt is odd too. No? How come you never commented on that? Odd.
Zeb,
I didn’t say that wasn’t odd. Personally it grosses me out because I know what I like and it is just a foreign concept to me. My point is, I don’t judge people for prefering that to what I personally prefer, just like I don’t prefer to have sex through a hole in a blanket. Everyone has varying levels of morality. Where do you suggest that the lines be drawn? To you gay acts are immoral, to a quaker, you are immoral. To some gay people, oral sex is immoral. We come in all shapes and sizes. I am just saying that I am not one to judge people for that.