Has anyone pointed out that NOT HAVING a religion is also a religion?
That's what I love about shirt-sleeve agnostics and athiests -- they argue "no religion in schools" but can't accept the idea that they want religion taught as well. I think that the reasonable thing to do is to make sure that there isn't a bias toward one belief system or another, or that we're fair to all.
Especially to those Satan-worshippers who feel the need to have human sacrifice. Their views are important!
Has anyone pointed out that NOT HAVING a religion is also a religion?
That is incorrect.
Quote:
That's what I love about shirt-sleeve agnostics and athiests -- they argue "no religion in schools" but can't accept the idea that they want religion taught as well.
First of all, that is a generalization. You are confusing freethinking with institutional secularism. Not only are not all agnostics/atheists institutional secularists, but many religious people and Christians are institutional secularists. Secondly, not teaching religion in school is simply not teaching religion. You use ridiculous and utterly faulty logic. See previous.
Quote:
I think that the reasonable thing to do is to make sure that there isn't a bias toward one belief system or another, or that we're fair to all.
In my opinion, the reasonable thing to do is not fund education with tax money, what is known as the public education system. But that's a little off-topic.
Has anyone pointed out that NOT HAVING a religion is also a religion?
Hardcore atheism is like a religion. But not having a religion is not a religion. At all. There are no rules, no dogma and no hard-and-fast beliefs associated with not having a religion.
Quote:
That's what I love about shirt-sleeve agnostics and athiests -- they argue "no religion in schools" but can't accept the idea that they want religion taught as well.
I have no idea what this sentence means.
Quote:
I think that the reasonable thing to do is to make sure that there isn't a bias toward one belief system or another, or that we're fair to all.
An honest teaching of Christianity in public schools would cause Promise Keeper riots.
As I said before, God is so large and omnipotent that He can do anything...including confuse us as to how He operates.
I don't have all the answers, and my little story was a very simplified version of how I think things work. I've actually thought about writing a book someday. Even if it's not published, those who follow after me might have an idea about how my mind worked.
Anyway, maybe saying that God set up the universe as a "game" is a wrong way of phrasing it. Maybe the "ultimate omnipotency challenge" is a better thing to call it. Yes, God knew what was going to happen, but that doesn't mean he set it up to go a certain way.
And regarding God being omnipotent so no matter what, he caused certain events to happen, ponder this: God doesn't control a lot of things after he sets them in motion, like the weather. Do you think God cares to make every thunderstorm that crops up? I don't think so.
Same thing with humanity. He started things off and let it go from there. He knew what would happen, but allowed us to make the choices for them to happen.
Again, this is all too complex to explain, and very honestly there's a lot of it that I haven't totally thought out yet. But that's the groundwork. If you disagree with it, fine. I'm just saying that in my faith/logic, that's what I've figured out and decided upon.
As I said before, God is so large and omnipotent that He can do anything...including confuse us as to how He operates.
True enough, but is there any basis for such a desire on God's part in any scripture? None that I can recall.
Quote:
And regarding God being omnipotent so no matter what, he caused certain events to happen, ponder this: God doesn't control a lot of things after he sets them in motion, like the weather. Do you think God cares to make every thunderstorm that crops up? I don't think so.
All things are in motion and will be until the end. God knew at the very instant of creation what would happen 700 trillion later. God knew about every single chemical and photosynthetic reaction that would go on inside the ivy plant that sits on top of the bookcase in my living room.
Quote:
Same thing with humanity. He started things off and let it go from there. He knew what would happen, but allowed us to make the choices for them to happen.
So God merely sees the end result of a plane of existence he chose not to know about (while remaining omnipotent)?
I've been thinking about the whole tolerance thing lately.
My belief is that homosexual activity weakens society, so I'm against it.
On the other hand, I have nothing wrong with other people supporting gay rights. I can see where they are coming from and their cause of tolerance and equality is noble. I mean to say that it is noble so long as they believe that it is beneficial to society.
However, even though I am against homosexuality, I know that homosexual activity isn't going to go away, so the question comes down to, what do you do about the problem (the problem is people are weakening society by participating in homosexual activities)?
My solution for the problem is to allow marriage/civil unions between any two adults and then encourage abstinence before marriage/civil union and fidelity after marriage/civil union. I think that would be beneficial to society and promote tolerance.
I think that Christian religions should teach tolerance, but they should also "proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children." (The Family: A Proclamation to the World)
All Christian religions welcome people who sin. Many Christian religions have a standard by which members are to live, which is good. Christian religions should in no way accept or condone homosexual behavior any more than adultery, or covetness are accepted.
------
Well, I'm late for Family Home Evening, singles ward style, so catch you all later.
I think that it's wonderful that the secular community shares a fundamental conviction of tolerance and fairness, but they've been sold a load of cobblers in regard to Jesus' message. He wasn't here simply to tell people to be nice to each other...
Not that I think any particular interpretation of Christianity is all that appealing, but if you think the "faith, not deeds" version of Christianity is any more appealing or less likely to induce negative reactions, you've got another thought coming. At least I can appreciate the end results of a religion that teaches people to be kind to one another, even if the dogma that convinces them to be nice seems silly to me.
If the dogma is absurd, and being kind isn't even that important a part of the message, I wouldn't weep over such a message drifting into the realm of historical curiosity.
Quote:
...My friend said "I don't believe in a God who would send me to Hell" but he didn't say "I believe in a God who would let his only Son die to save me from going to Hell". The idea of a dark and angry God isn't wrong, but it's an unfair characterization.
What's unfair about it? The two ideas go hand in hand. I quite frankly have no appreciation for (the concept of) a God who lets some part of himself be killed to play out some weird non-sensical formula for salvation that He Himself devised, to somehow help us be saved from His own over-wrought wrath.
I agree with everything you just said Carol. Most (not all) of the church-going people that I've come across go for the wrong reasons (i.e. fear of a grim afterlife) instead of a firm desire to do right by others. In fact, most act completely different outside of church, and I find this extremely unacceptable. Even though I grew up in a Baptist/Methodist environment, I am decidedly agnostic, because I see no evidence supporting or rejecting a supreme creator; I do tend to lean towards the existence of a deity in that I cannot begin to explain the origin of the universe, but in no way do I believe in the Bible's view that God requires us to worship him in return for salvation (I'm more of a deist in this respect). Instead, I believe in doing right by your fellow man, regardless of whether or not a rewarding afterlife awaits.
Hi Cooop -
It's nice to find someone who agrees.
The most adamantly "religious" people I've ever known were almost all extremely judgmental and condemning of others.
This attitude is SO NOT what ANY religion should engender.
To me, if religion deals with anything, it should deal with LOVE. That a truly GOOD person would love other people for the potential goodness in them. He would NOT be judgmental, dismissive, condemning; but would see that each person is struggling in his own way to find happiness; that the struggle of some people is on a more elevated plane than the struggle of others, because of the capacity of their intellect and education.
I see "God" as an entity of pure love. I see reflections of this purity in the beauty and marvels of our planet and all its creatures.
The marvels of a spider spinning an intricate web; the amazing nest built by a small bird in one of my trees; the incredible physiology of our bodies; the interwovenness of all natural systems. The beauty of all this makes me feel there is an entity of love as the original Source.
I feel 'He' has a timeless omniscience, an awareness of all things that have happened, and that ever will happen. That in His "consciousness", all of the things that we see in the context of time, already 'ARE'. The past, the present, the future all exist in his consciousness simultaneously.
Some people believe we are determined. But I believe that we have what passes for 'free will'. Though, either way, it doesn't much matter. Giving whatever it is we have a 'name' will not change what it is, its nature.
The fact that people do evil things makes me believe we have free will, the ability to choose between one course of action and another.
People who do evil things might have been emotionally-damaged in their upbringing. They are morally deficient, and are lacking in the compassion that most of us have for our fellow creatures. Their character could also be the result of some genetic deficiency; or a brain chemical imbalance; or a defective or damaged part of the brain.
But I certainly don't believe in a devil or Satan. I think that is ridiculous. No offense to anyone who believes in such things. I'm just stating my opinion.
My belief is that homosexual activity weakens society, so I'm against it.
I thought your post was thoughtful, but I find the relevance of society in your ethical evaluations interesting. I'm sure you'd agree that there are many things that will destabilize a society and throughout history these have been laudible goals despite their effects on society. I'm quite sure Mormonism could weaken the general religious solidarity of some middle eastern countries, but I don't think that is an argument against the right of people to practice it if they choose.
Personally, I believe ethics transcend societal concerns and I am only obliged to obey rules of society that are beneficial to me and mine. Of course, this usually leads theists to create strawmen representations of agnostics as being short-term selfish, sociopaths, but in reality a rational secularist can cite many reasons to obey laws an uphold society because it is in their long term interest.
Good post from a Mormon. Way to represent the LDS, brother!
CTR, baby.
I am not at all down with the idea that homosexuality weakens society, I think it makes no sense, but a very reasonable and thoughtful (read: not-Baptist) post.
Look at it from the purely practical standpoint: If everyone in society immediately became homosexual, how would civilization continue? Hardly anyone would reproduce with anyone else and most of humanity would die off.
Our pieces and parts fit together that way for a reason, ya'll.
Look at it from the purely practical standpoint: If everyone in society immediately became homosexual, how would civilization continue? Hardly anyone would reproduce with anyone else and most of humanity would die off.
Our pieces and parts fit together that way for a reason, ya'll.
Are you really so worried that homosexuality is so overwhelmingly appealing that just a little too much tolerance and we'll all convert and extinct ourselves?
We're in far, far more danger from overpopulation than underpopulation. A little less breeding would do us good.
As for how "parts fit together"... so what? If man were meant to fly, we'd have wings, right? Typing messages into your computer is way, way more unnatural than anything people do using only the body parts they were born with. Besides, if how body parts fit together is such a big deal, why is homosexual behavior seen in other animal species, including other primates and dolphins?
In the animal kingdom, exclusively homosexual behavior will obviously be selected against. To the extent that it is genetic, those genes would be self defeating.
It could be argued that societal pressure to conform to heterosexual norms might actually increase the tendency toward homosexuality, since those who have a genetic predisposition to exclusively homosexual behavior would go against their biological impulses in order to conform and gain acceptance, and thus would continue their genetic predisposition in the gene pool.
Personally, I believe ethics transcend societal concerns and I am only obliged to obey rules of society that are beneficial to me and mine.
Ethics are important. Murder is outlawed for three basic reasons. First, it is harmful to society. Second, it infringes on a person's right to live. Third, the people of our society agree upon the first two points.
Before I make my next point, I will define two words.
Word one: Fornication
When I say fornication I mean one of two things.
Religiously, fornication is voluntary sexual intercourse between unmarried persons. If a particular religion does not recognize a marriage, or legal union, than it is fornication according to that religion despite any legal union that the couple may have.
Politically, fornication is voluntary sexual intercourse between people who are not legally bound, either by marriage or by civil union.
Word two: Adultery
When I say adultery, I mean one of two things.
Religiously, adultery is voluntary sexual intercourse by a person with another than the person's spouse. In order to commit adultery, a person must be within the bounds of a marriage which is recognized by the religion; otherwise it is fornication.
Politically, adultery is voluntary sexual intercourse by a person with another than the person's legal spouse.
Adultery and fornication are (1) harmful to society and (2) infringe upon an unborn child's right to be raised by a mother and father. However, (3) not enough people agree upon those two points to make it as forbidden as murder is. Thus adultery and fornication are difficult to prohibit. It is also difficult to prohibit because of the nature of the activities; being performed privately, between two consenting adults. I view these two activities as very harmful to society and any means to reduce them would be very beneficial.
Now as for homosexuality. I don't view homosexual desires to be sinful or harmful to society. I do view homosexual intercourse as both sinful and harmful to society. However, I do not view homosexual intercourse to be as harmful as either adultery or fornication. It would be great if there was no homosexual intercourse, but that is not a realistic goal because there is no reasonable way of achieving it. It would be more harmful to try to make everyone heterosexual than to simply work with homosexuals. We must strive for a moral, good society, but we must be careful as to what activities we restrict.
I am Christian with corresponding values. I am against adultery, fornication, and homosexual intercourse. I oppose the recognition of homosexual unions within Christianity, but I promote the recognition of homosexual unions within the government. I feel completely at peace with my positions both religiously and politically.
The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man?s questions about the universe._ Evolution is not a good theory?it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.
now, some questions for evolutionists:
asterisk (*).
Where did the space for the universe come from?
Where did matter come from?
Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Single-celled animals evolve?
Fish change to amphibians?
Amphibians change to reptiles?
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body?s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it?
There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
*How did photosynthesis evolve?
*How did thought evolve?
*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
Comments
That's what I love about shirt-sleeve agnostics and athiests -- they argue "no religion in schools" but can't accept the idea that they want religion taught as well. I think that the reasonable thing to do is to make sure that there isn't a bias toward one belief system or another, or that we're fair to all.
Especially to those Satan-worshippers who feel the need to have human sacrifice. Their views are important!
Originally posted by finagain
Has anyone pointed out that NOT HAVING a religion is also a religion?
That is incorrect.
That's what I love about shirt-sleeve agnostics and athiests -- they argue "no religion in schools" but can't accept the idea that they want religion taught as well.
First of all, that is a generalization. You are confusing freethinking with institutional secularism. Not only are not all agnostics/atheists institutional secularists, but many religious people and Christians are institutional secularists. Secondly, not teaching religion in school is simply not teaching religion. You use ridiculous and utterly faulty logic. See previous.
I think that the reasonable thing to do is to make sure that there isn't a bias toward one belief system or another, or that we're fair to all.
In my opinion, the reasonable thing to do is not fund education with tax money, what is known as the public education system. But that's a little off-topic.
Has anyone pointed out that NOT HAVING a religion is also a religion?
Hardcore atheism is like a religion. But not having a religion is not a religion. At all. There are no rules, no dogma and no hard-and-fast beliefs associated with not having a religion.
That's what I love about shirt-sleeve agnostics and athiests -- they argue "no religion in schools" but can't accept the idea that they want religion taught as well.
I have no idea what this sentence means.
I think that the reasonable thing to do is to make sure that there isn't a bias toward one belief system or another, or that we're fair to all.
An honest teaching of Christianity in public schools would cause Promise Keeper riots.
I don't have all the answers, and my little story was a very simplified version of how I think things work. I've actually thought about writing a book someday. Even if it's not published, those who follow after me might have an idea about how my mind worked.
Anyway, maybe saying that God set up the universe as a "game" is a wrong way of phrasing it. Maybe the "ultimate omnipotency challenge" is a better thing to call it. Yes, God knew what was going to happen, but that doesn't mean he set it up to go a certain way.
And regarding God being omnipotent so no matter what, he caused certain events to happen, ponder this: God doesn't control a lot of things after he sets them in motion, like the weather. Do you think God cares to make every thunderstorm that crops up? I don't think so.
Same thing with humanity. He started things off and let it go from there. He knew what would happen, but allowed us to make the choices for them to happen.
Again, this is all too complex to explain, and very honestly there's a lot of it that I haven't totally thought out yet. But that's the groundwork. If you disagree with it, fine. I'm just saying that in my faith/logic, that's what I've figured out and decided upon.
As I said before, God is so large and omnipotent that He can do anything...including confuse us as to how He operates.
True enough, but is there any basis for such a desire on God's part in any scripture? None that I can recall.
And regarding God being omnipotent so no matter what, he caused certain events to happen, ponder this: God doesn't control a lot of things after he sets them in motion, like the weather. Do you think God cares to make every thunderstorm that crops up? I don't think so.
All things are in motion and will be until the end. God knew at the very instant of creation what would happen 700 trillion later. God knew about every single chemical and photosynthetic reaction that would go on inside the ivy plant that sits on top of the bookcase in my living room.
Same thing with humanity. He started things off and let it go from there. He knew what would happen, but allowed us to make the choices for them to happen.
So God merely sees the end result of a plane of existence he chose not to know about (while remaining omnipotent)?
I've been thinking about the whole tolerance thing lately.
My belief is that homosexual activity weakens society, so I'm against it.
On the other hand, I have nothing wrong with other people supporting gay rights. I can see where they are coming from and their cause of tolerance and equality is noble. I mean to say that it is noble so long as they believe that it is beneficial to society.
However, even though I am against homosexuality, I know that homosexual activity isn't going to go away, so the question comes down to, what do you do about the problem (the problem is people are weakening society by participating in homosexual activities)?
My solution for the problem is to allow marriage/civil unions between any two adults and then encourage abstinence before marriage/civil union and fidelity after marriage/civil union. I think that would be beneficial to society and promote tolerance.
I think that Christian religions should teach tolerance, but they should also "proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children." (The Family: A Proclamation to the World)
All Christian religions welcome people who sin. Many Christian religions have a standard by which members are to live, which is good. Christian religions should in no way accept or condone homosexual behavior any more than adultery, or covetness are accepted.
------
Well, I'm late for Family Home Evening, singles ward style, so catch you all later.
Alexander the Great
Originally posted by drewprops
I think that it's wonderful that the secular community shares a fundamental conviction of tolerance and fairness, but they've been sold a load of cobblers in regard to Jesus' message. He wasn't here simply to tell people to be nice to each other...
Not that I think any particular interpretation of Christianity is all that appealing, but if you think the "faith, not deeds" version of Christianity is any more appealing or less likely to induce negative reactions, you've got another thought coming. At least I can appreciate the end results of a religion that teaches people to be kind to one another, even if the dogma that convinces them to be nice seems silly to me.
If the dogma is absurd, and being kind isn't even that important a part of the message, I wouldn't weep over such a message drifting into the realm of historical curiosity.
...My friend said "I don't believe in a God who would send me to Hell" but he didn't say "I believe in a God who would let his only Son die to save me from going to Hell". The idea of a dark and angry God isn't wrong, but it's an unfair characterization.
What's unfair about it? The two ideas go hand in hand. I quite frankly have no appreciation for (the concept of) a God who lets some part of himself be killed to play out some weird non-sensical formula for salvation that He Himself devised, to somehow help us be saved from His own over-wrought wrath.
Originally posted by cooop
I agree with everything you just said Carol. Most (not all) of the church-going people that I've come across go for the wrong reasons (i.e. fear of a grim afterlife) instead of a firm desire to do right by others. In fact, most act completely different outside of church, and I find this extremely unacceptable. Even though I grew up in a Baptist/Methodist environment, I am decidedly agnostic, because I see no evidence supporting or rejecting a supreme creator; I do tend to lean towards the existence of a deity in that I cannot begin to explain the origin of the universe, but in no way do I believe in the Bible's view that God requires us to worship him in return for salvation (I'm more of a deist in this respect). Instead, I believe in doing right by your fellow man, regardless of whether or not a rewarding afterlife awaits.
Hi Cooop -
It's nice to find someone who agrees.
The most adamantly "religious" people I've ever known were almost all extremely judgmental and condemning of others.
This attitude is SO NOT what ANY religion should engender.
To me, if religion deals with anything, it should deal with LOVE. That a truly GOOD person would love other people for the potential goodness in them. He would NOT be judgmental, dismissive, condemning; but would see that each person is struggling in his own way to find happiness; that the struggle of some people is on a more elevated plane than the struggle of others, because of the capacity of their intellect and education.
I see "God" as an entity of pure love. I see reflections of this purity in the beauty and marvels of our planet and all its creatures.
The marvels of a spider spinning an intricate web; the amazing nest built by a small bird in one of my trees; the incredible physiology of our bodies; the interwovenness of all natural systems. The beauty of all this makes me feel there is an entity of love as the original Source.
I feel 'He' has a timeless omniscience, an awareness of all things that have happened, and that ever will happen. That in His "consciousness", all of the things that we see in the context of time, already 'ARE'. The past, the present, the future all exist in his consciousness simultaneously.
Some people believe we are determined. But I believe that we have what passes for 'free will'. Though, either way, it doesn't much matter. Giving whatever it is we have a 'name' will not change what it is, its nature.
The fact that people do evil things makes me believe we have free will, the ability to choose between one course of action and another.
People who do evil things might have been emotionally-damaged in their upbringing. They are morally deficient, and are lacking in the compassion that most of us have for our fellow creatures. Their character could also be the result of some genetic deficiency; or a brain chemical imbalance; or a defective or damaged part of the brain.
But I certainly don't believe in a devil or Satan. I think that is ridiculous. No offense to anyone who believes in such things. I'm just stating my opinion.
Originally posted by Ganondorf
Because women are generally irrational.
Religions are irrational.
I think men and women believe in roughly same % in any / all / whichever religion.
Originally posted by tonton
Ahh... the old BS Catch 22 about speaking out against intolerance.
I concur, it truly is moronic (oxymoronic that is) to suggest that tolerance requires tolerating intolerance.
Reminds me of...
There are no absolutes (except, of course, this one).
God can do anything, except...
etc....
Originally posted by Alexander the Great
My belief is that homosexual activity weakens society, so I'm against it.
I thought your post was thoughtful, but I find the relevance of society in your ethical evaluations interesting. I'm sure you'd agree that there are many things that will destabilize a society and throughout history these have been laudible goals despite their effects on society. I'm quite sure Mormonism could weaken the general religious solidarity of some middle eastern countries, but I don't think that is an argument against the right of people to practice it if they choose.
Personally, I believe ethics transcend societal concerns and I am only obliged to obey rules of society that are beneficial to me and mine. Of course, this usually leads theists to create strawmen representations of agnostics as being short-term selfish, sociopaths, but in reality a rational secularist can cite many reasons to obey laws an uphold society because it is in their long term interest.
CTR, baby.
I am not at all down with the idea that homosexuality weakens society, I think it makes no sense, but a very reasonable and thoughtful (read: not-Baptist) post.
Look at it from the purely practical standpoint: If everyone in society immediately became homosexual, how would civilization continue? Hardly anyone would reproduce with anyone else and most of humanity would die off.
Our pieces and parts fit together that way for a reason, ya'll.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Look at it from the purely practical standpoint: If everyone in society immediately became homosexual, how would civilization continue? Hardly anyone would reproduce with anyone else and most of humanity would die off.
Our pieces and parts fit together that way for a reason, ya'll.
Are you really so worried that homosexuality is so overwhelmingly appealing that just a little too much tolerance and we'll all convert and extinct ourselves?
We're in far, far more danger from overpopulation than underpopulation. A little less breeding would do us good.
As for how "parts fit together"... so what? If man were meant to fly, we'd have wings, right? Typing messages into your computer is way, way more unnatural than anything people do using only the body parts they were born with. Besides, if how body parts fit together is such a big deal, why is homosexual behavior seen in other animal species, including other primates and dolphins?
In the animal kingdom, exclusively homosexual behavior will obviously be selected against. To the extent that it is genetic, those genes would be self defeating.
It could be argued that societal pressure to conform to heterosexual norms might actually increase the tendency toward homosexuality, since those who have a genetic predisposition to exclusively homosexual behavior would go against their biological impulses in order to conform and gain acceptance, and thus would continue their genetic predisposition in the gene pool.
What if everyone turned male?
Terrible argument.
i should be more supportive, but i almost always tell them "ick, too much information" right after they say that...
love is a good thing...i could never be gay, just not hardwired that way...but i would never tell someone they are wrong if they are wired like that
g
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Personally, I believe ethics transcend societal concerns and I am only obliged to obey rules of society that are beneficial to me and mine.
Ethics are important. Murder is outlawed for three basic reasons. First, it is harmful to society. Second, it infringes on a person's right to live. Third, the people of our society agree upon the first two points.
Before I make my next point, I will define two words.
Word one: Fornication
When I say fornication I mean one of two things.
Religiously, fornication is voluntary sexual intercourse between unmarried persons. If a particular religion does not recognize a marriage, or legal union, than it is fornication according to that religion despite any legal union that the couple may have.
Politically, fornication is voluntary sexual intercourse between people who are not legally bound, either by marriage or by civil union.
Word two: Adultery
When I say adultery, I mean one of two things.
Religiously, adultery is voluntary sexual intercourse by a person with another than the person's spouse. In order to commit adultery, a person must be within the bounds of a marriage which is recognized by the religion; otherwise it is fornication.
Politically, adultery is voluntary sexual intercourse by a person with another than the person's legal spouse.
Adultery and fornication are (1) harmful to society and (2) infringe upon an unborn child's right to be raised by a mother and father. However, (3) not enough people agree upon those two points to make it as forbidden as murder is. Thus adultery and fornication are difficult to prohibit. It is also difficult to prohibit because of the nature of the activities; being performed privately, between two consenting adults. I view these two activities as very harmful to society and any means to reduce them would be very beneficial.
Now as for homosexuality. I don't view homosexual desires to be sinful or harmful to society. I do view homosexual intercourse as both sinful and harmful to society. However, I do not view homosexual intercourse to be as harmful as either adultery or fornication. It would be great if there was no homosexual intercourse, but that is not a realistic goal because there is no reasonable way of achieving it. It would be more harmful to try to make everyone heterosexual than to simply work with homosexuals. We must strive for a moral, good society, but we must be careful as to what activities we restrict.
I am Christian with corresponding values. I am against adultery, fornication, and homosexual intercourse. I oppose the recognition of homosexual unions within Christianity, but I promote the recognition of homosexual unions within the government. I feel completely at peace with my positions both religiously and politically.
Respectfully,
Alexander the Great
Alexander the Great
Originally posted by groverat
What if everyone turned male?
first of all, how would we all "turn" male?
women aren't gonna just sprout penises, and men won't magically have holes in their loins, right?
if we were all created the same (all male, or all female) then there would have to be a way to reproduce
now, some questions for evolutionists:
asterisk (*).
Where did the space for the universe come from?
Where did matter come from?
Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Single-celled animals evolve?
Fish change to amphibians?
Amphibians change to reptiles?
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
_
How did the intermediate forms live?
When, where, why, how, and from what did:
__ Whales evolve?
__ Sea horses evolve?
__ bats evolve?
__ Eyes evolve?
__ Ears evolve?
__ Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body?s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it?
There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
*How did photosynthesis evolve?
*How did thought evolve?
*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?