[Kazan]

Eugenics or Unrestricted DNA experimentation.

nothing wrong with eugenics as a concept - implementation is a different story.  currently everyone's opinion of eugenics is colored by the all (negative, idiotic, bull****) "implementations" we've seen to date - nothing wrong with a fully-voluntary eugenics program that concentrates on eliminating traits that are actually detrimental (like the genes for various defects like MD, etc)

[Kernal]

Whether or not it was Christians doing it, it was a means of control, not a Christian principle:

Galatians 5:2
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

wee a christian who actually knows what the bible say about the subject! Go Goober

Do they still practice this?
(imagines pastor Joe coming toward me with a butcher knife)
*shudder*

[Kazan]

Do they still practice this?
(imagines pastor Joe coming toward me with a butcher knife)
*shudder*

yes, mine was performed when I was merely days old.. and i am very angry about it - i cannot believe you haven't noticed... also read this entire thread carefully... you'll see something shocking

[Janos]

I suppose society needs weight on both ends of the scales. I'm no more in favour of a society that condones fundamentalist or Biblical law any more than I am in favour of a society that condones Eugenics or Unrestricted DNA experimentation.

In many ways Religion, in it's strictest form is a neccesary 'dead weight' that stops science getting too carried away. when Einstein suggested Nuclear power, he did not really dream it would be adapted to create a weapon, many scientists are like that, blissfully unaware of the possible other uses of what they research, or firmly in the belief that no-one would be stupid enough to. Theres always someone stupid enough to.

That's why the whole 'religion and morals' thing will never really be sorted out, Each one provides a Dynamo that powers the other in some way.  Take a look at how much energy has been put into solidifying our concepts of Evolution, thanks to ID.

Bull****.

You don't have to make a stupid hyperbole and strawman - show me important people who support Eugenics - which is not based on anything to "weigh on both ends". Besides, why do you have? If "the other side" - whatever that means, duhh, there are usually more choices than 2 - has nothing concrete to show, why should we give them even benefit of doubt.

I mean, it's awesome and easy to pick a certain point about history of science and then use it as a fodder for cool strawman against some theoretical religious philosophy, but please.

[karajorma]

I'm guessing that first "you" is plural, since I don't recall saying that specifically.

I thought it was you who had made a new covenant argument in the past but seeing as I can only find posts from Stealth and Liberator on the matter I could be wrong.

If you have a different explaination for why certain rules in the OT no longer apply to you I'm all ears.

We are no longer "trapped" by legalistic adherence to the law, but we still have to obey God.  The principle behind all those lists of stipulations is simply that God intended marriage to be special, and it should be treated as such, not dragged through the dirt.

I could however make similar arguments about slavery. The bible goes on at great length about the rules for slavery and who may or may not be one. Surely that was also God's Will then too. So why is slavery not morally acceptable to christians now when the bible say that it is? What changed?

[NGTM-1R]

I could however make similar arguments about slavery. The bible goes on at great length about the rules for slavery and who may or may not be one. Surely that was also God's Will then too. So why is slavery not morally acceptable to christians now when the bible say that it is? What changed?

Perhaps you'd care to quote the passage, then? IIRC none directly support slavery. There are things like "the servant of the servant" and soforth that can be stretched in that direction, but unless you're going to say that every time a slave is mentioned that's supporting slavery...

[Goober5000]

If you have a different explaination for why certain rules in the OT no longer apply to you I'm all ears.

It's kind of a weird situation that I don't fully understand myself. Theologically the law was never retired, but rather fulfilled/satisfied through Jesus.  We're not bound by it, but that doesn't mean we can ignore it.  We are told, even in the New Testament, to follow God's commandments, but at the same time, we are taught not to be trapped by legalism.  So it's kind of complicated.  An approach I've found useful is to look for the underlying principle and try to follow that.

So, for example, rules on haircuts IMHO are merely a specific application of the general principle "set yourself apart for God".  Rules on sex on the other hand follow directly from God's design for marriage.

I could however make similar arguments about slavery. The bible goes on at great length about the rules for slavery and who may or may not be one. Surely that was also God's Will then too. So why is slavery not morally acceptable to christians now when the bible say that it is? What changed?

Keep in mind that just because the Bible gives instructions for something doesn't mean God condones it.  The Bible gave prescriptions for divorce but God hates divorce.  The Bible gave prescriptions for a king immediately after God ordered the Israelites not to ask for a king.  There are also distinctions between ideals and realities.  Ideally, there would be no war, but war happens.  Ideally, everyone would be single and solely devoted to God, but marriage is necessary for the propagation and organization of society.

I think God made certain concessions (in a practical sense, not in a moral sense) because of the established culture.  Given that slavery was a normal and common practice everywhere*, God made certain prescriptions to ensure that slavery was ordered rather than chaotic.  Also keep in mind that slavery on Earth is quite unimportant in the grand scheme of things.  I think the Biblical position is summed up when Paul says, "Are you a slave?  Don't let it trouble you -- although if you can gain your freedom, do so."

*Note that the only country in the entire history of civilization that ever abolished slavery without external pressure was Great Britain.

[karajorma]

If you have a different explaination for why certain rules in the OT no longer apply to you I'm all ears.

It's kind of a weird situation that I don't fully understand myself. Theologically the law was never retired, but rather fulfilled/satisfied through Jesus.  We're not bound by it, but that doesn't mean we can ignore it.  We are told, even in the New Testament, to follow God's commandments, but at the same time, we are taught not to be trapped by legalism.  So it's kind of complicated.  An approach I've found useful is to look for the underlying principle and try to follow that.

So, for example, rules on haircuts IMHO are merely a specific application of the general principle "set yourself apart for God".  Rules on sex on the other hand follow directly from God's design for marriage.

That's how you interpret it. But then again you can point to other parts of the bible where you're saying God says one thing and the bible quite clearly states another. For instance you have claimed repeatedly that abortion is basically murder yet the bible doesn't claim this anywhere and in fact appears to give the underlying principle that until birth a baby isn't worth anything.

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

Explain to me how the underlying principle there isn't that the death of a foetus isn't considered murder by God? Cause as far as I can see you simply twist the underlying principle to fit whatever you want it to be.

Keep in mind that just because the Bible gives instructions for something doesn't mean God condones it.  The Bible gave prescriptions for divorce but God hates divorce.  The Bible gave prescriptions for a king immediately after God ordered the Israelites not to ask for a king.  There are also distinctions between ideals and realities.  Ideally, there would be no war, but war happens.  Ideally, everyone would be single and solely devoted to God, but marriage is necessary for the propagation and organization of society.

I think God made certain concessions (in a practical sense, not in a moral sense) because of the established culture.  Given that slavery was a normal and common practice everywhere*, God made certain prescriptions to ensure that slavery was ordered rather than chaotic.  Also keep in mind that slavery on Earth is quite unimportant in the grand scheme of things.  I think the Biblical position is summed up when Paul says, "Are you a slave?  Don't let it trouble you -- although if you can gain your freedom, do so."

And here was me thinking that God's Laws were meant to be God telling his people how to live not some politician who has to compromise based on what was the prevalent attitude at the time.

But if you're opening that door what else was a compromise then? Stoning of homosexuals? Stoning of raped women who don't scream for help cause they must have liked it? Just how deep does this rabbit hole go?

[Flipside]

I suppose society needs weight on both ends of the scales. I'm no more in favour of a society that condones fundamentalist or Biblical law any more than I am in favour of a society that condones Eugenics or Unrestricted DNA experimentation.

In many ways Religion, in it's strictest form is a neccesary 'dead weight' that stops science getting too carried away. when Einstein suggested Nuclear power, he did not really dream it would be adapted to create a weapon, many scientists are like that, blissfully unaware of the possible other uses of what they research, or firmly in the belief that no-one would be stupid enough to. Theres always someone stupid enough to.

That's why the whole 'religion and morals' thing will never really be sorted out, Each one provides a Dynamo that powers the other in some way.  Take a look at how much energy has been put into solidifying our concepts of Evolution, thanks to ID.

Bull****.

You don't have to make a stupid hyperbole and strawman - show me important people who support Eugenics - which is not based on anything to "weigh on both ends". Besides, why do you have? If "the other side" - whatever that means, duhh, there are usually more choices than 2 - has nothing concrete to show, why should we give them even benefit of doubt.

I mean, it's awesome and easy to pick a certain point about history of science and then use it as a fodder for cool strawman against some theoretical religious philosophy, but please.

1 : Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it stupid or 'Bull****'. Please learn to debate like an Adult.

2 : Do you know the opinions of every scientists etc? You've done exactly what Kazan was warning against, jumping to conclusions using your own opinion of 'Eugenics'.

3 : I actually have trouble figuring out what you're saying at the end of your post, it doesn't really make much sense, but as far as I can tell, you're trying to twist my post to make it look like an attack on one or the other ways of thinking, though you're not exactly clear which. An odd conclusion to make from a post saying we need both.

[Janos]

1 : Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it stupid or 'Bull****'. Please learn to debate like an Adult.

2 : Do you know the opinions of every scientists etc? You've done exactly what Kazan was warning against, jumping to conclusions using your own opinion of 'Eugenics'.

3 : I actually have trouble figuring out what you're saying at the end of your post, it doesn't really make much sense, but as far as I can tell, you're trying to twist my post to make it look like an attack on one or the other ways of thinking, though you're not exactly clear which. An odd conclusion to make from a post saying we need both.

Bull**** is bull****, even if you paint it pink and spread confetti on it.

1. You were essentially doing a pretty weak equivalence argument.

I suppose society needs weight on both ends of the scales. I'm no more in favour of a society that condones fundamentalist or Biblical law any more than I am in favour of a society that condones Eugenics or Unrestricted DNA experimentation.

.. because there are so many powerful figures and individuals openly rallying for and supporting strict eugenism. But that's besides the point: If the other argument is based on empirical proof and other in fairy tells and gut feelings, the more rational explanation will get benefit of doubt and does not need as close scrutiny as the more unsound one - in this particular context, of course.

2. Opinions of every scientists, as well as every priest, are pretty much irrelevant to the topic at hand.

3.

In many ways Religion, in it's strictest form is a neccesary 'dead weight' that stops science getting too carried away. when Einstein suggested Nuclear power, he did not really dream it would be adapted to create a weapon, many scientists are like that, blissfully unaware of the possible other uses of what they research, or firmly in the belief that no-one would be stupid enough to. Theres always someone stupid enough to.

Moral exists even without religion.

Also, I was really hungover and having a bout of alcohol-induced insanity as I typed that.

[TrashMan]

do you have one SHRED of evidence to support the bible being anything more than a work of fiction that makes vague legenderized references to some events that once actually happened (such as the flooding of the black sea)

but that's just the point - I don't need any evidence (at least not anything you would accept as evidence).
Have you ever looked at what the wrod faith means in the dictonary?

You're asking for proof of something that cannot be proven (by basic logic - God is above the laws that govern this universe) and that is in a way illogical by itself


---------

On another note, people allways seem to firget that everything written in the bible isn't a commandment from God.

The 10 Commandments are. The teachings of Jesus are.

But the old laws and practices are not a guideline for the future. The Bible is not only a Holy Book where everything is a law, it's also a history book as it shows how things have been done.

And as far as abortion goes I'm appauled at the certantiy with which people are willing to kill the fetus.

the fist thing that springs to my minds is how do you decide is something is worth protecting..By what criteria.
As (I belive) Kaz said, only a human with developed consiusness is worth protecting.
Ok...WHY?
It's not like it's a universal law that sez that only such living beings have worth someting. Don't you ever question that premise?

By the same logic I can state that only humans with DEVELOPED PERSONALITY are actually humans that are worth protecting. Thus we can kill babies too...

The second thing that comes to mind is a) the level of consiousness and b) is it consius?
For a ) I can say that humans have a differnt level of conciousness and self-awareness in differnt stages of life. Thus I can again say that a baby is not equal t o a grown human and is not worth protecting.

For b) I can say - how do you know it's not concious even in a small part?
Just a lump of "parasitic cells"? A brain is nothing but a bunch of cells.
Heck even trees and grass have some level of conciousness, at least according to the latest scientific research.
Is it then possible that a fetus does have some level of conciousness?

So tell me - if there is even a small chance that you might be wrong - how can you condone abortion?

I say better safe that sorry - I might have a too broad defeinition of what's worth protecting (hell, I even watch out where I'm walking so I wouldn't step on an an ant line... No, really), but I live my life without harming anyone.

[aldo_14]

FYI, a brain is a bunch of cells with significant and unique EEG patterns indicating neurological responce (cognition) in response to stimuli.  Of course, we can ignore EEG readings and regard and clump of cells - say a mould infection, or a tumurous growth, as being the same as a human being.

I would note we can measure consciousness and cognition through EEG readings and also the physical capacity. Trashman, please try and form a semi-scientifically coherent arguement next time you attempt a ridiculous strawman.

[Bobboau]

so then are animals worth protecting? you going to go join ALF now? yes/no, why?

[Flipside]

My argument was a generalisation, not a specification. The opinions of scientists may be felt to be irrelevent to you,  Morals do indeed exist without Religion, I never said otherwise, but religion represents itself as the 'keeper of Morals'. Whether that self-proclaimed designation is in any way accurate is a whole other matter, but, at the moment, there is not one 'Moralistic' movement that I can think of that does not use religion as its basis.

I'm not here to discuss whether the system is working, the whole title of this thread suggests it is not, but that doesn't mean that religion is wrong, it just means it's getting carried away, much as science did in the 1960's-70's where they were making generalisations that turned out to be completely wrong 20 years later.

Eugenics is a massive area, Sharon had an abortion because of a genetic defect that would have harmed the baby, that was a version of Eugenics, a very basic version, but a version nonetheless.

As for scientists who have supported Eugenics...

Plato (The person who first suggested it for the Greek ruling Classes)
Alexander Graham Bell
Francis Galton (Charles Darwin's cousin)
Also, oddly enough Winston Churchill was also in favour.

The Catholic Church had this to say at the time....

Vasectomy or ligature of the Fallopian tubes is no remedy against concupiscence; and even if it were, mutilation could not be permitted as a means of avoiding temptation. The operation would open the door to immoral practices which would constitute a worse evil than the one avoided. Being in itself slight and almost painless, it would be useless as a punishment for criminals or as a deterrent for others. If the principle were admitted it would encourage the abuse of matrimonial relations. The welfare of the State, if seriously threatened by the degenerate, could be better protected by segregation. Therefore the operation is not permissible, except as a necessary means to bodily health, and consequently except for this necessity may not be performed even with the patient's consent. The Church has never regarded the marriage of degenerates as unlawful in itself: they cannot be deprived of their right without a grave reason. Even eugenicists like Dr. Saleeby and Dr. Havelock Ellis disapprove of compulsory surgery. As for compulsory segregation it seems to be both right and good, provided that all due safeguards are taken in respect of the grades of feebleness.

Still not very sociably acceptable by todays' standards, but still you can see how the two factions bounce off of one another to reach middle ground.

[aldo_14]

I'm curious; does

Vasectomy or ligature of the Fallopian tubes is no remedy against concupiscence; and even if it were, mutilation could not be permitted as a means of avoiding temptation. The operation would open the door to immoral practices which would constitute a worse evil than the one avoided.

mean the Vatican regards sex as evil and immoral?

[Flipside]

Heh, basically it's the assumption that if people were sterilised, they'd all run around fornicating all the time, which the Church considered immoral. No better an extreme than the concept of Eugenics, which is why the final compromise usually ends up somewhere in between. THAT is the purpose of my argument, without the extremes, we would never know where the middle was.

[aldo_14]

Heh, basically it's the assumption that if people were sterilised, they'd all run around fornicating all the time, which the Church considered immoral.

Yeah, but why is fornicating immoral?

[Flipside]

To be honest, I've got no idea, I've always found it rather fun

Edit : Hmmmm...Maybe that's why the Church considers it immoral?

[Kazan]

do you have one SHRED of evidence to support the bible being anything more than a work of fiction that makes vague legenderized references to some events that once actually happened (such as the flooding of the black sea)

but that's just the point - I don't need any evidence (at least not anything you would accept as evidence).
Have you ever looked at what the wrod faith means in the dictonary?

You're asking for proof of something that cannot be proven (by basic logic - God is above the laws that govern this universe) and that is in a way illogical by itself

A) yes i know what faith means - it means you don't have **** for evidence but agree with it anyway. 
B) anything "i wouldn't accept as evidence" isn't evidence, and that's why i won't accept it
C) Anything that exists will have evidence to support it
D) anything beyond the laws of the universe isn't interacting with the universe, anything not interacting with the universe is for all purposes non-existant

[Herra Tohtori]

...

On another note, people allways seem to firget that everything written in the bible isn't a commandment from God.

The 10 Commandments are. The teachings of Jesus are.

Let's see how you react to this:

I don't think so.


See? I just made just as valid an argument as you did. You say they are god's commandments, I doubt it very much since I find the whole existence of such a being in the first place very much a doubtable thing, and so do quite a few other people. Actually

That some people belive that bible/parts of it are word from God doesn't necessarily make them so. If they are, they are, but they might as well not be. I have no knowledge of such a thing, just a word from some people who say that the commandments are what they claim to be...

This, however, does not really lead to anything because there are quite a few different opinions considering the Bible, and even more considering every other holy book ever written/inspired/whatever. These opinions are also called beliefs or perceptions and they are difficult to change, so I just say that you may have your belief of what Bible is and I have my own, and as long as it keeps between our ears it's just that - our own opinion.

However, when we start debating some matter (subject not relevant) and start making arguments and counter-arguments based on those personal beliefs, things get more difficult to define.

My opinion is that authorities and dogmae are a worse thing to have in your head than ability to think through things yourself. Even if they came from God, which I doubt very much.

Your opinion is (apparently, correct if I'm very wrong) that some of the claimed commandments from God are guidelines that should be followed because of the factoid that they came from God.

I think most of the "commandments" are just a bunch of applications of common sense. And as I've said, there is even a philosophical formalization of moral/ethic principle that practically equals the core of christianity, and it was derived by Immanuel Kant completely with reasoning. Basically it says that you should always act according to a way that could in your opinion become a common moral guideline.

Which is excactly the same thing Jesus said about doing to others what you would like to be done to yourself. It's just philosophy, granted it's a good idea but I don't see the point in following rules just because they exist.

No, I'm not an anarchist; I understand the need of laws and happen to agree with both of them, and even if I don't agree with them I still do as they say... but I don't understand why there should be any kind of a common set of moral rules as absolute truths. People should figure out those things themselves. After all, looking back at history, telling people what to do or how to think has not worked nearly perfectly. People tend to do what they feel to be right, regardless of what they're told to be right.

There are reasons for most of the rules mentioned in the Bible, but many of those rules I don't agree with, because I don't agree with the reasons behind them. If there are no reasons specified, I don't see any point of agreeing with the rule, unless I can think of good enough reason by myself.

Example #1: Do not kill/steal/harm others.

Well, this is an easy one. I wouldn't want to be killed and I have ability to emphatize... so I don't really see killing as acceptable thing to do. This reason was not introduced as a reason in the Old Testimony, but it's completely common sense. Jesus was probably one of the first philosophers to figure out this reason behind these commandments and came in public with this idea, producing christianity as we know it... Kant did the same thing and completed a formalism for the ethics behind these rules, but sadly, people don't seem to find it as good to follow logical ethic guidelines, and prefer "divine commandments" - even when logics and divine commandments agree, as in this case.

Example #2: Sex is just for marriage, and marriage should only end in death.

This is also easy. I can't see any reason(s) for this in the bible, other than just the claim that "This is how God thinks and wants things to be". As I have already told that I highly suspect the divine origins of all holy books, this argument does not stand on valid ground in my opinion. There are no other valid reasons really specified in the Bible. It is referred, though, to be an immoral thing to have pre/ex-marital sex. As such, this is just a dogma to follow and not a valid reason for the rule/guideline, so I don't see this, either, as a valid point to follow this rule.

I myself have yet to find out any valid argument other than "it's agains God" and "it's immoral" against pre-marital safe sex.

However, I do agree to the bible in the sense that cheating in a relationship is not really acceptable behaviour. On the other hand, that rule can also be derived from above rule; if you think your spouse could be hurt by your actions, the actions might not be all so good.

I also agree that children should preferably be given a stable, safe growing environment. Historically, a man was the protector of family and the hunter/farmer/worker/money-bringer. In such conditions, a stable relationship between a man and a woman was very important for the benefit of all, and as such I understand the no-pre-marital sex attitude in Bible.

So, unsurprizingly, in these conditions the preference for marital sex is reasonable via Cathegorical Imperative. Having sex outside a stable relationship could cause much misery to all participants, but mainly the child and the mother, so in conditions where sex is not safe and there is no way to guarantee the welfare of the child and mother, it's irresponsible and stupid. But I don't think like this because the bible says so, but because I think so myself.

What comes to the "only death shall us part" -thing, I see no reason for this whatsoever. If it doesn't work, it's no use just trying to live on unhappily. Especially with couples who have adult children or no children at all. And even in cases where the couple has children... well, parents being married isn't any more the only way to guarantee the well-being of the child. Historically, again, a divorced woman could find herself with child(ren) on the street with no income and safe place. Not good for them -> divorce in historical times wasn't very preferable option.

Times have changed, though, and children of divorced parents usually end up normal people.

...I guess that's all I have to say... for now.

Oh, Kazan already posted some good points in a... different... form.

I would define faith as agreeing to some authority just for the sake of authority. Not a good thing IMO. I agree to many of the teachings of christianity, as you may observe above, but not because they ARE, but rather because I agree with them consciously, ie. I find there's a good reason behind a rule - I agree with it. To varying extent.

The B, C and D points were actually tautologies, but well formalized ones.

I especially liked the D point, which basically says that if God exists he is just a part of this universe. Or alternatively, God and Universe are part of same entity. But that gets more metaphysical... In a way, the Universe in itself is God (tough I prefer to think it as Goddess in this context). By definition, the universe is capable of doing everything it is capable to do in Universe. So, Universe is omnipotent. By definition, universe is also everywhere at the same time. Also, there's nothing greater in the universe than the universe itself. Most of the criteria to Godhood are fulfilled.

I don't think, however, that the universe has any kind of collective consciousness. Why would it need one? With what it would interact?

We are conscious beings in universe. That's a nice thing, when you think about it. Maybe we should use our own consciousness better than to follow rules written by other people? Even if they are claimed to come from a superior being.