fakeitormakeit2

I do like my alone time but I also find it important to spend time with other people. I normally split my weekend up as Friday is for my friends, Saturday is for myself and Sunday is to God/charity. And I try my best to keep it as such, to remain in a healthy balance and not let one thing pour into the next day. Like this weekend since I have SATs Saturday, I'm having my day of solitude on Friday and changing out with my friends on Saturday instead.

Huh? :huh: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right righteous being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper suitable, appropriate most favorable or desired : preferable; also : socially acceptable I believe he's saying that righteousness is not subjective, and there are definitive (objective) truths of what is "right".

Asexuals. Muhahahaha Serious note: Wondering why Christians don't just disregard the old testament and focus on Jesus's teachings. That's what the religion is supposed to be, after all. It's mostly disregarded but the Old Testament is still Scripture which shows the development of the Abrahamic systematic and moral theology. It still has many good points but it has been to read in light of the New Testament for Christians. Completely disregarding it is throwing away "Wisdom" (capital 'w') because we have developed past some parts. Any how, before anyone starts disregarding parts of the Bible, Christians need to start reading it first;as I've heard it brilliantly put, most Christian use their bible like a software license agreement, they just scroll to the bottom without reading it and click 'I Agree'. @Bonkers, well for one thing they cannot be married in a classical definition because they would not be meeting the classical definition and no matter how much one may wish, it would still not be a man and a woman. I also don't think It's completely wrong to force churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc. to marry gays if it contradicts their tradition. As I said, civil unions for all.

(1) Agree with you completely. (2) I've been studying theology for 11 years now (although the first seven years were essentially coloring pictures of saints and being tested on "God/Jesus/Holy Spirit is good"), so I feel I can discuss this. Testament means covenant, not law. While I won't get into all of the "cheesy" details, this simply means that God renewed his promise with his people (all people) in a second covenant (the first being given to Moses and the Jews). The only "rules" that Jesus affirms in the New Testament are the 10 Commandments; to love God with all one's mind, heart, and soul; and to love one another (while ignoring the Old Law as seen in [supposedly for you skeptics] performing miracles [working] on the Sabbath). While, true, we cannot tell what Jesus' stance would be, we can tell that he would be against the intolerance and abuse aimed at homosexuals. That's essentially what I said. And I always say covenant [on Tip.it, so I thought I'd change it up] and I found Law to be interchangeable with it in this instance, because although God makes several covenants to establish and renew His relationship it consists of Law. Linguistically 'diatheke' is closer to a testament or deposition rather than covenant [it's called the Old/New Testament after the Greek word 'diatheke' not the Hebrew word b'rith which means covenant]. By the way, Jesus's "covenant" is not the second, its about the sixth (depending upon what you call a covenant as the generally accepted ones are the covenants of Eden, Adam, Noah, Abraham which was reaffirmed several times i.e. Isaac and Jacob, Moses, the nation of Israel and David).

I enjoy how people quote the Bible to validate why homosexuality is wrong. There are two major problems with that: (1) Not everyone accepts the Bible, no matter how holy I or anyone might else believe it to be, as a medium of morality and therefore cannot be used as a dictation of morality in a public arena unless such moral is logically validated. (2) It is sad few study theology in depth yet many makes large leaping assumptions. Jesus's life, death and resurrection fulfilled the terms of the old Law and he brought the new "Law" or the New Testament. Items in the Old Testament can be considered to have spiritual importance and there is much wisdom [such as the 10 Commandments] and inspiration to be found, but as Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law and His Law [the one he brought] is to be followed. Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexuality so we cannot assume what he would say and there is absolutely nothing in the New Testament other than a few sentences of the authors who signed as Paul. So Christian and atheist alike, do not quote out of context. Edit: Theologically, homosexuality is not defined as wrong. Sex that is considered sinful falls under two classifications: sex not oriented towards human reproduction and sex outside the bounds of marriage. Since marriage is classically defined as between a man and woman in Christianity. Since gay people cannot get married in the classical Christian definition of marriage, therefore it would be sex outside of marriage and not oriented towards reproduction, it is than considered sinful. Gays may not get married in the classical Christian definition. However, I believe that gays should be allowed to be civilly united with equal rights if their conscience clarifies that it is correct to do so. I find it disgusting how some fundamentalists can spout hatred against gays by quoting Leviticus outside the context of Jesus's "completion of the old Law" and yet they neglect the multitude of times in the New Testament [and Old!] that call for followers of God to be tolerant and kind to everyone.

Read bows post, really. I agree with him 24/7. DRs are required by law to treat everyone, even if no insurance. However, they are not required to save anyone's house. All the people were safe obviously. And tbh, if they needed to put out the fire to get the people out of there, they would. It is really shallow to make it sound like doctors help people who cannot pay just because the law requires them to do so. The firefighters have a moral obligation to extinguish fires inside the range of their capacity. What one should or should not do is not dependent upon the law, it just generally correlates, or at least we attempt to make them do so. So it is comparable to a doctor and not refusing to serve someone due to their inability to pay. Just because you can ignore something doesn't mean you should. And shelter is a defined necessity of life so allowing someone's house to burn down in a theoritcal sense is more severe than loosing a limb, as all four limbs are not defined as a necessity of life.

Normally I'm one to say you deserve the consequences of your actions [or lack thereof] but this is just immoral as it deprived someone a basic necessity [of shelter]. This is comparable to a doctor not helping a patient because they cannot pay.

I don't know how reliable this is since its wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry

The dictionary is a wonderful tool, you know. If you're unfamiliar with how it works, it's organized alphabetically and the words on top show what alphabetical section the words on the page fall between. There are even electronic dictionaries in which you search your desired word and the definition comes up. Let me help you with that: The definition of 'religion': "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience." The definition of 'cult': "a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents ." The contrast is quite apparent. In necessity of the definition, a religion is not dogmatic or blind. Bear witness to the illuminating wonders of the all-knowing dictionary.

That it was predictable because mathematically it is almost impossible that we have the only planet inhabited in all of the universe, seeing as how we live on one planet out of seven [sic] planets in our star system, which there are 100 billion star systems in our galaxy and there are more than 100 billion galaxies. I don't see what theism, a metaphysical subject, has to do with alien life form discovery, a physical subject. Some people on this forum just try to inflame tension. You might be surprised to know not all people who believe in God think the earth is 6000yrs old, evolution is a lie and we are the center of the universe. Still yet, some heathens amongst us, dare I say a majority, believe in the sinful Big Bang Theory (except that's not even all that radical, seeing as how a Roman Catholic priest proposed the initial hypothesis). By the way, why do they theorize that liquid water is a necessity of alien existence on a planet? Wouldn't it be possible that other living creatures could have another sustaining substance with their bodies being comprised of different compounds or would that be a stretch to say?

And I'm saying I'm indifferent to the truth of this topic. Morality doesn't factor in to not wanting to form an opinion without facts. Also, pretty sure you are human. I admire you and your lack of stupidity.

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: The bible does not give you your morals, unless you're homophobic and sexist and all the other crap that's in there. You have your own based on society. If you read the bible, you will find out that not even Jesus followed the guidelines of that book <_< Oh you silly ignorant people who make presumptions. Perhaps you should read a bit before you assume. "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law but to fulfill it." Jesus's human life and death was the essential fulfillment and if one says they are a Christian yet all the old laws are still in effect, they might as well not be Christian, as they're missing a large point. There is a pattern of covenants between God and people, every time a covenant is made there are new terms. Jesus always emphasizes the difference between the rules of men, such as the unessential rituals, in comparison what must really be done, i.e. moral action. Hence the story of the Good Samaritan, I'm sure you've heard of it. I despise how often it is recited and paraphrased, and yet most people don't even know in what context it was delivered. Jesus was telling it to an expert on the Law, Jesus laughed at the stupidity of them putting rituals before morals and made the underdog Samaritan, who the Jews would have considered a pagan, the one who acted righteously and morally. So you two posters are both wrong. The bible does give moral guidance [what do you think the parables are? To state one of many deliveries] and Jesus followed all the rules. And @Skeptical, I don't find religion incorrect or "evil" at all. It is an abstract idea. It does not think nor is it conscious, therefore it cannot be evil. Religion in itself is a good thing, as it is unifying, a rallying point for doing good things. However, an evil person can come along and manipulate religion to serve their evil purposes. Then they aren't being religious, they're just being vicious deceivers who wish to fulfill their own materialistic whims. I also don't like how many people refer to the Crusades and pin it on all Christians, which is very ignorant. May I remind you that the Christians of the Far East, Antiochene, Alexandrian, Edessan and Constantinoplean traditions [currently number a quarter of all Christians, which is estimated to be much less than what they use to be pre-complete Islamization] had little to do with it and payed the blunt of the anger meant for the Crusaders. The Crusaders sack Constantinople, now correct me if I'm wrong but people normally don't loot their own cities.

If one were a psychopath and needed to vent their urge in killing innocent defenseless people, than I suggest they skip becoming Dexter and instead become a gynecologist who performs abortions. In all seriousness, I find it really strange that people can even argue wanting or not wanting to "keep" a life, I find it completely ridiculous. People referring to living beings as possessions to kill or keep is beyond me. And people who support abortion would most likely be against killing birthed children just because they don't like the blatancy of the situation. Injecting fully grown-birthed children with a painless solution is more humane than ripping them [in a fetal state] apart piece by piece, which I would presume is extremely painful. And in addition why if it is moral to abort can we not euthanize the senile, as they just consume resources and are a burden. As well as the mentally impaired. While we're at it we might as well euthanize the unemployed and those who suffer from substance abuse, as they are unproductive.

It worked. A lot of thing work or occur. It doesn't mean is was the best/most civil/most peaceful option. Well how do you absolutely know what the best option is without having to try everyone of them? It worked, a more civilized approach may not have. But should we not approach all situations with a peaceful and civil mindset though, even if we know that civility will fail?

It worked. A lot of things work or occur. It doesn't mean is was the best/most civil/most peaceful option.

I find the rebelling colonists were throwing a hissy fit. For so long the Stamp Act was accredited with being the tipping point, but it was repealed. Plus revolt is not a very sophisticated or civilized manner in dealing with national problems, as that only leads to more problems.

There's nothing illogical about it. It may seem extreme, but not illogical. Look at it this way: IF you see an unborn baby as a human life, and you want to protect it at all costs, why should the means of its conception matter? In fact, I'd say it's more illogical to call yourself pro-life but then make an exception for cases such as rape. A life is a life. Well, do pro-life people kill any bugs/insects/viral invaders/plants? Even using anti-biotics is killing. And to say that bacteria isn't a life is just size-ism. Oh - And there are other rights a person has. It's just the deciding factor of which rights triumphs which. Pro-life people aren't Jainists. Why do you breathe, you kill bacteria and insects. And bacteria and plants are not even conscious as far as we can tell. An animal at least like a dog is conscious, but it still lacks the existential consciousness of a human being.

According to a psychologist whose name I can't remember, that kind of thing carries over to humans too. Was something with development stages... Authority stage (Morals determined by strength of authority) For the first few years. Group stage (Morals defined by group beliefs) From then until death for most. Personal stage (Morals defined by personal beliefs) From previous until death in a few individuals. Or something like that. In general, most people are going to have the same beliefs as the group they're a part of, and they aren't going to speak out for fear of being ostracized from it. Early on, people won't do things out of fear of punishment, and that even carries over to modern life in some cases. I probably butchered that theory, too. If anyone knows it, feel free to correct as necessary. I think I know what theory you're talking about. Is it Kohlberg's six stages of morality? Stage 1 is based on punishment and obedience orientation, stage 2 is individualism and exchange, stage 3 is interpersonal relationship development, stage 4 is maintaining social order, stage 5 is social contract and individual rights and the final stage is universal principles of morality.

This. College is different because people are there because they want to be, not because they have to be. Having to pay for optional education is a great way to weed out the [bleep]wads who aren't interested in learning. This is true. Plus I've known plenty of upper class kids who are "rude idiots". I personally support the idea of a noocracy that would yield the best for society, but that would be highly impractical to implement.

Well from what we've observed I'd say no. Animals are conscious but they're not existentially conscious.

This is the exact problem with it though. How exactly do some Western [which I will assume represent all 5 centers of theological development] Theologians decide which stories we should interpret literally, and which ones we cannot? For nearly 2000 years they claimed the story of creation was to be taken literally, it is only now that we have evidence of the Earth's age that they decide to take it as a metaphor. Corrected.

There are many things like this, this is quite old and I find it of no importance. This has no theological bearing and it doesn't matter if water recession is a natural process which occurs due to the moon or perhaps strong winds blew the water aside, or whatever other logical theory be presented [unless one is a fundamentalist]. I rather enjoy when people think that scientific/historical events disprove the Bible when they only correlate and have no impact on the theological lesson. I find it more funny that people think 100% of Christians interpret the Bible literally. Or call them hypocrites when they don't take everything literal, which is cultural/linguistic ignorance and idiocy of assumption on the part of the accuser because Semitic dialogue employs a very heavy use of idioms and sayings. Edit: By the way it's a misconception they crossed at the Red Sea, it was the Sea of Reeds, as the article mentions, in which they crossed. It has since dried up.

I find eating meat a completely healthy, moral and natural thing to do as a human being. Humans are omnivores and their diet should be about 20% meat. I have no problem with vegetarians as long as they don't start telling me how disgusting I am for eating meat. I'm not crazy about meat, but it is an essential part of a varied diet, especially since I cannot eat many types of nuts/seeds. I do however like my lunch to be meat free as it isn't heavy on the stomach, my ideal lunch is a bowl of french onion soup and a panino of provalone, vegetables and pesto with a cappuccino and yogurt with sour cherries for dessert. I just find it a bit silly when people go all out to avoid consuming meat [unless its a fast of some sort].

I am a senior in high school, and an aspiring student of Brown University. I hope to eventually go into corporate law.

They prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year in the US alone. Every day in the US; 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired. In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year. Statistics are nothing more than irrelevant numbers when not placed into context. Numbers fluctuate just because [there doesn't have to be a reason, perhaps less people robbed that year just by chance], perhaps 50% of the population moved away, or perhaps the police department saw an increase of 200 cops that year. Just because the burglary rate dropped that year doesn't mean it should be attributed solely to that firearms law, as it was obviously not the only thing that occurred that year. And how does one estimate 2.5million crimes a year are prevented by guns? That's extremely subjective.