insane

It was just a toy example - here's a better one. Today, a woman in Saudi Arabi was sentenced by law, to 10 lashes for driving a car. It is sanctioned by law, is it then moral to lash a woman 10 times for driving a vehicle? Why can only a living being have rights? What gives you the right to say that? This is an obvious slippery slope (or reductio ad absurdum, your choice)... comparing a fetus to a pencil is a little ridiculous OK. Let's go with your premise - your belief that stealing is wrong is just a personal opinion. Why then, should I not steal? What gives your opinion the power to control, or assign consequences to, my actions? Let's say that the law is based on nothing more than a consensus opinion from a group of elected law-makers. What gives them the right to assign consequences to my actions, when I do not share their personal beliefs? IE. How can you condemn anyone for being against abortions, when it is just your personal belief against theirs? If you truly believe that a pro-choice stance is the only "right" stance, then you must believe that pro-choice being "right" comes from something greater than the collective opinions of the human race. If, (as was alluded to by another poster), you're a moral relativist and think personal beliefs determine morality, then you really have no business telling any pro-lifer to stop attacking abortion clinics because they just have different beliefs (nothing more).

Cheating on your spouse is not wrong in the eyes of the law. Would you say that cheating on your spouse is not an immoral action? And what gives the "law" the authority to define the rights available to a fetus? We don't know what God expects in situations like that. Many Christians claim to know, but the beliefs of many Christians are not biblical and founded on old traditions that have no basis in theology, etc. Additionally, whether or not you agree with a god's moral standing is irrelevant to the existence of said God. Actually, the fact that you believe that any specific action can have a moral index assigned to it goes to show you believe in some sort of higher power.

In the summer, commando owns all.

You're clearly not familiar with Canadian law.

We allow homosexuals to get married, as long as it's a marriage that fits the religious definition. Wait... am I repeating myself? I seriously doubt any Church in its right mind would knowingly allow a gay man to marry a woman. Unless of course what you are saying is that the only rule of marriage is that partners have to be of the opposite sex. Which is obviously untrue. You're probably right... unless the gay man was attempting to live straight or switch preferences. Just because a church would allow it doesn't mean the only rule is opposite sex. Are you suggesting that a homosexual man cannot unconditionally love a woman? And while we're on the topic, what's the secular rule of marriage? It would seem hypocritical to criticize the religious "rule of marriage" when the secular rule of marriage is both partners merely needing to be human. @Ginger, I agree with scenario A.

How is that relevant to the discussion at hand? Sure, I could have produced a lengthy comma delimited list but what difference would that have made? The point is that blacks were persecuted for just being something. Homosexuals arent persecuted for being something (at least by the churches around my area). Its a totally different issue. The only issue in homosexual marriage is that a man cannot marry another man, and a woman cannot marry another woman, regardless of sexual preference. Its not a homosexual issue, its a definition of marriage issue, and I dont know why most people dont see it. Lateralus sees it, and says its a weak point which is true, because then we get into well whats an ethical definition of marriage? which is basically the same debate, but at least weve got correct semantics and a correct question to answer.

Rights aren't about doing whatever you want to do. Even though a homosexual man doesn't want to marry a woman, he can. It might not be fair but we have the same rights. What you're saying is unfair is the definition of marriage, not our rights. Equality != rights. But the discussion was steering towards religious marriage, not legal marriage. We allow homosexuals to get married, as long as it's a marriage that fits the religious definition. Wait... am I repeating myself? Getting a skin graft to avoid physical beatings is different than getting a legal marriage as opposed to a religious marriage to get a marriage certificate.

Gays do have equal rights. Any gay man can marry any woman and any straight man cannot marry any other straight man. It's not an argument of gay rights (or shouldn't be), it's an argument regarding the definition of marriage. So I guess the question is - do you think it immoral for the churches definition of a religiously based marriage = man and woman only? Even when the religion the marriage is based on states it as such?

Note that the Law and the Prophets = all the moral commands written in the old testament. I don't understand how this isn't a fact?

The Bible is not supposed to be a rigid moral code. How are YOU able to decide what the Bible is "supposed to be"? Jesus himself said that loving God and loving others are the most important commandments that need to be followed and that every verse in the Old Testament are based on these two commandments. Now I don't have a Ph.D in philosophy, but "love God and love others" doesn't appear to be a rigid moral code to me.

That statement requires proof. Proof which is currently unavaliable. According to your standards of truth, proof is currently unavailable. But your standards of proof are astronomically high; those that I have never encountered in another person before. Why is that offensive? If we believe the Bible is a source of truth about God and his character, and if we believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, then it is indeed truth about God revealed by God, which fits perfectly the definition for an autobiography. And thanks for the oh so clever pun directed at my username. So you don't believe in anything, then?

It is the absolute or only truth about God's character. Yes, it is. It depends what your standard of proof is.

To all you people bashing the Bible... I'd like to know how much of the Bible you've actually read. And I don't mean going on a website looking up arguments against the Bible that quotes certain parts of it. I mean sitting down with the actual book and reading it. I would argue that it isn't a fact. Many stories and legends are not literally true but have much to offer in the way of morality and general life principles. You saying the Bible is either entirely literal or entirely false is like saying a math textbook is entirely false because of a fictional story it uses to illustrate a true mathematical principle. You have to understand that certain books are used to illustrate a certain type of truth. Math textbooks reveal truth about math, and the Bible reveals truth about God's character. Just like it's ridiculous to suggest an illustrative story invalidates all of the mathematical principles contained in a math textbook, it is ridiculous to suggest an illustrative story invalidates all of the principles about God's character contained in the Bible.

It wasnt really an argument per-se, it was just a response to someone elses argument that historically the church has only hindered scientific development. In reality the church initiated it and was often the first institution to jump on the bandwagon. It may have also suppressed it, but it also did a lot of good things in and for the name of science. It was more to get the guy saying look at history to look at history himself, since he seems to have a selective memory. A point which could so easily be applied to you. The Church did not initiate science by any stretch of the imagination. Ancient civilisation was making scientific breakthroughs long before the Church came along. Science extends far beyond atoms and plants. Mathematics is itself a form of science, if not, its very language. Are you seriously telling me the Hanging Gardens of Babylon could not possibly have been built, or currency exchanged, until the Christian Church came along and 'initiated' such projects? I don't believe the Church stopped all scientific development. In fact, I know it didn't having done a case study of the development of medicine through history. But you're going too far towards the other end of the scale. Yep, you're right, I hyperbolized :P. If someone pushes, I'll push back equally. Wait... isn't that science... ;)?

Obviously everyone's opinion is merely a belief and not proven as complete fact... but if God exists, He exists whether or not you believe in Him, so if you don't believe in God and God in fact exists (contrary to belief), it is an extremely relevant statement.

Suppressing any thought doesn't really strike me as encouraging either educational or scientific advancement. Secondly, how does your argument work? "We encourage scientific development by suppressing scientists who don't agree with us" It wasnt really an argument per-se, it was just a response to someone elses argument that historically the church has only hindered scientific development. In reality the church initiated it and was often the first institution to jump on the bandwagon. It may have also suppressed it, but it also did a lot of good things in and for the name of science. It was more to get the guy saying look at history to look at history himself, since he seems to have a selective memory.

As far as I know, only letters from the daughter survived... none from Galileo exist..?

Have you looked at history? The church played a major role in encouraging scientific advancement. For a time, the church was the only functioning educational system in Europe; a large reason the church started to suppress scientific thought was because scientists started rejecting the church. For example, people often cite the case of Galileo of a prime example of the church suppressing science... but what people often forget to mention about Galileo was that he asked the church to immediately accept his views on Heliocentrism and insulted the Pope when asked to let the church investigate first. So your idea that science is "above the lens" and superior to other modes of thought... what is that? It appears you have a double standard.

That's what they once said about geocentrism. The popular arguments weren't quite as advanced though. Besides, heliocentrism is an empiral fact, this is a question of morals. To me it's almost one of those morals that there just doesn't seem to be much of an argument against anymore. Haha, it was meant to be a joke. Forgot to put a :P in there I guess!

That's what they once said about geocentrism.

Wait - are you saying that if our beliefs differ from yours in this regard we shouldn't bother posting in the topic that asks us to give our opinion?

Just because he can't prove something doesn't mean it's true. That's argument ad ignorantiam. I could ask you to disprove that there's a purple elephant inside the sun, and you'd be unable to... but that's completely irrelevant to the truth. ***It has no scientific evidence, and is therefore baseless if science is your only source of truth.

I would agree... many wars and lives have been lost in the name of advancing religion - but it's entirely in hindsight. We're currently quite early in the scientific revolution... maybe hundreds of years down the road we'll look at medical experiments, euthanasia, and abortion as many lives lost in the name of scientific advancement. You can't blame science OR religion just like you can't blame aerodynamics for a deathly plane crash. Principles and ideals can't do anything but take physical manifestations that are separate from the principles and ideals themselves. Well you technically don't know that; that's just your opinion that a respected scientist would never have such "immoral" views, and if a scientist did call for likewise action, you would blame the scientist for being an idiot, not science. Why are you taking this so personally? I try and make a comparison between blaming science for the holocaust to blaming religion for the crusades and I have to apologize? Your opinion that I've been disproved is a "subjective pedestal"... I think both modes of thinking in the comparison are invalid and I used one invalid mode of thinking to attempt to expose another. At the risk of "keeping my pride mate lol"... what kind of point are you trying to make? This isn't even debatable; it's just an emotionally charged personal attack. I don't understand why you so badly want me to apologize if you're "putting neither on any stool"; it looks like I have different views than you and you can't tolerate them.

Just a little spinoff - the Bible doesn't say homosexuals should be put to death - it is those that have sexual relations with their own gender. There's a difference between being homosexual and acting on it... I would argue that I in my current unmarried status am no different than a homosexual - we both have sexual urges that cannot be acted upon... if I act on my urges prior to marriage then I am no different than an acting homosexual. That's why I think homosexuals should be allowed to pastor - as long as they don't act on their sexual urges, just like I should be allowed to pastor - as long as I don't act on my sexual urges... it's not a question of gay rights, it's a question of the definition of how certain actions (ie. sex and marriage) are defined.