insane
-
Posts
3510 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by insane
-
-
An unborn child (fetus) still has no life nor rights. It's not a person in the eyes of the law. So if in the eyes of the law it's not murder i don't see why anyone one else should classify it as that.
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?
But that's not the point anyway. What i really want to say is that i don;t get how a god and his people can expect a rape victim to keep a child conceived as a result of the rape.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.
-
People need to stop complaining that he should die. He'll get the chair for sure, it just will take a while. It's not an overnight decision to execute someome like it was in the 1800's.
You're clearly not familiar with Canadian law.
-
The fact that you allow heterosexuals to get married, but not homosexuals is quite clearly a discrimination you feel is justified. Stop denying it isn't discrimination.
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.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he's saying blacks were denied the ability to drink at white fountains, sit in the front of buses, etc. much like homosexuals are denied the ability to have same-sex marriage. Black discrimination didn't stop at the beatings.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.
-
You really are ill-informed on the meaning of 'discrimination' if you believe physical beatings were the only obstacle black people faced in 1950s America.
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.
-
Which is what it should be boiled down to when talking about equality.
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.
No, the legal definition of marriage is quite clear.But the discussion was steering towards religious marriage, not legal marriage.
The fact that you allow heterosexuals to get married, but not homosexuals is quite clearly a discrimination you feel is justified. Stop denying it isn't discrimination.We allow homosexuals to get married, as long as it's a marriage that fits the religious definition. Wait... am I repeating myself?
And that is the worst argument I've ever seen on here. Likewise, blacks could also have had a skin graft instead of protesting against the de jure inequality that existed in pre-1960s America. I suppose you could argue they did technically actually have equality too. After all, thanks to surgery, I suppose it is now a choice whether to be white or black, or even halfcast if the choice fancies you.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.
-
The argument is this: if the only place a couple in either of our two countries can get married is a religious institution, but this institution denies the right for gays to be married, and yet gays are supposed to have equal rights, then the Church should
either allow gay marriages or, as I actually said, lose that exclusivity, and we'll have state marriages as well. I don't mean civil partnerships, I mean actual marriages.
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?
-
Clearly you don't have a Ph.D in Philosophy. You should also probably start checking up on those facts before you state them in a debate."Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
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 supposed to be a "rigid moral code" - that cannot be the case if there is interpretation involved. So if being a "rigid moral code" is the Bible's purpose, then it pretty much is worthless.
Christians NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER reply to me on this one.
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.
-
It is the absolute or only truth about God's character.
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.
The bible is god's autobiography? HAH! I think a lot of people in your religion would take offense to that, and deem you "insane".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.
My standard of proof is something which is undeniable, unquestionable, and without any other plausable explanation.So you don't believe in anything, then?
-
-Why would you want to follow "A certain type of truth"? What purpose could that serve.
If the bible is the word of god, then shouldn't it be the "Absolute" or "only" truth?
It is the absolute or only truth about God's character.
-How can the bible be the word of god, and also tell about his character? What is this, his autobiograhpy?Yes, it is.
-How can we determine if the bible is true at all?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.
Either ALL the Bible is literal, or none of it means anything. That is a fact.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.
-
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.
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... ;)?
-
And if you don't believe in God, this is meant to be relevant... how?
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.
-
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.
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.
-
insane, have you read the letters between Galileo and his daughter?
As far as I know, only letters from the daughter survived... none from Galileo exist..?
-
Please look at history. Go back to the enlightment. Notice how the big thinkers really started to emerge there. Notice how the big break throughs started there. They weren't restricted by the church (Freud).
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.
I'm perfectly fine with religion, and i might be religious, i don't know. But when people start to get into the dillusion that they're way is the right way, that's when i have a problem.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.
-
I would genuinely be astounded if there was anybody still out there with a modicum of intelligent or wit who still considered there to be a debate about this. It just amazes me.
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!
-
I would genuinely be astounded if there was anybody still out there with a modicum of intelligent or wit who still considered there to be a debate about this. It just amazes me.
That's what they once said about geocentrism.
-
And to be frank here - If anyone is highly religious and believes in sex only after marriage as well as families - Great I don't go there and harass you so keep your morals to yourself. Anything you write is going to be taken with a roll of the eyes and a grain of salt, so save your breath.
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?
-
I'm not forcing my beliefs on you, but I am genuinely curious - what is wrong with a man feeling an emotional attraction to another man, or a woman feeling the same way about another woman?
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.
"Because God didn't intend for things to happen that way... Adam and Eve (blah blah blah)" isn't an argument. It has no evidence, and is therefore baseless.***It has no scientific evidence, and is therefore baseless if science is your only source of truth.
-
The Crusades, however, came from religious theocracy. It was quite clearly a battle between Islam and Christianity over control of their respective Holy City. I don't know about Christianity, but in Islam there are certainly sections inside the Qu'ran which actually specify when violence should be used to defend your faith.
Moving on from the Crusades, the start of the Protestant Reformation caused many wars in Northern and Central Europe, which while also fuelled by social and political upheaval, were clearly a result of hostility between different branches of the Christian faith.
Fancy words like 'perversion' can't escape the glaringly obvious facts - there have been many wars and lives lost in the name of advancing religion.
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.
No report from a respected scientist, however, has ever called for likewise action.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.
The fact that you came in here, blaming atheists for something religion caused, even if in an incorrect, immoral way is a subjective pedestal in itself.The fact that you won't even apologize for making a statement which was disproved, just goes to show how high up on that subjective pedestal you put it too.
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.
-
Astra, thanks for the post.
2 questions -
(1) These laws all came from god, correct?
(2) How is the distinction made between civic, moral and ceremonial? For example, if one law is "homosexuals shall be put to death", then how is that law categorized or known to be intended as that particular class? You say there is some debate among classifying particular laws - how are we sure of the ones we know of?
Edit: And taking (2) a little deeper, how do we know that a particular law is not intended by god as a moral law when we classify it otherwise?
Thanks. :)
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.
Beliefs, Religion and Faith.
in Off-Topic
Posted
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).