Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
David wrote: ""So, science goes away and society falls apart"Cute but still hyperbole. There was society before the pursuit of science and there still would be. It would just be different.
Look at the flip ..."
But, at the same time religion gives people the excuse to hate an entire group, 'because god says so.'
Gays are bad.
black people are descended from the devil.
Jews are bad
Women are inferior and only rate slightly above livestock
slavery is okay
children need to be beaten, and occasionally sacrificed.
no technology needed, just tell somebody your god of choice said so.
That's a threat that I personally find much scarier.
and it's not a 'might happen someday' scenario. It's happening as we speak.
Maria wrote: "David said: "But you make an excellent point in your last phrase... is a life without bacon worth living?"No, no it's not."
and I live in hope that the love of bacon will someday bring us all together as a people.
All except the veggies eh Travis? ;)
I believe in a Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. I do my best to follow their examples to help me be a better person. I also believe in science and all the good it has and will do for us. I believe God wants us to better ourselves in all ways. Neither religion nor science is evil. It is what man does with them that uses them for good or evil. We need both. What I really like is living in a country where we can express our views freely; I may not agree with someone but that is okay! Just as long as I respect their view and they respect mine all is good. The sad part is when people vocally and physically attack others because they disagree with them.
Hear hear Chris...XXXX
Travis wrote: "But, at the same time religion gives people the excuse to hate an entire group, 'because god says so. ... That's a threat that I personally find much scarier.'"Your points are true and some people have been harmed by people with those beliefs. But lets think of the reality of modern times:
65 million in the People’s Republic of China
20 million in the Soviet Union
10 million in Nazi Germany
2 million in Cambodia
2 million in North Korea
And that's just the top five. What do these genocides have in common? With the possible exception of WWII Germany, they were carried out by very anti-religious regimes.
Compared to your list, mostly of people who had their feelings hurt by others, I'd say religion is relatively harmless.
"But the cool thing is science doesn't work that way. It can't work that way." "The power of this approach should be apparent to us all every time we make a cell-phone call or step into an airplane. And it is exactly this public domain of knowledge that has come under attack in the strange world of science denial we find ourselves in today when long-established understanding in a field like climate studies can be treated like whims or hoaxes."
Robert wrote: "how are you going to convince the man and woman, married for forty years, that your definition holds water compared to theirs?"Robert, I've been married for 27 years. Not once did I stop, whether during an argument, or any other troubled time in my marriage, and say to myself, "Those gays are to blame!"
My marriage has never been affected in ANY way, at ANY point by gay people, gay marriage or gay rights. I cannot name any one of our divorced friends who put "gay marriage" down under reason for divorce. My marriage succeeds or fails based on the choices my husband and I make, no one else.
I guess if you stay up late into the night commenting on forums about gay marriage until your wife leaves you,....nah, that'd still be your fault, not gays.
The argument that gay marriage somehow negatively affects heterosexual marriage is an empty one.
I agree you should just go with the "I think it's icky" argument and be honest.
David wrote: "Travis wrote: "But, at the same time religion gives people the excuse to hate an entire group, 'because god says so. ... That's a threat that I personally find much scarier.'"Your points are tru..."
Yeah, but I'm going to guess you aren't in any of the groups that has been treated as a second class citizen by religion.
As long as it's someone else, religion is mostly harmless.
As long as you aren't being treated badly, then it's no big deal and can't see what all the fuss is.
And can we not play the keeping score game?
your genocide list is mostly anti-religious, but also not what
I would call science friendly, so it's pretty pointless.
Growing up in a religious family seriously and disturbingly narrows a child's view of the world around them. It inadvertantly teaches a child to segregate others, it teaches them to look down on others and instills genuine fear about people that are different. Religions teach the very young to hate in such a sublime way that it never feels like hate but deep down that is the feeling driving others to be unexcepting of people.
Travis wrote: "David wrote: "Travis wrote: "and can we not play the keeping score game?"I agree Travis. and David? Aren't we comparing apples and oranges? I am not surprised that many have died due to hatred, greed, or grabs for power.
What does concern me is that ANY would die in the name of religion. Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Holocaust, Bosnian war, are just a few instances where people died due to their religious beliefs.
But, why, when most religions claim "love one another, charity, and compassion" as their core beliefs would any true believer think that their god wants them to take another human life. ( some believe humans are made in god's image which would mean you are killing god?)
Maybe, just maybe, religion is just a human construct that does little to cover human faults.
cHriS wrote: "Ancient: of or in time long past, especially before the end of the Western Roman Empire a.d. 476: ancient history............so you got that bit wrong; carry on taking the happy pills. "
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ancient
an•cient 1 (nshnt)
adj.
1. Of great age; very old.
2. Of or relating to times long past, especially those of the historical period before the fall of the Western Roman Empire (a.d. 476). See Synonyms at old.
3. Old-fashioned; antiquated.
4. Having the qualities associated with age, wisdom, or long use; venerable.
Not unusual for a christian to just cherry pick that which appeals to them.
Religion is a fine example of a “happy pill” - but so many overdose; don't worry though, there is an antidote: rationality.
My hpils nickname was garnered by playing pool very well (so I thought :-) and very quickly (hurricane) whilst under the influence of copious amount of Pilsner lager (pils). Now there's a proper happy pill. As Homer (not the ancient one, the ancient one) said "To alcohol! The cause of... and solution to... all of life's problems."
Jettcatt wrote: "Growing up in a religious family seriously and disturbingly narrows a child's view of the world around them. It inadvertantly teaches a child to segregate others, it teaches them to look down on ot..."Maybe in your case that's what happened, Jettcatt, and I'm not saying it's not a possibility that will happen.
But I was brought up in a very religious household and it did not narrow my view - it made me wonder what else was out there. It made me way more curious about "other people" and gave me a great sense of responsibility to learn all I could about lots of religions, cultures, etc.
I guess it just depends on the child and his/her motivation.
A few things to respond to here:First, if I have a friend with a drinking problem, and I speak up and warn them that they have a problem, does that make me liquor-phobic? If I have a friend who likes to drive fast and reckless, and I speak up and say I don’t like the way they drive, does that make me speeder-phobic? What about a guy I know who loves money so much it is destroying his marriage? Am I a miser-phobe if I say he needs to just loosen up and pay full price once in a while? Am I heroin-phobic if I counsel drug addicts into getting rehab? I don’t know many people who have absolutely no flaws, and usually I let most of the little things go, but when I see people living a destructive lifestyle and I speak up, it’s kind of foolish to say it’s because of a phobia. On the other hand, if you have a guy on the thread who doesn’t agree with you on an issue, and you need to throw names at him to downplay his argument, it doesn’t change anything about him, but there is a real term for what you become: it’s called a bigot.
Second, I know a lot of folks think their viewpoint is “progressive”. Let me just say that progress is one of those things best measured in hindsight. If you’ve ever been lost in the woods, you’d know what it feels like to think you’ve made progress only to realize you’ve seen that tree before. Have you ever been passed on the freeway by one of those guys doing twice the speed limit, weaving in and out of cars? You know what they think they’re doing? Progressing, that’s what. Sometimes they progress all the way through the windshield and onto the hood. Do you really think that’s what they meant to do?
A few years back there was a well-known blogger who was driving his family from Washington to California during the Holidays. His GPS navigation system told him there was a shortcut over the mountains in Southern Oregon, so he took it. He didn’t stop for directions, because he was making “progress” and he was just so damned clever with his little technological gadgets. A local would have told him that road was closed in winter. Common sense would have told him to turn around after he hit the first couple of inches of white stuff on the road. But he was so “progressive” he just kept going. After a few days a search-and-rescue helicopter found his wife and children alive. He froze to death trying to hike out of there to get help. So much for what he thought was “progress”.
Does anybody know a single mom who can afford to buy her own home—on her own income? Guess what: in 1975 a group of “progressives” got together and lobbied for a law to be passed in the US that came to be known as the “Equal Credit Opportunity Act”. It was supposed to pave the way for women to get their own home loans. Do you know which women it helped? The women who signed under their husbands, that’s who. Guess what happened to housing prices? I suppose if you sold your home for twice what you paid for it in the last few decades, you might call it progress. Then again, look at what it has done to our economy in the long run.
Nobody tries to race a train to the crossing thinking “I’m an idiot.” No, they think they’re going to come out on top. That’s the same psychology behind the “progressive” mentality. Now I know what happens in real life when “progress” puts a guy metaphorically through the windshield. He starts blaming others.” It’s the conservative’s fault.” Or, “ It’s the liberal’s fault.” Maybe even, “Those meddling Maori are behind this, I just know it.” Few people ever really just sit down and think: “if I don’t want to face the consequences, what should I do different?” But sometimes that’s what you have to do.
As for the term “Wound”, I will explain. A few years ago I learned that one of my closest friends had left his wife and kids to pursue the homosexual lifestyle. It was very tragic to watch, and I know he hurt more than just his family with the choice. At about the same time, my cousin also cut ties with our family and disappeared into the lesbian community. I started attending a support group taught by a man who had once lived the homosexual lifestyle, and he opened my eyes to a few things. Foremost, he explained that many people who experience gender confusion suffered a severe psychological detachment from their parents in their childhood. Sometimes it is because a parent dies, sometimes the parent is abusive, and sometimes the parent is just absent (even if they remain within the home). This is not a “normal” choice that children have control over; this is a wound, and it affects that child into adulthood. Both my friend and my cousin lost their parents at a young age. I was there with both of them when those tragedies struck, and when I think of the pain I saw them go through, I can understand how it could affect them decades later. I began to realize that this kind of tragic “wound” was present in the other gays and lesbians I’ve known. It is a very deep wound. Yes, it lies at the core of their gender orientation, but I’ve also seen it manifest in drug abuse, social dysfunction, and other things I felt would be best described with words like “dark” and “shadows”.
I’m sorry if I don’t think “acceptance” is going to heal the deeper, psychological scars in these peoples’ lives. Having personally shared the tragedies in both my friend and my cousin’s lives, I am not “homophobic” towards them. I know they hurt, and I know that, the way they are living now, they are hurting other people. And they are not the only ones I know who are hurting others with their choices. So yes, I see a wound, and no, I’m not going to just accept it.
I know a lot of people don’t like my opinion, and that’s fine. I did not come here to discuss gay marriage, but it does touch on some of the deeper philosophical issues I like to discuss. The venom spewed in my direction only identifies the asps from whence it came. My personal opinion, based on my personal relationship with real people, is a lot more valuable than something gleaned merely from the television—which is what a lot of what was regurgitated at me sounds like. I know what folks are watching. I know that television is trying to depict the homosexual couple as normal just like it’s trying to make you think everybody drives an expensive car and has a new cell-phone (with a G-4 network everywhere they go) and dresses like they live in Los Angeles in the dead of winter even though the sitcom is supposed to be set in Minneapolis. Guess what, folks: it’s an illusion. Think about this: Have you ever watched a single murder on television that was not meant to be entertaining? There are none. That’s because television is meant to be entertaining. It doesn’t matter how horrific you think the imagery is, there was some guy back at the studio saying “make sure the viewers don’t turn the channel”. Does that mean we all need to embrace murder and let people do it? Don’t accept an idea just because television makes it look good. Don’t embrace an idea just because the news tells you it’s “progressive”. Think for yourself. I can’t help you with any deeper discussions if all you want to do is shout at people who don’t agree with you on these silly, shallow issues.
Wow Robert. You should have just stuck with " I think it"s icky" . you earlier postulated how gay marriage hurts hetero marriage, so I told you that I am not aware of even one couple who's marriage was negatively affected by gay marriage.no divorce where " those wounded gays" is listed as reason. Never in my 27 years of marriage have I thought " wow this would be perfect if it wasn't for those gays"
I happen to personally know 5 women who purchased their own homes, without a husband or other male to consign. 3 have children, 2 do not. 1 is a nurse practitioner, 1 is customer service representative, 1 psychologist, and 2 teachers. So if anecdotal evidence counts for anything, then there ya go.
Yes progress, that same thing that brings you the ability to post your opinions here. Progress that developed the car you drive, the medicine you take, and the tolerance and acceptance you refute. It's sad, but not unexpected.
You accept the progress that helps you personally but the rest you condemn.
I think there's a word for that... But it escapes me.
Hp wrote: an•cient 1 (nshnt)adj.
1. Of great age; very old.
2. Of or relating to times long past, especially those of the historical period before the fall of the Western Roman Empire (a.d. 476). See Synonyms at old.
3. Old-fashioned; antiquated.
4. Having the qualities associated with age, wisdom, or long use; venerable.
Not unusual for a christian to just cherry pick that which appeals to them.
..."
None of your chosen definitions above in any way relates to something written in 2006 about the FSM. I could have given any of those definitions, so the cherry picking and christian ‘dig’ is just what is, a dig.
The constant comparison to the FSM makes your side of the argument seem all the more comical, but I guess that’s not a bad thing.
Robert wrote: "A few things to respond to here:First, if I have a friend with a drinking problem, and I speak up and warn them that they have a problem, does that make me liquor-phobic? If I have a friend who li..."
Except, you don't just see gay people on 'progressive' television shows.
You talk to them at PTA meetings, you get invited to their christmas parties, they are your co-workers, you chat with them about those entertaining murders you see on tv and you even invite them to traditional weddings.
Maybe, just maybe all the people here that believe denying people rights is not a good thing, did think for themselves and got it despite people like you, who they saw on fox news, telling us it would destroy marriage as we know it and are wildly insulted by your implication that we are just thinking this way to be cool and trendy.
and maybe we are also really tired of you spouting paragraphs of metaphorical bs, talking to us like we are five year olds, in the hopes that it will somehow pretty up the hateful things you are saying.
Because despite what you want to think, denying a group rights based on who and what they are is all those bad, judgmental words you are hoping to dodge.
it's only silly and shallow because odds are there won't be a law passed telling Robert that his family doesn't count and that he and his deviant, metaphor based life style means he is a second class citizen.
Shanna wrote: "Heather,http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/bl..."
That's really fascinating; thanks for sharing it. I've only just become involved in the skeptical community and I think I've learned more from them than with any other group I've been a part of.
Heather wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Heather,http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/bl..."
That's really fascinating; thanks for sharing it. I've only just become involved in the skeptical community..."
No problem just stumbled across it and thought you might be interested. :)
cerebus wrote: "Is this something else that those against same-sex marriage see as "redefining marriage"?"Could be.
What is a car for?Is it for peeling out on the blacktop? Impressing that girl by revving the engine everytime you drive past her house?
Is it for parking in the most prominent space in front of the office so the co-workers all see it and envy you?
Is it for long-range, long-weekend road trips with the wind blowing thorugh the open windows and the radio playing whatever you can find on a local station?
Is it for carting the kids to and from soccer practice and band practice and dinner and day-care and everywhere else in the course of a day?
It's the same car, but different people look at it and see something completely different.
The same thing can mean different things to different people. Some folks demand civil rights where others can't understand what they're talking about. Some folks think the government (or the church) exists for the sole purpose of replacing their mothers in the (still necessary) task of cleaning up after themselves. Some folks think this thread is merely a place to argue about one, tiny little issue. Some folks think that issue is so important, they need to get downright angry about it--and stay that way for days. Like I said, I'm talking about a larger issue here than just "My holy book says gays are icky." (In fact, those are words somebody else is trying to put in my mouth). If all you're going to see is the limited view you've been given by the black-and-white playbook-of-important-issues then you're not going to see what I'm saying.
Travis wrote: "Maybe, just maybe all the people here that believe denying people rights is not a good thing, did think for themselves and got it despite people like you, who they saw on fox news, telling us it would destroy marriage as we know it and are wildly insulted by your implication that we are just thinking this way to be cool and trendy...."
Marriage, as you know it, may not be marriage. Did you ever think about that? Did you ever think that the reason why fifty-percent of marriages fail is because people have no idea what they are doing? Have you ever watched a child play house. They go through the motions of cooking and ironing, but if you gave them the real tools they'd burn the place down. Did you ever think that most of the people who go into marriage have no idea what they are really getting into? It's not just sleeping together. It's not just love.
If you think love is the only thing that holds a marriage together—that two people can stay married for forty years only because they love each other—then your marriage is already doomed. It doesn’t matter what gender you are married to. You’re in it for all the wrong reasons. Sooner or later, you’re going to hit a point in your relationship where the love is gone. And if that is all that is holding you together, just the love between two individuals, then you are going to find yourself alone. Marriage is not about love—yours or your spouse’s. It’s about being a part of a larger entity.
When I combine an oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, I don’t get a pimped up oxygen atom. I get water. Water behaves completely different than hydrogen and oxygen. When I combine molecules together to create complex proteins, they, too behave by a new set of rules. There is a new behavior protocol set for the larger entity. This principle is visible all the way up. I have a liver and a spleen, but I don’t act like a liver and a spleen. They become part of the greater entity that is me. And when I join into a marriage, it becomes a larger entity. I don’t just gain ownership of a wife, and she doesn’t gain ownership of me. We are part of a larger entity, with a new set of protocols. If I try to live by my old bachelor patterns, my marriage is not going to last long. And if my wife decides that she is queen and begins to rule me with an iron fist, the marriage is just as doomed.
The greater principle at work here is the Conceptual Bond. A Concept does not exist here in the common reality that we all share, but people who believe in it cause it to manifest as a real entity. I suppose I could use the illustration of a Dungeons and Dragons game. When I sit around the table with my friends, there are fireballs, vorpal swords, magic missiles, and all sorts of things that we all agree are there on the table…but they’re not really there. We react to them, we make decisions based on them, but at the end of the evening, when the game ends and the party breaks up, there is nothing left to show for it. There are a lot of concepts in this world that people take for granted. Law, for instance. Have you ever tried to use a lawbook to defend yourself against a home intruder? I was in a home that was broken into once, and the only thing that repelled the invaders was a good, sharp sword. If you can’t get a person to agree that the law is there, it isn’t there. The same goes for money. Try to buy something with Monopoly money, and you’ll have a hard time finding anybody who agrees with you as to its value.
There are some concepts that create larger entities. A government is really a concept. You can’t really touch it. It’s a group of people who believe they are a part of it, so they act like they are a part of it. Guess what. The same goes for marriage. It only exists when two people agree to form it between themselves. Have you ever had a boyfriend or girlfriend dump you because you weren’t on the same level? She wanted more, you wanted less, or vice versa. That’s because there was no agreement. She was a part of one thing, you were a part of something else, and when one or both of you realized you were not on the same page, it was already over. Marriage is just as fragile.
Scientists are familiar with the concept of entropy, the general migration from orderly to chaotic. Well there is an opposing force to entropy. For lack of a better word, it is altruism. The belief in a greater good—and the adherence to its patterns. Things get chaotic when they break down into random variables—when the larger entity no longer dictates the pattern and protocol behaviors of the components. Well there is a way to reverse this. When an individual acts in the interests of the greater entity—the entity into which the individual is merely a component, you begin to see order and stability. There are nations out there that are incredibly unstable because their individual components—their citizens—are all acting in their own petty, selfish interests. Few are looking out for the well-being of the greater entity. It’s like a sick body full of cancer. And a marriage is just as sick, or as healthy, as the altruism of those who make it up.
So yes, love is not enough. You have to believe in the greater entity. You have to behave as though you are part of a greater entity. It can’t be about you. It can’t be about the other one, either. If you want your marriage to last, you have to keep believing in it even when the love is gone. Guess what. The love comes back over time, stronger than ever, and then you’ll know of the kind of marriage I’ve been talking about. Not just the perfect wedding day kind of marriage. Not just the so-called "civil right" marriage (how many marriages have I seen end because one of its members started standing up for his or her rights?) I’m talking about the kind of marriage that reaches out and touches all the lives around it with its power. The kind of marriage the entire neighborhood believes in. That’s a real marriage.
And as far as I can tell, that marriage has yet to be discussed on this thread.
Robert wrote: "What is a car for?Is it for peeling out on the blacktop? Impressing that girl by revving the engine everytime you drive past her house?
Is it for parking in the most prominent space in front of ..."
Boiled down a car is a means of transportation, all else is meanings people attach to it, as you say.
I, as a mother of to young sons, I may make the argument that a car is means to get my kid to school and whatever. Do I then have the right to prevent(legislate against) cars being used for other activities by other people?
Marriage isn't just about co-habiting with individual you love or having children, there are other "rights" and "privileges" that go along with it. The right to choose who will be your next of kin, make decisions for you when you can't, the passing of property on death, the equitable division of property on divorce ect. There is no earthly reason to deny consenting adults this...
Robert wrote: "What is a car for?Is it for peeling out on the blacktop? Impressing that girl by revving the engine everytime you drive past her house?
Is it for parking in the most prominent space in front of ..."
So are you advocating that only those who meet your standard of car ownership be allowed cars?
Robert wrote: "And as far as I can tell, that marriage has yet to be discussed on this thread"Sounds like there's a lot of marriages you object to....the issue seems to be not that you object to marriage being "changed" to include same-sex couples, but that you think it is already too broad and should be more narrowly defined and restricted. Good luck with that campaign.
Robert wrote: "I’m talking about the kind of marriage that reaches out and touches all the lives around it with its power"I've got absolutely no idea how that works against same-sex marriage, but then I've got no idea what else works against it either. I'm all for it and I'm not even personally involved. I've got better things to think about than whether I or anyone else has the right to rub someone's life in their own face and say "my way is better" when it so isn't, not at all, and there's no proof that it is. Conventional marriage as we all unfortunately know is a weighted crapshoot and frankly it will amuse me no end when same-sex marriage turns out to be no more contentious than any other and everyone who campaigned so hard (and pointlessly) against it looks like a meddler with nothing better to think about.
Maria wrote: "Jettcatt wrote: "Growing up in a religious family seriously and disturbingly narrows a child's view of the world around them. It inadvertantly teaches a child to segregate others, it teaches them t..."I don't think it comes down to the child and what motivates the child but perhaps what motivates the teaching's. In my experience many religious people talk the talk but don't walk the walk... They say they love all etc but would be the last to be seen associating with homosexuals, drug addicts, criminals etc.
Science solves real problems. Religion solves imaginary problems.
Well, the Bible does say in 1 Corinthians 15:33 that "bad associations spoil useful habits". So drug addicts, criminals, etc. are not the type of people a person would want to hang around on a regular basis. The only reason to be around them is to maybe help them or teach them to be honest, productive, healthy human beings.
And yet, Mary Magdalene was a supposed prostitute and Jesus was her friend. For every " example' in the bible there is a contradiction as well. Hardly sounds like a divine document, sounds more like the hand of many flawed men wrote it.
AS I SAID, there is reason to be associated with those types of people, that is TO HELP THEM. If they were hanging around Jesus, obviously they had a spiritual side to them and wanted his help. He didn't condone their behaviour, and if they told him they were not interested in his help he probably would have stopped the association. Some people are just looking for contradictions in the Bible so that they don't feel obligated to live their lives according to the principles found there. It gives them an excuse to justify any type of lifestyle or behaviour.
And, FYI, modern research has pretty much debunked the supposition that Mary Magdelene was a prostitute. That was dreamed up by the Catholic church to promote their belief that women are subordinate to men in the church.
Linda wrote: "All except the veggies eh Travis? ;)"I'm hoping with enough bacon, the vegetarians will see the error of their ways.
Robert wrote: "What is a car for?Is it for peeling out on the blacktop? Impressing that girl by revving the engine everytime you drive past her house?
Is it for parking in the most prominent space in front of ..."
So, you also think gay people shouldn't have cars...?
Maybe we see it as a black and white issue because it is.
Yes, Maria I am aware of what midterm research now says about Mary Magdalene. And that's my point, supposedly the bible is a holy and divine word. Yet, now upon modern scrutiny, it appears the word of hod was influenced by the men writing it and may not be all that factual. Hmmmmm.
Robert wrote: "Travis wrote: "Maybe, just maybe all the people here that believe denying people rights is not a good thing, did think for themselves and got it despite people like you, who they saw on fox news, t..."So, marriage is so fragile that if we let gay people near it they will destroy the entity/concept/ whatever metaphor you think of next?
again with the 'if you only understood...!'...?
So, not only are you the only one who truly understands gay people, you are now the only one who truly understands marriage...?
Thank god you showed up to set us straight!
We might have wandered through life treating gay people like real normal people and allowed them to have loving relationships and families and even sit in the front of the bus.
Mary wrote: "Yes, Maria I am aware of what midterm research now says about Mary Magdalene. And that's my point, supposedly the bible is a holy and divine word. Yet, now upon modern scrutiny, it appears the word..."did you intentionally write 'word of hod' to make a point about the bible making mistakes or is that just the best typo ever...?
either way I'm wishing this thread had a 'like' button.
"LIKE" :)In all likelihood, quite a bit of the Bible is not completely factual. But I still think that even if it's not divinely inspired, it still has a lot of good advice for living healthy and happy lives, and also is a good read.
Michael wrote: "it will amuse me no end when same-sex marriage turns out to be no more contentious than any other and everyone who campaigned so hard (and pointlessly) against it looks like a meddler with nothing better to think about. ..."
I don't know where you live, but where I live it is legal and we're already dealing with the wrinkles that it causes when two completely different ideas of "marriage" try to play by the same rules.
For instance, where I live, when two women, married to each other, want to have children (and like most of us can't afford to enseminate), they take on a boyfriend. At this point, if this were a traditional marriage, it would end up on Jerry Springer (sorry if I date myself). However, both spouses are perfectly fine with the fact that one of them (or both of them, as I have personally seen) is pregnant with somebody else's baby. It actually works to their favor, because, being the "married" side of the custody dispute, the judge has no choice but to award custody to the same-sex couple and demand child support from the boyfriend. Never mind that the boyfriend may have never been told that his girlfriend was actually married to her "roommate". (I have not seen the same done by two men and a surrogate mother, but I can imagine it would have the same outcome.)
I don't know about you, but I don't have to be homophobic to think that's slightly unethical. I also think it's unethical to consider what I just said "illegal" in many places around the world where same-sex marriage has been legalized.
I’m curious how many patents have been issued based on the theory of dark matter. None? Really? What about String Theory? None? But aren’t these theories paving the way for progress? How many patents have been issued based on the theory of evolution? Actually, there are quite a few if you count the patents for pharmaceutical medicines developed to treat the epidemic of psychological disorders (such as depression, anxiety, and hyperactivity) that have been on the rise ever since schools started teaching kids they’re just an accident (like they don’t hear that enough at home). What about all those patents for genetically modified organisms that many are beginning to suspect are behind all these new food allergies and strange diseases and disorders? Do we not have the theory of “junk DNA” to thank for all that meddling?You see, there are two kinds of progress. There’s technological, and there’s societal. I said it before but I think I need to point it out again: you know the scientific theories behind the technology that allows us to chat on the internet from all over the world? That’s actually older than the Cold War. On the other hand, the chaotic, degenerated society my children are inheriting can in no way be called progress. What progress we may have made technologically, we’ve traded for societally.
A while back, notable scientist Bill Nye lamented that our society was suffering because too few children are being taught evolution in school. Personally, I can’t think of a single public school that has taught anything but evolution for the past two generations. The children I know would probably do better socially and emotionally if they were taught deism or even theism rather than the philosophy that they are an accident and their lives hold no more meaning than a personal search for self-gratification. But this is not about the kids, is it? It’s about us and our personal search for self-gratification.
Robert wrote: "I’m curious how many patents have been issued based on the theory of dark matter. None? Really? What about String Theory? None? But aren’t these theories paving the way for progress? How many paten..."Or your kids could go to sunday school if they want to learn religion.
They used to teach kids all about religion if you went to a church, way back when I was a youngster.
Do they still do that?
Did they stop teaching kids religion in church, is that why so many people need to force the public schools to do it?
If I go to a church will they teach me algebra? I think they should. Only fair if the schools are going to be busy teaching our kids religion.
More about that horrible societal progress?
You mean letting women vote?
Letting interracial couples marry?
Letting black people vote?
thinking that all people should be treated equally?
Taking better care of workers, the sick or the elderly?
Oh, wait, I bet you mean actually treating gay people like people.
Parents used to rely on the "church" to teach their kids morals, values, etc that used to be instilled as part of being a family. When the church stopped teaching the kids, the parents started to rely on the school system to teach their kids morality, religion, etc. Eventually it is going to fall back onto the PARENTS, who have failed miserably.
For instance, where I live, when two women, married to each other, want to have children (and like most of us can't afford to enseminate), they take on a boyfriend. At this point, if this were a traditional marriage, it would end up on Jerry Springer (sorry if I date myself). However, both spouses are perfectly fine with the fact that one of them (or both of them, as I have personally seen) is pregnant with somebody else's baby. It actually works to their favor, because, being the "married" side of the custody dispute, the judge has no choice but to award custody to the same-sex couple and demand child support from the boyfriend. Never mind that the boyfriend may have never been told that his girlfriend was actually married to her "roommate". (I have not seen the same done by two men and a surrogate mother, but I can imagine it would have the same outcome.)Because unethical behaviour is never exhibited in "traditional" marriage, no spouse has ever deceived the other in a traditonal marriage.
So let me get this straight you demand a higher standard of behaviour before they can get married? Discrimination...
As to being pregnant with someone else's child it happens all with infertile couples, doesn't indicate infidelity... as you seem to insinuate, hell, it doesn't even require sex.
Is your problem that he man in this scenario is forced to pay support? he should unless they have all had some sort of agreement memorialised in writing otherwise it is the child's right to be supported by it's parents, and it's bullshit that the judge "has no choice" but to award custody the married parent.
I don't understand how that example given is unethical? If two people in a married situation are unable to conceive, and so one of them sleeps with someone else to create a child, and this is something that all parties involved have agreed upon, and its hurting no-one, who the fuck cares what they're doing in their private lives? This isn't unethical, this is a mutually acceptable solution for all the people involved in the situation, and no business of anyone elses.
Robert wrote: "I don't know where you live, but where I live it is legal and we're already dealing with the wrinkles that it causes when two completely different ideas of "marriage" try to play by the same rules."They SHOULD play by the same rules. I reckon that's what equality means, no difference, no bias and even no priveleges, the right and means to screw up just like so-called conventional marriages do. And that's what we think where I live. (At least the sane people do.) Tough crackers, just going to have to put up with the wrinkles.
As Shanna said, the traditional marriage is hardly the first place to look when you want to find a scenario that is 100% unsullied with controversy, deception and other shit, is it?
Look what we heterosexuals have done to marriage, and tell me that it isn't already fucked up.
Religion is a totally man-made concept, using human fears for the purpose of control. We, as a species, can certainly do just fine without it.Myth : what always is, but never was.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
No, no it's not.