Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Uchuujinsan on June 30, 2009, 10:37:59 am
-
I thought I should share this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4H_E8b-qmo&feature=related
It's quite old, but somehow funny.
Don't know if it is as enjoyable if you only understand the subs, but I wanted to give it a try, have fun.
Warning: It's quite left wing.
-
Severall left wing governments in Europe supported USA in the Iraq hypocrisy, so why exactly is this left wing?
-
Well, while he criticises almost everyone, he focuses quite on the USA (under Bush), so I wanted to warn the more convervative US-americans here that they could be offended.
Maybe I used the term left wing wrong.
-
"Left wing" in Europe is generally "right wing" in the US.
-
It's the opposite, left wing in the US is right wing in Europe.
-
That's what I meant. XP
-
Hmmm I'd say the only main difference is in the concepts regarding 'Morality'.
In Europe, 'Morality' tends to be a selling point of the Left wing more than the Right, whereas in the US the opposite seems to be more true. This is particularly noticeable in a Religious point of view, because of the predominant Christian denomination in the US, whereas the multiculturalism of Europe makes religion more the Domain of the Left Wing than it does in the US.
Edit: And even this can be traced back to the roots of the parties, the balance between the Conservative idea of Preservation and the Socialist idea of Growth through the people.
-
Left...Right...Center...
There is right and there is wrong and if you do wrong...I'm gonna call you on it.
-
Left...Right...Center...
There is right and there is left and if you do wrong...I'm gonna call you on it.
ficthed
-
Left...Right...Center...
There is right and there is left and if you do wrong...I'm gonna call you on it.
ficthed
Not gonna be baited...I meant what I said...not what you interpret it to say.
-
Left...Right...Center...
There is right and there is left and if you do wrong...I'm gonna call you on it.
ficthed
Not gonna be baited...I meant what I said...not what you interpret it to say.
Except you think jackboot police "nothing to fear if he hasnt done anything wrong" law enforcement is right, according to your post in that other thread.
You obviously have a damaged view of right and wrong, i wouldnt trust it past "stealing and murder is bad".
-
Left...Right...Center...
There is right and there is wrong and if you do wrong...I'm gonna call you on it.
So you know exactly what to do in every situation you've ever been faced with?
Wait, hang on. Why aren't you out there protesting the military? Killing is wrong. Why aren't you out there trying to stop them?
Wait, I know! Killing is okay when you're killing evil people in defense of your country, right?
Oh ha ha. You just explained how a wrong action can be right in certain contexts. So much for black and white morality!
-
Morality is hardly ever a 'Right or Wrong' issue, at least at many junctures.
For example, take the use of contraceptives, is that 'Right' or 'Wrong'. The truth is, it depends on what you personally believe. People have every right to have a personal belief, but I do not, for example, think that law should ever be used to interfere with such matters, the law is the 'will of all' (Criminals not included), not the 'will of many' or the 'will of the loudest', and it needs to take that into account when new laws are created.
-
I agree.
-
Killing is wrong.
You quoted a very badly translated Commandment.
The correct translation is:
"Thou shalt not murder"
So, according to that, says to me the following:
"Killing is distasteful, awful thing, but is ok in certain circumstances." IE War or Self-Defense or defense of another
What I mean by "I'm gonna call you on it."
There are certain behaviors on a personal level and a governmental level that have shown beyond doubt that they are detrimental to society as a unit. By "I'm gonna call you on it" I mean that I will call a spade a spade and stand against government policies that support these behaviors.
-
So I'll assume you stand against bans on abortion, drug, and gay marriage? These have all been shown to be detrimental to society.
-
Gay people can take a ciivil union and be happy or go back in the closet, marriage is a religious ceremony primarily and most religions frown on homosexuality. Personally, as long as they don't hit on me I'm fine.
There are certain situations that it should be allowed, but let's be frank, before Roe v Wade, it wasn't illegal. It just wasn't "On Demand". It was viewed as the highly dangerous medical procedure with questionable ends that it it. Now, it's an "On Demand" "right" to have an abortion. This is an alarming devaluing of human life in my, and many other peoples, opinion.
Most drugs are illegal for a reason. I assume you mean marijuana when you ask about drugs. I'll tell you that the concept of marijuana doesn't bother me any more than alcohol does. The problem is that, unlike alcohol which is a depressant, marijuana isn't a downer, it's a high and after a while people who use it on a regular basis start wondering what's available that is a bigger high, which leads to attempts to obtain much more lethal "highs" including cocaine and heroin. It is indirectly government's job to protect society from certain ills, because they are either unwilling or unable through lack of education or training to do it for themselves.
-
marriage is a religious ceremony primarily.
No it isn't. Marriage predates religion.
-
I wouldn't know. I'm not well versed in pre-civilized history, which by my reckoning started about 10000 or so years ago, maybe 12000, and from what I recall there were organized religion that celebrated various wedding ceremonies for a happy couple, most of them paying heed and homage to a god or goddess of fertility that the family would be blessed with many strong sons.
None of that changes the situation in modern American religious society(most of them) frown on homosexuality, and as such shouldn't allow a wedding between two of the same gender.
The things that are being asked for are all part of the civil side of a marriage.
-
marriage is a religious ceremony primarily.
No it isn't. Marriage predates religion.
They did pretty much go together from Medieval times onwards, but marriage was originally more of a business deal. Seen as a 'private affair'
-
The correct translation is:
"Thou shalt not murder"
Generally speaking, i wonder why Cristians tend to refer this old testimony's command.
Son of man said :"Let whoever of you is sinless cast the first stone".
-
I wouldn't know. I'm not well versed in pre-civilized history, which by my reckoning started about 10000 or so years ago, maybe 12000 and from what I recall there were organized religion that celebrated various wedding ceremonies for a happy couple, most of them paying heed and homage to a god or goddess of fertility that the family would be blessed with many strong sons.
They prayed to the rain, to nature etc, which was the peak of their understanding.
None of that changes the situation in modern American religious society(most of them) frown on homosexuality, and as such shouldn't allow a wedding between two of the same gender.
So gay people being married harms the long term happiness of these people? Does it injure them? Once again, it's about freedom, not about who yells the loudest.
-
The correct translation is:
"Thou shalt not murder"
Generally speaking, i wonder why Cristians tend to refer this old testimony's command.
Son of man said :"Let whoever of you is sinless cast the first stone".
Its a good friggin point. "judge not lest ye be judged"
And none of us is sinless. We all make mistakes, errors of judgements, its the human condition ;)
-
Always makes me smile when people start dragging out the 'thou shall not murder' translation error and yet go strangely silent when it's pointed out that the word for 'Virgin' used in the New Testament doesn't actually mean Virgin, but means 'Young Woman' instead.
It's like the 'Thou shalt not steal', that apparently only applies to most Christian churches if the other people haven't got stuff you want, and there's no mis-interpretation there.
-
Always makes me smile when people start dragging out the 'thou shall not murder' translation error and yet go strangely silent when it's pointed out that the word for 'Virgin' used in the New Testament doesn't actually mean Virgin, but means 'Young Woman' instead.
It's like the 'Thou shalt not steal', that apparently only applies to most Christian churches if the other people haven't got stuff you want, and there's no mis-interpretation there.
People tend to twist and manipulate words to suit their own agendas
-
I come to these discussions like a flee on a dog but... :P
Yes marriage is culturally a religious ceremony and yes some (may even MOST) churches may be against such a union. That doesn't mean every religion is and who are we to say is right and wrong. They have every right to perform any ceremony they want to and more power to them, whether they base it on love, religion, or whatever they have the same right as we do to a heterosexual union.
I can certainly use wisdom and see that the Christian God is against gay marriage. But the ONLY judge is God. Therefore treat them as your neighbor and show kindness, respect, and even love. It hasn't happened but if someone who was gay hit on me, I would decline respectfully and tell them I wasn't gay (Even though I would decline because I'm now married!)
Flipside: It interest me that I have NEVER heard that. I will definitely look into it. :)
-
Thing is, marriage isn't, strictly speaking, a religious service, the act of holy Matrimony is, which isn't exactly the same. The Ring symbolism goes back to Greek society anyway (read the story of Prometheus and how he was 'bound' to the Earth by Zeus using a band of gold on his finger), and Greek society was quite openly bisexual.
What it seems to me is that the biggest problem is the word 'marriage', gay people care mostly about the rights and protections that marriage provide, straight people don't seem to mind if married gay couples have the same rights as married straight couples.
If that is the case, then this has got to be one of the most pointless, long winded arguments with an obvious solution in history.
@jdj
The following discussion on the word "almah" is based on the "Lexical
Aids to the Old Testament" of the New American Standard Bible, which
is derived from Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Harris,
Archer, Waltke: editors) and Old Testament Word Studies (William
Wilson).
The Hebrew word "almah," which appears in Isaiah 7:14 is thought by
modern lexicographers to be derived not from "alam" (Strong's #5957)
but from the Hebrew root aleph*lamed*mem which means, "to be ripe" and
thus, by extension, implies one who is of marriageable age. In
Classical Greek the word parthenos simply meant "a young woman" or
"girl" and had no specific meaning of virginity. It later acquired the
meaning of "virgin" as we define it in English.
-
Killing is wrong.
You quoted a very badly translated Commandment.
The correct translation is:
"Thou shalt not murder"
So, according to that, says to me the following:
"Killing is distasteful, awful thing, but is ok in certain circumstances." IE War or Self-Defense or defense of another
What I mean by "I'm gonna call you on it."
There are certain behaviors on a personal level and a governmental level that have shown beyond doubt that they are detrimental to society as a unit. By "I'm gonna call you on it" I mean that I will call a spade a spade and stand against government policies that support these behaviors.
Oh look, you've learned how to re-interpret religious texts to suit your political views!
No wonder nobody buys religion as a source of moral guidance any more. Someone else out there is doing the same thing you are except he's a Muslim and he's using it to endorse violent jihad, or a Christian attempting to endorse the bombing of abortion clinics.
Flipside's reasonability and jdjtcagle's relative tolerance do make me happy, though.
-
Gay people can take a ciivil union and be happy or go back in the closet, marriage is a religious ceremony primarily and most religions frown on homosexuality. Personally, as long as they don't hit on me I'm fine.
There are certain situations that it should be allowed, but let's be frank, before Roe v Wade, it wasn't illegal. It just wasn't "On Demand". It was viewed as the highly dangerous medical procedure with questionable ends that it it. Now, it's an "On Demand" "right" to have an abortion. This is an alarming devaluing of human life in my, and many other peoples, opinion.
Most drugs are illegal for a reason. I assume you mean marijuana when you ask about drugs. I'll tell you that the concept of marijuana doesn't bother me any more than alcohol does. The problem is that, unlike alcohol which is a depressant, marijuana isn't a downer, it's a high and after a while people who use it on a regular basis start wondering what's available that is a bigger high, which leads to attempts to obtain much more lethal "highs" including cocaine and heroin. It is indirectly government's job to protect society from certain ills, because they are either unwilling or unable through lack of education or training to do it for themselves.
1. MY religion doesn't frown on homosexuality in the least. Why is the state picking and choosing whose religion gets to make the rules for everybody else? If the government has no religion, then it should not pick and choose which religious traditions to follow. Duhhhh.......
2. Abortion is significantly less dangerous than carrying a pregnancy to term, even without special health issues going on.
3. Banning abortion is an alarming devaluation of a woman's right to not have her internal organs hijacked. If the government can't force you to donate a kidney to someone in need, then I will not accept that it can force me to donate my uterus to someone in need.
4. "Gateway drug" bull**** is a lie. Very few people smoke pot and then go "wow, might as well snort some coke too!" See, because the government's misinformation strategy is failing. People now know that pot is safer than pretty much anything else. I mean, you can overdose on water, but not on pot.
5. It is NOT the government's job to tell me I can't inject heroin or snort coke or smoke pot. The government would be within its right to force education on people, like it does with tobacco. People get all up in arms about their right to smoke cigarettes in a public place, when at least heroin doesn't get injected into everyone around you when you do it.
*note: this is iamack
-
@jdj
The following discussion on the word "almah" is based on the "Lexical
Aids to the Old Testament" of the New American Standard Bible, which
is derived from Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Harris,
Archer, Waltke: editors) and Old Testament Word Studies (William
Wilson).
The Hebrew word "almah," which appears in Isaiah 7:14 is thought by
modern lexicographers to be derived not from "alam" (Strong's #5957)
but from the Hebrew root aleph*lamed*mem which means, "to be ripe" and
thus, by extension, implies one who is of marriageable age. In
Classical Greek the word parthenos simply meant "a young woman" or
"girl" and had no specific meaning of virginity. It later acquired the
meaning of "virgin" as we define it in English.
Alright, it appears that the Greek Septuagint gospel of Matthew show the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah (7:14) which the word young women (`almah) was changed by Matthew to virgin (parthenos). That makes sense since the entire point of Matthew was to show the parallels between the Old Testament prophecies and the birth of Christ to convince the Jews. But that isn't the first time where the gospel writers showed their own interpretation on the Old Testament prophecies or had "double meanings"... it actually happens quite often. But according to (christian) doctrine it was implicit on the OT prophecies and the Apostles were shown the parallels. Whether or not that is true is once again a product of faith. Who knows?
`almah:
1) virgin, young woman
a) of marriageable age
b) maid or newly married
parthenos:
1) a virgin
a) a marriageable maiden
b) a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man
c) one's marriageable daughter
2) a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept his chastity
a) one who has never had intercourse with women
-
Gay people can take a ciivil union and be happy or go back in the closet, marriage is a religious ceremony primarily and most religions frown on homosexuality. Personally, as long as they don't hit on me I'm fine.
Right, right, separate but equal. Heard it all before, we know why it's bull****. And since homosexuality has a genetic component just like race, you're as awful as the Klan.
Most drugs are illegal for a reason. I assume you mean marijuana when you ask about drugs. I'll tell you that the concept of marijuana doesn't bother me any more than alcohol does. The problem is that, unlike alcohol which is a depressant, marijuana isn't a downer
No, no, no, NO. Marijuana exhibits properties of all four major drug classes (stimulant, depressant, hallucinogen, antipsychotic) and leans towards hallucinogen. By your logic here, heroin is safe because it's an opiate depressant.
I've never done marijuana, mind, so I have no ulterior motive to defend it. But c'mon, this is another error like the Bernanke thing which just makes you look silly.
-
Thing is, as Battuta says, it's a greyscale, not a monochrome.
Even with drugs, regardless of their medicinal purpose, you cannot, for example, place Cannabis in the same category as Heroin, that's kind of like saying that a BB-Gun is exactly the same as an Uzi.
An interesting example is someone who takes Viagra on occasion, not because he has sexual problems, but because he enjoys the er.... results that he and his partner experience. Is that recreational drug abuse?
-
To be fair there is a lot of evidence currently in circulation by members of the European drugs and scientific institutions that marijuana can lead to slowing down of the mind and create the onset of Psychological disorders.
Not to mention paranoia, damage to the respiratory, reproductive, and immune systems and and increased risk of cancer (although the last three could easily be achieved through smoking or the inhaling of other products AKA cigs)
Hallucinations just make for an interesting evening, although never mix with beer, will create the mother of all hangovers.
Similar arguments could be made for beer or any alcoholic drink in general such a liver or kidney damage. Dangerous driving and impaired thought.
Some people naturally have very addictive personalities. People are addicted to enough in the world at the moment, there is no need to legally add another item to that market. The ones we have at the moment cost enough on our health services.
-
That doesn't have anything to do with Liberator's argument that it's a stimulant, which is just the opposite of 'slowing'.
-
Like all things, anything done in excess is dangerous. When I was a teenager, like most teenagers, I dabbled, but then, that was 20 years ago, there was none of the 'Skunk' or 'Pollen' on the market, which seems to be in a whole different league to the stuff that was around then.
@Battuta: True, cannabis is anything but a stimulant.
-
That doesn't have anything to do with Liberator's argument that it's a stimulant, which is just the opposite of 'slowing'.
Never said it was a stimulant. Said it slows ya down.
-
That doesn't have anything to do with Liberator's argument that it's a stimulant, which is just the opposite of 'slowing'.
Never said it was a stimulant. Said it slows ya down.
Um, exactly.
I said your assertion that it slows you down is at odds with LIBERATOR's assertion that it's a stimulant.
I never said you said it was a stimulant.
-
That doesn't have anything to do with Liberator's argument that it's a stimulant, which is just the opposite of 'slowing'.
Never said it was a stimulant. Said it slows ya down.
Um, exactly.
I said your assertion that it slows you down is at odds with LIBERATOR's assertion that it's a stimulant.
I never said you said it was a stimulant.
me thinks we have confusion.... here. No worries, :D
-
In Classical Greek the word parthenos simply meant "a young woman" or
"girl" and had no specific meaning of virginity. It later acquired the
meaning of "virgin" as we define it in English.
Not quite right. Athena and Artemis were both virgins and the word used in ancient Greek to describe that was "Parthenos".
-
Well, I'm not a linguist, so I couldn't say for certain either way, but I would suspect that a similar mis-interpretation happened there, the Parthenon is a dedication to the 'Maiden Goddess', which seems to hold with your interpretation, however, I suspect the name 'The Parthenon' was an interpretation from when it was believed that was the correct word to use.
-
In Classical Greek the word parthenos simply meant "a young woman" or
"girl" and had no specific meaning of virginity. It later acquired the
meaning of "virgin" as we define it in English.
Not quite right. Athena and Artemis were both virgins and the word used in ancient Greek to describe that was "Parthenos".
Right.
Only in Isaiah there is actually a better word for virgin than `almah in Hebrew. So they more than likely meant young women and later Matthew connects this verse with Christ's virgin birth. :)
So basically both were saying that a young women would bare a child who was to be called God (9:6). Then Matthew goes on to say that this women is also a virgin because of Christ's birth. Because the child was Christ.
Isaiah 9:6
6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
-
Which leaves 3 possible outcomes:
1) Mary was a Virgin, but was not directly referred to as such
2) Mary was not a Virgin, and Jesus was not born of a Virgin
3) Jesus was not born of Mary.
All three of them present big questions.
-
Which leaves 3 possible outcomes:
1) Mary was a Virgin, but was not directly referred to as such
2) Mary was not a Virgin, and Jesus was not born of a Virgin
3) Jesus was not born of Mary.
All three of them present big questions.
Correct.
Marry was not explicitly "prophesied" as a virgin but was a young women obviously :D
But doesn't say that she wasn't a virgin. So then again a lack of evidence in this case is not evidence against it.
But NOTE: In the New Testament Mary was a virgin for "she knew not a man" There is no doubt.
Matthew was showing the parallels between the child and Christ. Which every Jew at the time knew that the child talked about was in-fact someone that came to existence after the time of Isaiah from a women that obviously wasn't a virgin. (can't remember who) So it had been (partially, he wasn't called God 9:6) fulfilled, but then Matthew tells us that it had deeper significance. So again double fulfillment of prophecy was not uncommon with them.
-
Yup, though with the New Testament, quite a lot of is lost in interpretation, and continues to be, I was at my brothers wedding last year and because the marriage was between Protestant and United Reformed, there had to be two readings from two different versions of the New Testament, the KG and another.
On reflection, it's not uncommon, I suppose every section of Christianity interprets the Bible slightly differently, I suppose it's that very factor that makes me cautious around people who cite religion as their only morality system.
-
I can respect that. I'm pretty cynical when it comes to modern Christianity, I mostly to keep it to myself though and try not to be prejudice. I'm not perfect.
-
On reflection, it's not uncommon, I suppose every section of Christianity interprets the Bible slightly differently, I suppose it's that very factor that makes me cautious around people who cite religion as their only morality system.
And that's the big joke about Cristianity. The prototype of New Testament is written in a relitavelly simple language (not pure ancient Greek). Apocalypse aside, it's easy to understand the words of Christ, the conservativsm of Paule etc. Even trying to interptet such simple meanings is eathically questionable, especially given that we are mostly talking about the words of God himself.
-
And that's the big joke about Cristianity.
Christianity is the big joke about Christianity.
Christians just don't get the joke, it just so happens that the joke is on them.
-
And that's the big joke about Cristianity.
Christianity is the big joke about Christianity.
Christians just don't get the joke, it just so happens that the joke is on them.
You cant simply put all Christians under the one brush. Very generalised approach.
-
And that's the big joke about Cristianity.
Christianity is the big joke about Christianity.
Christians just don't get the joke, it just so happens that the joke is on them.
You cant simply put all Christians under the one brush. Very generalised approach.
They do all specifically believe in a personal god. Everything else is just flavours of "my god can beat up your god." Not just Christians, though. Muslims, Jews, etc. Personal god is FTL.
-
Personal God FTW.
An impersonal god who doesn't care a fig about anything wouldn't create a universe, except for his own amusement, and then stock it life, again except for his own amusement, and then communicate directly with that life and tell it what he needs/wants for it.
An impersonal god would be at best like the gods of the ancients, vengeful, petty and all too "human" in they're motivations and desires.
A personal God, which is one of the tenets of Christianity, is one who cares so much for the individual, that he placed Himself(Christ was both God and man at the same time)as the ultimate sacrifice to render His creations worthy to be in His presence. It is one that cares enough about each man, woman and child, that he'll listen whenever you talk to him, he may not answer, but he's always listening. It is one that sends His agents and servants to aid His creations in times of need, usually unseen and unknown in they're action.
-
Wow, you just made a great argument for Islam.
Meanwhile, the Christian god doesn't give a **** about non-believers and will happily consign them to hell for such sins as being born with the wrong genes or in the wrong part of the world (at least in some interpretations, I'm guessing yours included.)
-
So god has a greater love for us? He is merciful? How is it merciful to bring someone into life knowing that they were going to sn, and then punish them eternally in hell. Wouldn't it be merciful to not let them live?
-
Cole, you do of course realize that one of the tenets of Christianity is that God will forgive you for your sins, don't you?
-
Yeah, if you're lucky enough to be told you're a sinner, lucky enough to have the bizarre system of sins explained to you, lucky enough to learn about Jesus, lucky enough to be raised in a Christian environnment so that you don't just blow it all off as a crazy fantasy, and lucky enough not to have been reached by another equally convincing religion first.
Basically it's a huge game of Russian roulette, and even if God does exist, the number of people he damns to hell just due to bad luck makes him about the most evil thing in existence and worthy of destruction.
...all that said, I have no problem with Christians as long as they don't try to tell me or others what to think or how to act. Keep your faith to yourself.
-
Personal God FTW.
An impersonal god who doesn't care a fig about anything wouldn't create a universe, except for his own amusement, and then stock it life, again except for his own amusement, and then communicate directly with that life and tell it what he needs/wants for it.
An impersonal god would be at best like the gods of the ancients, vengeful, petty and all too "human" in they're motivations and desires.
I disagree. An impersonal god can be an immanent presence, a force of nature that is felt but cannot be appealed to for anything, because it is not "aware" of us in any sense that would enable its direct involvement in our affairs. Many self-described atheists, like me, find mysticism/pantheism extremely appealing precisely because we find such a concept of divinity to be the most profoundly distinct from anything human.
-
Maybe in extreme Christian dogmas.
In the end you make your own hell, not some sort of childhood image of fire, damnation and demons.
You can’t blame a 'God' for the actions of Genes.
There is a basic principle that God is all good (Omni benevolent) all knowing (omnipresent) and all powerful (Omnipotent).
Basic rule of three (why is it always three???)
But how can an all powerful God allow evil?
If God cannot stop evil, then God is not all powerful.
If God allows evil, then God is not all good.
If God does not understand evil, then God is not all knowing.
Look at human history. It is filled with the most evil and gruesome acts: the Nazi holocaust of the Jews in WW2, the reign of Pol Pot in Cambodia, Unit 731 of the Imperial Japanese Army, the Hans Fritzl, Charles Mansons, etc.
A very simplistic view yes, but logical, and valid.
But there are problems to that theory.
Such as were are not in a position to assume that an infinite God has reasons for allowing evil. Would we as finite and fallible being be able to work them out?
Are there justifiable reasons or are we simply limited by current human thinking?
Philosopher William Alston once said that “Suppose that some of the very best scientists in the world came up with a new theory about quantum physics. Suppose I, as a non-physicist, look at their theory and say, “because I cannot figure it out, they must be wrong”. It’s possible they might be wrong, but I have no real basis for knowing”
In a sense religion can seem like that at times. We live in a beautiful age, where we look up at the stars and can almost sense thanks to the advances in technology and science that they are almost in reach. There is nothing the human mind cannot do. We set out own limits, we choose our own standards.
Christians are meant to look for good coming out of evil. That when evil happens, good things can emerge out of the horror.
Such as war is evil, but sometimes the lesser of two evils. Good outcome could be a permanent peace.
Some do believe that suffering can draw them closer to God, but this is frond upon in many different Christian traditions.
Suffering is usually a human cause. In response to the idea about ‘wrong genes’, these could simply be natures response. No one is born evil. Society creates evil, its our own faults our own problems. Usually it comes down to free will.
If God intervened with all the problems on this planet, we would never grow as a species or learn. We might as well be a character on Sims 3. Let God do all the thinking, pointing and clicking for us.
Many famous Scientists to this day maintain there Christian beliefs. Alan Sheppard- the first American in Space, believed in God.
Einstein while never believing in a personal God, The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism”, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists."
Science and religion can, should and in many cases do work together.
Science asks the question “How”
Religion asks the question “Why”
-
Personal God FTW.
An impersonal god who doesn't care a fig about anything wouldn't create a universe, except for his own amusement, and then stock it life, again except for his own amusement, and then communicate directly with that life and tell it what he needs/wants for it.
An impersonal god would be at best like the gods of the ancients, vengeful, petty and all too "human" in they're motivations and desires.
Ironically, that's a perfect description of *your* god. Created some beings to worship him, demands worship and sacrifice, condemns at will.
A personal God, which is one of the tenets of Christianity, is one who cares so much for the individual, that he placed Himself(Christ was both God and man at the same time)as the ultimate sacrifice to render His creations worthy to be in His presence. It is one that cares enough about each man, woman and child, that he'll listen whenever you talk to him, he may not answer, but he's always listening. It is one that sends His agents and servants to aid His creations in times of need, usually unseen and unknown in they're action.
Plothole 1: why not just create beings worthy of him in the first place?
Plothole 2: why not just deem his creations worthy because he can? after all, it's his world, ain't it?
Plothole 3: if he's so great, why does he require so much mindless worship?
-
Maybe in extreme Christian dogmas.
In the end you make your own hell, not some sort of childhood image of fire, damnation and demons.
You can’t blame a 'God' for the actions of Genes.
The churches are pretty specific on the hell thing, and didn't God create those genes?
There is a basic principle that God is all good (Omni benevolent) all knowing (omnipresent) and all powerful (Omnipotent).
So doesn't he know everything that's gonna happen? If so, why does he react to things, why does he allow sinners to live if he knows that they're going to sin?
Such as were are not in a position to assume that an infinite God has reasons for allowing evil. Would we as finite and fallible being be able to work them out?
Are there justifiable reasons or are we simply limited by current human thinking?
As falliable human beings, we can't work out the mysteries of the universe, so we hide behind "God".
Christians are meant to look for good coming out of evil. That when evil happens, good things can emerge out of the horror.
I do that too. I'm not Christian.
Some do believe that suffering can draw them closer to God, but this is frond upon in many different Christian traditions.
How do you know that they're wrong, and you're right? I thought that you weren't allowed to pick and choose.
Suffering is usually a human cause. In response to the idea about ‘wrong genes’, these could simply be natures response. No one is born evil. Society creates evil, its our own faults our own problems. Usually it comes down to free will.
There is no free will if god knows everything that will happen and has a plan.
If God intervened with all the problems on this planet, we would never grow as a species or learn. We might as well be a character on Sims 3. Let God do all the thinking, pointing and clicking for us.
He already has intervened, refer to last answer.
Many famous Scientists to this day maintain there Christian beliefs.
However 93% do not. Smartest people on Earth.
Science asks the question “How”
Religion asks the question “Why”
Which is the question "How" worded differently.
If God is omnipotent and he has a plan ... then why did he not create the universe as it will be one second after the plan has succeeded? Who or what prevented him from doing that?
-
:sigh: Why, of all the times, did one of these arguments pop up during THE ONLY WEEK OF THE YEAR I CAN'T GET ON THE COMPUTER??
The churches are pretty specific on the hell thing, and didn't God create those genes?
Personally, I can't accept that there is a gene for that. It makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.
So doesn't he know everything that's gonna happen? If so, why does he react to things, why does he allow sinners to live if he knows that they're going to sin?
He does. Because anything He does after the fact would be considered a reaction. For the second part, because everyone sins and that if He didn't, the world would be awfully empty of people. The flipside to the second part of your other question is that were He to simply kill all sinners for no other reason than they sin, that would be the closest I can think He would come to something I, personally, would call evil (also, I'm fairly certain that He said he wouldn't do that again. See: The Flood. It has a promise at the end.)
I do that too. I'm not Christian.
Well, bully for you.
How do you know that they're wrong, and you're right? I thought that you weren't allowed to pick and choose.
That sentiment is a personal opinion, which, while held by many, does not appear in the New Testament, as far as I have read.
There is no free will if god knows everything that will happen and has a plan.
Ah. So, if I were to know, unequivocally, that one of my classmates would be going to school on a given day, that person has no free will? Knowledge of actions != dictations of will.
However 93% do not. Most intelligent people on Earth.
Fixed. Intelligent != Infallibility, nor does it equal Common Sense.
then why did he not create the universe as it will be one second after the plan has succeeded? Who or what prevented him from doing that?
I'm not sure I understand what your question is here. Are you basically asking why he didn't just skip His plan in its entirety and simply make the universe as it would be? Based on my own interpretations, the universe one second after the plan has succeeded is going to suck something serious. Keep in mind that I'm assuming (ASSUMING, MIND YOU) that his plan would be complete when Jesus returns, at which point there is a good deal of description of what that will be like in Revelation.
(I do so LOVE these arguments :D)
-
:sigh: Why, of all the times, did one of these arguments pop up during THE ONLY WEEK OF THE YEAR I CAN'T GET ON THE COMPUTER??
The churches are pretty specific on the hell thing, and didn't God create those genes?
Personally, I can't accept that there is a gene for that. It makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.
Nope, but there are genes for both homosexuality (a mortal sin in Christianity) and criminal behavior (it's estimated that a significant percentage of the criminal population possesses a certain gene variant or set of gene variants that characterize male antisocial behavior.)
Guess God just doesn't love them.
-
So we're to that now?
"It's not my fault I'm a mass murdering psychopath! I have a genetic predisposition for it!"
Forgive the language...but HORSE ****!
Gene's define how tall or how wide and probably even how fat a person will be. Fine I'll buy that. But if we're gonna start blaming gene's for any kind of bad or unacceptable behavior, we as a society are not long from the bin.
-
Nope, but there are genes for both homosexuality (a mortal sin in Christianity) and criminal behavior (it's estimated that a significant percentage of the criminal population possesses a certain gene variant or set of gene variants that characterize male antisocial behavior.)
Excuse my language, but HOW THE **** DOES THAT WORK?? How could there possibly be a gene for something that not only does not help, but actively subverts(word choice?) the "natural order" (quotation marks because I imagine some people would disagree with me on that point)? Looking at it from a biological standpoint, a gene that subverts reproduction is anathema.
"It's not my fault I'm a mass murdering psychopath! I have a genetic predisposition for it!"
:lol: to that.
I could buy the anti-social aspect to a limited degree, but I refuse to believe that there is a gene of all things that predetermines a person's disposition to societal mores. Put simply, there cannot be a gene for criminal behavior because criminal behavior is subjective to the culture in which that person is raised.
-
You two are making jokes out of yourselves. You in particular, Liberator, are jumping at shadows, thinking that I'm making some kind of Godless Atheist Science Argument that good and evil are illusions and we all just do what we're programmed to in our genes.
Grow up. There's no conspiracy against you or your beliefs. No one here gives enough of a crap to do that.
So we're to that now?
"It's not my fault I'm a mass murdering psychopath! I have a genetic predisposition for it!"
Forgive the language...but HORSE ****!
Gene's define how tall or how wide and probably even how fat a person will be. Fine I'll buy that. But if we're gonna start blaming gene's for any kind of bad or unacceptable behavior, we as a society are not long from the bin.
Don't construct straw men. No one said that mass murdering psychopaths did it because they were born that way. We're talking about criminal behavior - minor stuff, misdemeanors, some felonies, as well as antisocial behavior like children out of wedlock and drug or spouse abuse. What was stated was that GENES INFLUENCE BEHAVIOR and that one set of alleles characterizes male antisocial behavior. Now, your previous post made it clear that you can't understand that very well, so I can try to break it down for you if you want.
Would you like to be placed in touch with members of the faculty at my school? They'll be happy to lecture you for several weeks on the topic (as they did me) and supply you with all the evidence behind it. They are, of course, accredited scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals.
Please read a book on behavior genetics. It has nothing to do with blaming and everything to do with the scientific evidence which overwhelmingly points to a correlation between genetic factors and criminal behavior. This is incredibly basic stuff: if you're born with a gene that makes you aggressive and a gene that makes you have trouble paying attention in you're school, you're going to be angry, you might get frustrated with your classes, you may fall into delinquency and become a criminal. You have a potential causative pathway right there. I presume you could've dreamed that up in three minutes, but you didn't want to, because your interpretation is that I'm an Amoral Atheist Scientist who wants to get rid of morality and simply say that good and evil don't exist and all our actions are predetermined.
Address my arguments and evidence, not what talk radio tells you my arguments and evidence are. Then I'll respect you.
AND AT NO POINT WERE GENES BLAMED FOR EVERY KIND OF BAD OR UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR.
You must read posts and understand them before responding.
You complain about being called uneducated and then you come out with stuff like this. A simpleton can see that Asperger's Syndrome and autism provide evidence that genes do influence behavior, so of course they can do so on more subtle levels.
Nope, but there are genes for both homosexuality (a mortal sin in Christianity) and criminal behavior (it's estimated that a significant percentage of the criminal population possesses a certain gene variant or set of gene variants that characterize male antisocial behavior.)
Excuse my language, but HOW THE **** DOES THAT WORK?? How could there possibly be a gene for something that not only does not help, but actively subverts(word choice?) the "natural order" (quotation marks because I imagine some people would disagree with me on that point)? Looking at it from a biological standpoint, a gene that subverts reproduction is anathema.
Watch yourself. A simple Google would have explained to you exactly how it works. It's shameful that you're standing here yelling when you're obviously an intelligent educated person and a moment's education would have taught you something about how these genes are passed on.
Read this. It's a good primer but by no means complete. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_animals) Then you might want to look up research on the identification of homosexual genes in humans - something that has happened more and more recently. After that, you might want to read a book about why second or third male children are more likely to be homosexual than the first: after the first boy has been born and is capable of having children, later sons are more valuable in helping the family unit survive than having children on their own. See, you could've figured that out on your own if you'd thought for a moment instead of screaming 'HOW THE **** DOES THAT WORK?'
Scotty, I've heard you complain about the characterization of all Christians as ignorant people who put belief before rational thought. And by and large you're very rational and well-educated yourself. But then you go off like this, clearly putting your own ideology before the slightest bit of research, and confirm the stereotype.
"It's not my fault I'm a mass murdering psychopath! I have a genetic predisposition for it!"
:lol: to that.
I could buy the anti-social aspect to a limited degree, but I refuse to believe that there is a gene of all things that predetermines a person's disposition to societal mores. Put simply, there cannot be a gene for criminal behavior because criminal behavior is subjective to the culture in which that person is raised.
Don't construct straw men. No one claimed that one gene predetermines everyone's disposition to social mores. There are genes that make men more aggressive, less likely to pair-bond, and less likely to abide by laws. Lo and behold, criminals are more likely to possess these genes.
Simple logic could have you told you that. Instead you're making a fool of yourself.
It's hilarious that you're here screaming 'HOW THE **** COULD THAT WORK' about the genetic basis of homosexuality when over 1500 species how homosexual behavior and it's clear that most of them are in no way capable of making some kind of 'choice to act gay.' Moreover, it's doubly hilarious when the markers responsible for heritable homosexual behavior in humans have been tentatively identified and when homosexuality is clearly heritable.
As far back as 1991 Bailey and Pillard found evidence that monozygotic cotwins were more likely to share homosexuality than dizygotic cotwins. Clear evidence right there, my friend. That's just one selected example from a massive body.
Please don't interpret all this to mean that homosexuality is purely genetic.
I'll be happy to call MP-Ryan in here to clarify things on both sides. I don't have any problem with Christian religious beliefs, but when it crosses into misinterpretation of science, then that's gone too far.
-
After that, you might want to read a book about why second or third male children are more likely to be homosexual than the first: after the first boy has been born and is capable of having children, later sons are more valuable in helping the family unit survive than having children on their own.
:wtf: I hope you can exuse a little toned down version of a WTF from me on this one too. Perhaps its simply because I've only been through the basic genetics courses in High School biology, but I thought that the fabled Punnett Square had a little to do with probabilities (or at least representing them) for an allele. Are you telling me that all of that goes out the window when the first kid can have his own kids? The fudamental probabilities of allele inheritance do not change as a result of the parents having previously procreated. For example, just because the first child was a son does not mean that it is more or less likely to have either a son or daughter as a second child. The probabilities are fundamentally unchanged.
If, and I stress IF there were a gene for homosexuality, the inheritance would not be affected by previous offspring (forgive me, but this is just about the one place I WILL NOT CHANGE my opinion. Subject is, or course the existance of a homosexuality 'gene').
In fact, based on the example you provided, I would say that argued less in favor of genetics than a "nature vs. nurture" arguement.
It's shameful that you're standing here yelling when you're obviously an intelligent educated person
Incredulity does that sometimes.
Scotty, I've heard you complain about the characterization of all Christians as ignorant people who put belief before rational thought. And by and large you're very rational and well-educated yourself. But then you go off like this, clearly putting your own ideology before the slightest bit of research, and confirm the stereotype.
Sorry. I tried to keep just my beliefs from coloring every aspect of my disagreement. Hence, the reason I included some of my (apparently limited) biological understanding to the post.
-
After that, you might want to read a book about why second or third male children are more likely to be homosexual than the first: after the first boy has been born and is capable of having children, later sons are more valuable in helping the family unit survive than having children on their own.
:wtf: I hope you can exuse a little toned down version of a WTF from me on this one too. Perhaps its simply because I've only been through the basic genetics courses in High School biology, but I thought that the fabled Punnett Square had a little to do with probabilities (or at least representing them) for an allele. Are you telling me that all of that goes out the window when the first kid can have his own kids? The fudamental probabilities of allele inheritance do not change as a result of the parents having previously procreated. For example, just because the first child was a son does not mean that it is more or less likely to have either a son or daughter as a second child. The probabilities are fundamentally unchanged.
If, and I stress IF there were a gene for homosexuality, the inheritance would not be affected by previous offspring (forgive me, but this is just about the one place I WILL NOT CHANGE my opinion. Subject is, or course the existance of a homosexuality 'gene').
Elementary Punnett squares rarely apply to the inheritance of actual traits. They're only applicable to Mendelian single-gene traits, which are fairly rare.
Yet this increased prevalence of homosexuality in later sons is a statistical truth. It may be an epigenetic factor. It may be that there's a gene which kicks in when an older child is 'detected' in the environment - that's epigenetics. It might be that the later sons can't get any girlfriends with a big brother around. However, it provides an example of the useful and positive function of homosexuality in a family unit. Gay sons can provide for the family without using up resources by having their own offspring.
That was a good question, though, and a good scientific one.
I really suggest you read that article I linked, as well as other papers I'll dig up. Homosexuality is currently strongly believed to be epigenetic, not least because concordance rates for the homosexual trait in monozygotic twins are so much higher than in dizygotes. And you still have to look at that overwhelming list of the occurrence of homosexuality in nature.
In fact, based on the example you provided, I would say that argued less in favor of genetics than a "nature vs. nurture" arguement.
The son example was a single one that may have involved epigenetics. Please don't cherrypick in an effort to salvage your incredulity.
I am impressed by how level-headed that response was. Sorry if I got too angry, but I really think religion infringing on science is a big issue.
And you didn't hear anything about the gay penguins? That was a big deal a month or so ago.
-
I am impressed by how level-headed that response was. Sorry if I got too angry, but I really think religion infringing on science is a big issue.
It's a button of mine too, but in reverse. Also, see my personal title(?) :p
And you didn't hear anything about the gay penguins? That was a big deal a month or so ago
Can't say I did. Then again, it wouldn't color my arguments all too much. My faith encompasses the belief that humans are higher than animals. That, and Leviticus doesn't say anything about animals not being able to do whatever the heck they want.
-
Well, the genetic basis of homosexual behavior in humans is now pretty much a scientific fact. Hotly debated, of course, but only because of its political connotations. The twin data is damning.
Which I'm afraid makes continued discrimination against it morally difficult. Unless you're planning to go 'cure' it with gene therapy.
Best idea might be to just live and let live.
-
Contrary to what you may think from some of my posts, I'd be perfectly happy to, except they won't let me.
It's not my business what goes on in your bedroom, but keep it in the bedroom. Of course I'm somewhat strongly against any public showing of affection other than perhaps holding hands, and then only if the couple is elderly or just married.
-
Well, maybe if you'd let them have the same financial and legal rights as you do, then it wouldn't be such an issue.
-
I have no issue with the people who choose to do something like that. I may dislike how they choose to live their lives, but they themselves are not the object of my dislike.
Also, from the wording in Liberator's post, it seems he is making that statement for ALL people, not simply homosexuals, and I happen to agree with that (if not what he actually meant).
-
Of course I'm somewhat strongly against any public showing of affection other than perhaps holding hands, and then only if the couple is elderly or just married.
And what is so bad about that?
-
Must admit, much of the band I work with (who are, for the most part, homosexuals in their 40-50's) aren't over-enamoured with the idea of Gay Pride parades. As one member put it, 'I'm no more proud of being Gay than you are of being heterosexual, I just am.'
So yes, I can understand people's frustration at the 'in your face'-ness of Gay Pride parades, but then, in retrospect, seeing as the amount of years they weren't allowed to show the slightest affection for each other, it's not that surprising that they exist.
Personally, I think the concept of these parades will only last a generation or two, it only happens because it gets up the noses of people who would rather sexuality was neither seen nor heard, but they haven't quite got things right.
Someone's sexuality is no-ones' business but their own, in my opinion, and it's for that exact reason that Gay Pride marches will only last as long as people care about other people being homosexual.
Once people stop caring, then it will all go back to 'in the bedroom only' behaviour, and maybe we can all get some peace and quiet.
As for public shows of affection, I honestly don't have a problem with that, I'd be much happier seeing a couple snogging on a corner than, for example, seeing a husband beating the crap out of his wife.
-
Well, the genetic basis of homosexual behavior in humans is now pretty much a scientific fact. Hotly debated, of course, but only because of its political connotations. The twin data is damning.
Which I'm afraid makes continued discrimination against it morally difficult. Unless you're planning to go 'cure' it with gene therapy.
Sorry, I'm going to have to nitpick you on this one. You're making a very dangerous generalization.
Homosexuality is biologically based, but it's not genetic. Genetic means it's heritable, a region of DNA capable of being passed from parent to offspring. The study you've cited about the heritability of homosexual traits is badly out of date; it shows only that homosexuality often appeared in genetically identical twins (and there are other explanations for why a trait can be common more often in MZ twins than DZ twins, especially in large-scale studies), not that the trait was passed between generations. No DNA region has been identified, and the few attempts to verify a "homosexuality gene," which focused on the X chromosome, were discredited [rather spectacularly, I might add] several years ago. As for twin studies, there are all kinds of problems with using them to study a biological basis for psychosocial behaviour (the biggest one is that twin studies don't control enough variables to eliminate developmental influence as a potential cause).
It's also incorrect to use homosexual behaviour in animals as an analogue for human homosexuality, because behaviour is different from sexual preference. In the majority of animal species, homosexuality is a behaviour and not an orientation (dogs, goats, and several other mammalian species fall in this category). There are only a very small number of species with individuals that exhibit a homosexual orientation or sexual preference in the same way humans do. That 1500 species number gets thrown around in behavioural genetics all the time, but the usage is totally incorrect, and I wish instructors would stop it because they're doing their students a serious disservice.
It looks more like homosexuality is a developmental condition than a genetic one, and hormone dosage in the womb appears to be the most likely responsible factor behind variation in both sexual identity and sexual preference, in addition to learning factors during early development. Once again, a complex interplay of effects ranging from epigenetic modification of gene expression patterns, hormone dosages, and psychological factors of the individual are responsible for what is a combined biological, social, and psychological condition.
That doesn't mean individuals have any conscious control over their sexual identity and orientation, however; just that it isn't determined directly by our DNA.
-
In other words 'far too complex to be the product of random chance?' ;)
Sorry, I couldn't resist that :D
-
Well, the genetic basis of homosexual behavior in humans is now pretty much a scientific fact. Hotly debated, of course, but only because of its political connotations. The twin data is damning.
Which I'm afraid makes continued discrimination against it morally difficult. Unless you're planning to go 'cure' it with gene therapy.
Sorry, I'm going to have to nitpick you on this one. You're making a very dangerous generalization.
Homosexuality is biologically based, but it's not genetic. Genetic means it's heritable, a region of DNA capable of being passed from parent to offspring. No such region has been identified, and the few attempts to verify a "homosexuality gene" (which focused on the X chromosome) were discredited [rather spectacularly, I might add] several years ago. As for twin studies, there are all kinds of problems with using them to study a biological basis for psychosocial behaviour (the biggest one is that twin studies don't control enough variables to eliminate developmental influence as a potential cause).
It looks more like homosexuality is a developmental condition than a genetic one, and hormone dosage in the womb appears to be the most likely responsible factor behind variation in both sexual identity and sexual preference, in addition to learning factors during early development. Once again, a complex interplay of effects ranging from epigenetic modification of gene expression patterns, hormone dosages, and psychological factors of the individual are responsible for what is a biological, social, and psychological condition.
That doesn't mean individuals have any conscious control over their sexual identity and orientation, however; just that it isn't determined directly by our DNA.
It's worth clarifying that point, yes. Thank you.
I think I did take a moment to note that there is no single 'gay gene'. But there are definitely genes which increase the probability of being homosexual, and these have been identified at least in a correlative sense. As with most complex behaviors, they definitely interplay with other factors.
And, yeah, the message I was hoping Liberator and Scotty would take away (which they were obviously unaware of) was
That doesn't mean individuals have any conscious control over their sexual identity and orientation
particularly since Scotty seemed incredulous that such a behavior could arise naturally and be useful when in fact it's broadly prevalent.
-
Battuta, I just went back and did some further editing to my post. You may want to read it over again, more as an FYI than anything.
But there are definitely genes which increase the probability of being homosexual
To my knowledge, no genes of this nature have been isolated. I think there have been some attempts at mapping linkages with SNPs to see whole regions that show up uniquely to homosexuals on autosomes (this after the X chromosome debacle of the early 2000s), but I'm not aware of anything remotely concrete being generated out of that field. Last I read, there were some extremely tenuous correlations common to some individuals but not others, all of whom self-identified as homosexuals.
Personally, I think the whole attempt is a waste of time. As usual, some geneticists have gotten it in their heads to look for a gene rather than learning any lessons from behavioural genetics (and I can say this as I am a trained geneticist who HAS taken behaviour genetics and learned his lesson about silly narrow assumptions :P). There are more important things to worry about the cause of homosexuality. It exists, it always has existed, let's get over it and focus on something worthwhile... like improving our gene therapy delivery systems for a whole host of nasty human diseases that DO actually need curing.
DISCLAIMER: None of my comments to Battuta should be taken as "doubt" as to the biological roots of homosexuality in humans. The fact is, it is determined outside of conscious control of the individual. So that's your take-home message. Don't be quoting anything I've said as evidence against unless you'd like to be treated to a lengthy and short-tempered discussion on why reading comprehension is important.
-
As long as that last paragraph is clear to the reader I don't have a problem.
However, I've read a lot of the support for and criticism of twin studies and I've never been completely convinced they don't produce useful data. They probably shouldn't serve as the centerpiece of an argument (a flaw my post may have had) but I think they still at least provide some tendentious data.
The epigenetic factors were more of what I had in mind when discussing the biological roots. And as for the issue of 'genes which increase the probability of homosexuality' I believe I've read correlative data to that effect but I'll need to check with my PI about it.
-
However, I've read a lot of the support for and criticism of twin studies and I've never been completely convinced they don't produce useful data. They probably shouldn't serve as the centerpiece of an argument (a flaw my post may have had) but I think they still at least provide some tendentious data.
The problem with twin studies is that they can't sort out what's genetic from what's the result of a common shared developmental environment unless you look at very narrow specific criteria on the pregnancy itself, which isn't always available in large-scale twin studies. It's a factor that commonly gets overlooked. Beyond that, learning factors in early childhood are quite variable for all types of twins raised together or apart, so it's not as reliable a tool as researchers once thought. Not to say that twin studies aren't valuable for other reasons, just that they have some big caveats when you move into complex processes.
And as for the issue of 'genes which increase the probability of homosexuality' I believe I've read correlative data to that effect but I'll need to check with my PI about it.
If you find it again please post or send me the source; I'd be very interested in reading it. I haven't been keeping up as much lately as I should be.
-
I know I'm about a year behind on this conversation, but this just popped up in my feeds, so I thought I'd post it here:
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8134797.stm)
A traditionalist Anglican group has warned the issue of homosexuality could split the Church of England the way the Episcopal Church has done in the US.
"The Bible's teaching shows that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the way to express our sexual nature.
"We welcome homosexuals, we don't want to exclude people, but we want them to repent and be changed."
-
:sigh: Why, of all the times, did one of these arguments pop up during THE ONLY WEEK OF THE YEAR I CAN'T GET ON THE COMPUTER??
The churches are pretty specific on the hell thing, and didn't God create those genes?
Personally, I can't accept that there is a gene for that. It makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.
Doesn't matter. God did it, it doesn't need to make sense to you. He created everything, did he not? Plus what Battuta said.
So doesn't he know everything that's gonna happen? If so, why does he react to things, why does he allow sinners to live if he knows that they're going to sin?
He does. Because anything He does after the fact would be considered a reaction. For the second part, because everyone sins and that if He didn't, the world would be awfully empty of people. The flipside to the second part of your other question is that were He to simply kill all sinners for no other reason than they sin, that would be the closest I can think He would come to something I, personally, would call evil (also, I'm fairly certain that He said he wouldn't do that again. See: The Flood. It has a promise at the end.)
Once again, wouldn't the more merciful path have been to not create them, thus having no need to kill them? And aren't we all saved or some such BS? Wasn'tthere that Jewish guy that died or whatever?
I do that too. I'm not Christian.
Well, bully for you.
So if I can do it, what's to say that other people can't? Why do we need God to tell us what to do, and wouldn't him telling us what to do be a reaction? Why wouldn't he build into our minds a Christian predisposition?
How do you know that they're wrong, and you're right? I thought that you weren't allowed to pick and choose.
That sentiment is a personal opinion, which, while held by many, does not appear in the New Testament, as far as I have read.
As I said, I thought you weren't allowed to choose. Isn't the bible infalliable? Isn't it god's word? Why write a part that was worth **** all?
There is no free will if god knows everything that will happen and has a plan.
Ah. So, if I were to know, unequivocally, that one of my classmates would be going to school on a given day, that person has no free will? Knowledge of actions != dictations of will.
So you're saying that god is not omnipotent? You didn't create your classmate to your exact specifications. God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, right? He created everything to carry out a carefully scripted set of responses, correct? (i.e. his plan) If he created everything, and he knows everything that will happen, having created it so that said things would happen towards his goal, wouldn't we only have the illusion of free will?
However 93% do not. Most intelligent people on Earth.
Fixed. Intelligent != Infallibility, nor does it equal Common Sense.
Religion =/= Infallibility, and science is based on logic (common sense's bigger, non-convoluted brother).
then why did he not create the universe as it will be one second after the plan has succeeded? Who or what prevented him from doing that?
I'm not sure I understand what your question is here. Are you basically asking why he didn't just skip His plan in its entirety and simply make the universe as it would be? Based on my own interpretations, the universe one second after the plan has succeeded is going to suck something serious. Keep in mind that I'm assuming (ASSUMING, MIND YOU) that his plan would be complete when Jesus returns, at which point there is a good deal of description of what that will be like in Revelation.
But why make the universe jump through all of these hoops? Why lay out the pieces so that all of these sinners will die and go to hell with no choice or say on the matter (see previous response on free will) just to watch us kill each other, much like a 5 year old does with ants?
-
Here's the thing, much like your father(I would assume), He does have a plan for the universe that will proceed to it's conclusion, whether you do anything or not. You aren't exactly part of it, you have a place, but it is your choice to participate or not. The plan is not harmed, but(and I have seen this) the benefits of choosing for God far outweigh the benefits of choosing the other side or not choosing at all. And it's not all after you die either. The first benefit and possibly the greatest one is Peace. Peace of the Soul, which leads to Peace of the Mind, which leads to Peace of the Life. That is what is missing in today's world is Peace.
But you are free to choose not to, unlike some, I believe that you can change your decision at any time. Though true deathbed conversions are rare, as a man who recognizes his final moments will grasp at any thing, it ultimately is a personal relationship between the person and God.
Also, the concept of Hell is kinda skewed. Hell is not so much a place as it is an alternate state of being. Being out of the presence of God.
Even here on Earth, you are in the presence of God, if not literally. Hell is where God isn't. Try to imagine a time in your life when you lonely, not alone, just lonely, as lonely as you have ever been. Now take that feeling and magnify it by about a million times and that starts to describe Hell.
God is like a Father in that he wants what is best for you, individually. He won't force you, but He will help you, all you have to do is ask.
-
Here's the thing, much like your father(I would assume), He does have a plan for the universe that will proceed to it's conclusion, whether you do anything or not. You aren't exactly part of it, you have a place, but it is your choice to participate or not. The plan is not harmed, but(and I have seen this) the benefits of choosing for God far outweigh the benefits of choosing the other side or not choosing at all. And it's not all after you die either. The first benefit and possibly the greatest one is Peace. Peace of the Soul, which leads to Peace of the Mind, which leads to Peace of the Life. That is what is missing in today's world is Peace.
And this is my main problem with religion. It claims to be the only path. Humans can achieve peace without religion, we are naturally predisposed to group together and not kill each other. Whether or not we were made this way, religious belief is not a figure. Are monkeys religious? No. Do they have a complex society in which they live in relative peace? Yes.
But you are free to choose not to, unlike some, I believe that you can change your decision at any time. Though true deathbed conversions are rare, as a man who recognizes his final moments will grasp at any thing, it ultimately is a personal relationship between the person and God.
The main problem I have with "god" is that he assumes me to be an imbecile. If he is omnipotent, surely he must be able to see that rational thinking is of benefit to advancement both socially and technologically, surely? Why doesn't he show undeniable proof rather than a convoluted old textbook and a few nutjobs?
Also, the concept of Hell is kinda skewed. Hell is not so much a place as it is an alternate state of being. Being out of the presence of God.
How come the church can change their views and beliefs? Last I checked the fiery inferno was what had been taught for centuries. Speaking of changing, what ever happened to the Earth being flat? What about the stars being holes in the sky?
Even here on Earth, you are in the presence of God, if not literally. Hell is where God isn't. Try to imagine a time in your life when you lonely, not alone, just lonely, as lonely as you have ever been. Now take that feeling and magnify it by about a million times and that starts to describe Hell.
I'm not in the presence of god currently (which you will debate), and I feel fine.
God is like a Father in that he wants what is best for you, individually. He won't force you, but He will help you, all you have to do is ask.
The thing is, churches and the like are specifically honed to create instinctive memories. If they make you associate god and religion with warm fuzzy feelings, you'll be more likely to stay with them, and they keep their power. This has the side effect of creating defensive fundieds and the like, which I am not tarring you as, although I have to admit you strike me as the type.
-
I do Yoga, it's a little bit more expensive, but I do get my Sundays free. ;)
-
How come the church can change their views and beliefs? Last I checked the fiery inferno was what had been taught for centuries.
To paraphrase Revelation 20:11-15 (the passage that the fiery inferno is explained in):
The dead will stand before the throne to be judged. The book of life is opened, and those gathered will be judged on what they have done. For any whose name is not written in the book of life, he will be cast in to the lake of fire.
However, the lake is not explained in any great detail. It could be assumed that the lake of fire is the fiery inferno you reference (probable in fact). Reading farther into Revelation (21:27), it is said that nothing impure would be allowed to enter His temple, and it specifically references the book of life again. This, to me, indicates that those who have been cast into the lake of fire are separate from Him. No real view changing there.
Speaking of changing, what ever happened to the Earth being flat? What about the stars being holes in the sky?
Ask a scientist. That's not the domain of religion. As far as I have read, the Bible doesn't come out and say that the Earth is flat, or stars being holes in the sky.
The main problem I have with "god" is that he assumes me to be an imbecile. If he is omnipotent, surely he must be able to see that rational thinking is of benefit to advancement both socially and technologically, surely? Why doesn't he show undeniable proof rather than a convoluted old textbook and a few nutjobs?
That would be because, comparatively, you are. As am I. Out of curiosity, what passage/facet/phrase gives you that idea? Yes, He is omnipotent. However, the advancement of humanity socially and technologically is not part of His plan. Lastly, because faith is a large part of His plan. He doesn't want to force people to worship Him, He wants people to choose to because of their own beliefs and convictions.
On a side note, the Bible isn't that convoluted. It makes sense, does not contradict itself, and lays down his plan. Secondly, the prophets and Jesus weren't all nutjobs.
I'm not in the presence of god currently (which you will debate), and I feel fine.
You are correct, I will debate that point. You are in the presence of God. Whether you choose to acknowledge that or not is your own perogative.
If they make you associate god and religion with warm fuzzy feelings, you'll be more likely to stay with them, and they keep their power. This has the side effect of creating defensive fundieds and the like, which I am not tarring you as, although I have to admit you strike me as the type.
That, of course rests on the fact that the church has gained and intends to keep power. I will grant you that I use "church" in the lowercase for a reason. Not all (in fact most don't) seek power as the focal point of their existence. I would dismiss the power arguement off-hand, but it seems to be significant to you.
Do I sound like a defensive fundie to you?
-
No, you sound pretty reasonable.
But given that Islam and the Quran incorporate Jesus, recognize his crucifixion and divine conception, describe his return before the end of the world and slaying of the beast just as Christianity does, and further elaborate God's plan, it seems like we've all been patched to a newer version, right? I mean, it's the same God in all three Abrahamic religions, and if he came out with a newer model, let's all upgrade!
:p
I can't see any compelling reason why you'd pick one of these religions over another except for the fact that you were raised in it.
-
My reason for choosing Christianity (I was most certainly NOT raised into it) is a compilation of several factors.
1) Jesus flat out tells us that he is the Messiah. In Islam, granted they acknowledge Christ as a prophet, they also completely disregard that little tidbit.
2) The prophets of Israel foresaw Jesus' coming, and all of thsoe prophesies were fulfilled by Jesus' coming. Jews do not think Christ is the Messiah in part because that means they ignored the prophets, and then killed them. Accepting him as savior would mean admitting they were wrong.
3) To me, Christianity just feels.... right.
Not sure if any of this had any real bearing on the topic we were discussing, but you did pose a question. :P
-
Sounds fishy to me! I bet a Jew, Muslim, or Hindu could find the same problems with Christianity.
And it feels right because you were raised that way, you silly boggart. Same reason wearing T-shirts but not elaborate hosiery feels right.
-
*snip*
And it feels right because you were raised that way
I'm 17 right now. I became a Christian at age 14. Until then, no exposure to it, except for about 3 months when I was 6 that didn't end so well. If you call that raised that way, go ahead, but I don't.
-
You were raised in a Protestant-centric culture where the prototypical religion that permeates the culture and its references is Christianity.
We don't say 'God is great' or make many references to Abraham, after all.
-
How come the church can change their views and beliefs? Last I checked the fiery inferno was what had been taught for centuries.
To paraphrase Revelation 20:11-15 (the passage that the fery inferno is explained in):
The dead will stand before the throne to be judged. The book of life is opened, and those gathered will be judged on what they have done. For any whose name is not written in the book of life, he will be cast in to the lake of fire.
However, the lake is not explained in any great detail. It could be assumed that the lake of fire is the fiery inferno you reference (probable in fact). Reading farther into Revelation (21:27), it is said that nothing impure would be allowed to enter His temple, and it specifically references the book of life again. This, to me, indicates that those who have been cast into the lake of fire are separate from Him. No real view changing there.
The first part makes perfect sense. A lake of fire is, after all, a lake of fire. The second part is just trying to convolute things, a red herring.
Speaking of changing, what ever happened to the Earth being flat? What about the stars being holes in the sky?
Ask a scientist. That's not the domain of religion. As far as I have read, the Bible doesn't come out and say that the Earth is flat, or stars being holes in the sky.
It doesn't say that in the bible, but it was taught by the church right up until a little after 1492. Funny how religion keeps conceding to science, innit?
The main problem I have with "god" is that he assumes me to be an imbecile. If he is omnipotent, surely he must be able to see that rational thinking is of benefit to advancement both socially and technologically, surely? Why doesn't he show undeniable proof rather than a convoluted old textbook and a few nutjobs?
That would be because, comparatively, you are. As am I. Out of curiosity, what passage/facet/phrase gives you that idea? Yes, He is omnipotent. However, the advancement of humanity socially and technologically is not part of His plan. Lastly, because faith is a large part of His plan. He doesn't want to force people to worship Him, He wants people to choose to because of their own beliefs and convictions.
What gives me the idea? Could be the fact that all (Abrahamic at least) religions discourage any critical thinking whatsoever, and encourage blind belief. Wouldn't such a powerful figure want people to be able to think and use the brains given to them? Why doesn't he show more proof? Wouldn't he want people to follow him based on sanity, rather than shaky evidence and blind belief? 'Nother question, if he's omnipotent, how does he judge? He knew that everything was going to happen as it has happened, having a reaction to events would contradict the bible, there's one right there. I thought god's plan was all-encompassing? Wouldn't advancement be part of his plan? Wouldn't he want his creations to live in comfort? And about the last part, how am I supposed to find a reason to believe a mashup old book that was written hundreds of years after some Jewish guy's death?
On a side note, the Bible isn't that convoluted. It makes sense, does not contradict itself, and lays down his plan. Secondly, the prophets and Jesus weren't all nutjobs.
if he's omnipotent, how does he judge? He knew that everyhing was going to happen as it has happened, having a reaction to events would contradict the bible, there's one right there. And on the second part, debatable.
I'm not in the presence of god currently (which you will debate), and I feel fine.
You are correct, I will debate that point. You are in the presence of God. Whether you choose to acknowledge that or not is your own perogative.
So how am I supposed to tell? Wait... I'm feeling something. Hold on... UNGGGHHH... Oh, sorry. Just gas.
If they make you associate god and religion with warm fuzzy feelings, you'll be more likely to stay with them, and they keep their power. This has the side effect of creating defensive fundieds and the like, which I am not tarring you as, although I have to admit you strike me as the type.
That, of course rests on the fact that the church has gained and intends to keep power. I will grant you that I use "church" in the lowercase for a reason. Not all (in fact most don't) seek power as the focal point of their existence. I would dismiss the power arguement off-hand, but it seems to be significant to you.
Do I sound like a defensive fundie to you?
So how many people would be religious without a church to guide them. Like it or not the church has influenced your decisions, indirectly through others. And the fundie in question is Liberator, you make an attempt to be intelligent, he just blabbers on and straw-mans.
I'm gonna bring some good questions into this, I'd like answers please. Courtesy of the good people of the Rational Response Squad.
God did not create the universe
Our universe was formed via the expansion of a singularity and subsequent formation of structures by hydrogen atoms through gravitational attraction. A magical deity adds nothing to the known explanation.
God did not create the solar system or the Earth
Our sun was formed by the particle clouds left behind from previous stars, and our planet (as well as every other planet in the solar system) formed from an accretion disk surrounding our sun.
God did not create life on Earth
Life on Earth was formed through a chemical evolutionary process known as 'abiogenesis' (not to be confused with modern evolutionary science, dealing with the propagation of alleles through a population).
God did not create homo sapiens
Homo sapiens evolved along the primate branch of the genetic tree. We are simply the 'latest model' of great apes.
God did not give us 'souls' or 'free will'
Human beings are conscious and self-aware via their brains. An extra, magical source for our intelligence adds nothing to the known explanation.
God has yet to answer a prayer
Under controlled conditions, when a request is made via prayer for something unambiguous, nothing ever happens.
God did not provide us with accurate insight into the mechanics the universe he supposedly was somehow involved in erecting
None of the mythological texts supposedly divined into existence by God reflect reality.
God did not talk to you last night
You can kid yourself and your choir all you like. We both know it didn't happen.
God did not send his Holy Spirit through you
See above.
God did not invent morality
Morality was a trait favored by natural selection, as it encourages population growth & stability.
So then:
What the Hell did God do that is apparently so obvious to you? All of the things traditionally attributed to God are mis-attributions; it's just outright wrong to say that magic was somehow necessary to make the universe, Earth, people, etc. We also both know that you're being dishonest when you claim that a prayer was magically answered or that God manifested for you.
-
It doesn't say that in the bible, but it was taught by the church right up until a little after 1492. Funny how religion keeps conceding to science, innit?
I have to correct you on this before you get on to Copernicus and co. and totally blow it. It was common knowledge to everyone, even the church, that the world was round by 1492. They simply didn't believe they were capable logistically of doing what Christoforo Columbo wanted to do, because they were aware of the rough size of the world (which the Greeks calculated). You think he would have gotten support in Spain, in the middle of the friggin' Reconquista, of all places if the church was against him?
-
It doesn't say that in the bible, but it was taught by the church right up until a little after 1492. Funny how religion keeps conceding to science, innit?
I have to correct you on this before you get on to Copernicus and co. and totally blow it. It was common knowledge to everyone, even the church, that the world was round by 1492. They simply didn't believe they were capable logistically of doing what Christoforo Columbo wanted to do, because they were aware of the rough size of the world (which the Greeks calculated). You think he would have gotten support in Spain, in the middle of the friggin' Reconquista, of all places if the church was against him?
I stand corrected. Popular media has failed me once again. It was still a belief of the church, just at an earlier time, was it not?
-
Up until about 1300, yes.
-
Then my point still holds water.
-
The way a flat Earth wouldn't!
Ba-dum tish.
-
No.
-
I just got off a plane, so I'm gonna keep this short so I can go to sleep (apologies for any unintelligability).
It doesn't say that in the bible, but it was taught by the church right up until a little after 1492. Funny how religion keeps conceding to science, innit?
That first statement confuses me to your point. You are saying that because the church taught something that wasn't related to the Bible which was later proved false (even earlier proved false, actually), religion is conceding to science? Just to clarify.
Wouldn't such a powerful figure want people to be able to think and use the brains given to them?
That is why God gave people brains in the first place (or so I believe). It is also why choosing Him is a choice, and not an automatic obligation.
'Nother question, if he's omnipotent, how does he judge?
Maybe I'm just tired, but can you explain what this means?
Wouldn't advancement be part of his plan?
Bad word choice on my part there. Advancement of society is not the main focus of His plan, not completely ignored by it.
if he's omnipotent, how does he judge? He knew that everyhing was going to happen as it has happened, having a reaction to events would contradict the bible
:confused: Explain please.
[Not going to put the whole quote in this post]
1)I saw an humorous little quip recently about how religion and science explain the creation of the universe.
Christian explanation: God created the universe and everything in it.
Scientific explaination: In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
Although, I have to wonder, where did the singularity you speak of come from|?
2) I can actually agree with you here on the means, but not the reason. The Bible never states HOW God created the Earth and the Solar System, and I am inclined to believe that science has worked out the basic mechanics.
esis
3) I expect you to belive that an omnipotent diety created life on Earth, and you expect me to believe that Earth developed its own life in what can only be described as the least likely lotou on the basic premtery win in existence.
4) I believe that in at least one other thread I have stated how I believe that God can use evolution as one of His tools. Therefore, I will actually agree with you on this point. However, I still do, and will, hold the opinion that God played a role in our creation, even if through evolution.
EDIT: stupid laptop posted when I tried to put some space between lines. I'll continue tomorrow.
-
Please, please, don't try to use the fact that science doesn't know everything as evidence for religion.
In any case your ideas about the big bang are outdated. Go read about brane theory.
-
A quick google comes up with something having to do with 5-dimensional membranes colliding to create the universe.
Excuse me if I treat that even more skeptically than the big-bang.
-
Excuse me if I don't give a **** what you think until you can work out a tensor. Take a few years of college physics and cosmology, go to grad school, learn higher-order math, spend some time in a particle accelerator, and then let me know your feelings on brane theory. (You'd still find plenty of detractors but you'd have a scientific basis to critique it on and competing theories to advance.)
Seriously, you can't drop into an 'I DON'T BELIEVE WHAT I CAN'T SEE' attitude when your own viewpoint is that an invisible God exists.
As long as it's a theory that makes testable predictions you need to recognize it. And the fact is that we can look up in the sky and see the Big Bang. We know something huge happened.
All that said, it's one of several competing theories as to the Big Bang. And even with science there are those who advocate non-Big-Bang origin theories.
-
I finded it!
Think of it like a movie. The Torah is the first one, and the New Testament is the sequel. Then the Qu’ran comes out, and it retcons the last one like it never happened. There’s still Jesus, but he’s not the main character anymore, and the messiah hasn’t shown up yet.
Jews like the first movie, but ignored the sequels, Christians think you need to watch the first two, but the third one doesn’t count, Moslems think the third one was the best, and Mormons liked the second one so much they started writing fanfiction that doesn’t fit with ANY of the series canon.
-
That's actually kinda funny.
OK, what Battuta and everyone else seems to be confusing is that a belief in God precludes a belief in science. It just flat out doesn't.
The Universe and all that is in it is the way that it is, whether it is observed, measured, quantified, codified and calculated or not.
Your arguments against Religion because they believe in something beyond that which we can see don't really hold a whole lot of water, simply because you are treating Science as a religion as well.
Putting aside the yelling about His plan and things like that and let's put God into a little perspective with Science. God is the Creator. He made everything including us and our wonderfully curious and capable minds. One thing that he did was endow us with the ability to understand His creation so that we can appreciate, each in his or her own way, the wonderous Creation that God has wrought.
Here's where I break from what you would call "traditional dogmatic theocracy that promotes mindless following"; the reason that God created us as He did isn't so that He can have mindless, will-less followers who do whatever He says is 1)He already did that in the angels and 2)He most likely wants someone to relate to on a higher level than Master and servant. He would not have given us the ability to grasp Brane theory and quantum mechanics and the genetic structure if he didn't want us to benefit from it.
Science has a purpose, to explain the HOW.
Religion is supposed to explain the WHY.
The problem is that Science is trying to answer the second part without any seeming reasoning other than to discredit the "opposition" in Religion.
It's two sides of the same coin and nary the two shall meet.
-
You assume there is a WHY though. There may not be.
-
He would not have given us the ability to grasp Brane theory and quantum mechanics and the genetic structure if he didn't want us to benefit from it.
Why, I seem to recall... Oh yes, the tree of knowledge of good and evil (or alternatively, the tree of all knowledge).
"Listen kids, I've created these two trees, one which gives immortality, the other which gives (some? all?) knowledge. Now I've given you basic intelect and free will and all that entails (like curiosity), and given that I'm omniscient I know you will disobey me (free will ??). Anyway, I want to warn you not to eat from the tree of good and evil."
* a few days later *
"What? You ate from the tree? How could you?! BAD HUMANS, BAD HUMANS!"
-
Isn't why answered by how?
Why are we here? BECAUSE this chain of events happened.
Basically we are because we are and all that should be is.
-
Your arguments against Religion because they believe in something beyond that which we can see don't really hold a whole lot of water, simply because you are treating Science as a religion as well.
I'm fine in believing in things I can't see given enough evidence. The Big Bang has evidence. Currently, everything is moving away from a single point, run this backwards and everything is in a single point. At this point, something that I can't see (the concept of an expanding universe) has more evidence than god. I don't know why everything exploded from a single point, but I don't doubt that we will figure it out and that it will not be god's finger on the button.
Why am I so quick to believe that it won't be god this time? Because all the other times we saw something and thought that it was god, it turned out to be some perfectly explainable natural phenomena.
Also, there is no WHY on a cosmic scale, only a WHY on the personal level that you come up with yourself. You've just let fairytales hijack your personal WHY and substitute it for a shared WHY with a bunch of other gullible folks.
-
I just got off a plane, so I'm gonna keep this short so I can go to sleep (apologies for any unintelligability).
It doesn't say that in the bible, but it was taught by the church right up until a little after 1492. Funny how religion keeps conceding to science, innit?
That first statement confuses me to your point. You are saying that because the church taught something that wasn't related to the Bible which was later proved false (even earlier proved false, actually), religion is conceding to science? Just to clarify.
Fair point, but religion has also conceded on many other points relating to medicine science and technology. Sounds like they`re batting 1000 with their logic.
Wouldn't such a powerful figure want people to be able to think and use the brains given to them?
That is why God gave people brains in the first place (or so I believe). It is also why choosing Him is a choice, and not an automatic obligation.
But if I have a brain, and I deduce due to OVERWHELMING evidence that there is no god, does that make me a sinner for following what I was predisposed to do?
'Nother question, if he's omnipotent, how does he judge?
Maybe I'm just tired, but can you explain what this means?
God knows everything that has happened and will happen, so if he reacts to something doesn't that mean that he didn't know it was going to happen? Why does he judge us after we die, he already knew what was going to happen?
Wouldn't advancement be part of his plan?
Bad word choice on my part there. Advancement of society is not the main focus of His plan, not completely ignored by it.
However he knew it was going to happen, and since he created the plan, which would HAVE to be all encompassing (if he allowed free will a chain reaction of a single small event could wipe out the plan) so why does he frown upon people using their brains, frowning on the use of a fairy tale as truth, and logically deducing that something sounds fishy.
if he's omnipotent, how does he judge? He knew that everyhing was going to happen as it has happened, having a reaction to events would contradict the bible
:confused: Explain please.
God knows everything that has happened and will happen, so if he reacts to something doesn't that mean that he didn't know it was going to happen? Why does he judge us after we die, he already knew what was going to happen?
[Not going to put the whole quote in this post]
1)I saw an humorous little quip recently about how religion and science explain the creation of the universe.
Christian explanation: God created the universe and everything in it.
Scientific explaination: In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
Although, I have to wonder, where did the singularity you speak of come from|?
Although I have to wonder, where did god come from?
2) I can actually agree with you here on the means, but not the reason. The Bible never states HOW God created the Earth and the Solar System, and I am inclined to believe that science has worked out the basic mechanics.
esis
3) I expect you to belive that an omnipotent diety created life on Earth, and you expect me to believe that Earth developed its own life in what can only be described as the least likely lotou on the basic premtery win in existence.
2: Good for you, halfway there. Although the bible states that he fashioned humans more or less by hand, so wouldn't the whole dust clouds and amino acid theory contradict this?
3: "Dude, Brane theory makes so much sense"
"No it doesn't, I have a better theory. Sky Jew.
"Wha..."
"NONO, Zombie Sky Jew. All-Powerful Zombie Sky Jew. And his dad.
4) I believe that in at least one other thread I have stated how I believe that God can use evolution as one of His tools. Therefore, I will actually agree with you on this point. However, I still do, and will, hold the opinion that God played a role in our creation, even if through evolution.
I haven't read all of the bible, but doesn't it state that he more or less fashioned humans by hand?
That's actually kinda funny.
OK, what Battuta and everyone else seems to be confusing is that a belief in God precludes a belief in science. It just flat out doesn't.
The Universe and all that is in it is the way that it is, whether it is observed, measured, quantified, codified and calculated or not.
Your arguments against Religion because they believe in something beyond that which we can see don't really hold a whole lot of water, simply because you are treating Science as a religion as well.
Putting aside the yelling about His plan and things like that and let's put God into a little perspective with Science. God is the Creator. He made everything including us and our wonderfully curious and capable minds. One thing that he did was endow us with the ability to understand His creation so that we can appreciate, each in his or her own way, the wonderous Creation that God has wrought.
Here's where I break from what you would call "traditional dogmatic theocracy that promotes mindless following"; the reason that God created us as He did isn't so that He can have mindless, will-less followers who do whatever He says is 1)He already did that in the angels and 2)He most likely wants someone to relate to on a higher level than Master and servant. He would not have given us the ability to grasp Brane theory and quantum mechanics and the genetic structure if he didn't want us to benefit from it.
However if he knows everything that is going to happen and has molded the future to carry out his plan, don't we only have the facade of free will, isn't it really mindless following?
Science has a purpose, to explain the HOW.
Religion is supposed to explain the WHY.
Excuse me, but you obviously are spouting textbook religious arguments. "Why" is just the question "How" differently worded. "Why did I kill that man?" "How did I come to the conclusion that I should kill that man?"
Religion does not ask "Why" it makes naked assertions besed on emotional appeal.
The problem is that Science is trying to answer the second part without any seeming reasoning other than to discredit the "opposition" in Religion.
It's two sides of the same coin and nary the two shall meet.
"Science" as you put it is not per sé a vendetta against religion, it's the quest for higher understanding and enlightenment and religion is getting in the way. If I have free will to believe what I want, why does god allow others to make laws to suppress my beliefs?
Why does SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) occur? Why would God allow a baby to live for such a short period of time? Why not just let them not be born in the first place?
-
Do I need to remind everyone of Einstein's saying about God, dice, and the universe? If Einstein, one of the most brilliant scientists ever, can simultaneously hold a belief in both science and God, why can't the people on HLP do that? Science and God are not mutually exclusive.
-
Do I need to remind everyone of Einstein's saying about God, dice, and the universe? If Einstein, one of the most brilliant scientists ever, can simultaneously hold a belief in both science and God, why can't the people on HLP do that? Science and God are not mutually exclusive.
You mean one of the biggest mistakes of his life? Where he refused to acknowledge quantum mechanics in spite of every evidence of the contrary only because of his belief in god? (ok, his vision of the universe with god in it, to be frank)
Sure, remind us of it.
-
Einstein also expressed no belief in the kind of god that sparks these debates. The stake everyone has in this discussion comes from the fact that some people not only believe in god, but believe in a god that presides over us and tells us what to do. That's vastly different from simply believing there is a larger presence in the universe. Einstein might have believed in god, but I think it's safe to say he did not believe that god wrote the rules of marriage, or that god cries when you touch yourself.
-
Why, I seem to recall... Oh yes, the tree of knowledge of good and evil (or alternatively, the tree of all knowledge).
"Listen kids, I've created these two trees, one which gives immortality, the other which gives (some? all?) knowledge. Now I've given you basic intelect and free will and all that entails (like curiosity), and given that I'm omniscient I know you will disobey me (free will ??). Anyway, I want to warn you not to eat from the tree of good and evil."
* a few days later *
"What? You ate from the tree? How could you?! BAD HUMANS, BAD HUMANS!"
I've always loved that story. Cause if it's true it shows what a crappy parent God actually is. He's omniscient. You can say what the **** you like about free will but it doesn't change the fact that God must have known Satan was tempting Eve while he was doing it and instead of stopping it he did nothing. Feel free to go on about free will but let me give you a counterpoint.
One day you see a car pull up next to your 8 year old daughter and offer her some sweets. Do you
a) Run up to the car, pull your daughter away, scare off the person in the car and take down their licence plate number for the police
b) See if she gets into the car. After all, you've taught her not to take sweets from strangers so it's now down to her free will if she gets raped and murdered.
Guess which one God did?
-
Do I need to remind everyone of Einstein's saying about God, dice, and the universe? If Einstein, one of the most brilliant scientists ever, can simultaneously hold a belief in both science and God, why can't the people on HLP do that? Science and God are not mutually exclusive.
I don't think anyone here has said you can't simultaneously hold a belief in science and God.
But the perfectly valid question that has never been answered here is why anyone should believe in your god when there are so many competing editions with the same amount of evidence.
-
Personal gods are least likely of all scenarios.
Impersonal god makes so much more sense, assuming there is definitely some sort of god-figure.