QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 6 2008, 01:00 AM)
The fact that the Panda refuses to eat anything other than bamboo, does not negate the equal reality that there is plenty of other potential nutrition around him. Over time, he develops a stomach only for bamboo, and the results are observably tragic.
g.
I am sorry, I have read and re-read this, and reviewed the previous posts repeatedly, I just do not see what you are either saying or implying with the whole Panda analogy
g.
I am sorry, I have read and re-read this, and reviewed the previous posts repeatedly, I just do not see what you are either saying or implying with the whole Panda analogy
deadbeat, Did you analyze the cartoon that gmilam posted? Did you read the full captions under the pictures, especially on the left hand side representing the vast evidence supporting science? 
Did you notice how vapid the side representing religion was? Can't you SEE the difference?
Psychology AND psychiatry are valid sciences, you deadbeat!
Nearly every academic college and university in the civilized world offer degree programs in these sciences. For YOU, of all people, to attempt a carpet denial of them all, just shows how totally uninformed you are. Statistical analysis of poll surveys and questionnaires, MRI and "Cat-scans" of brain activity during differing activities and brain states and the pioneering studies of Freud, then his students, Adler, Jung and others, and on up to the breakthrough research of Carl Rogers and, my personal favorite, Abraham Maslow, psychology is an established field of scientific endeavor.
Now, the Panda analogy maybe came out of the blue, but when evolution, OR human choice limits what one eats or believes, extinction may be the result. In Pandas, their adaptation to solely eating a few bamboo species severely limits their possibility of range extension, ability to adapt to food shortages and other key survival scenarios. In humans, when people restrict their belief system to religion and deny the validity of science, they loose their ability to LEARN, to adapt to changes and new developments.
They may rely on "prayer" when modern medical intervention is called for, which could result in the unnecessary exacerbation of a preventable condition, or even death. 
People who so severely restrict their world view do not learn from history and are doomed to repeat the mistakes that more thorough knowledge would have prevented. Those that would deny the entire academic fields of psychology, psychiatry and evolutionary psychology are going the way of the dinosaurs, unable to adapt to the learning curve of the rest of humanity! Good bye, deadbeat! Maybe the men in the white coats will come to take you away, haha, hehe, hoho! ((
))
Please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4
Did you notice how vapid the side representing religion was? Can't you SEE the difference?Psychology AND psychiatry are valid sciences, you deadbeat!
Nearly every academic college and university in the civilized world offer degree programs in these sciences. For YOU, of all people, to attempt a carpet denial of them all, just shows how totally uninformed you are. Statistical analysis of poll surveys and questionnaires, MRI and "Cat-scans" of brain activity during differing activities and brain states and the pioneering studies of Freud, then his students, Adler, Jung and others, and on up to the breakthrough research of Carl Rogers and, my personal favorite, Abraham Maslow, psychology is an established field of scientific endeavor. Now, the Panda analogy maybe came out of the blue, but when evolution, OR human choice limits what one eats or believes, extinction may be the result. In Pandas, their adaptation to solely eating a few bamboo species severely limits their possibility of range extension, ability to adapt to food shortages and other key survival scenarios. In humans, when people restrict their belief system to religion and deny the validity of science, they loose their ability to LEARN, to adapt to changes and new developments.
They may rely on "prayer" when modern medical intervention is called for, which could result in the unnecessary exacerbation of a preventable condition, or even death. People who so severely restrict their world view do not learn from history and are doomed to repeat the mistakes that more thorough knowledge would have prevented. Those that would deny the entire academic fields of psychology, psychiatry and evolutionary psychology are going the way of the dinosaurs, unable to adapt to the learning curve of the rest of humanity! Good bye, deadbeat! Maybe the men in the white coats will come to take you away, haha, hehe, hoho! (())Please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4
QUOTE (photojack+May 7 2008, 02:06 AM)
deadbeat, Did you analyze the cartoon that gmilam posted? Did you read the full captions under the pictures, especially on the left hand side representing the vast evidence supporting science? Did you notice how vapid the side representing religion was? Can't you SEE the difference?
Psychology AND psychiatry are valid sciences, you deadbeat! Nearly every academic college and university in the civilized world offer degree programs in these sciences. For YOU, of all people, to attempt a carpet denial of them all, just shows how totally uninformed you are. Statistical analysis of poll surveys and questionnaires, MRI and "Cat-scans" of brain activity during differing activities and brain states and the pioneering studies of Freud, then his students, Adler, Jung and others, and on up to the breakthrough research of Carl Rogers and, my personal favorite, Abraham Maslow, psychology is an established field of scientific endeavor.
Now, the Panda analogy maybe came out of the blue, but when evolution, OR human choice limits what one eats or believes, extinction may be the result. In Pandas, their adaptation to solely eating a few bamboo species severely limits their possibility of range extension, ability to adapt to food shortages and other key survival scenarios. In humans, when people restrict their belief system to religion and deny the validity of science, they loose their ability to LEARN, to adapt to changes and new developments. They may rely on "prayer" when modern medical intervention is called for, which could result in the unnecessary exacerbation of a preventable condition, or even death. People who so severely restrict their world view do not learn from history and are doomed to repeat the mistakes that more thorough knowledge would have prevented. Those that would deny the entire academic fields of psychology, psychiatry and evolutionary psychology are going the way of the dinosaurs, unable to adapt to the learning curve of the rest of humanity! Good bye, deadbeat! Maybe the men in the white coats will come to take you away, haha, hehe, hoho! (())
Please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4
Meh, typical of you.
I do not DENY Psychology or Psychiatry, I just seperate them categorically from Hard objective science.
Subjective disciplines are not without worth, they just must be judged differently than Hard objective science.
Your condescension is neither necessary nor worthwhile, but go ahead if it makes you feel better.
Did you notice how vapid the side representing religion was? Can't you SEE the difference?Psychology AND psychiatry are valid sciences, you deadbeat!
Nearly every academic college and university in the civilized world offer degree programs in these sciences. For YOU, of all people, to attempt a carpet denial of them all, just shows how totally uninformed you are. Statistical analysis of poll surveys and questionnaires, MRI and "Cat-scans" of brain activity during differing activities and brain states and the pioneering studies of Freud, then his students, Adler, Jung and others, and on up to the breakthrough research of Carl Rogers and, my personal favorite, Abraham Maslow, psychology is an established field of scientific endeavor. Now, the Panda analogy maybe came out of the blue, but when evolution, OR human choice limits what one eats or believes, extinction may be the result. In Pandas, their adaptation to solely eating a few bamboo species severely limits their possibility of range extension, ability to adapt to food shortages and other key survival scenarios. In humans, when people restrict their belief system to religion and deny the validity of science, they loose their ability to LEARN, to adapt to changes and new developments.
They may rely on "prayer" when modern medical intervention is called for, which could result in the unnecessary exacerbation of a preventable condition, or even death. People who so severely restrict their world view do not learn from history and are doomed to repeat the mistakes that more thorough knowledge would have prevented. Those that would deny the entire academic fields of psychology, psychiatry and evolutionary psychology are going the way of the dinosaurs, unable to adapt to the learning curve of the rest of humanity! Good bye, deadbeat! Maybe the men in the white coats will come to take you away, haha, hehe, hoho! (())Please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4
Meh, typical of you.
I do not DENY Psychology or Psychiatry, I just seperate them categorically from Hard objective science.
Subjective disciplines are not without worth, they just must be judged differently than Hard objective science.
Your condescension is neither necessary nor worthwhile, but go ahead if it makes you feel better.
Meh, Typical of YOU! Meshugah!
Pick one minor point, attempt to counter it, half-heartedly, and think you won the entire argument or debate! WHAT A JOKE! (())
DID you analyze that cartoon? DID you see the point it was making? DID you get the gist of all that I said, or have posted as replies to your religious babblings, here and on other threads?
Most SCIENTISTS wouldn't make quite such a distinction. There is a much narrower gap there than between religions and cults! How DO you differentiate a religion from a cult? I have heard MANY people say that Mormonism is a cult and that Joseph Smith was no prophet at all. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith%...r._and_polygamy
What about Jonestown or "Heaven's Gate'? How about Seventh-day Adventists? Much of the theology of the Seventh-day Adventist church corresponds to evangelical teachings such as the Trinity and the infallibility of Scripture. Or is any other church but yours a cult? (())
deadbeat, If you intend to carry on with your nonsense, you will be expected to answer ALL points brought up and address the pertinent issues, or go the way of the dinosaurs and all others who can't change, adapt or learn!
Pick one minor point, attempt to counter it, half-heartedly, and think you won the entire argument or debate! WHAT A JOKE! ((
))DID you analyze that cartoon? DID you see the point it was making? DID you get the gist of all that I said, or have posted as replies to your religious babblings, here and on other threads?
QUOTE
I do not DENY Psychology or Psychiatry, I just seperate (sic) them categorically from Hard objective science.
deadbeat quote.Most SCIENTISTS wouldn't make quite such a distinction. There is a much narrower gap there than between religions and cults! How DO you differentiate a religion from a cult? I have heard MANY people say that Mormonism is a cult and that Joseph Smith was no prophet at all. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith%...r._and_polygamy
What about Jonestown or "Heaven's Gate'? How about Seventh-day Adventists? Much of the theology of the Seventh-day Adventist church corresponds to evangelical teachings such as the Trinity and the infallibility of Scripture. Or is any other church but yours a cult? ((
))deadbeat, If you intend to carry on with your nonsense, you will be expected to answer ALL points brought up and address the pertinent issues, or go the way of the dinosaurs and all others who can't change, adapt or learn!
I've been gone for a month and you people are still fighting?
well, deadbeat is in round #1482 and he's still staggering around, too senseless to admit defeat! (())
))
QUOTE (photojack+May 7 2008, 04:17 AM)
deadbeat, If you intend to carry on with your nonsense, you will be expected to answer ALL points brought up and address the pertinent issues, or go the way of the dinosaurs and all others who can't change, adapt or learn!
Oh right. You, who have no idea what your ethical and moral basis is, will point the way for the rest of us.
Not likely.
Oh right. You, who have no idea what your ethical and moral basis is, will point the way for the rest of us.
Not likely.
Oh right. You who have no brains whatsoever, will attempt to point out my way? Not likely! I have total confidence in the SCIENTIFIC understanding of where MY ethical and moral basis is! How about YOU? (())
Once again, you pick one minor point, attempt to counter it, half-heartedly, and THINK you won the entire argument or debate! WHAT A JOKE! (())
I repeat, if you intend to carry on with your nonsense, you will be expected to answer ALL points brought up and address the pertinent issues, or go the way of the dinosaurs and all others who can't change, adapt or learn!
))Once again, you pick one minor point, attempt to counter it, half-heartedly, and THINK you won the entire argument or debate! WHAT A JOKE! ((
))I repeat, if you intend to carry on with your nonsense, you will be expected to answer ALL points brought up and address the pertinent issues, or go the way of the dinosaurs and all others who can't change, adapt or learn!
QUOTE (photojack+May 7 2008, 06:37 AM)
Oh right. You who have no brains whatsoever, will attempt to point out my way? Not likely! I have total confidence in the SCIENTIFIC understanding of where MY ethical and moral basis is! How about YOU? (())
Once again, you pick one minor point, attempt to counter it, half-heartedly, and THINK you won the entire argument or debate! WHAT A JOKE! (())
I repeat, if you intend to carry on with your nonsense, you will be expected to answer ALL points brought up and address the pertinent issues, or go the way of the dinosaurs and all others who can't change, adapt or learn!
Right. So you cannot even demonstrate the source or reference of forgiveness, a single ethical and moral concept.
The reason I pick a simple minor point, is to illustrate the pomposity and hollowness of your grand sweeping statements of superiority.
So show us how your "scientific understanding" has provided you the right answer to the issue of forgiveness.
))Once again, you pick one minor point, attempt to counter it, half-heartedly, and THINK you won the entire argument or debate! WHAT A JOKE! ((
))I repeat, if you intend to carry on with your nonsense, you will be expected to answer ALL points brought up and address the pertinent issues, or go the way of the dinosaurs and all others who can't change, adapt or learn!
Right. So you cannot even demonstrate the source or reference of forgiveness, a single ethical and moral concept.
The reason I pick a simple minor point, is to illustrate the pomposity and hollowness of your grand sweeping statements of superiority.
So show us how your "scientific understanding" has provided you the right answer to the issue of forgiveness.
QUOTE (deadbeat+May 7 2008, 01:10 AM)
I am sorry, I have read and re-read this, and reviewed the previous posts repeatedly, I just do not see what you are either saying or implying with the whole Panda analogy
No, I didn't think for a minute that you would.
g.
No, I didn't think for a minute that you would.
g.
QUOTE (TheDoc+May 7 2008, 04:27 AM)
I've been gone for a month and you people are still fighting?
Well recovered, TheDoc! Nice to see you back, as it is now obvious that you did no 'wrong'!
It boils down to choices. People may choose to continue to fight, or progress with learning...but if they deny themselves 'choice' in the first place, they are rather stuck, sadly!
g.
Well recovered, TheDoc! Nice to see you back, as it is now obvious that you did no 'wrong'!
It boils down to choices. People may choose to continue to fight, or progress with learning...but if they deny themselves 'choice' in the first place, they are rather stuck, sadly!
g.
deadbeat quote.
I did then, very clearly, and here it is again. It COMPLETELY counters your biased religious claim to, and definition of, forgiveness!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgiveness
HOW SHORT IS YOUR ATTENTION SPAN? (())
QUOTE
Right. So you cannot even demonstrate the source or reference of forgiveness, a single ethical and moral concept.
I did then, very clearly, and here it is again. It COMPLETELY counters your biased religious claim to, and definition of, forgiveness!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgiveness
HOW SHORT IS YOUR ATTENTION SPAN? ((
))
Thanks deadbeat. I can concur that we hold some of the same understandings, as well as some differences. I think it is the differences I'd like to concentrate on although from time to time it will be advantageous to point out our mutual ideas. Also I think we need to concentrate on two terms you used: subjective and objective. From here I will move out further to touch on more specific concepts concerning knowledge and what it is. Also I'm not sure you understood me fully when I compared science, philosophy and religion so I will touch on them again in order to pull out a further understanding of what you are saying here.
I suspect we disagree on use of the terms subjective and objective in relation to knowledge. It is very important precisely because it gets at what it means to know. I think in every act of knowledge there is both a subjective and objective component. As I said previously there must be a knower and a known. We can consider what is known to be the object and we can also call it the subject under scrutiny. So here at least we have both words applied to the same thing (same real object or being). In a like manner I can rightly say the knowledge of, say, this key board, is subject to my mind (I'm thinking about it). I can also say I am being objective with that knowledge in that what I attribute to the object I know is truely what it is. So in the first case what is known can be both objective and subjective while in the latter the mind of the knower can have both attributes too. Thus I propose that in every act of knowing, which must involve minimum two beings (the knower and the known) there is both a subjective and objective component. Now if I understand you correctly what you call objective knowledge is valid while what you call subjective knowledge is not valid or at least doubtful. I cannot use the terms in this way because it implies something about the mind and reality that I do not accept. Rather I say the subjective knowledge is that which is in my mind and objective knowledge is that which is my mind and in accord with reality. Thus the subjectivity of my knowledge makes no claim as to it's validity. In other words to say my knowledge is subjective is not judge it but merely take note of it's presence in my mind. On the other hand to say my knowledge is objective is to recognize the accord my mind has with the being under scrutiny. So this latter way of describing my knowledge includes judgment in that it is a comparison between the knower and the known (it reflects the link between the two). In contrast pointing to the subjectivity of my knowledge does not carry with it any judgment but simply recognizes that I know.
So from this it should become clearer that I am trying to get at what it means for us to know. The nature of knowledge is important to our conversation because we are arguing back and forth about the validity of different kinds of knowledge. Specifically scientific versus philosophical (metaphysical, ontological, epistemological, existential, ect...) versus theological (revelatory or that kind that does not have it's origin in man or our material world). Therefore it is of utmost importance to determine if knowledge of the kind we call certain is even possible and if so what are it's conditions? Unfortunately we live in a culture that is steeped in skepticism and this state of mind (or method or prerequisite for thinking) has seeped into much of our so called scientific and logical thinking. Skepticism is a precondition that disables us from doing good science, philosophy or theology so it must be countered with what I call realism (Thomistic Realism to be specific).
The question then must be asked and answered: Can I know anything for sure? Is there such a thing as certainty? (and it's corollary; is truth possible?) From my position I say yes to all three of these questions but from yours I'm not sure you can (from what I've read so far). Basically either we can have certain knowledge or all our endeavors in science are in vain. If skepticism is the reality so to speak, if we can never know anything for certain then we not only waste our time thinking but communication would be impossible too (I am willing to get into proofs against universal and partial skepticism if anyone wants but refrain from it here for brevity's sake).
I propose as my teachers have, that our intellect is made for certainty and cannot be otherwise. I say "The human intellect is of its nature infallible in its judgments." In relation to knowledge this means it is incapable of erring. "For the aptitude of the intellect to attain truth implies that the intellect is of its nature infallible, though it can err by accident." The intellect is "the spiritual cognitive faculty. Infallible. Restricting this term to knowledge, infallibility means: 'incapable of erring.' A faculty is of its nature infallible, if acting only in accordance with that nature it cannot err, i.e., of its nature it is ordained to attain truth and is capable of attaining truth. A faculty is fallible by accident, when it can err because of some reason other than its nature... Error is had only in the judgement. If we consider man with all his faculities, he is of his nature fallible; because in man there is a combination of faculties, and in that combination there is found an element which might lead him into error, e.g., the influence of his passions, his will hastening the intellect to judge, etc. Hence, we do not say in our thesis that man is of his nature infallible; but we claim this infallibility for the intellect. The intellect acts according to its nature: if it has evidence of the object, i.e., if it sees that the object is so and cannot be otherwise; if, when it has not this evidence , it is not determined by prejudices, etc., to form a judgment, but refrains from judging. The proof of this thesis is that if the human intellect were of its nature fallible, universal skepticism would have to be admitted. But univesal skepticism cannot be admitted. Therefore, for a faculty which is of its nature fallible, is of its nature indifferent to truth and error, and hence incapable of perceiving and distinguishing truth. Therefore it is incapable of a certain judgment, and thus all certitude is destroyed. In other words, if the intellect were of its nature fallible, we could always doubt whether or not it was leading us into error, for the nature of the intellect is always the same. The natural infallibility of the intellect does not need to be demonstrated, for its denial implies its affirmation; nor can it be demonstrated, for in every demonstration it would necessarily be presupposed. Consequently, our proof of the thesis is not direct, but indirect. Although the human intellect is fallible "by accident," it is not so in everything. As regards truths that are immediatedly evident, the intellect cannot in any way be led into error, because the condition for error (i.e., ignorance or imperfect knowledge) is absent. Nor is the intellect under the influence of the will, for when immediate evidence shines in upon the intellect, all indifference ceases, and the intellect of its nature is necessitated to assent. We must remember that the intellect is a necessary faculty, i.e., when all the conditions requisite for acting are present, it must act. Still, in the absence of evident truth, which is the proper object of the intellect, it is not of itself necessitated to act. In the case of false judgments, therefore, where the evidence is only seeming or apparent, it must have received its inclination to judge from without, i.e., from the will. Difficulties: 1) The intellect is not of its nature infallible, if its nature, being finite, excludes infallibility. But its nature, being finite, excludes infallibility. Therefore... Answer: The finiteness of our intellect merely demands that our knowledge be limited, not that our intellect be of its nature fallible. But because it is a finite intellect and does not know everything, it can, under the influence of the will, through lack of due reflection, etc., form false judgments regarding truths that are not evident. In such judgments, the intellect is lured by seeming or apparent evidence. In judgments, however, which the intellect forms by itself, error cannot creep in, for in these judgments the intellect is necessitated by the evidence of the objective truth. 2) Since the intellect is finite, it is essential that it be able to err. Answer: It is Essential to the intellect that it be able to err "by accident," through lack of evidence, etc., we grant; that it err of its very nature, we deny. 3) The multitudinous errors and contradictions which have always prevailed in human beliefs show that the human intellect is utterly unreliable. Answer: The trustworthiness of our intellect is not affected by the fact that many people err, teach err, and use their reasoning power to teach error. Their errors came from a neglect or violation of the rules of reasoning, or possibly from the fact that they suppose to be true something that is doubtful or false." (this paragraph is an extensive quote from: Notes on Epistemology by Walter F. Cunningham, S.J., The Declan X McMullen Company, Inc. New York, Copyright 1930 by Fordham University Press, page 38-41, Thesis V)
All this to say what? ...that there is a thing called truth and the intellect can attain a state of certitude. As I've previously stated we would have no science without the possibility of apprehending truth. And it must be that our intellect is able to ascertian truth. Since there is truth we also need to know that truth is one. In other words truth found from scientific research cannot in any way contradict what comes from metaphysics or that which is revealed. This is because truth is conformity of our mind to reality and reality is indivisible. It is indivisible in the sense that we either have the whole or we don't have it at all. We can study reality in part (which is the human condition; that our intellect must operate in such a way as to know one thing at a time, roughly speaking (ratiocination more precisely); whereas the angelic intellect can know in an instant with fullness what any particular being is; God on the other hand knows all that can be known, in one act... or in other words is omniscient).
Now my point in all this is simply to say the difference between scientific, philosophic and theological knowledge is in kind, NOT degree. For when one speaks in terms of validity they imply truth; where it is not valid, is unknoweable. If I'm not mistaken I hear you, deadbeat, saying truth is valid when it comes to science ("objective") while it is not when from philosophical and religious origins ("subjective"). This I do not agree with for all of the above reasoning. More specifically the point I am trying to make is the truth our empirical science provides is of the accidental (in Greek: accidens) kind; it is material in nature so to speak. Metaphysical truth is of the kind called substantial; or in other words it gives essences (in Greek: esse). Both are aspects of reality and thus have equal veracity. Both are important to a full understanding of our universe. Also because metaphysics touches on the essence of nature it is able to give insight into that which is hidden in being precisely because that which is substantial undergirds all material being. What is substantial to being does not change while what is accidental does change. A cat's catness is it's substance while it's black fur is accidental to it's nature, it could be colored otherwise and remain the same being. So you should understand that physics (and the other sciences to differing degrees) give us a surface knowledge (so to speak) of my black cat. It tells us something about the cat's fur, it's molecular and atomic structure, etc. but it cannot give essences. It's not any less true than the philosophical but it's kind of knowledge gives a different outcome called technology. Philosophical knowledge both undergirds and supports true scientific knowledge. For instance, it is a philosophical axiom that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time (called the principle of non-contradiction). Where in science is this contradicted? (if you know of some thesis that states the opposite then you have found an erroneous scientific opinion. We cannot build sound science on bad metaphysical thinking. We need both kinds of insight!
Now I hasten to add that from modern science we have made vast and sweeping technological progress as anyone in this dialogue will admit. But what must be realized is that technology is really just control of nature; the term itself comes from then word tecnique. It is use of knowledge to harvest matter and energy in ways that help us travel and communicate farther and more efficiently. It enables us to achieve medical marvels like multiple bypass operations and even major organ transplants successfully. We fight cancer and other diseases with what we learn from scientific research. This control of material nature seems to be even progressing toward so called genetic engineering or an understanding and manipulation of the living genetic structure (hopefully for good ends). But in all this scientific progress we are no closer to knowing the essential nature of any particular being than we were before modern science took off. We can manipulate nature better but this is not knowledge of essences. In fact this is what the highly visible field of physics shows us; in such areas as quantum theory where we are finding reality seems to be shifting away from any coherent and predictable understanding. With Einstein's theory of Relativity we are faced with strange unexplainable behavior that cannot be put in everyday terms. We cannot study an electron like we do the trajectory of a stone. Instead the field of statistics has become vitally important in predicting what will happen at the subatomic level. Some scientists who are normally quite sober are now resorting to theories where particles are created from nothing and disappear back into nothing, and this only when observed! All this in an effort to explain the idiosyncracies of nature at the below-atomic level. This kind of interpretation defies normal rational thinking and is an attempt to make sense of what seems senseless. It is precisely because some scientists are trying to do their work without a proper understanding of the philosophical principles that undergird the reality of the atom and it's material nature that we get these absurd conclusions. Without knowledge of potency and act, for instance, one cannot explain the strange occurances in quantum research and in resorting to senseless interpretations cause others to fall into doubt as to whether we can really know anything. Thus skepticism finds a foot hold where it need not if the one doing work in the field of physics has a sufficient understanding of the field of metaphysics. Likewise, modern work in biology is hampered by treating the human person as a mere object much like Hitler's doctors did. We go down wrong roads like embryonic stem cell research that are unethical precisely because one cannot treat a human person without their full dignity in mind, or in other words we can never justify killing one human being to save another. Sound scientific thinking is secured with sound philosophical insight that helps us see the moral aspects more clearly. Thus knowing a human person is substantially different from any other animal because of their immaterial soul forbids us this kind of research in favor of that which does not harm, like adult stem cell research (which by the way has provided us with success in different areas of medicine whereas embryonic research has not).
I can step further from here into an explanation of how divine revelation also helps to clarify strange things going on in science that defy one's understanding of reality. In fact I can elucidate how revelation can uplift our understanding far beyond what either scientific or metaphysical research can. Suffice to say I think you can get the gist of my point as I compare empirical science to philosophical science. Notice that I used to term science when refering to both fields. This is to emphasize they are both means to knowledge. Likewise for the theological sciences; there is a correlation between all fields of science in that the root word from the Latin: scientia; means knowledge. So all forms of or means to knowledge are included as sciences. What I am saying here is that the real trouble is in the contemporary idea that modern empirical science is the only allowable means to truth. That philosophy and religion are based on myth and superstition is a fiction introduced during the so called Enlightenment age. It was during this period of history that French thinkers like Descartes broke from the norm and gave us a thinking called Rationalism, or this idea that reason is all we need apart from what the Greeks called intellection (necessary to philosophical abstraction). Rationalism or "reason alone" was a reaction to the fideism of the Protestant reformers where they claimed "faith alone" was all one needed to attain knowledge. Thus this war between science and religion today is an not a new one; it is a struggle between different factions trying to understand reality in a way that takes one of many means as the sole means to knowledge. Faith (inspiration) and reason as well as intellection (intuition or intellectual abstraction) are all valid and vitally important means to understanding our world fully.
Lumen Christi
Ratty (alias Ratjaws)
I suspect we disagree on use of the terms subjective and objective in relation to knowledge. It is very important precisely because it gets at what it means to know. I think in every act of knowledge there is both a subjective and objective component. As I said previously there must be a knower and a known. We can consider what is known to be the object and we can also call it the subject under scrutiny. So here at least we have both words applied to the same thing (same real object or being). In a like manner I can rightly say the knowledge of, say, this key board, is subject to my mind (I'm thinking about it). I can also say I am being objective with that knowledge in that what I attribute to the object I know is truely what it is. So in the first case what is known can be both objective and subjective while in the latter the mind of the knower can have both attributes too. Thus I propose that in every act of knowing, which must involve minimum two beings (the knower and the known) there is both a subjective and objective component. Now if I understand you correctly what you call objective knowledge is valid while what you call subjective knowledge is not valid or at least doubtful. I cannot use the terms in this way because it implies something about the mind and reality that I do not accept. Rather I say the subjective knowledge is that which is in my mind and objective knowledge is that which is my mind and in accord with reality. Thus the subjectivity of my knowledge makes no claim as to it's validity. In other words to say my knowledge is subjective is not judge it but merely take note of it's presence in my mind. On the other hand to say my knowledge is objective is to recognize the accord my mind has with the being under scrutiny. So this latter way of describing my knowledge includes judgment in that it is a comparison between the knower and the known (it reflects the link between the two). In contrast pointing to the subjectivity of my knowledge does not carry with it any judgment but simply recognizes that I know.
So from this it should become clearer that I am trying to get at what it means for us to know. The nature of knowledge is important to our conversation because we are arguing back and forth about the validity of different kinds of knowledge. Specifically scientific versus philosophical (metaphysical, ontological, epistemological, existential, ect...) versus theological (revelatory or that kind that does not have it's origin in man or our material world). Therefore it is of utmost importance to determine if knowledge of the kind we call certain is even possible and if so what are it's conditions? Unfortunately we live in a culture that is steeped in skepticism and this state of mind (or method or prerequisite for thinking) has seeped into much of our so called scientific and logical thinking. Skepticism is a precondition that disables us from doing good science, philosophy or theology so it must be countered with what I call realism (Thomistic Realism to be specific).
The question then must be asked and answered: Can I know anything for sure? Is there such a thing as certainty? (and it's corollary; is truth possible?) From my position I say yes to all three of these questions but from yours I'm not sure you can (from what I've read so far). Basically either we can have certain knowledge or all our endeavors in science are in vain. If skepticism is the reality so to speak, if we can never know anything for certain then we not only waste our time thinking but communication would be impossible too (I am willing to get into proofs against universal and partial skepticism if anyone wants but refrain from it here for brevity's sake).
I propose as my teachers have, that our intellect is made for certainty and cannot be otherwise. I say "The human intellect is of its nature infallible in its judgments." In relation to knowledge this means it is incapable of erring. "For the aptitude of the intellect to attain truth implies that the intellect is of its nature infallible, though it can err by accident." The intellect is "the spiritual cognitive faculty. Infallible. Restricting this term to knowledge, infallibility means: 'incapable of erring.' A faculty is of its nature infallible, if acting only in accordance with that nature it cannot err, i.e., of its nature it is ordained to attain truth and is capable of attaining truth. A faculty is fallible by accident, when it can err because of some reason other than its nature... Error is had only in the judgement. If we consider man with all his faculities, he is of his nature fallible; because in man there is a combination of faculties, and in that combination there is found an element which might lead him into error, e.g., the influence of his passions, his will hastening the intellect to judge, etc. Hence, we do not say in our thesis that man is of his nature infallible; but we claim this infallibility for the intellect. The intellect acts according to its nature: if it has evidence of the object, i.e., if it sees that the object is so and cannot be otherwise; if, when it has not this evidence , it is not determined by prejudices, etc., to form a judgment, but refrains from judging. The proof of this thesis is that if the human intellect were of its nature fallible, universal skepticism would have to be admitted. But univesal skepticism cannot be admitted. Therefore, for a faculty which is of its nature fallible, is of its nature indifferent to truth and error, and hence incapable of perceiving and distinguishing truth. Therefore it is incapable of a certain judgment, and thus all certitude is destroyed. In other words, if the intellect were of its nature fallible, we could always doubt whether or not it was leading us into error, for the nature of the intellect is always the same. The natural infallibility of the intellect does not need to be demonstrated, for its denial implies its affirmation; nor can it be demonstrated, for in every demonstration it would necessarily be presupposed. Consequently, our proof of the thesis is not direct, but indirect. Although the human intellect is fallible "by accident," it is not so in everything. As regards truths that are immediatedly evident, the intellect cannot in any way be led into error, because the condition for error (i.e., ignorance or imperfect knowledge) is absent. Nor is the intellect under the influence of the will, for when immediate evidence shines in upon the intellect, all indifference ceases, and the intellect of its nature is necessitated to assent. We must remember that the intellect is a necessary faculty, i.e., when all the conditions requisite for acting are present, it must act. Still, in the absence of evident truth, which is the proper object of the intellect, it is not of itself necessitated to act. In the case of false judgments, therefore, where the evidence is only seeming or apparent, it must have received its inclination to judge from without, i.e., from the will. Difficulties: 1) The intellect is not of its nature infallible, if its nature, being finite, excludes infallibility. But its nature, being finite, excludes infallibility. Therefore... Answer: The finiteness of our intellect merely demands that our knowledge be limited, not that our intellect be of its nature fallible. But because it is a finite intellect and does not know everything, it can, under the influence of the will, through lack of due reflection, etc., form false judgments regarding truths that are not evident. In such judgments, the intellect is lured by seeming or apparent evidence. In judgments, however, which the intellect forms by itself, error cannot creep in, for in these judgments the intellect is necessitated by the evidence of the objective truth. 2) Since the intellect is finite, it is essential that it be able to err. Answer: It is Essential to the intellect that it be able to err "by accident," through lack of evidence, etc., we grant; that it err of its very nature, we deny. 3) The multitudinous errors and contradictions which have always prevailed in human beliefs show that the human intellect is utterly unreliable. Answer: The trustworthiness of our intellect is not affected by the fact that many people err, teach err, and use their reasoning power to teach error. Their errors came from a neglect or violation of the rules of reasoning, or possibly from the fact that they suppose to be true something that is doubtful or false." (this paragraph is an extensive quote from: Notes on Epistemology by Walter F. Cunningham, S.J., The Declan X McMullen Company, Inc. New York, Copyright 1930 by Fordham University Press, page 38-41, Thesis V)
All this to say what? ...that there is a thing called truth and the intellect can attain a state of certitude. As I've previously stated we would have no science without the possibility of apprehending truth. And it must be that our intellect is able to ascertian truth. Since there is truth we also need to know that truth is one. In other words truth found from scientific research cannot in any way contradict what comes from metaphysics or that which is revealed. This is because truth is conformity of our mind to reality and reality is indivisible. It is indivisible in the sense that we either have the whole or we don't have it at all. We can study reality in part (which is the human condition; that our intellect must operate in such a way as to know one thing at a time, roughly speaking (ratiocination more precisely); whereas the angelic intellect can know in an instant with fullness what any particular being is; God on the other hand knows all that can be known, in one act... or in other words is omniscient).
Now my point in all this is simply to say the difference between scientific, philosophic and theological knowledge is in kind, NOT degree. For when one speaks in terms of validity they imply truth; where it is not valid, is unknoweable. If I'm not mistaken I hear you, deadbeat, saying truth is valid when it comes to science ("objective") while it is not when from philosophical and religious origins ("subjective"). This I do not agree with for all of the above reasoning. More specifically the point I am trying to make is the truth our empirical science provides is of the accidental (in Greek: accidens) kind; it is material in nature so to speak. Metaphysical truth is of the kind called substantial; or in other words it gives essences (in Greek: esse). Both are aspects of reality and thus have equal veracity. Both are important to a full understanding of our universe. Also because metaphysics touches on the essence of nature it is able to give insight into that which is hidden in being precisely because that which is substantial undergirds all material being. What is substantial to being does not change while what is accidental does change. A cat's catness is it's substance while it's black fur is accidental to it's nature, it could be colored otherwise and remain the same being. So you should understand that physics (and the other sciences to differing degrees) give us a surface knowledge (so to speak) of my black cat. It tells us something about the cat's fur, it's molecular and atomic structure, etc. but it cannot give essences. It's not any less true than the philosophical but it's kind of knowledge gives a different outcome called technology. Philosophical knowledge both undergirds and supports true scientific knowledge. For instance, it is a philosophical axiom that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time (called the principle of non-contradiction). Where in science is this contradicted? (if you know of some thesis that states the opposite then you have found an erroneous scientific opinion. We cannot build sound science on bad metaphysical thinking. We need both kinds of insight!
Now I hasten to add that from modern science we have made vast and sweeping technological progress as anyone in this dialogue will admit. But what must be realized is that technology is really just control of nature; the term itself comes from then word tecnique. It is use of knowledge to harvest matter and energy in ways that help us travel and communicate farther and more efficiently. It enables us to achieve medical marvels like multiple bypass operations and even major organ transplants successfully. We fight cancer and other diseases with what we learn from scientific research. This control of material nature seems to be even progressing toward so called genetic engineering or an understanding and manipulation of the living genetic structure (hopefully for good ends). But in all this scientific progress we are no closer to knowing the essential nature of any particular being than we were before modern science took off. We can manipulate nature better but this is not knowledge of essences. In fact this is what the highly visible field of physics shows us; in such areas as quantum theory where we are finding reality seems to be shifting away from any coherent and predictable understanding. With Einstein's theory of Relativity we are faced with strange unexplainable behavior that cannot be put in everyday terms. We cannot study an electron like we do the trajectory of a stone. Instead the field of statistics has become vitally important in predicting what will happen at the subatomic level. Some scientists who are normally quite sober are now resorting to theories where particles are created from nothing and disappear back into nothing, and this only when observed! All this in an effort to explain the idiosyncracies of nature at the below-atomic level. This kind of interpretation defies normal rational thinking and is an attempt to make sense of what seems senseless. It is precisely because some scientists are trying to do their work without a proper understanding of the philosophical principles that undergird the reality of the atom and it's material nature that we get these absurd conclusions. Without knowledge of potency and act, for instance, one cannot explain the strange occurances in quantum research and in resorting to senseless interpretations cause others to fall into doubt as to whether we can really know anything. Thus skepticism finds a foot hold where it need not if the one doing work in the field of physics has a sufficient understanding of the field of metaphysics. Likewise, modern work in biology is hampered by treating the human person as a mere object much like Hitler's doctors did. We go down wrong roads like embryonic stem cell research that are unethical precisely because one cannot treat a human person without their full dignity in mind, or in other words we can never justify killing one human being to save another. Sound scientific thinking is secured with sound philosophical insight that helps us see the moral aspects more clearly. Thus knowing a human person is substantially different from any other animal because of their immaterial soul forbids us this kind of research in favor of that which does not harm, like adult stem cell research (which by the way has provided us with success in different areas of medicine whereas embryonic research has not).
I can step further from here into an explanation of how divine revelation also helps to clarify strange things going on in science that defy one's understanding of reality. In fact I can elucidate how revelation can uplift our understanding far beyond what either scientific or metaphysical research can. Suffice to say I think you can get the gist of my point as I compare empirical science to philosophical science. Notice that I used to term science when refering to both fields. This is to emphasize they are both means to knowledge. Likewise for the theological sciences; there is a correlation between all fields of science in that the root word from the Latin: scientia; means knowledge. So all forms of or means to knowledge are included as sciences. What I am saying here is that the real trouble is in the contemporary idea that modern empirical science is the only allowable means to truth. That philosophy and religion are based on myth and superstition is a fiction introduced during the so called Enlightenment age. It was during this period of history that French thinkers like Descartes broke from the norm and gave us a thinking called Rationalism, or this idea that reason is all we need apart from what the Greeks called intellection (necessary to philosophical abstraction). Rationalism or "reason alone" was a reaction to the fideism of the Protestant reformers where they claimed "faith alone" was all one needed to attain knowledge. Thus this war between science and religion today is an not a new one; it is a struggle between different factions trying to understand reality in a way that takes one of many means as the sole means to knowledge. Faith (inspiration) and reason as well as intellection (intuition or intellectual abstraction) are all valid and vitally important means to understanding our world fully.
Lumen Christi
Ratty (alias Ratjaws)
QUOTE (deadbeat+May 6 2008, 12:39 AM)
Wow, you have neatly demonstrated the fallacy in your argument.
OBJECTIVE science cannot "solve" SUBJECTIVE matters like religion, because then it is no longer OBJECTIVE.
Jesus Christ is or is not the son of God.
That is objective not subjective.
PhotoJack says that there is less difference between religions and cults than between hard and so called soft sciences.
I say that there is a fundamental difference between social clubs such as the Rotary club and religions.
I've heard people choose a religion witth reasons that sound like you would use to choose a social club.
Religions are subjective. If Jesus Christ is the Son of God then one of the Christian flavours is correct. If the Koran is the word of God then Islam is correct.
Whether you choose the Lions or the Rotary club on the other hand is subjective.
I just wish someone would start a humanist organization that would meet the spiritual needs of people
Hi buttershug,
Any number of people of like minds can start an organization. The problem is, the more people, the more divergent views, the more power struggles that undermine the original concept. IMHO, people should tend to their own spiritual needs, if needs be, without intervention.
QUOTE
I just wish someone would start a humanist organization that would meet the spiritual needs of people
Any number of people of like minds can start an organization. The problem is, the more people, the more divergent views, the more power struggles that undermine the original concept. IMHO, people should tend to their own spiritual needs, if needs be, without intervention.
QUOTE (photojack+May 7 2008, 05:17 PM)
deadbeat quote.
I did then, very clearly, and here it is again. It COMPLETELY counters your biased religious claim to, and definition of, forgiveness!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgiveness
HOW SHORT IS YOUR ATTENTION SPAN? (())
So you DEFINE forgiveness once again, but your definition is ethically and morally worthless. It is well and good to know WHAT forgiveness is, but the only important concept is WHEN and HOW and TO WHOM and UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES forgiveness should be practiced.
As a matter of fact, in your wiki link, the only guidance toward whether or when forgiveness should be practiced is discussed by a number of particular religious stances on it.
So...again...you demonstrate once again you have no idea where your reference for ethical and moral decisions is, unless you are saying you go by Wikipedia to make your decisions, in which case, which religions position do you take?
I did then, very clearly, and here it is again. It COMPLETELY counters your biased religious claim to, and definition of, forgiveness!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgiveness
HOW SHORT IS YOUR ATTENTION SPAN? ((
))So you DEFINE forgiveness once again, but your definition is ethically and morally worthless. It is well and good to know WHAT forgiveness is, but the only important concept is WHEN and HOW and TO WHOM and UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES forgiveness should be practiced.
As a matter of fact, in your wiki link, the only guidance toward whether or when forgiveness should be practiced is discussed by a number of particular religious stances on it.
So...again...you demonstrate once again you have no idea where your reference for ethical and moral decisions is, unless you are saying you go by Wikipedia to make your decisions, in which case, which religions position do you take?
Allow me to weigh in on this topic also. It seems to me both sides of the moral and marriage issue are correct on some points and wrong on others. First off I'd say that marrige was not established by any religion but has always been. We have historic evidence for it going back as far as recorded history. We also have historic evidence for it in Christian revelation (the book of Genesis and the Gospels for instance) as well as from other natural religions. In reality there are two types of marriage. The first is called natural and the second sacramental ("supernatural" if you will). Both of these forms are recognized by the Catholic Church because both are realities. A natural marriage is formed by any man and woman who upon consent (implied is they know what they consent to and are free to do so) enter into a real physical and spiritual union. A sacramental marriage is formed on a similar basis only the two consenting must both be baptised (I.E. Christians). This latter type carries with it bonds beyond that of the natural in that sanctifying grace is made available to the couple by God throughout their marriage. This is to help in overcoming the obstacles involved in their relationship that are detrimental to the union. Thus in Christian scripture it is said "what God has joined let no man pull asunder," I.E. no man can dissolve what God has made. Christian matrimony is therefore indissoluable whereas the natural union is not. Both types of marriage are a reflection of the relationship of God to His people... Christ to His Church. The sacramental marriage is especially so because it carries with it an efficacious reflection of faithfulness in the unbreakable sacramental bond.
I would add that marriage is not a cultural artifact but ingrained in the nature of the human person as former Pope John Paul II taught in his Theology of the Body. The male and female body carry with it the imprint of God's nature, which is love. A man's body reflects the donative principle while the woman's is receptive in nature. The unity of a man and woman in love fittingly results in new life, thus the twofold meaning of marriage is termed unitive and procreative. This relects God's creative nature revealed in Christian scripture as Trinitarian or three Persons in one Being. God is by nature a community of love; the Father knows and loves Himself so fully that a second Person called the Word is generated (the Word, or Logos in Greek, Christian scripture call the Son), this love is fully returned by the Son in the form of a third Person called the Holy Spirit. Thus God's knowledge and love of Himself is so real that two other Persons are generated; the Father's donation of Himself being reflected by the husband and the Son's reception of the Father's love reflected by the wife. The love between husband and wife bring forth a third new person again reflecting the third Person of the blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit.
Marriage is not only a reflection of God's nature but a cooperation with Him in creating new human life. This and the aforementioned being true is the fundamental reason why marriage cannot be tampered with and why homosexuality is so abhorant to the Christian mind. To introduce into marriage and family life that which distorts God's true nature and purpose is to not only destroy the sign value of matrimony but to attempt to change the nature of the human relationship itself. It is to put ourselves in design of life even though we are incapable of existence without God's moment to moment thought of us. Homosexuality is a disorder of human nature. It closes us off to the fruit of natural relations and is therefore contrary to the good of human society. Each of us knows this through use of our faculty called conscience. Thus I come to the point of concluding that built within every man and woman's nature is a moral compass that enables us to discern right from wrong. Weakened as this may be by the Fall of man in the Garden of Eden this sense is still alive within all human beings to some degree today. In Natural Law conscience is that faculty which every person has giving them the ability to discern truth in moral matters. Thus morality is not just a revealed truth of religion but a real knowledge imprinted on every human soul. So I contend with those who claim we must have religion in order to have morality although I would say that revelation does correct and clarify our fallen natural moral understanding as well as lift us up (throught grace) in a way as to be able to live a good moral life. Even an atheist who denies God's existence has this ingrained sense of right and wrong and this helps explain why they are horrified at the prospect of persecution by those who are religious, and rightly so! On the other hand those who give up God's intervention in human society tend to deteriorate morally as evidenced by former Communist countries like the Soviet Union as well as contemporary ones like China. Without God society tends toward materialism and if the human person is only a mix of molecules made up of atoms, then why not treat them like dirt? My point here is not that non-religious people have more evil intent than religious, rather that they have one less aid in seeing intricate moral problems clearly without divine revelation.
Finally, I add that while religion may be found all the way back to the point of the first marriages it is not necessarily true that marriage has it's source in religion. What is more likely is that like law, religious ceremony and codification have worked throughout time to protect and strengthen the nuptial union. In fact all good civil law is aimed at protecting human life and so it follows it is good to protect the process where human beings come from. Even scientific laws are drawn from nature and not the other way around. This is why the Church encourages and supports the legislation of good civil laws where necessary, to both help a society see the sanctity of human life where it has trouble seeing it and to defend against those who would attack what is good. Christianity in general sees the good in nature and seeks to safeguard it. I should also add that I am not saying all religions have given support to marriage or sound law but many do. Some, even Christian sects unfortunately, have gone the opposite route supporting things like polygamy. Nor am I saying that non-religious persons have all been blind to the good of marriage. Generally many support monogamous relationships finding within themselves validity in their attraction and feelings toward the opposite sex. Unfortunately bodily passions are not enough to depend on in order to clearly discern right and wrong in matters of human actions and interrelationships. Our conscience needs help and this is where revelation with it's external law (Divine Positive Law) comes in. Who would argue that the moral content of the Ten Commandments is not a clarification of what is in every human heart? If one is serious about the feelings of their spouse would they not seek to keep the Law that states: "Thou shalt not commit adultery"? If one loves their children do they "...not commit murder"?
God's Glory is man fully alive!
Ratty (alias Ratjaws)
I would add that marriage is not a cultural artifact but ingrained in the nature of the human person as former Pope John Paul II taught in his Theology of the Body. The male and female body carry with it the imprint of God's nature, which is love. A man's body reflects the donative principle while the woman's is receptive in nature. The unity of a man and woman in love fittingly results in new life, thus the twofold meaning of marriage is termed unitive and procreative. This relects God's creative nature revealed in Christian scripture as Trinitarian or three Persons in one Being. God is by nature a community of love; the Father knows and loves Himself so fully that a second Person called the Word is generated (the Word, or Logos in Greek, Christian scripture call the Son), this love is fully returned by the Son in the form of a third Person called the Holy Spirit. Thus God's knowledge and love of Himself is so real that two other Persons are generated; the Father's donation of Himself being reflected by the husband and the Son's reception of the Father's love reflected by the wife. The love between husband and wife bring forth a third new person again reflecting the third Person of the blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit.
Marriage is not only a reflection of God's nature but a cooperation with Him in creating new human life. This and the aforementioned being true is the fundamental reason why marriage cannot be tampered with and why homosexuality is so abhorant to the Christian mind. To introduce into marriage and family life that which distorts God's true nature and purpose is to not only destroy the sign value of matrimony but to attempt to change the nature of the human relationship itself. It is to put ourselves in design of life even though we are incapable of existence without God's moment to moment thought of us. Homosexuality is a disorder of human nature. It closes us off to the fruit of natural relations and is therefore contrary to the good of human society. Each of us knows this through use of our faculty called conscience. Thus I come to the point of concluding that built within every man and woman's nature is a moral compass that enables us to discern right from wrong. Weakened as this may be by the Fall of man in the Garden of Eden this sense is still alive within all human beings to some degree today. In Natural Law conscience is that faculty which every person has giving them the ability to discern truth in moral matters. Thus morality is not just a revealed truth of religion but a real knowledge imprinted on every human soul. So I contend with those who claim we must have religion in order to have morality although I would say that revelation does correct and clarify our fallen natural moral understanding as well as lift us up (throught grace) in a way as to be able to live a good moral life. Even an atheist who denies God's existence has this ingrained sense of right and wrong and this helps explain why they are horrified at the prospect of persecution by those who are religious, and rightly so! On the other hand those who give up God's intervention in human society tend to deteriorate morally as evidenced by former Communist countries like the Soviet Union as well as contemporary ones like China. Without God society tends toward materialism and if the human person is only a mix of molecules made up of atoms, then why not treat them like dirt? My point here is not that non-religious people have more evil intent than religious, rather that they have one less aid in seeing intricate moral problems clearly without divine revelation.
Finally, I add that while religion may be found all the way back to the point of the first marriages it is not necessarily true that marriage has it's source in religion. What is more likely is that like law, religious ceremony and codification have worked throughout time to protect and strengthen the nuptial union. In fact all good civil law is aimed at protecting human life and so it follows it is good to protect the process where human beings come from. Even scientific laws are drawn from nature and not the other way around. This is why the Church encourages and supports the legislation of good civil laws where necessary, to both help a society see the sanctity of human life where it has trouble seeing it and to defend against those who would attack what is good. Christianity in general sees the good in nature and seeks to safeguard it. I should also add that I am not saying all religions have given support to marriage or sound law but many do. Some, even Christian sects unfortunately, have gone the opposite route supporting things like polygamy. Nor am I saying that non-religious persons have all been blind to the good of marriage. Generally many support monogamous relationships finding within themselves validity in their attraction and feelings toward the opposite sex. Unfortunately bodily passions are not enough to depend on in order to clearly discern right and wrong in matters of human actions and interrelationships. Our conscience needs help and this is where revelation with it's external law (Divine Positive Law) comes in. Who would argue that the moral content of the Ten Commandments is not a clarification of what is in every human heart? If one is serious about the feelings of their spouse would they not seek to keep the Law that states: "Thou shalt not commit adultery"? If one loves their children do they "...not commit murder"?
God's Glory is man fully alive!
Ratty (alias Ratjaws)
On the relationship of marriage and religion, in response to Ratjaw.
I would disagree in only one aspect, and argue that religion is indeed the source of the concept of "marriage".
Disassociate any particular religion, and look at the basic commonality of the sacrament throughout history. It is the formal community recognition of the bond between a man and a woman (until recently, but even that is not very important for this discussion).
Why is this distinction even made? Why must the sacrament even exist in the first place? It is simple. To establish a community recognized relationship that has ethical and moral consequences of some kind.
If there were no ethical and moral implications, no "special treatment" of the relationship, there would be no need for recognizing or defining marriage, it would be unnecessary. And yet that is not so, the institution exists so far as I am aware in every society and community, even very primitive tribal communities. And in every case, the ethical and moral implications of the institution of marriage descend directly from the popular religion of the community in question.
The ethical and moral consequences have always been described and sometimes codified into "law" by religion, whatever it may be in that area. Although for the very longest time, the Religion WAS the law and the government, with the monarch, King, Emperor, or Pharoah (insert name of head of government here) as the head of the church, or at least as designated by God, through the church.
So in every historical case, except in recent history where government and law is attempted to be "divorced" from religion, the sacrament exists and is and has been described by religion.
Even here in the United states, we have traditionally and historically derived our ethical and moral definition of marriage from the Christian tradition, which is why there is such a fight about Gay Marriage.
I would disagree in only one aspect, and argue that religion is indeed the source of the concept of "marriage".
Disassociate any particular religion, and look at the basic commonality of the sacrament throughout history. It is the formal community recognition of the bond between a man and a woman (until recently, but even that is not very important for this discussion).
Why is this distinction even made? Why must the sacrament even exist in the first place? It is simple. To establish a community recognized relationship that has ethical and moral consequences of some kind.
If there were no ethical and moral implications, no "special treatment" of the relationship, there would be no need for recognizing or defining marriage, it would be unnecessary. And yet that is not so, the institution exists so far as I am aware in every society and community, even very primitive tribal communities. And in every case, the ethical and moral implications of the institution of marriage descend directly from the popular religion of the community in question.
The ethical and moral consequences have always been described and sometimes codified into "law" by religion, whatever it may be in that area. Although for the very longest time, the Religion WAS the law and the government, with the monarch, King, Emperor, or Pharoah (insert name of head of government here) as the head of the church, or at least as designated by God, through the church.
So in every historical case, except in recent history where government and law is attempted to be "divorced" from religion, the sacrament exists and is and has been described by religion.
Even here in the United states, we have traditionally and historically derived our ethical and moral definition of marriage from the Christian tradition, which is why there is such a fight about Gay Marriage.
QUOTE (deadbeat+May 11 2008, 10:23 PM)
I would disagree in only one aspect, and argue that religion is indeed the source of the concept of "marriage".
And again with nothing other than your hollow opinion to back up that religious based belief of yours.
Religion was created by man to serve our needs. Pair bonding, marriage and similar social constructs are due to our nature.
And as cited by historical examples, religious domination of marriage is only a recent development.
And speaking to the thread topic, we have yet another irrational claim from the ”church”.
http://www.freethinker.co.uk/2008/05/09/ca...oday-programme/
So now it appears that both science and reason, without faith, will lead to Hitler and Stalin.
Was it reason or science that led the Roman Catholic Church to torture people for not converting or murder people for discovering the facts of our world and universe?
So now it appears that both science and reason, without faith, will lead to Hitler and Stalin.
Was it reason or science that led the Roman Catholic Church to torture people for not converting or murder people for discovering the facts of our world and universe?
Even here in the United states, we have traditionally and historically derived our ethical and moral definition of marriage from the Christian tradition, which is why there is such a fight about Gay Marriage.
And why so many of the faith saw it as a violation of the xian religious laws to allow interracial marriages.
But in the end, ethical and moral definition of the faithful gave way to the rule of law, just as it will be forced to yield again to the rule of law rather than the whims of bigots.
And again with nothing other than your hollow opinion to back up that religious based belief of yours.
And of course all you have in argument is your belief, so...
Religion was created by man to serve our needs. Pair bonding, marriage and similar social constructs are due to our nature.
And as cited by historical examples, religious domination of marriage is only a recent development.
Wow, another unsupported grandiose statement. You have not provided a single case that supports your assertion, and the examples in my favor are many and manifold. And yet you stick to it.
And speaking to the thread topic, we have yet another irrational claim from the ”church”.
http://www.freethinker.co.uk/2008/05/09/ca...oday-programme/
So now it appears that both science and reason, without faith, will lead to Hitler and Stalin.
Without ethical and moral constraint, science HAS led to horrific tragedies, exactly the examples they pointed to Stalin (Atheism), and Hitler (Eugenics). What is wrong with his statement?
Was it reason or science that led the Roman Catholic Church to torture people for not converting or murder people for discovering the facts of our world and universe?
Ah yes the old familiar refrain. The Church did some bad things, so is consigned in your mind to perpetual damnation. Whatever. The sins of the father should not be visited on the son if you ask me. Today's church does not and would not support those things you speak of (now).
And why so many of the faith saw it as a violation of the xian religious laws to allow interracial marriages.
Yup, true.
But in the end, ethical and moral definition of the faithful gave way to the rule of law, just as it will be forced to yield again to the rule of law rather than the whims of bigots.
And that is just self delusion. The "rule of law" HAH. The Law is merely a governmentally agreed and enforced ethical and moral guide. It is the rules we all live by. Since it escapes you, I might remind you that prior to the change in opinion, and the public ethical and moral conscience, the "rule of law" WAS that interracial mariages were illegal.
The common ethical and moral position changed, realizing that interracial marriages were not "bad" or unethical or immoral, and so, the law changed to reflect the change in public opinion.
Sometimes, your logic is downright impenetrable.
And of course all you have in argument is your belief, so...
I can build a pendulum and recreate some of Galialio's(sp) experiments.
can you get a fresh copy of the Ten Commandments from the burning bush?
"Today's" church is still making MAJOR mistakes, and the consequences are severe and damaging to our fellow humans.
1. The RCC's blocking stem cell research. Many common and rare ailments, diseases and inherited deformities can and will be eliminated or greatly reduced by the quick adoption of the beneficial research coming from stem cell's regenerative properties. Religion Vs. Science.
2. The RCC's refusal to condone condom use. This hypocrisy is astounding! Every bit of research shows the overwhelming benefits derived from their use. As a contraceptive to prevent unwanted pregnancies and as a way to reduce the transmission of HIV and most other STD's (Sexually transmitted diseases) along with other valid reasons. Religion Vs. Science.
3. Yes, the church did bad things then and is continuing to do other bad things now. It brings MAJOR doubt onto the entire institution and whatever level of trust or belief one might have held. Religion Vs. Science.
4. The RCC's widespread pedophilia and the attempts to deny, ignore or even cover it up. Those poor children are affected negatively for the rest of their lives. Doesn't this bring doubt upon their "holier than thou" beliefs? The psychologists counseling these children surely think so. Religion Vs. Science.
5. There are countless others, but I have to address another of deadbeat's false claims and definitions.
And again with nothing other than your hollow opinion to back up that religious based belief of yours.
Religion was created by man to serve our needs. Pair bonding, marriage and similar social constructs are due to our nature.
And as cited by historical examples, religious domination of marriage is only a recent development.
And speaking to the thread topic, we have yet another irrational claim from the ”church”.
http://www.freethinker.co.uk/2008/05/09/ca...oday-programme/
QUOTE
Cardinal spouts nonsense on Radio 4’s Today programme
REASON alone is “dangerous” to society; it has to be tempered with faith if we are to avoid repeating horrors committed by the likes of Hitler and Stalin.
REASON alone is “dangerous” to society; it has to be tempered with faith if we are to avoid repeating horrors committed by the likes of Hitler and Stalin.
So now it appears that both science and reason, without faith, will lead to Hitler and Stalin.
Was it reason or science that led the Roman Catholic Church to torture people for not converting or murder people for discovering the facts of our world and universe?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Cardinal spouts nonsense on Radio 4’s Today programme REASON alone is “dangerous” to society; it has to be tempered with faith if we are to avoid repeating horrors committed by the likes of Hitler and Stalin. |
So now it appears that both science and reason, without faith, will lead to Hitler and Stalin.
Was it reason or science that led the Roman Catholic Church to torture people for not converting or murder people for discovering the facts of our world and universe?
Even here in the United states, we have traditionally and historically derived our ethical and moral definition of marriage from the Christian tradition, which is why there is such a fight about Gay Marriage.
And why so many of the faith saw it as a violation of the xian religious laws to allow interracial marriages.
But in the end, ethical and moral definition of the faithful gave way to the rule of law, just as it will be forced to yield again to the rule of law rather than the whims of bigots.
'Religion' = Mentally disturbed politics
g.
g.
I'm sorry deadbeat, but I don't quite understand? You use the word sacrament as though it is common but, if I'm not mistaken, in it's original sense it is used solely by the Church. The word itself comes from the Latin, sacramentum, meaning "oath"; it's root, sacrare means "to consecrate." What I think you are describing with use of that word is natural marriage? Natural marriage fits the description you give: "the formal community recognition of the bond between a man and woman." I also think generally speaking in human cultures across the world the moral implications have always been recognized with differing degrees of clarity. It's not unusual that communities recognize this since future human generations come from the uniting of a man and woman, then it is wise for society to protect their union. This is basically why the late Pope John Paul II has called the family, not the individual, the most basic unit of society. I think this concurs with what you have said about why society sees the need to define marriage.
Nevertheless while the institution of matrimony exists in some form in every society I don't think this can be called a sacrament. As I said in my previous post the sacramental aspect concerns marriage between two Christians only and not everyone in every society partaking in marriage are Christian. While in the natural bond there is a spiritual aspect that informs us that marriage cannot be taken lightly, the spiritual bond in the sacramental union is taken higher by an act of God. Thus in the Catholic Church the bond is indissoluable unlike that of the natural bond. Once conferred it cannot be dissolved (the natural bond is more a contract than a covenant like the sacramental).
One of my main points in the last post was that marriage is an institution recognized by natural man and protected by most natural religions. It is only supernaturalized (and can only be so) by Christians because they constitute the basic ingredient required by God to form a sacramental union. Thus the Catholic Church following Christ's words recognizes this reality and in Her laws proposes additional protections fitting the new state. In other words what I am saying here is that the moral and sacramental aspects come from the nature of the thing rather than the nature of marriage coming from religion. In fact it is telling that Christ did not come to start a religion (from which marriage flows) but rather a Church, which in turn recognizes the reality God has set in place for human interrelationships. The Church also faithfully passes on the revealed truth that marriage can be supernaturalized by introduction of God's grace into the natural relationship. Again the moral aspect flows from the nature of the being. A person is to be loved and this is why there is a moral aspect in the first place and what it protects. You seem to be saying if there were no religion there would be no moral consideration. I am saying even the non-Christian can see good and evil and the reality of each being is where morality flows from (conscience is merely a discovery of this). All good religion merely recognize this reality and religion cannot cause being or moral order. In the Christian tradition, as described in the old testament, it is true that the Ten Commandments were given to reveal what some had failed to see but they being the exception (or even if they were the majority) only manifest this failure, not cause it. In the book of Timothy it is said the law was given so that man's conscience might be pricked (my words). The law then is meant to reinforce what every soul should know and so to speak, hit in the head those who in pride refuse to recognize their own conscience's demands.
All this said I don't doubt we in the United States, generally speaking, have a legal system drawn in part from Christian ethical thought. I also agree this is one of the reasons why there is a battle over marriage and so called "gay rights." Still I suspect the root cause goes deeper than American jurisprudence down to a crass ignorance of what human nature actually is and how relationships are meant to be. It has to do with how people understand rights and the duties corresponding to those rights. Lately in public forum and some state legislatures we've had to define marriage precisely because of this lack of basic understanding. Rightly so because again how we make our law flows from how we understand our nature as I've been arguing in these threads. Again if there were no human nature there would be no morality. In fact since religion is man's inner sense they come from something greater than themselves without that nature there would be no religion.
Pax et Bonum Christi
Ratty (alias Ratjaws)
Nevertheless while the institution of matrimony exists in some form in every society I don't think this can be called a sacrament. As I said in my previous post the sacramental aspect concerns marriage between two Christians only and not everyone in every society partaking in marriage are Christian. While in the natural bond there is a spiritual aspect that informs us that marriage cannot be taken lightly, the spiritual bond in the sacramental union is taken higher by an act of God. Thus in the Catholic Church the bond is indissoluable unlike that of the natural bond. Once conferred it cannot be dissolved (the natural bond is more a contract than a covenant like the sacramental).
One of my main points in the last post was that marriage is an institution recognized by natural man and protected by most natural religions. It is only supernaturalized (and can only be so) by Christians because they constitute the basic ingredient required by God to form a sacramental union. Thus the Catholic Church following Christ's words recognizes this reality and in Her laws proposes additional protections fitting the new state. In other words what I am saying here is that the moral and sacramental aspects come from the nature of the thing rather than the nature of marriage coming from religion. In fact it is telling that Christ did not come to start a religion (from which marriage flows) but rather a Church, which in turn recognizes the reality God has set in place for human interrelationships. The Church also faithfully passes on the revealed truth that marriage can be supernaturalized by introduction of God's grace into the natural relationship. Again the moral aspect flows from the nature of the being. A person is to be loved and this is why there is a moral aspect in the first place and what it protects. You seem to be saying if there were no religion there would be no moral consideration. I am saying even the non-Christian can see good and evil and the reality of each being is where morality flows from (conscience is merely a discovery of this). All good religion merely recognize this reality and religion cannot cause being or moral order. In the Christian tradition, as described in the old testament, it is true that the Ten Commandments were given to reveal what some had failed to see but they being the exception (or even if they were the majority) only manifest this failure, not cause it. In the book of Timothy it is said the law was given so that man's conscience might be pricked (my words). The law then is meant to reinforce what every soul should know and so to speak, hit in the head those who in pride refuse to recognize their own conscience's demands.
All this said I don't doubt we in the United States, generally speaking, have a legal system drawn in part from Christian ethical thought. I also agree this is one of the reasons why there is a battle over marriage and so called "gay rights." Still I suspect the root cause goes deeper than American jurisprudence down to a crass ignorance of what human nature actually is and how relationships are meant to be. It has to do with how people understand rights and the duties corresponding to those rights. Lately in public forum and some state legislatures we've had to define marriage precisely because of this lack of basic understanding. Rightly so because again how we make our law flows from how we understand our nature as I've been arguing in these threads. Again if there were no human nature there would be no morality. In fact since religion is man's inner sense they come from something greater than themselves without that nature there would be no religion.
Pax et Bonum Christi
Ratty (alias Ratjaws)
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 12 2008, 02:45 PM)
And again with nothing other than your hollow opinion to back up that religious based belief of yours.
And of course all you have in argument is your belief, so...
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 12 2008, 02:45 PM)
Religion was created by man to serve our needs. Pair bonding, marriage and similar social constructs are due to our nature.
And as cited by historical examples, religious domination of marriage is only a recent development.
Wow, another unsupported grandiose statement. You have not provided a single case that supports your assertion, and the examples in my favor are many and manifold. And yet you stick to it.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 12 2008, 02:45 PM)
And speaking to the thread topic, we have yet another irrational claim from the ”church”.
http://www.freethinker.co.uk/2008/05/09/ca...oday-programme/
So now it appears that both science and reason, without faith, will lead to Hitler and Stalin.
Without ethical and moral constraint, science HAS led to horrific tragedies, exactly the examples they pointed to Stalin (Atheism), and Hitler (Eugenics). What is wrong with his statement?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 12 2008, 02:45 PM)
Was it reason or science that led the Roman Catholic Church to torture people for not converting or murder people for discovering the facts of our world and universe?
Ah yes the old familiar refrain. The Church did some bad things, so is consigned in your mind to perpetual damnation. Whatever. The sins of the father should not be visited on the son if you ask me. Today's church does not and would not support those things you speak of (now).
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 12 2008, 02:45 PM)
And why so many of the faith saw it as a violation of the xian religious laws to allow interracial marriages.
Yup, true.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 12 2008, 02:45 PM)
But in the end, ethical and moral definition of the faithful gave way to the rule of law, just as it will be forced to yield again to the rule of law rather than the whims of bigots.
And that is just self delusion. The "rule of law" HAH. The Law is merely a governmentally agreed and enforced ethical and moral guide. It is the rules we all live by. Since it escapes you, I might remind you that prior to the change in opinion, and the public ethical and moral conscience, the "rule of law" WAS that interracial mariages were illegal.
The common ethical and moral position changed, realizing that interracial marriages were not "bad" or unethical or immoral, and so, the law changed to reflect the change in public opinion.
Sometimes, your logic is downright impenetrable.
QUOTE (deadbeat+May 13 2008, 04:32 AM)
And of course all you have in argument is your belief, so...
I can build a pendulum and recreate some of Galialio's(sp) experiments.
can you get a fresh copy of the Ten Commandments from the burning bush?
QUOTE (deadbeat+May 12 2008, 10:32 PM)
in reference to GeneSplicer
Sometimes, your logic is downright impenetrable.
Was that a complement? ...or an attempt at sarcasm?
edit...or a simple statement of fact...
Sometimes, your logic is downright impenetrable.
Was that a complement? ...or an attempt at sarcasm?
edit...or a simple statement of fact...
QUOTE (ratjaws+May 13 2008, 03:58 AM)
I'm sorry deadbeat, but I don't quite understand? You use the word sacrament as though it is common but, if I'm not mistaken, in it's original sense it is used solely by the Church. The word itself comes from the Latin, sacramentum, meaning "oath"; it's root, sacrare means "to consecrate." What I think you are describing with use of that word is natural marriage? Natural marriage fits the description you give: "the formal community recognition of the bond between a man and woman." I also think generally speaking in human cultures across the world the moral implications have always been recognized with differing degrees of clarity. It's not unusual that communities recognize this since future human generations come from the uniting of a man and woman, then it is wise for society to protect their union. This is basically why the late Pope John Paul II has called the family, not the individual, the most basic unit of society. I think this concurs with what you have said about why society sees the need to define marriage.
Nevertheless while the institution of matrimony exists in some form in every society I don't think this can be called a sacrament. As I said in my previous post the sacramental aspect concerns marriage between two Christians only and not everyone in every society partaking in marriage are Christian. While in the natural bond there is a spiritual aspect that informs us that marriage cannot be taken lightly, the spiritual bond in the sacramental union is taken higher by an act of God. Thus in the Catholic Church the bond is indissoluable unlike that of the natural bond. Once conferred it cannot be dissolved (the natural bond is more a contract than a covenant like the sacramental).
One of my main points in the last post was that marriage is an institution recognized by natural man and protected by most natural religions. It is only supernaturalized (and can only be so) by Christians because they constitute the basic ingredient required by God to form a sacramental union. Thus the Catholic Church following Christ's words recognizes this reality and in Her laws proposes additional protections fitting the new state. In other words what I am saying here is that the moral and sacramental aspects come from the nature of the thing rather than the nature of marriage coming from religion. In fact it is telling that Christ did not come to start a religion (from which marriage flows) but rather a Church, which in turn recognizes the reality God has set in place for human interrelationships. The Church also faithfully passes on the revealed truth that marriage can be supernaturalized by introduction of God's grace into the natural relationship. Again the moral aspect flows from the nature of the being. A person is to be loved and this is why there is a moral aspect in the first place and what it protects. You seem to be saying if there were no religion there would be no moral consideration. I am saying even the non-Christian can see good and evil and the reality of each being is where morality flows from (conscience is merely a discovery of this). All good religion merely recognize this reality and religion cannot cause being or moral order. In the Christian tradition, as described in the old testament, it is true that the Ten Commandments were given to reveal what some had failed to see but they being the exception (or even if they were the majority) only manifest this failure, not cause it. In the book of Timothy it is said the law was given so that man's conscience might be pricked (my words). The law then is meant to reinforce what every soul should know and so to speak, hit in the head those who in pride refuse to recognize their own conscience's demands.
All this said I don't doubt we in the United States, generally speaking, have a legal system drawn in part from Christian ethical thought. I also agree this is one of the reasons why there is a battle over marriage and so called "gay rights." Still I suspect the root cause goes deeper than American jurisprudence down to a crass ignorance of what human nature actually is and how relationships are meant to be. It has to do with how people understand rights and the duties corresponding to those rights. Lately in public forum and some state legislatures we've had to define marriage precisely because of this lack of basic understanding. Rightly so because again how we make our law flows from how we understand our nature as I've been arguing in these threads. Again if there were no human nature there would be no morality. In fact since religion is man's inner sense they come from something greater than themselves without that nature there would be no religion.
Pax et Bonum Christi
Ratty (alias Ratjaws)
Well spoken, and again I am largely in agreement with you.
I just think the distinction between "religious sacrament" and "natural marriage" is unnecessary.
There is no existence or meaning of "marriage" outside of a RELIGIOUS context.
Now that word RELIGIOUS I am using in a wider conetxt than you. I use it to encompass ALL religion, not just christian, or pagan, or even polytheistic.
ALL religion, for instance the Pagan "jumping the broom" tradition was far less restrictive than the current christian tradition, but employed the important moral distinctions nonetheless. Monogamy. Family creation and distinction. Even though it was only for a duration of a year I think and had to be renewed.
The point is, the very idea of marriage is an ethical and moral construct, defining a relationship that has special ethical and moral consequences and proscriptions. Without the ethical and moral relevance, the word and concept HAVE NO MEANING, marriage would literally have no meaning or relevance at all.
There is no instance of "natural marriage" that is not descended from the religious concept.
Nevertheless while the institution of matrimony exists in some form in every society I don't think this can be called a sacrament. As I said in my previous post the sacramental aspect concerns marriage between two Christians only and not everyone in every society partaking in marriage are Christian. While in the natural bond there is a spiritual aspect that informs us that marriage cannot be taken lightly, the spiritual bond in the sacramental union is taken higher by an act of God. Thus in the Catholic Church the bond is indissoluable unlike that of the natural bond. Once conferred it cannot be dissolved (the natural bond is more a contract than a covenant like the sacramental).
One of my main points in the last post was that marriage is an institution recognized by natural man and protected by most natural religions. It is only supernaturalized (and can only be so) by Christians because they constitute the basic ingredient required by God to form a sacramental union. Thus the Catholic Church following Christ's words recognizes this reality and in Her laws proposes additional protections fitting the new state. In other words what I am saying here is that the moral and sacramental aspects come from the nature of the thing rather than the nature of marriage coming from religion. In fact it is telling that Christ did not come to start a religion (from which marriage flows) but rather a Church, which in turn recognizes the reality God has set in place for human interrelationships. The Church also faithfully passes on the revealed truth that marriage can be supernaturalized by introduction of God's grace into the natural relationship. Again the moral aspect flows from the nature of the being. A person is to be loved and this is why there is a moral aspect in the first place and what it protects. You seem to be saying if there were no religion there would be no moral consideration. I am saying even the non-Christian can see good and evil and the reality of each being is where morality flows from (conscience is merely a discovery of this). All good religion merely recognize this reality and religion cannot cause being or moral order. In the Christian tradition, as described in the old testament, it is true that the Ten Commandments were given to reveal what some had failed to see but they being the exception (or even if they were the majority) only manifest this failure, not cause it. In the book of Timothy it is said the law was given so that man's conscience might be pricked (my words). The law then is meant to reinforce what every soul should know and so to speak, hit in the head those who in pride refuse to recognize their own conscience's demands.
All this said I don't doubt we in the United States, generally speaking, have a legal system drawn in part from Christian ethical thought. I also agree this is one of the reasons why there is a battle over marriage and so called "gay rights." Still I suspect the root cause goes deeper than American jurisprudence down to a crass ignorance of what human nature actually is and how relationships are meant to be. It has to do with how people understand rights and the duties corresponding to those rights. Lately in public forum and some state legislatures we've had to define marriage precisely because of this lack of basic understanding. Rightly so because again how we make our law flows from how we understand our nature as I've been arguing in these threads. Again if there were no human nature there would be no morality. In fact since religion is man's inner sense they come from something greater than themselves without that nature there would be no religion.
Pax et Bonum Christi
Ratty (alias Ratjaws)
Well spoken, and again I am largely in agreement with you.
I just think the distinction between "religious sacrament" and "natural marriage" is unnecessary.
There is no existence or meaning of "marriage" outside of a RELIGIOUS context.
Now that word RELIGIOUS I am using in a wider conetxt than you. I use it to encompass ALL religion, not just christian, or pagan, or even polytheistic.
ALL religion, for instance the Pagan "jumping the broom" tradition was far less restrictive than the current christian tradition, but employed the important moral distinctions nonetheless. Monogamy. Family creation and distinction. Even though it was only for a duration of a year I think and had to be renewed.
The point is, the very idea of marriage is an ethical and moral construct, defining a relationship that has special ethical and moral consequences and proscriptions. Without the ethical and moral relevance, the word and concept HAVE NO MEANING, marriage would literally have no meaning or relevance at all.
There is no instance of "natural marriage" that is not descended from the religious concept.
QUOTE (deadbeat+May 12 2008, 10:42 PM)
There is no instance of "natural marriage" that is not descended from the religious concept.
If you say that as truth, how did you arrive at that conclusion?
If you say that as truth, how did you arrive at that conclusion?
Aren't there geese who mate for life? Do ya think they see it as a religious commitment?
QUOTE (gmilam+May 12 2008, 10:52 PM)
Aren't there geese who mate for life? Do ya think they see it as a religious commitment?
Mourning doves are also monogamous by "nature"
Mourning doves are also monogamous by "nature"
QUOTE (Bloy+May 13 2008, 04:48 AM)
If you say that as truth, how did you arrive at that conclusion?
When I say something is "truth" I usually mean that it is objectively, conclusively proven.
I do not think that is possible in this case, I view this as a subjective matter, but fortunately we do have historical guidance to inform us.
What I mean is that, from what I know and have observed, what I have stated is consistent and fits best with it. It represents a BELIEF of mine, but of course it is subject to change.
And in answer to the other questions about animals,
Have you ever heard of Geese or Mourning doves that were "married"?
As I said, the objective science may discover a genetic cause to a chemical or hormonal behavior tendency that makes us prefer monogamy. Like the mourning dove or penguins or geese.
It would explain the PREFERENCE, but not the practice. I submit to you that example is a poor one. With the examples of Divorce, adultery and what not, HUMANS are not very good at being monogamous, and yet we all know and appreciate and prefer examples that display and promote that trait. Why? But we try to guide our behavior to reflect that preference by making ethical and moral rules, and those rules are embodied in our religions and laws or taboos or whatever enforcement mechanism we choose.
If monogamy was genetic and guaranteed, there would be no rule necessary, we would all just automatically do it. We use religion and ethical and moral guidelines to promote and enhance the behavior.
When I say something is "truth" I usually mean that it is objectively, conclusively proven.
I do not think that is possible in this case, I view this as a subjective matter, but fortunately we do have historical guidance to inform us.
What I mean is that, from what I know and have observed, what I have stated is consistent and fits best with it. It represents a BELIEF of mine, but of course it is subject to change.
And in answer to the other questions about animals,
Have you ever heard of Geese or Mourning doves that were "married"?
As I said, the objective science may discover a genetic cause to a chemical or hormonal behavior tendency that makes us prefer monogamy. Like the mourning dove or penguins or geese.
It would explain the PREFERENCE, but not the practice. I submit to you that example is a poor one. With the examples of Divorce, adultery and what not, HUMANS are not very good at being monogamous, and yet we all know and appreciate and prefer examples that display and promote that trait. Why? But we try to guide our behavior to reflect that preference by making ethical and moral rules, and those rules are embodied in our religions and laws or taboos or whatever enforcement mechanism we choose.
If monogamy was genetic and guaranteed, there would be no rule necessary, we would all just automatically do it. We use religion and ethical and moral guidelines to promote and enhance the behavior.
QUOTE
Ah yes the old familiar refrain. The Church did some bad things, so is consigned in your mind to perpetual damnation. Whatever. The sins of the father should not be visited on the son if you ask me. Today's church does not and would not support those things you speak of (now).
deadbeat quote. "Today's" church is still making MAJOR mistakes, and the consequences are severe and damaging to our fellow humans.
1. The RCC's blocking stem cell research. Many common and rare ailments, diseases and inherited deformities can and will be eliminated or greatly reduced by the quick adoption of the beneficial research coming from stem cell's regenerative properties. Religion Vs. Science.
2. The RCC's refusal to condone condom use. This hypocrisy is astounding!
Every bit of research shows the overwhelming benefits derived from their use. As a contraceptive to prevent unwanted pregnancies and as a way to reduce the transmission of HIV and most other STD's (Sexually transmitted diseases) along with other valid reasons. Religion Vs. Science.3. Yes, the church did bad things then and is continuing to do other bad things now. It brings MAJOR doubt onto the entire institution and whatever level of trust or belief one might have held. Religion Vs. Science.
4. The RCC's widespread pedophilia and the attempts to deny, ignore or even cover it up. Those poor children are affected negatively for the rest of their lives. Doesn't this bring doubt upon their "holier than thou" beliefs? The psychologists counseling these children surely think so. Religion Vs. Science.
5. There are countless others, but I have to address another of deadbeat's false claims and definitions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Ah yes the old familiar refrain. The Church did some bad things, so is consigned in your mind to perpetual damnation. Whatever. The sins of the father should not be visited on the son if you ask me. Today's church does not and would not support those things you speak of (now). |
deadbeat quote.
"Today's" church is still making MAJOR mistakes, and the consequences are severe and damaging to our fellow humans.
1. The RCC's blocking stem cell research. Many common and rare ailments, diseases and inherited deformities can and will be eliminated or greatly reduced by the quick adoption of the beneficial research coming from stem cell's regenerative properties. Religion Vs. Science.
2. The RCC's refusal to condone condom use. This hypocrisy is astounding! Every bit of research shows the overwhelming benefits derived from their use. As a contraceptive to prevent unwanted pregnancies and as a way to reduce the transmission of HIV and most other STD's (Sexually transmitted diseases) along with other valid reasons. Religion Vs. Science.
3. Yes, the church did bad things then and is continuing to do other bad things now. It brings MAJOR doubt onto the entire institution and whatever level of trust or belief one might have held. Religion Vs. Science.
4. The RCC's widespread pedophilia and the attempts to deny, ignore or even cover it up. Those poor children are affected negatively for the rest of their lives. Doesn't this bring doubt upon their "holier than thou" beliefs? The psychologists counseling these children surely think so. Religion Vs. Science.
5. There are countless others, but I have to address another of deadbeat's false claims and definitions.
I would disagree in only one aspect, and argue that religion is indeed the source of the concept of "marriage".
"Today's" church is still making MAJOR mistakes, and the consequences are severe and damaging to our fellow humans.
1. The RCC's blocking stem cell research. Many common and rare ailments, diseases and inherited deformities can and will be eliminated or greatly reduced by the quick adoption of the beneficial research coming from stem cell's regenerative properties. Religion Vs. Science.
2. The RCC's refusal to condone condom use. This hypocrisy is astounding!
Every bit of research shows the overwhelming benefits derived from their use. As a contraceptive to prevent unwanted pregnancies and as a way to reduce the transmission of HIV and most other STD's (Sexually transmitted diseases) along with other valid reasons. Religion Vs. Science.3. Yes, the church did bad things then and is continuing to do other bad things now. It brings MAJOR doubt onto the entire institution and whatever level of trust or belief one might have held. Religion Vs. Science.
4. The RCC's widespread pedophilia and the attempts to deny, ignore or even cover it up. Those poor children are affected negatively for the rest of their lives. Doesn't this bring doubt upon their "holier than thou" beliefs? The psychologists counseling these children surely think so. Religion Vs. Science.
5. There are countless others, but I have to address another of deadbeat's false claims and definitions.
I would disagree in only one aspect, and argue that religion is indeed the source of the concept of "marriage".
deadbeat quote.
deadbeat, Just like my refutation of your personal definition of forgiveness, which I blew out of the water by clear, thoroughly referenced and contradicting definitions, see the REAL definition of marriage and notice particularly the paucity of references to religion! You seem to define terms in your own unique way as an attempt to bolster your ridiculous claims. We know better!
deadbeat, This blows your "custom" definition or marriage away just like the "forgiveness" episode! People see through your "logic" and biased, false claims easily. Why can't you in retrospect, especially after having your gaffes pointed out so definitively!
deadbeat, Just like my refutation of your personal definition of forgiveness, which I blew out of the water by clear, thoroughly referenced and contradicting definitions, see the REAL definition of marriage and notice particularly the paucity of references to religion! You seem to define terms in your own unique way as an attempt to bolster your ridiculous claims.
We know better! QUOTE
Marriage.
"Matrimony" redirects here. For the sacrament or liturgical rite in Christianity, see Christian views of marriage.
Marriage is a personal union between individuals. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is called a wedding and the status created is sometimes called wedlock. The act of marriage changes the personal status of the individuals in the eyes of the law and society.
Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are sanctioned with governmental, social, or religious recognition. It is often created by a contract or through civil processes. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the land.
Marriage may take many forms: for example, a union between one man and one woman as husband and wife is a monogamous heterosexual marriage; polygamy — in which a person takes more than one spouse — is common in many societies; and, in some jurisdictions and denominations, a same-sex marriage unites people of the same sex. (Other jurisdictions may not allow this, but instead provide civil unions or domestic partnerships conferring some or all of the benefits of married status.)
People marry for many reasons, but usually one or more of the following: legal, social and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children; legitimizing sexual relations; public declaration of love; or to obtain citizenship.
A marriage is often declared by a wedding ceremony, which may be performed either by a religious officiant, by a secular government-sanctioned officiator, or (in weddings that have no church or state affiliation) by a trusted friend of the wedding participants. The act of marriage usually creates obligations between the individuals involved, and in many societies, their extended families.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage (Emphasis mine.) "Matrimony" redirects here. For the sacrament or liturgical rite in Christianity, see Christian views of marriage.
Marriage is a personal union between individuals. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is called a wedding and the status created is sometimes called wedlock. The act of marriage changes the personal status of the individuals in the eyes of the law and society.
Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are sanctioned with governmental, social, or religious recognition. It is often created by a contract or through civil processes. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the land.
Marriage may take many forms: for example, a union between one man and one woman as husband and wife is a monogamous heterosexual marriage; polygamy — in which a person takes more than one spouse — is common in many societies; and, in some jurisdictions and denominations, a same-sex marriage unites people of the same sex. (Other jurisdictions may not allow this, but instead provide civil unions or domestic partnerships conferring some or all of the benefits of married status.)
People marry for many reasons, but usually one or more of the following: legal, social and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children; legitimizing sexual relations; public declaration of love; or to obtain citizenship.
A marriage is often declared by a wedding ceremony, which may be performed either by a religious officiant, by a secular government-sanctioned officiator, or (in weddings that have no church or state affiliation) by a trusted friend of the wedding participants. The act of marriage usually creates obligations between the individuals involved, and in many societies, their extended families.
deadbeat, This blows your "custom" definition or marriage away just like the "forgiveness" episode! People see through your "logic" and biased, false claims easily. Why can't you in retrospect, especially after having your gaffes pointed out so definitively!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Marriage. "Matrimony" redirects here. For the sacrament or liturgical rite in Christianity, see Christian views of marriage. Marriage is a personal union between individuals. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is called a wedding and the status created is sometimes called wedlock. The act of marriage changes the personal status of the individuals in the eyes of the law and society. Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are sanctioned with governmental, social, or religious recognition. It is often created by a contract or through civil processes. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the land. Marriage may take many forms: for example, a union between one man and one woman as husband and wife is a monogamous heterosexual marriage; polygamy — in which a person takes more than one spouse — is common in many societies; and, in some jurisdictions and denominations, a same-sex marriage unites people of the same sex. (Other jurisdictions may not allow this, but instead provide civil unions or domestic partnerships conferring some or all of the benefits of married status.) People marry for many reasons, but usually one or more of the following: legal, social and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children; legitimizing sexual relations; public declaration of love; or to obtain citizenship. A marriage is often declared by a wedding ceremony, which may be performed either by a religious officiant, by a secular government-sanctioned officiator, or (in weddings that have no church or state affiliation) by a trusted friend of the wedding participants. The act of marriage usually creates obligations between the individuals involved, and in many societies, their extended families. |
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage (Emphasis mine.)
deadbeat, This blows your "custom" definition or marriage away just like the "forgiveness" episode! People see through your "logic" and biased, false claims easily. Why can't you in retrospect, especially after having your gaffes pointed out so definitively!
Even here in the United states, we have traditionally and historically derived our ethical and moral definition of marriage from the Christian tradition, which is why there is such a fight about Gay Marriage.
deadbeat, This blows your "custom" definition or marriage away just like the "forgiveness" episode! People see through your "logic" and biased, false claims easily. Why can't you in retrospect, especially after having your gaffes pointed out so definitively!
Even here in the United states, we have traditionally and historically derived our ethical and moral definition of marriage from the Christian tradition, which is why there is such a fight about Gay Marriage.
deadbeat quote in response to ratjaws.
deadbeat, Let me play the devil's advocate here. You're saying that the statistically known 10% of all people born on this planet who are gay, be they man or woman, should not have the same rights and freedoms as the rest of mankind? Don't you see that their freedom is being curtailed unfairly? Every few years, when new major polls are taken, the percentage of acceptance is growing to allow this. The trend is inescapable and it is about to cross into the plurality. Don't you see that the ban on interracial marriages was just as barbaric as the ban on theirs? This could be number 5 in the list above. Religion Vs. Science.
deadbeat, Your church is barbaric to refuse the items in that list. It has been barbaric since before the Crusades, during the widespread witch hunts of Europe and America, during the Spanish Inquisition, for the "burnings-at-the-stake" of "heretics" which included scientists publishing research which countered their "holier than thou" pronouncements, and too much to list all through their sordid history! And you STILL believe that hogwash? That "blind" faith? That brainwashed indoctrination into ancient myth-based fairy tales? It's YOUR choice! I choose differently.
QUOTE
The "rule of law" HAH. The Law is merely a governmentally agreed and enforced ethical and moral guide. It is the rules we all live by. Since it escapes you, I might remind you that prior to the change in opinion, and the public ethical and moral conscience, the "rule of law" WAS that interracial mariages (sic) were illegal.
The common ethical and moral position changed, realizing that interracial marriages were not "bad" or unethical or immoral, and so, the law changed to reflect the change in public opinion.
deadbeat quote in response to Genesplicer.The common ethical and moral position changed, realizing that interracial marriages were not "bad" or unethical or immoral, and so, the law changed to reflect the change in public opinion.
deadbeat, Let me play the devil's advocate here. You're saying that the statistically known 10% of all people born on this planet who are gay, be they man or woman, should not have the same rights and freedoms as the rest of mankind? Don't you see that their freedom is being curtailed unfairly? Every few years, when new major polls are taken, the percentage of acceptance is growing to allow this. The trend is inescapable and it is about to cross into the plurality. Don't you see that the ban on interracial marriages was just as barbaric as the ban on theirs? This could be number 5 in the list above. Religion Vs. Science.
deadbeat, Your church is barbaric to refuse the items in that list. It has been barbaric since before the Crusades, during the widespread witch hunts of Europe and America, during the Spanish Inquisition, for the "burnings-at-the-stake" of "heretics" which included scientists publishing research which countered their "holier than thou" pronouncements, and too much to list all through their sordid history! And you STILL believe that hogwash? That "blind" faith? That brainwashed indoctrination into ancient myth-based fairy tales? It's YOUR choice! I choose differently.
Same old photojack,
Let us examine these indictments
deadbeat quote.
"Today's" church is still making MAJOR mistakes, and the consequences are severe and damaging to our fellow humans.
really? let us see
1. The RCC's blocking stem cell research. Many common and rare ailments, diseases and inherited deformities can and will be eliminated or greatly reduced by the quick adoption of the beneficial research coming from stem cell's regenerative properties. Religion Vs. Science.
So what cures have we found that the RCC is preventing? Oh no cures have been found yet? Curious, And yet somehow you KNOW what this research will somehow result in. If you already know, skip the research, just put out the cure...
Oh yeah, and it is not the RCC actually, George Bush and the Christian public at large is not the RCC, this is an ethical and moral position taken by the majority of christians at large, not just catholics.
2. The RCC's refusal to condone condom use. This hypocrisy is astounding! Every bit of research shows the overwhelming benefits derived from their use. As a contraceptive to prevent unwanted pregnancies and as a way to reduce the transmission of HIV and most other STD's (Sexually transmitted diseases) along with other valid reasons. Religion Vs. Science.
Why condone condom use? ABSTINENCE is proven to be MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE than condom use. 100% prevention rate, is better than 95% is it not? So I guess your Science is ignoring that fact. Or is it not a solution you prefer? Ah yes that is more like it.
3. Yes, the church did bad things then and is continuing to do other bad things now. It brings MAJOR doubt onto the entire institution and whatever level of trust or belief one might have held. Religion Vs. Science.
Right. Science was responsible for some horrific tragedies involving Eugenics. The mandatory sterilization of Mentally handicapped and poor people. The Nazi experiments on the jews. So I guess by your logic no science either. Bummer, whatever shall we do? Nowhere to turn I guess.
4. The RCC's widespread pedophilia and the attempts to deny, ignore or even cover it up. Those poor children are affected negatively for the rest of their lives. Doesn't this bring doubt upon their "holier than thou" beliefs? The psychologists counseling these children surely think so. Religion Vs. Science.
The incidence of pedophilia in the roman catholic church is no greater per capita of the actual church population than any other religion. Of course you would not know that from the media coverage. Individual human acts are not necessarily an indictment on the entire institution. But we have been over this, it is just your obvious hatred and vitriol against the Roman Catholic church in particular on display here.
5. There are countless others, but I have to address another of deadbeat's false claims and definitions.
Oh yes, here we go
deadbeat, Just like my refutation of your personal definition of forgiveness, which I blew out of the water by clear, thoroughly referenced and contradicting definitions, see the REAL definition of marriage and notice particularly the paucity of references to religion! You seem to define terms in your own unique way as an attempt to bolster your ridiculous claims. We know better!
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage (Emphasis mine.)
deadbeat, This blows your "custom" definition or marriage away just like the "forgiveness" episode! People see through your "logic" and biased, false claims easily. Why can't you in retrospect, especially after having your gaffes pointed out so definitively!
And just as before, the only one impressed is you.
You point to a definition on wikipedia that discusses MODERN practices, that have obviously descended from religious ones. Again, your inability to comprehend is just shocking.
The fairly recent practice of divorcing government from religion, or at least any particular one being preferred has resulted in the generic consideration of marriage and the modern practices of today. All precedent favors my assertion, it is easy to see, you are just being obtuse.
deadbeat, Let me play the devil's advocate here. You're saying that the statistically known 10% of all people born on this planet who are gay, be they man or woman, should not have the same rights and freedoms as the rest of mankind? Don't you see that their freedom is being curtailed unfairly? Every few years, when new major polls are taken, the percentage of acceptance is growing to allow this. The trend is inescapable and it is about to cross into the plurality. Don't you see that the ban on interracial marriages was just as barbaric as the ban on theirs? This could be number 5 in the list above. Religion Vs. Science.
You should know that I personally have changed my stance on the legality of gay marriage in the united states. By United States constitutional law, it should be considered protected as an individual right, and so I support it. Just not in my church.
deadbeat, Your church is barbaric to refuse the items in that list. It has been barbaric since before the Crusades, during the widespread witch hunts of Europe and America, during the Spanish Inquisition, for the "burnings-at-the-stake" of "heretics" which included scientists publishing research which countered their "holier than thou" pronouncements, and too much to list all through their sordid history! And you STILL believe that hogwash? That "blind" faith? That brainwashed indoctrination into ancient myth-based fairy tales? It's YOUR choice! I choose differently.
Blah blah, same old song and dance, I tire of your tirades and baseless accusations. You have endless lack of forgiveness for the past sins of people long dead in the church, and endlessly ignore the similar and more recent crimes of science and Atheism gone wild. Lenin, Stalin, Communist China, Castro, Eugenics, I can list NON_RELIGIOUS tragedies all day long, but those you conveniently ignore.
All philosophies are prone to contamination, perversion and human abuse in search of power or out of sheer cruelty.
Let us examine these indictments
QUOTE (photojack+May 13 2008, 06:17 AM)
deadbeat quote.
"Today's" church is still making MAJOR mistakes, and the consequences are severe and damaging to our fellow humans.
really? let us see
QUOTE (photojack+May 13 2008, 06:17 AM)
1. The RCC's blocking stem cell research. Many common and rare ailments, diseases and inherited deformities can and will be eliminated or greatly reduced by the quick adoption of the beneficial research coming from stem cell's regenerative properties. Religion Vs. Science.
So what cures have we found that the RCC is preventing? Oh no cures have been found yet? Curious, And yet somehow you KNOW what this research will somehow result in. If you already know, skip the research, just put out the cure...
Oh yeah, and it is not the RCC actually, George Bush and the Christian public at large is not the RCC, this is an ethical and moral position taken by the majority of christians at large, not just catholics.
QUOTE (photojack+May 13 2008, 06:17 AM)
2. The RCC's refusal to condone condom use. This hypocrisy is astounding!
Every bit of research shows the overwhelming benefits derived from their use. As a contraceptive to prevent unwanted pregnancies and as a way to reduce the transmission of HIV and most other STD's (Sexually transmitted diseases) along with other valid reasons. Religion Vs. Science. Why condone condom use? ABSTINENCE is proven to be MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE than condom use. 100% prevention rate, is better than 95% is it not? So I guess your Science is ignoring that fact. Or is it not a solution you prefer? Ah yes that is more like it.
QUOTE (photojack+May 13 2008, 06:17 AM)
3. Yes, the church did bad things then and is continuing to do other bad things now. It brings MAJOR doubt onto the entire institution and whatever level of trust or belief one might have held. Religion Vs. Science.
Right. Science was responsible for some horrific tragedies involving Eugenics. The mandatory sterilization of Mentally handicapped and poor people. The Nazi experiments on the jews. So I guess by your logic no science either. Bummer, whatever shall we do? Nowhere to turn I guess.
QUOTE (photojack+May 13 2008, 06:17 AM)
4. The RCC's widespread pedophilia and the attempts to deny, ignore or even cover it up. Those poor children are affected negatively for the rest of their lives. Doesn't this bring doubt upon their "holier than thou" beliefs? The psychologists counseling these children surely think so. Religion Vs. Science.
The incidence of pedophilia in the roman catholic church is no greater per capita of the actual church population than any other religion. Of course you would not know that from the media coverage. Individual human acts are not necessarily an indictment on the entire institution. But we have been over this, it is just your obvious hatred and vitriol against the Roman Catholic church in particular on display here.
QUOTE (photojack+May 13 2008, 06:17 AM)
5. There are countless others, but I have to address another of deadbeat's false claims and definitions.
Oh yes, here we go
QUOTE (photojack+May 13 2008, 06:17 AM)
deadbeat, Just like my refutation of your personal definition of forgiveness, which I blew out of the water by clear, thoroughly referenced and contradicting definitions, see the REAL definition of marriage and notice particularly the paucity of references to religion! You seem to define terms in your own unique way as an attempt to bolster your ridiculous claims.
We know better! From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage (Emphasis mine.)
deadbeat, This blows your "custom" definition or marriage away just like the "forgiveness" episode! People see through your "logic" and biased, false claims easily. Why can't you in retrospect, especially after having your gaffes pointed out so definitively!
And just as before, the only one impressed is you.
You point to a definition on wikipedia that discusses MODERN practices, that have obviously descended from religious ones. Again, your inability to comprehend is just shocking.
The fairly recent practice of divorcing government from religion, or at least any particular one being preferred has resulted in the generic consideration of marriage and the modern practices of today. All precedent favors my assertion, it is easy to see, you are just being obtuse.
QUOTE (photojack+May 13 2008, 06:17 AM)
deadbeat, Let me play the devil's advocate here. You're saying that the statistically known 10% of all people born on this planet who are gay, be they man or woman, should not have the same rights and freedoms as the rest of mankind? Don't you see that their freedom is being curtailed unfairly? Every few years, when new major polls are taken, the percentage of acceptance is growing to allow this. The trend is inescapable and it is about to cross into the plurality. Don't you see that the ban on interracial marriages was just as barbaric as the ban on theirs? This could be number 5 in the list above. Religion Vs. Science.
You should know that I personally have changed my stance on the legality of gay marriage in the united states. By United States constitutional law, it should be considered protected as an individual right, and so I support it. Just not in my church.
QUOTE (photojack+May 13 2008, 06:17 AM)
deadbeat, Your church is barbaric to refuse the items in that list. It has been barbaric since before the Crusades, during the widespread witch hunts of Europe and America, during the Spanish Inquisition, for the "burnings-at-the-stake" of "heretics" which included scientists publishing research which countered their "holier than thou" pronouncements, and too much to list all through their sordid history! And you STILL believe that hogwash? That "blind" faith? That brainwashed indoctrination into ancient myth-based fairy tales? It's YOUR choice! I choose differently.
Blah blah, same old song and dance, I tire of your tirades and baseless accusations. You have endless lack of forgiveness for the past sins of people long dead in the church, and endlessly ignore the similar and more recent crimes of science and Atheism gone wild. Lenin, Stalin, Communist China, Castro, Eugenics, I can list NON_RELIGIOUS tragedies all day long, but those you conveniently ignore.
All philosophies are prone to contamination, perversion and human abuse in search of power or out of sheer cruelty.
Same old deadbeat... wrong again!
deadbeat, Don't just blather more nonsense, do some thinking and research! This contradicts that bullsh*t you posted thoroughly and conclusively! Study the science!
QUOTE
So what cures have we found that the RCC is preventing? Oh no cures have been found yet? Curious, And yet somehow you KNOW what this research will somehow result in. If you already know, skip the research, just put out the cure..
deadbeat quote. deadbeat, Don't just blather more nonsense, do some thinking and research!
This contradicts that bullsh*t you posted thoroughly and conclusively! Study the science!QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So what cures have we found that the RCC is preventing? Oh no cures have been found yet? Curious, And yet somehow you KNOW what this research will somehow result in. If you already know, skip the research, just put out the cure.. |
deadbeat quote.
deadbeat, Don't just blather more nonsense, do some thinking and research! This contradicts that bullsh*t you posted thoroughly and conclusively! Study the science!
Medical researchers believe that stem cell treatments have the potential to change the face of human disease and alleviate suffering. A number of stem cell treatments already exist, although most are still experimental and/or costly, with the notable exception of bone marrow transplantation. In the future, medical researchers anticipate being able to use technologies derived from adult and embryonic stem cell research to treat cancer, Type 1 diabetes mellitus, spinal cord injuries, and muscle damage, amongst a number of other diseases and impairments.
deadbeat, Don't just blather more nonsense, do some thinking and research!
This contradicts that bullsh*t you posted thoroughly and conclusively! Study the science!Medical researchers believe that stem cell treatments have the potential to change the face of human disease and alleviate suffering. A number of stem cell treatments already exist, although most are still experimental and/or costly, with the notable exception of bone marrow transplantation. In the future, medical researchers anticipate being able to use technologies derived from adult and embryonic stem cell research to treat cancer, Type 1 diabetes mellitus, spinal cord injuries, and muscle damage, amongst a number of other diseases and impairments.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_treatments
Now, about abstinence-only sex education, you are wrong again. Nice attempt at statistics, but they are yours and no one else's! Pure made-up bullsh*t.
deadbeat, Want to tell us all about the "superiority" of abstinence programs after reading THAT? Study the science!
Your listing of MISUSES of science by dictators and despots DOES NOT REFUTE SCIENCE! Nazi experiments, someone forging "Piltdown Man", Eugenics, the mandatory sterilization of mentally handicapped and poor people does not negate the workings and overwhelmingly positive influences and advancements of science. THAT just shows your biases and "Dark Ages" mentality, AND A TOTAL LACK OF REASONING AND LOGIC! Your argument fails miserably to convince ANY thinking, aware person!
Now, about abstinence-only sex education, you are wrong again. Nice attempt at statistics, but they are yours and no one else's! Pure made-up bullsh*t.
QUOTE
Opponents and critics, which include prominent professional associations in the fields of medicine, public health, adolescent health, and psychology, argue that such programs fail to provide adequate information to protect the health of young people. Some critics also argue that such programs verge on religious interference in secular education. Opponents of abstinence-only education dispute the claim that comprehensive sex education encourages teens to have premarital sex. Two major studies by the U.S. Congress have increased the volume of criticism surrounding abstinence-only education.
In 2004, U.S. Congressman Henry A. Waxman of California released a report that provides several examples of inaccurate information being included in federally funded abstinence-only sex education programs. This report bolstered the claims of those arguing that abstinence-only programs deprive teenagers of critical information about sexuality. The claimed errors included:
1. Misrepresenting the failure rates of contraceptives
2. Misrepresenting the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission, including the citation of a discredited 1993 study by Dr. Susan Weller, when the federal government had acknowledged it was inaccurate in 1997 and larger and more recent studies that did not have the problems of Weller's study were available
3. False claims that abortion increases the risk of infertility, premature birth for subsequent pregnancies, and ectopic pregnancy
4. Treating stereotypes about gender roles as scientific fact
5. Other scientific errors, e.g. stating that "twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual" (the actual number is 23).
In 2007, a study ordered by Congress found that middle school students who took part in abstinence-only sex education programs were just as likely to have sex in their teenage years as those who did not.
Abstinence-only education has been criticized in official statements by the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American College Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Public Health Association, which all maintain that sex education needs to be comprehensive to be effective.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only_sex_educationIn 2004, U.S. Congressman Henry A. Waxman of California released a report that provides several examples of inaccurate information being included in federally funded abstinence-only sex education programs. This report bolstered the claims of those arguing that abstinence-only programs deprive teenagers of critical information about sexuality. The claimed errors included:
1. Misrepresenting the failure rates of contraceptives
2. Misrepresenting the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission, including the citation of a discredited 1993 study by Dr. Susan Weller, when the federal government had acknowledged it was inaccurate in 1997 and larger and more recent studies that did not have the problems of Weller's study were available
3. False claims that abortion increases the risk of infertility, premature birth for subsequent pregnancies, and ectopic pregnancy
4. Treating stereotypes about gender roles as scientific fact
5. Other scientific errors, e.g. stating that "twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual" (the actual number is 23).
In 2007, a study ordered by Congress found that middle school students who took part in abstinence-only sex education programs were just as likely to have sex in their teenage years as those who did not.
Abstinence-only education has been criticized in official statements by the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American College Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Public Health Association, which all maintain that sex education needs to be comprehensive to be effective.
deadbeat, Want to tell us all about the "superiority" of abstinence programs after reading THAT?
Study the science!Your listing of MISUSES of science by dictators and despots DOES NOT REFUTE SCIENCE! Nazi experiments, someone forging "Piltdown Man", Eugenics, the mandatory sterilization of mentally handicapped and poor people does not negate the workings and overwhelmingly positive influences and advancements of science. THAT just shows your biases and "Dark Ages" mentality, AND A TOTAL LACK OF REASONING AND LOGIC! Your argument fails miserably to convince ANY thinking, aware person!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Opponents and critics, which include prominent professional associations in the fields of medicine, public health, adolescent health, and psychology, argue that such programs fail to provide adequate information to protect the health of young people. Some critics also argue that such programs verge on religious interference in secular education. Opponents of abstinence-only education dispute the claim that comprehensive sex education encourages teens to have premarital sex. Two major studies by the U.S. Congress have increased the volume of criticism surrounding abstinence-only education. In 2004, U.S. Congressman Henry A. Waxman of California released a report that provides several examples of inaccurate information being included in federally funded abstinence-only sex education programs. This report bolstered the claims of those arguing that abstinence-only programs deprive teenagers of critical information about sexuality. The claimed errors included: 1. Misrepresenting the failure rates of contraceptives 2. Misrepresenting the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission, including the citation of a discredited 1993 study by Dr. Susan Weller, when the federal government had acknowledged it was inaccurate in 1997 and larger and more recent studies that did not have the problems of Weller's study were available 3. False claims that abortion increases the risk of infertility, premature birth for subsequent pregnancies, and ectopic pregnancy 4. Treating stereotypes about gender roles as scientific fact 5. Other scientific errors, e.g. stating that "twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual" (the actual number is 23). In 2007, a study ordered by Congress found that middle school students who took part in abstinence-only sex education programs were just as likely to have sex in their teenage years as those who did not. Abstinence-only education has been criticized in official statements by the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American College Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Public Health Association, which all maintain that sex education needs to be comprehensive to be effective. |
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only_sex_education
deadbeat, Want to tell us all about the "superiority" of abstinence programs after reading THAT? Study the science!
Your listing of MISUSES of science by dictators and despots DOES NOT REFUTE SCIENCE! Nazi experiments, someone forging "Piltdown Man", Eugenics, the mandatory sterilization of mentally handicapped and poor people does not negate the workings and overwhelmingly positive influences and advancements of science. THAT just shows your biases and "Dark Ages" mentality, AND A TOTAL LACK OF REASONING AND LOGIC! Your argument fails miserably to convince ANY thinking, aware person!
The incidence of pedophilia in the roman catholic church is no greater per capita of the actual church population than any other religion. Of course you would not know that from the media coverage.
deadbeat, Want to tell us all about the "superiority" of abstinence programs after reading THAT?
Study the science!Your listing of MISUSES of science by dictators and despots DOES NOT REFUTE SCIENCE! Nazi experiments, someone forging "Piltdown Man", Eugenics, the mandatory sterilization of mentally handicapped and poor people does not negate the workings and overwhelmingly positive influences and advancements of science. THAT just shows your biases and "Dark Ages" mentality, AND A TOTAL LACK OF REASONING AND LOGIC! Your argument fails miserably to convince ANY thinking, aware person!
The incidence of pedophilia in the roman catholic church is no greater per capita of the actual church population than any other religion. Of course you would not know that from the media coverage.
deadbeat quote.
Care to show us the proof of that statement? Or is it made up, just like your definitions and statistics! (()) And even if what you said has any truth, does it justify what was done to those children? Does it make you believe in the "righteousness" of the institution, or its clergy or even the "flock" of brainwashed congregants?
And then you post this gem in response to my refutations of your unique deadbeat definitions!
The definition from wikipedia discussed it from a historical perspective and was NOT limited to MODERN practices! Where did you see THAT? Now show us where "all precedent" favors your assertion! WHO IS BEING OBTUSE!
You are wrong. The RCC is against stem cell research.
You are wrong. The RCC is against stem cell research.
Oh yeah, and it is not the RCC actually, George Bush and the Christian public at large is not the RCC, this is an ethical and moral position taken by the majority of christians at large, not just catholics.
Since we have already shown (link above) that stem cell research can assist with the treatment of various ailments, and you, yourself, claim that it is a general Christian consensus (quote above), please demonstrate how it is moral and ethical to hinder the treatment to suffering patients.
You are wrong.
You are wrong.
Right. Science was responsible for some horrific tragedies involving Eugenics. The mandatory sterilization of Mentally handicapped and poor people. The Nazi experiments on the jews. So I guess by your logic no science either. Bummer, whatever shall we do? Nowhere to turn I guess.
Eugenics is contrary to the findings of scientific research. You are, therefore, wrong. It is not science that drove eugenics. Sorry for you. Wrong again.
So, if believing in God is not going to not going to make you behave any more morally than any other religion, shouldn't that be taken as evidence that Christianity's claim of being moral is bunk?
So, if believing in God is not going to not going to make you behave any more morally than any other religion, shouldn't that be taken as evidence that Christianity's claim of being moral is bunk?
All philosophies are prone to contamination, perversion and human abuse in search of power or out of sheer cruelty.
Exactly, that is exactly the reason why there is separation of church and state.
Deadbeat, you never change.
Really.
You win on that, sadly though.
Deadbeat, you never change.
Really.
You win on that, sadly though.
Well duh! Of course not having sex is a more sure fire form of birth control than a condom is.
And sometimes, couples get too excited to even bother wearing a condom. And men get used on not having one, I don't know, maybe it irritates them. To all males out there, do you think condom is the best of all methods of birth control??? I mean, do you find it really comfortable using it????
I'm just wondering....
Because most men could use withdrawal method instead, though it's kinda less reliable than that of the condom.
Care to show us the proof of that statement? Or is it made up, just like your definitions and statistics! ((
)) And even if what you said has any truth, does it justify what was done to those children? Does it make you believe in the "righteousness" of the institution, or its clergy or even the "flock" of brainwashed congregants?And then you post this gem in response to my refutations of your unique deadbeat definitions!
QUOTE
You point to a definition on wikipedia that discusses MODERN practices, that have obviously descended from religious ones. Again, your inability to comprehend is just shocking.
The fairly recent practice of divorcing government from religion, or at least any particular one being preferred has resulted in the generic consideration of marriage and the modern practices of today. All precedent favors my assertion, it is easy to see, you are just being obtuse.
deadbeat quote.The fairly recent practice of divorcing government from religion, or at least any particular one being preferred has resulted in the generic consideration of marriage and the modern practices of today. All precedent favors my assertion, it is easy to see, you are just being obtuse.
The definition from wikipedia discussed it from a historical perspective and was NOT limited to MODERN practices! Where did you see THAT? Now show us where "all precedent" favors your assertion! WHO IS BEING OBTUSE!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You point to a definition on wikipedia that discusses MODERN practices, that have obviously descended from religious ones. Again, your inability to comprehend is just shocking. The fairly recent practice of divorcing government from religion, or at least any particular one being preferred has resulted in the generic consideration of marriage and the modern practices of today. All precedent favors my assertion, it is easy to see, you are just being obtuse. |
deadbeat quote.
The definition from wikipedia discussed it from a historical perspective and was NOT limited to MODERN practices! Where did you see THAT? Now show us where "all precedent" favors your assertion! WHO IS BEING OBTUSE!
You should know that I personally have changed my stance on the legality of gay marriage in the united states. By United States constitutional law, it should be considered protected as an individual right, and so I support it. Just not in my church.
The definition from wikipedia discussed it from a historical perspective and was NOT limited to MODERN practices! Where did you see THAT? Now show us where "all precedent" favors your assertion! WHO IS BEING OBTUSE!
You should know that I personally have changed my stance on the legality of gay marriage in the united states. By United States constitutional law, it should be considered protected as an individual right, and so I support it. Just not in my church.
deadbeat quote.
Why not in your church? Are you afraid of what those Conservative bigots might think? Anyone from your church could be reading this forum! Oops!
deadbeat, EVERYONE IN THIS FORUM IS TIRING OF YOUR BASELESS AND EASILY DISPROVED RANTS AND TIRADES! YOU HAVE FAILED TO CONVINCE ANYONE, BUT YOUR SELF-DELUSIONED PERSONA. I don't need to forgive past sins of YOUR church's clergy, they're still happening! Atheism hasn't gone wild, just a few dictators and despots which I already addressed appropriately and do not ignore! [B]JUST ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF YOUR JUMPING TO WILDLY ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS AND REPEATING THEM LIKE "GOSPEL"!.
deadbeat, You will never win against me in a formal debate or argument. I can see through your indoctrinated hogwash like glass. Virtually everyone posting and reading this will see how thoroughly you have failed since your first posts in this forum. Remember, we can click that link to "Find all posts by this member." Keep trying, we all need a good laugh now and then!
Why not in your church? Are you afraid of what those Conservative bigots might think? Anyone from your church could be reading this forum! Oops!
QUOTE
Blah blah, same old song and dance, I tire of your tirades and baseless accusations. You have endless lack of forgiveness for the past sins of people long dead in the church, and endlessly ignore the similar and more recent crimes of science and Atheism gone wild. Lenin, Stalin, Communist China, Castro, Eugenics, I can list NON_RELIGIOUS tragedies all day long, but those you conveniently ignore.
deadbeat quote.deadbeat, EVERYONE IN THIS FORUM IS TIRING OF YOUR BASELESS AND EASILY DISPROVED RANTS AND TIRADES! YOU HAVE FAILED TO CONVINCE ANYONE, BUT YOUR SELF-DELUSIONED PERSONA. I don't need to forgive past sins of YOUR church's clergy, they're still happening! Atheism hasn't gone wild, just a few dictators and despots which I already addressed appropriately and do not ignore! [B]JUST ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF YOUR JUMPING TO WILDLY ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS AND REPEATING THEM LIKE "GOSPEL"!.
deadbeat, You will never win against me in a formal debate or argument. I can see through your indoctrinated hogwash like glass. Virtually everyone posting and reading this will see how thoroughly you have failed since your first posts in this forum. Remember, we can click that link to "Find all posts by this member." Keep trying, we all need a good laugh now and then!
QUOTE (photojack+May 13 2008, 08:23 AM)
deadbeat, You will never win against me in a formal debate or argument.
HAHAHAHAH
You are right, you are so convinced of your positions that no amount of reason, logic, evidence or argument could persuade you.
Oh and on your arguments, Quoting Congressmen for evidence is a bit of a reach HAHAHA, next you will start quoting Car Salesmen, or Time-share purveyors.
Funny thing is, most of us are not here to WIN.
I come here to present my views so that others can understand and discuss them with me, and possibly learn something myself, or maybe even sometimes show something new or unexpected to some one else.
In learning and true discussion EVERYONE wins, which is why you never will.
Sad really. You defeat yourself.
HAHAHAHAH
You are right, you are so convinced of your positions that no amount of reason, logic, evidence or argument could persuade you.
Oh and on your arguments, Quoting Congressmen for evidence is a bit of a reach HAHAHA, next you will start quoting Car Salesmen, or Time-share purveyors.
Funny thing is, most of us are not here to WIN.
I come here to present my views so that others can understand and discuss them with me, and possibly learn something myself, or maybe even sometimes show something new or unexpected to some one else.
In learning and true discussion EVERYONE wins, which is why you never will.
Sad really. You defeat yourself.
QUOTE (deadbeat+May 13 2008, 12:22 AM)
And in answer to the other questions about animals,
Have you ever heard of Geese or Mourning doves that were "married"?
As I said, the objective science may discover a genetic cause to a chemical or hormonal behavior tendency that makes us prefer monogamy. Like the mourning dove or penguins or geese.
It would explain the PREFERENCE, but not the practice. I submit to you that example is a poor one. With the examples of Divorce, adultery and what not, HUMANS are not very good at being monogamous, and yet we all know and appreciate and prefer examples that display and promote that trait. Why? But we try to guide our behavior to reflect that preference by making ethical and moral rules, and those rules are embodied in our religions and laws or taboos or whatever enforcement mechanism we choose.
If monogamy was genetic and guaranteed, there would be no rule necessary, we would all just automatically do it. We use religion and ethical and moral guidelines to promote and enhance the behavior.
I've never asked any geese or doves if they considered themselves married.
And, once again, no one said that monogamy is "guaranteed"... just that there is a "natural" (as in - occurring in nature) basis for it. Whether you like it our not - we are part of nature and nature is within each of us. There was no "special creation". We weren't planted here like a petunia. We are a product of our environment.
We don't call it Mother Nature for nothing.
Have you ever heard of Geese or Mourning doves that were "married"?
As I said, the objective science may discover a genetic cause to a chemical or hormonal behavior tendency that makes us prefer monogamy. Like the mourning dove or penguins or geese.
It would explain the PREFERENCE, but not the practice. I submit to you that example is a poor one. With the examples of Divorce, adultery and what not, HUMANS are not very good at being monogamous, and yet we all know and appreciate and prefer examples that display and promote that trait. Why? But we try to guide our behavior to reflect that preference by making ethical and moral rules, and those rules are embodied in our religions and laws or taboos or whatever enforcement mechanism we choose.
If monogamy was genetic and guaranteed, there would be no rule necessary, we would all just automatically do it. We use religion and ethical and moral guidelines to promote and enhance the behavior.
I've never asked any geese or doves if they considered themselves married.
And, once again, no one said that monogamy is "guaranteed"... just that there is a "natural" (as in - occurring in nature) basis for it. Whether you like it our not - we are part of nature and nature is within each of us. There was no "special creation". We weren't planted here like a petunia. We are a product of our environment.
We don't call it Mother Nature for nothing.
QUOTE
So what cures have we found that the RCC is preventing? Oh no cures have been found yet? Curious, And yet somehow you KNOW what this research will somehow result in. If you already know, skip the research, just put out the cure...
You are wrong. The RCC is against stem cell research.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So what cures have we found that the RCC is preventing? Oh no cures have been found yet? Curious, And yet somehow you KNOW what this research will somehow result in. If you already know, skip the research, just put out the cure... |
You are wrong. The RCC is against stem cell research.
Oh yeah, and it is not the RCC actually, George Bush and the Christian public at large is not the RCC, this is an ethical and moral position taken by the majority of christians at large, not just catholics.
Since we have already shown (link above) that stem cell research can assist with the treatment of various ailments, and you, yourself, claim that it is a general Christian consensus (quote above), please demonstrate how it is moral and ethical to hinder the treatment to suffering patients.
QUOTE
Why condone condom use? ABSTINENCE is proven to be MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE than condom use. 100% prevention rate, is better than 95% is it not? So I guess your Science is ignoring that fact. Or is it not a solution you prefer? Ah yes that is more like it.
You are wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why condone condom use? ABSTINENCE is proven to be MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE than condom use. 100% prevention rate, is better than 95% is it not? So I guess your Science is ignoring that fact. Or is it not a solution you prefer? Ah yes that is more like it. |
You are wrong.
Right. Science was responsible for some horrific tragedies involving Eugenics. The mandatory sterilization of Mentally handicapped and poor people. The Nazi experiments on the jews. So I guess by your logic no science either. Bummer, whatever shall we do? Nowhere to turn I guess.
Eugenics is contrary to the findings of scientific research. You are, therefore, wrong. It is not science that drove eugenics. Sorry for you. Wrong again.
QUOTE
The incidence of pedophilia in the roman catholic church is no greater per capita of the actual church population than any other religion. Of course you would not know that from the media coverage. Individual human acts are not necessarily an indictment on the entire institution. But we have been over this, it is just your obvious hatred and vitriol against the Roman Catholic church in particular on display here.
So, if believing in God is not going to not going to make you behave any more morally than any other religion, shouldn't that be taken as evidence that Christianity's claim of being moral is bunk?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The incidence of pedophilia in the roman catholic church is no greater per capita of the actual church population than any other religion. Of course you would not know that from the media coverage. Individual human acts are not necessarily an indictment on the entire institution. But we have been over this, it is just your obvious hatred and vitriol against the Roman Catholic church in particular on display here. |
So, if believing in God is not going to not going to make you behave any more morally than any other religion, shouldn't that be taken as evidence that Christianity's claim of being moral is bunk?
All philosophies are prone to contamination, perversion and human abuse in search of power or out of sheer cruelty.
Exactly, that is exactly the reason why there is separation of church and state.
QUOTE (deadbeat+May 13 2008, 02:11 AM)
Why condone condom use? ABSTINENCE is proven to be MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE than condom use. 100% prevention rate, is better than 95% is it not?
Well duh! Of course not having sex is a more sure fire form of birth control than a condom is.
But once a couple has decided to have sex - if they don't currently want to produce offspring, then putting on a raincoat couldn't hurt.
Well duh! Of course not having sex is a more sure fire form of birth control than a condom is.
But once a couple has decided to have sex - if they don't currently want to produce offspring, then putting on a raincoat couldn't hurt.
QUOTE
You are right, you are so convinced of your positions that no amount of reason, logic, evidence or argument could persuade you.
Oh and on your arguments, Quoting Congressmen for evidence is a bit of a reach HAHAHA, next you will start quoting Car Salesmen, or Time-share purveyors.
Funny thing is, most of us are not here to WIN.
I come here to present my views so that others can understand and discuss them with me, and possibly learn something myself, or maybe even sometimes show something new or unexpected to some one else.
In learning and true discussion EVERYONE wins, which is why you never will.
Sad really. You defeat yourself.
Oh and on your arguments, Quoting Congressmen for evidence is a bit of a reach HAHAHA, next you will start quoting Car Salesmen, or Time-share purveyors.
Funny thing is, most of us are not here to WIN.
I come here to present my views so that others can understand and discuss them with me, and possibly learn something myself, or maybe even sometimes show something new or unexpected to some one else.
In learning and true discussion EVERYONE wins, which is why you never will.
Sad really. You defeat yourself.
Deadbeat, you never change.
Really.
You win on that, sadly though.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You are right, you are so convinced of your positions that no amount of reason, logic, evidence or argument could persuade you. Oh and on your arguments, Quoting Congressmen for evidence is a bit of a reach HAHAHA, next you will start quoting Car Salesmen, or Time-share purveyors. Funny thing is, most of us are not here to WIN. I come here to present my views so that others can understand and discuss them with me, and possibly learn something myself, or maybe even sometimes show something new or unexpected to some one else. In learning and true discussion EVERYONE wins, which is why you never will. Sad really. You defeat yourself. |
Deadbeat, you never change.
Really.
You win on that, sadly though.
Well duh! Of course not having sex is a more sure fire form of birth control than a condom is.
And sometimes, couples get too excited to even bother wearing a condom. And men get used on not having one, I don't know, maybe it irritates them. To all males out there, do you think condom is the best of all methods of birth control??? I mean, do you find it really comfortable using it????
I'm just wondering....
Because most men could use withdrawal method instead, though it's kinda less reliable than that of the condom.
QUOTE (DB+)
And of course all you have in argument is your belief, so...
Again DB, I am not the one making the claim that marriage originated form religion. You are and it falls upon you to back up that claim.
You also ignore all of the information posted before about pagan marriages that have nothing to do with religion or any concept such as sacrament.
Only if you ignore the cited information that has appeared in these threads before.
Only if you ignore the cited information that has appeared in these threads before.
You have not provided a single case that supports your assertion, and the examples in my favor are many and manifold.
Again, only if you were to ignore that which you will not or cannot accept due to your willful ignorance or the demands of your religion.
And what examples do you have that marriage, pair bonding and the like was created by religion?
What examples do you have to support your claim that mankind did not create religion to suite our needs?
Again, I can point to marriages that existed before the creation of your religion, the one you claimed owned and/or created marriage.
And the proof of your claims is where? Again, a litany of claim from you bereft of any cited example as proof, jus more hollow claims.
Again, I can point to marriages that existed before the creation of your religion, the one you claimed owned and/or created marriage.
And the proof of your claims is where? Again, a litany of claim from you bereft of any cited example as proof, jus more hollow claims.
Without ethical and moral constraint, science HAS led to horrific tragedies, exactly the examples they pointed to Stalin (Atheism), and Hitler (Eugenics). What is wrong with his statement?
You ignore or fail to comprehend the meaning of that article. The claim that science without religion leads to horror is a poor theistic argument to begin with, but to try to claim that reason without faith leads to the same is simply nonsensical.
Reason has led mankind away from the dark age domination of religion and the irrational claims it presented and still tries to present as fact.
You constantly try to equate anything that is not xian with any evil that occurred anywhere but mentioning the rather long and detailed history of the RCC in trying to keep people ignorant not to mention killing and such is so easily dismissed by you. How very Ben Stein of you.
You constantly try to equate anything that is not xian with any evil that occurred anywhere but mentioning the rather long and detailed history of the RCC in trying to keep people ignorant not to mention killing and such is so easily dismissed by you. How very Ben Stein of you.
The sins of the father should not be visited on the son if you ask me.
And again DB, that argument is simply ridiculous. We are talking about an institution, not a person or lineage.
If what you say is true, then you are a hypocrite since you keep trying to blame people alive today who are involved in research or who support evolution with action taken in the past by Nazis and the like.
And that is irrelevant to the point since it can also be said that scientists today would not support those constant red hearings you list regarding evolution.
You still fail to recognize your double standard when it comes to your demands of how the church it to be treated versus everything you have issues with.
And that is irrelevant to the point since it can also be said that scientists today would not support those constant red hearings you list regarding evolution.
You still fail to recognize your double standard when it comes to your demands of how the church it to be treated versus everything you have issues with.
Yup, true.
So, it was xian to want to prevent interracial marriages? This is the religious lineage and ownership of marriage you are trying to defend? Too sad.
Not so as far as the “self delusion” claim goes. You claim that the xians or your church created and owns marriage, but we have the fact that while you and other xians stood against interracial marriages, there were and are legal due to the fact that in our secular society, such is a personal freedom not beholden to the mob xian rule you seek.
And again, you ignore or simply fail to comprehend my post. In the end, ethical and moral definition of the faithful gave way to the rule of law, and exactly that has happened and will happen again. The faithful cannot push their religious beliefs onto others in violation of the law.
Not so as far as the “self delusion” claim goes. You claim that the xians or your church created and owns marriage, but we have the fact that while you and other xians stood against interracial marriages, there were and are legal due to the fact that in our secular society, such is a personal freedom not beholden to the mob xian rule you seek.
And again, you ignore or simply fail to comprehend my post. In the end, ethical and moral definition of the faithful gave way to the rule of law, and exactly that has happened and will happen again. The faithful cannot push their religious beliefs onto others in violation of the law.
It is the rules we all live by.
You mean you desired xian mob rule?
And you still do not comprehend the ramification of what you even admit to here. It wasn’t just a change of opinion unless of course you believe in mob rule.
You and similar xians who sought to violate the rights of others by imposing your racists religious laws in violation of personal rights and freedoms were stopped in doing so.
But what a nice legacy of the ownership and stewardship of marriage you have.
And you still do not comprehend the ramification of what you even admit to here. It wasn’t just a change of opinion unless of course you believe in mob rule.
You and similar xians who sought to violate the rights of others by imposing your racists religious laws in violation of personal rights and freedoms were stopped in doing so.
But what a nice legacy of the ownership and stewardship of marriage you have.
The common ethical and moral position changed, realizing that interracial marriages were not "bad" or unethical or immoral, and so, the law changed to reflect the change in public opinion.
Riiight. So you just granted people the right to marry outside of their “race” by public vote or opinion. Not so. Laws that sought to prevent the exercise of the freedoms to get married were struck down, much to the horror and anger of the xians who own marriage.
Take for example this case:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/200...red-loving.html
So no DB, it was not public opinion or your xian mob rule that allowed such to happen, but as usual, it took legal action to uphold the rights of the individual and protect them against the xian religious laws that are incompatible with the secular society we live in.
So no DB, it was not public opinion or your xian mob rule that allowed such to happen, but as usual, it took legal action to uphold the rights of the individual and protect them against the xian religious laws that are incompatible with the secular society we live in.
Sometimes, your logic is downright impenetrable.
And your understanding of history, not to mention factual representation of history, is very lacking.
I am mot the only one who has demonstrated this fact over and over. You simply make claim after claim with nothing more than your blind faith to back it up.
But feel free to post your “uh uh” reply, denounce the case and people I cited, make more claim of how thing work and worked now and in the past, denounce that which you do not like (evolution, atheism, etc) with a set of standards not applicable to what you hold sacred (RCC) and post more personal comments about me and others.
Oh, and do be sure to copy the terminology, writing styles and points made by others. It is very flattering to have to follow our lead.
Only after you failed to back up the claim that marriage was the creation of your particular religion and xian. Just keep shifting those goal posts.
So, since any religion is responsible for marriage that would tend to lead one to think that any god or gods were of equal value and worth.
Only after you failed to back up the claim that marriage was the creation of your particular religion and xian. Just keep shifting those goal posts.
So, since any religion is responsible for marriage that would tend to lead one to think that any god or gods were of equal value and worth.
There is no instance of "natural marriage" that is not descended from the religious concept.
And the proof for this is… Still not seeing anything to back up your claims.
And you still ignore the instances of marriage pointed out before that were not religious.
I’d reference you back to a few pages in various threads, but as you have demonstrated so many times before, you are not capable of following links to other parts of this forum not to mention going back just a few pages.
Ah. So you have nothing to back up those claims of fact and truth. It is just your belief.
Odd how you keep posting your beliefs as fact and only after failing to provide substance to back up your claim do you finally admit they are just beliefs and hollow.
NO AMOUNT OF REASON, LOGIC, EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT WILL EVER PERSUADE HIM! (())
He is winning coverts away from religions, by his obvious inanity!
You are right Photojack. And that's why I'll say it again. deadbeat is a waste of time. He feeds off of these posts. If people stop responding to him his rantings will get more and more extreme until he curls up on the floor begging for attention.
Again DB, I am not the one making the claim that marriage originated form religion. You are and it falls upon you to back up that claim.
You also ignore all of the information posted before about pagan marriages that have nothing to do with religion or any concept such as sacrament.
QUOTE
Wow, another unsupported grandiose statement.
Only if you ignore the cited information that has appeared in these threads before.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Wow, another unsupported grandiose statement. |
Only if you ignore the cited information that has appeared in these threads before.
You have not provided a single case that supports your assertion, and the examples in my favor are many and manifold.
Again, only if you were to ignore that which you will not or cannot accept due to your willful ignorance or the demands of your religion.
And what examples do you have that marriage, pair bonding and the like was created by religion?
What examples do you have to support your claim that mankind did not create religion to suite our needs?
QUOTE
And yet you stick to it.
Again, I can point to marriages that existed before the creation of your religion, the one you claimed owned and/or created marriage.
And the proof of your claims is where? Again, a litany of claim from you bereft of any cited example as proof, jus more hollow claims.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And yet you stick to it. |
Again, I can point to marriages that existed before the creation of your religion, the one you claimed owned and/or created marriage.
And the proof of your claims is where? Again, a litany of claim from you bereft of any cited example as proof, jus more hollow claims.
Without ethical and moral constraint, science HAS led to horrific tragedies, exactly the examples they pointed to Stalin (Atheism), and Hitler (Eugenics). What is wrong with his statement?
You ignore or fail to comprehend the meaning of that article. The claim that science without religion leads to horror is a poor theistic argument to begin with, but to try to claim that reason without faith leads to the same is simply nonsensical.
Reason has led mankind away from the dark age domination of religion and the irrational claims it presented and still tries to present as fact.
QUOTE
Ah yes the old familiar refrain. The Church did some bad things, so is consigned in your mind to perpetual damnation. Whatever.
You constantly try to equate anything that is not xian with any evil that occurred anywhere but mentioning the rather long and detailed history of the RCC in trying to keep people ignorant not to mention killing and such is so easily dismissed by you. How very Ben Stein of you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Ah yes the old familiar refrain. The Church did some bad things, so is consigned in your mind to perpetual damnation. Whatever. |
You constantly try to equate anything that is not xian with any evil that occurred anywhere but mentioning the rather long and detailed history of the RCC in trying to keep people ignorant not to mention killing and such is so easily dismissed by you. How very Ben Stein of you.
The sins of the father should not be visited on the son if you ask me.
And again DB, that argument is simply ridiculous. We are talking about an institution, not a person or lineage.
If what you say is true, then you are a hypocrite since you keep trying to blame people alive today who are involved in research or who support evolution with action taken in the past by Nazis and the like.
QUOTE
Today's church does not and would not support those things you speak of (now).
And that is irrelevant to the point since it can also be said that scientists today would not support those constant red hearings you list regarding evolution.
You still fail to recognize your double standard when it comes to your demands of how the church it to be treated versus everything you have issues with.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Today's church does not and would not support those things you speak of (now). |
And that is irrelevant to the point since it can also be said that scientists today would not support those constant red hearings you list regarding evolution.
You still fail to recognize your double standard when it comes to your demands of how the church it to be treated versus everything you have issues with.
Yup, true.
So, it was xian to want to prevent interracial marriages? This is the religious lineage and ownership of marriage you are trying to defend? Too sad.
QUOTE
And that is just self delusion. The "rule of law" HAH. The Law is merely a governmentally agreed and enforced ethical and moral guide.
Not so as far as the “self delusion” claim goes. You claim that the xians or your church created and owns marriage, but we have the fact that while you and other xians stood against interracial marriages, there were and are legal due to the fact that in our secular society, such is a personal freedom not beholden to the mob xian rule you seek.
And again, you ignore or simply fail to comprehend my post. In the end, ethical and moral definition of the faithful gave way to the rule of law, and exactly that has happened and will happen again. The faithful cannot push their religious beliefs onto others in violation of the law.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And that is just self delusion. The "rule of law" HAH. The Law is merely a governmentally agreed and enforced ethical and moral guide. |
Not so as far as the “self delusion” claim goes. You claim that the xians or your church created and owns marriage, but we have the fact that while you and other xians stood against interracial marriages, there were and are legal due to the fact that in our secular society, such is a personal freedom not beholden to the mob xian rule you seek.
And again, you ignore or simply fail to comprehend my post. In the end, ethical and moral definition of the faithful gave way to the rule of law, and exactly that has happened and will happen again. The faithful cannot push their religious beliefs onto others in violation of the law.
It is the rules we all live by.
You mean you desired xian mob rule?
QUOTE
Since it escapes you, I might remind you that prior to the change in opinion, and the public ethical and moral conscience, the "rule of law" WAS that interracial mariages were illegal.
And you still do not comprehend the ramification of what you even admit to here. It wasn’t just a change of opinion unless of course you believe in mob rule.
You and similar xians who sought to violate the rights of others by imposing your racists religious laws in violation of personal rights and freedoms were stopped in doing so.
But what a nice legacy of the ownership and stewardship of marriage you have.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Since it escapes you, I might remind you that prior to the change in opinion, and the public ethical and moral conscience, the "rule of law" WAS that interracial mariages were illegal. |
And you still do not comprehend the ramification of what you even admit to here. It wasn’t just a change of opinion unless of course you believe in mob rule.
You and similar xians who sought to violate the rights of others by imposing your racists religious laws in violation of personal rights and freedoms were stopped in doing so.
But what a nice legacy of the ownership and stewardship of marriage you have.
The common ethical and moral position changed, realizing that interracial marriages were not "bad" or unethical or immoral, and so, the law changed to reflect the change in public opinion.
Riiight. So you just granted people the right to marry outside of their “race” by public vote or opinion. Not so. Laws that sought to prevent the exercise of the freedoms to get married were struck down, much to the horror and anger of the xians who own marriage.
Take for example this case:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/200...red-loving.html
QUOTE
Loving and her white husband, Richard, changed history in 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld their right to marry. The ruling struck down laws banning racially mixed marriages in at least 17 states.
So no DB, it was not public opinion or your xian mob rule that allowed such to happen, but as usual, it took legal action to uphold the rights of the individual and protect them against the xian religious laws that are incompatible with the secular society we live in.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Loving and her white husband, Richard, changed history in 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld their right to marry. The ruling struck down laws banning racially mixed marriages in at least 17 states. |
So no DB, it was not public opinion or your xian mob rule that allowed such to happen, but as usual, it took legal action to uphold the rights of the individual and protect them against the xian religious laws that are incompatible with the secular society we live in.
Sometimes, your logic is downright impenetrable.
And your understanding of history, not to mention factual representation of history, is very lacking.
I am mot the only one who has demonstrated this fact over and over. You simply make claim after claim with nothing more than your blind faith to back it up.
But feel free to post your “uh uh” reply, denounce the case and people I cited, make more claim of how thing work and worked now and in the past, denounce that which you do not like (evolution, atheism, etc) with a set of standards not applicable to what you hold sacred (RCC) and post more personal comments about me and others.
Oh, and do be sure to copy the terminology, writing styles and points made by others. It is very flattering to have to follow our lead.
QUOTE
Now that word RELIGIOUS I am using in a wider conetxt than you. I use it to encompass ALL religion, not just christian, or pagan, or even polytheistic.
Only after you failed to back up the claim that marriage was the creation of your particular religion and xian. Just keep shifting those goal posts.
So, since any religion is responsible for marriage that would tend to lead one to think that any god or gods were of equal value and worth.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now that word RELIGIOUS I am using in a wider conetxt than you. I use it to encompass ALL religion, not just christian, or pagan, or even polytheistic. |
Only after you failed to back up the claim that marriage was the creation of your particular religion and xian. Just keep shifting those goal posts.
So, since any religion is responsible for marriage that would tend to lead one to think that any god or gods were of equal value and worth.
There is no instance of "natural marriage" that is not descended from the religious concept.
And the proof for this is… Still not seeing anything to back up your claims.
And you still ignore the instances of marriage pointed out before that were not religious.
I’d reference you back to a few pages in various threads, but as you have demonstrated so many times before, you are not capable of following links to other parts of this forum not to mention going back just a few pages.
QUOTE
What I mean is that, from what I know and have observed, what I have stated is consistent and fits best with it. It represents a BELIEF of mine, but of course it is subject to change.
Ah. So you have nothing to back up those claims of fact and truth. It is just your belief.
Odd how you keep posting your beliefs as fact and only after failing to provide substance to back up your claim do you finally admit they are just beliefs and hollow.
QUOTE (deadbeat+May 13 2008, 07:11 AM)
Same old photojack,
Let us examine these indictments
really? let us see
So what cures have we found that the RCC is preventing? Oh no cures have been found yet? Curious, And yet somehow you KNOW what this research will somehow result in. If you already know, skip the research, just put out the cure...
Oh yeah, and it is not the RCC actually, George Bush and the Christian public at large is not the RCC, this is an ethical and moral position taken by the majority of christians at large, not just catholics.
What are they stopping? Here is your example that you asked for....
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...040/LIFESTYLE03
Several examples. Anything else?
(and I won't limit the attack to Catholic Church, I actually spread the blame to the fundamental christians who would block such research).. I suspect that if they found out they were damned to a wheelchair for the rest of their lives, they might change their tune about stem cell research.
Let us examine these indictments
really? let us see
So what cures have we found that the RCC is preventing? Oh no cures have been found yet? Curious, And yet somehow you KNOW what this research will somehow result in. If you already know, skip the research, just put out the cure...
Oh yeah, and it is not the RCC actually, George Bush and the Christian public at large is not the RCC, this is an ethical and moral position taken by the majority of christians at large, not just catholics.
What are they stopping? Here is your example that you asked for....
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...040/LIFESTYLE03
Several examples. Anything else?
(and I won't limit the attack to Catholic Church, I actually spread the blame to the fundamental christians who would block such research).. I suspect that if they found out they were damned to a wheelchair for the rest of their lives, they might change their tune about stem cell research.
QUOTE (gmilam+May 13 2008, 01:14 PM)
Well duh! Of course not having sex is a more sure fire form of birth control than a condom is.
But once a couple has decided to have sex - if they don't currently want to produce offspring, then putting on a raincoat couldn't hurt.
People don't generally choose to have or to not have sex.
They pretty much do it when they can.
But once a couple has decided to have sex - if they don't currently want to produce offspring, then putting on a raincoat couldn't hurt.
People don't generally choose to have or to not have sex.
They pretty much do it when they can.
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+May 13 2008, 09:59 AM)
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...040/LIFESTYLE03
Ironically enough, although that article certainly proves your point, it seems to have been written from a religious and right-wing POV.
It shifts focus repeatedly to the caution urged by doctors, it describes the purpose of the FDA approval process as if it were the method, while failing to point out that the other countries mentioned also have legal limits on what medical procedures can be performed on what patients, under what circumstances, similar but not identical to the FDA aproval process. It fails to mention that these procedures are permitted in other nations because those nations have not put a moritorium on embryonic stem cell research, and thus they have far FAR superior lines of ESC's. They are more medically advanced than us with regards to stem cell therepy.
It also seems to falsify some information at one point:
As well as an example of spin (using the phrase "destroying life" and calling the religious right simply "opponents" and using the word "immoral" instead of "unethical") it also says "...which show more promise..." about adult stem cells, which is patently false.
Yet for all of that, for all the falsehood, spin and skewed perspective present in that article, it still manages to prove a valid, fundamental point: That embryonic stem cell research has incredible promise when it comes to curing the incurable.
Ironically enough, although that article certainly proves your point, it seems to have been written from a religious and right-wing POV.
It shifts focus repeatedly to the caution urged by doctors, it describes the purpose of the FDA approval process as if it were the method, while failing to point out that the other countries mentioned also have legal limits on what medical procedures can be performed on what patients, under what circumstances, similar but not identical to the FDA aproval process. It fails to mention that these procedures are permitted in other nations because those nations have not put a moritorium on embryonic stem cell research, and thus they have far FAR superior lines of ESC's. They are more medically advanced than us with regards to stem cell therepy.
It also seems to falsify some information at one point:
QUOTE
Scientists and other advocates say embryonic stem cells offer hope to patients with incurable conditions such as spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's and Lou Gehrig's diseases. But opponents say it is immoral to kill a cell that could develop into a fetus and urge the use of adult stem cells, which show more promise without destroying life.
As well as an example of spin (using the phrase "destroying life" and calling the religious right simply "opponents" and using the word "immoral" instead of "unethical") it also says "...which show more promise..." about adult stem cells, which is patently false.
Yet for all of that, for all the falsehood, spin and skewed perspective present in that article, it still manages to prove a valid, fundamental point: That embryonic stem cell research has incredible promise when it comes to curing the incurable.
deadbeat seems to disappear for a while after he has been blown out of the water with overwhelming evidence, links and science that contradict the nonsense he usually makes up. 
He waits for the waters to calm down and comes back, just like... Dad1! no amount of reason, logic, evidence or argument could persuade you. Virtually every statement he made was refuted convincingly by several people with multiple references and tons of support. 
Then he comes back with a gem like this:
NO AMOUNT OF REASON, LOGIC, EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT WILL EVER PERSUADE HIM! (())
He is winning coverts away from religions, by his obvious inanity!
He waits for the waters to calm down and comes back, just like... Dad1! no amount of reason, logic, evidence or argument could persuade you. Virtually every statement he made was refuted convincingly by several people with multiple references and tons of support. Then he comes back with a gem like this:QUOTE
HAHAHAHAH
You are right, you are so convinced of your positions that no amount of reason, logic, evidence or argument could persuade you.
Oh and on your arguments, Quoting Congressmen for evidence is a bit of a reach HAHAHA, next you will start quoting Car Salesmen, or Time-share purveyors. Sad really. You defeat yourself.
deadbeat quote. You are right, you are so convinced of your positions that no amount of reason, logic, evidence or argument could persuade you.
Oh and on your arguments, Quoting Congressmen for evidence is a bit of a reach HAHAHA, next you will start quoting Car Salesmen, or Time-share purveyors. Sad really. You defeat yourself.
NO AMOUNT OF REASON, LOGIC, EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT WILL EVER PERSUADE HIM! ((
)) He is winning coverts away from religions, by his obvious inanity!
QUOTE (photojack+May 13 2008, 02:12 PM)
NO AMOUNT OF REASON, LOGIC, EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT WILL EVER PERSUADE HIM! ((
)) He is winning coverts away from religions, by his obvious inanity!
You are right Photojack. And that's why I'll say it again. deadbeat is a waste of time. He feeds off of these posts. If people stop responding to him his rantings will get more and more extreme until he curls up on the floor begging for attention.
QUOTE (photojack+May 13 2008, 01:12 PM)
NO AMOUNT OF REASON, LOGIC, EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT WILL EVER PERSUADE HIM! (())
Absolutely. His criticisms of others are generally only accurate when applied to himself.
I don't think he's managed to find even one external source to back up his most notable claims:
That Atheists have no morals.
That all laws and legal systems are derived from (his*)religion.
That marraige is an institution created by (his) religion.
That all collections of tenets qualify as a form of religion.
* I put the word "his" in parenthesis because he rarely if ever directly claims that it is Catholicism which is the root religion in these cases, however his entire argument in these cases hinges upon that assumption, until he realizes that including other religions is bneficial to his point. However he usually reverts to implying that these things originate in Catholicism after a short period of time.
)) Absolutely. His criticisms of others are generally only accurate when applied to himself.
I don't think he's managed to find even one external source to back up his most notable claims:
That Atheists have no morals.
That all laws and legal systems are derived from (his*)religion.
That marraige is an institution created by (his) religion.
That all collections of tenets qualify as a form of religion.
* I put the word "his" in parenthesis because he rarely if ever directly claims that it is Catholicism which is the root religion in these cases, however his entire argument in these cases hinges upon that assumption, until he realizes that including other religions is bneficial to his point. However he usually reverts to implying that these things originate in Catholicism after a short period of time.
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+May 13 2008, 02:59 PM)
What are they stopping? Here is your example that you asked for....
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...040/LIFESTYLE03
Several examples. Anything else?
(and I won't limit the attack to Catholic Church, I actually spread the blame to the fundamental christians who would block such research).. I suspect that if they found out they were damned to a wheelchair for the rest of their lives, they might change their tune about stem cell research.
Well its good you do not limit your "attacks" to the Roman Catholic church, but perhaps you may want to reconsider whether religion is the real culprit.
You notice NOWHERE in the article does it say anything is responsible for the limitations on research other than THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Gee, last I heard religions could not directly participate in the government, I guess you are forgetting it is the MAJORITY ETHICAL AND MORAL POSITION of the American people that are swaying the politics.
So yeah, it is not religion directly, it is that stupid American public.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...040/LIFESTYLE03
Several examples. Anything else?
(and I won't limit the attack to Catholic Church, I actually spread the blame to the fundamental christians who would block such research).. I suspect that if they found out they were damned to a wheelchair for the rest of their lives, they might change their tune about stem cell research.
Well its good you do not limit your "attacks" to the Roman Catholic church, but perhaps you may want to reconsider whether religion is the real culprit.
You notice NOWHERE in the article does it say anything is responsible for the limitations on research other than THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Gee, last I heard religions could not directly participate in the government, I guess you are forgetting it is the MAJORITY ETHICAL AND MORAL POSITION of the American people that are swaying the politics.
So yeah, it is not religion directly, it is that stupid American public.
Not religion per say but these reactions are due to the hype, fear and ignorance propagated by the many flavors of the xian faith.
So while religion is restricted to act directly, it is not restricted from polluting the minds of its adherents with fear and directing them to act for the sake of their faith. It just happens that such actions are the desired ones for the church.
So while religion is restricted to act directly, it is not restricted from polluting the minds of its adherents with fear and directing them to act for the sake of their faith. It just happens that such actions are the desired ones for the church.
Okay lets review your latest attempt point by point, I am feeling magnanimous
Only if you ignore the cited information that has appeared in these threads before.
Again, only if you were to ignore that which you will not or cannot accept due to your willful ignorance or the demands of your religion.
And what examples do you have that marriage, pair bonding and the like was created by religion?
As I have stated before. The entire historical panoply, pick one. You see BDW tries to make the argument ridiculous by saying I was implying My religion, the Roman Catholic church was the inventor, which is silly, as Judaism preceded christianity, and obviously had marriage.
My point was that EVERY religion in recorded history that I am aware of had some form of the institution of "marriage". From Tribal custom and Taboos, to modern day religions.
The entire point of "marriage" is to establish a relationship that is communally recognized, that has ethical and moral consequences, both positive (like monogamy and family creation) and negative (adultery, and prohibitions of various kinds like that). The entire point of the idea is to make an ethical and moral discrimination, a definition of a new social construct, which has been the purpose and intent of religion throughout history.
The willfully deluded Atheists point to modern practices, especially of so-called "secular" marriage. Until recent history, to my knowledge, this has never been practiced.
Our form of government, and most other modern governments have followed America's lead, was not to make marriage "non-religious", rather it was to recognize and ethical and moral construct of religion in a way that prefers no partivular religion, but still supports and defends the social construct itself, and preserves the socila constructive advantages it implies.
Seriously, think about it.
The laws enacted since the earliest so called "secular" marriage legislated behaviors and responsibilities exactly as represented by the then consensus religious christian view, such as: (not that the changes away from many of them were not good, it just simply demonstrates the linkage with religion.)
Adultery was illegal
Same Sex partners were illegal
Racial intermixing was illegal
and particular advantages
Establishing a family unit
Tax advantages
Social respect and tradition
So this has morphed into a "secular" (WHICH DOES NOT MEAN ATHEIST) marriage concept. It is not that religion is BARRED from consideration in government and lawmaking (something the Atheists continually push) just that as a group, no particular religion may be preferred or endorsed, or participate DIRECTLY.
But that is another entirely complicated argument, I will leave it there. Even our so-called "secular" marriage in the United States is obviously descended from the Christian tradition. To deny it is folly and self delusion.
What examples do you have to support your claim that mankind did not create religion to suite our needs?
A meaningless question. Religion serves a purpose and fills a need. I fail to see how that is even germaine.
Again, I can point to marriages that existed before the creation of your religion, the one you claimed owned and/or created marriage.
MY RELIGION, certainly, but ALL RELIGION, definitely not. Every example examined was descended from and described by RELIGION. The only example you cited was "broom-jumping", a Pagan tradition. Let us look at the Pagan tradition.
Paganism on Wiki
Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller, rustic") is a word used to refer to various religions and religious beliefs from across the world. It is a term which, from a Western perspective, has modern connotations of spiritualist, animistic or shamanic practices or beliefs of any folk religion, and of historical and contemporary polytheistic religions in particular.
THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH shows that Paganism was a RELIGION. How ridiculous is your argument now?
And the proof of your claims is where? Again, a litany of claim from you bereft of any cited example as proof, jus more hollow claims.
Wow, the proof is ALL AROUND YOU, and more specifically about an inch up the page. Sheesh.
You ignore or fail to comprehend the meaning of that article. The claim that science without religion leads to horror is a poor theistic argument to begin with, but to try to claim that reason without faith leads to the same is simply nonsensical.
The entire point of REASON WITHOUT FAITH being bad, is that REASON by itself in a scientific, objective context, is entirely FREE of ethical and moral restriction.
Like Eugenics and the horrific ethical tragedies that resulted, INCLUDING A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, Nazis performing experiments on the Jews, or if you do not like the Nazi example, in the United States, the Tuskegee Institute deliberately allowing Black patients to suffer untreated Syphilis and all of the dire consequences resulting from that neat little experiment. There are ENDLESS examples.
Objective science has been an incredible advance and responsible for the explosive growth and success of humanity and society. However, the success has been the result of REMOVING BIAS from the science, and focusing only on truth and knowledge, removing the subjective as much as is possible and completely where practicable.
The result of that is, that science must be constrained externally by ethical and moral concerns, as it has no internal constraints of any kind. They should not be random or silly constraints, but there MUST be constraints.
Otherwise horrors WILL happen again, like Tuskegee, Nazi Germany, Nuclear effects on soldiers, any incredible variety of possible horrors.
Reason has led mankind away from the dark age domination of religion and the irrational claims it presented and still tries to present as fact.
yes, yes, I just said that. But again it MUST BE ETHICALLY AND MORALLY CONSTRAINED, or terrible tragedy will result.
You constantly try to equate anything that is not xian with any evil that occurred anywhere but mentioning the rather long and detailed history of the RCC in trying to keep people ignorant not to mention killing and such is so easily dismissed by you. How very Ben Stein of you.
Yes, yes, anyone with any serious contemplation can see from past history, that religion is not the only and sole cause of misery and tragedy, Atheist philosophy and Enlightened Objective Science have been abused, like religion, by fanatics, despots, dictators and just evil people for consolidation of personal power, or other selfish wicked purposes. No institution or philosophy is immune to contamination or perversion, and your continual berating of christianity while ignoring the crimes committed in the name of or justified by Atheism and Science.
I am NOT saying the church is innocent or the crimes committed by it or in its name should be forgotten. I am saying you had better remember those of your pet ideologies as well.
And again DB, that argument is simply ridiculous. We are talking about an institution, not a person or lineage.
HAHAHA and here you ignore the beam in your own eye to decry the splinter in mine.
If what you say is true, then you are a hypocrite since you keep trying to blame people alive today who are involved in research or who support evolution with action taken in the past by Nazis and the like.
No, I merely remind you that they are no less or more guilty or responsible than religion for their own crimes.
And that is irrelevant to the point since it can also be said that scientists today would not support those constant red hearings you list regarding evolution.
You still fail to recognize your double standard when it comes to your demands of how the church it to be treated versus everything you have issues with.
redundant restating of the same argument
So, it was xian to want to prevent interracial marriages? This is the religious lineage and ownership of marriage you are trying to defend? Too sad.
I am not saying it was "right" or "ethical", especially in light of todays modern thinking and acceptance, but it illustrates how religions defined "marriage" in its earliest "secular" inception. You merely try to distract away from the obvious flaw in your argument it illustrates by focusing on whether it was "right". We have changed, and so has the laws and institution of marriage.
Not so as far as the “self delusion” claim goes. You claim that the xians or your church created and owns marriage, but we have the fact that while you and other xians stood against interracial marriages, there were and are legal due to the fact that in our secular society, such is a personal freedom not beholden to the mob xian rule you seek.
Yeah, "Mob Rule" or as we call it here in America "representative Democracy" really offends you. Because we are so stupid and we all need to be forced to do things YOUR way, because you are so much smarter and superior to the common masses. Bravo for you.
And again, I said RELIGION, not my church or even christianity. You are so disingenous you try to move the goal posts constantly, redefining what I said to make it obviously in error, because you are defeated and it is the only way to some semblance of a win.
And again, you ignore or simply fail to comprehend my post. In the end, ethical and moral definition of the faithful gave way to the rule of law, and exactly that has happened and will happen again. The faithful cannot push their religious beliefs onto others in violation of the law.
HAHAHA the "rule of law" in a representative democracy IS the ethical and moral definition of the masses encoded into government. It cannot GIVE WAY to something which IT CREATES TO REPRESENT ITSELF. Just silly and vacuous.
You mean you desired xian mob rule?
I desire REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, not the fascist despotic forcing of a minority view on the masses. Since the overwhelming majority of Americans are christian, it will largely represent CHRISTIAN views and ethical and moral judgements, not those of the Atheist minority. It is an example of the goodness of the American people that minority views are respected and protected with zeal, and many laws and legal concepts have bent to these peoples and small groups. However you mistake the "secular" representation as what you believe should be an ATHEIST government instead. Secular is NOT atheist.
And you still do not comprehend the ramification of what you even admit to here. It wasn’t just a change of opinion unless of course you believe in mob rule.
Again displaying your hatred of democracy and the good sense of the common people.
You and similar xians who sought to violate the rights of others by imposing your racists religious laws in violation of personal rights and freedoms were stopped in doing so.
AMAZINGLY it is WE who stopped ourselves? Strange that eh? Old "Mob Rule" helping you out? I guess maybe you should apologize to the American people.
But what a nice legacy of the ownership and stewardship of marriage you have.
Thanks, we do try.
Riiight. So you just granted people the right to marry outside of their “race” by public vote or opinion. Not so. Laws that sought to prevent the exercise of the freedoms to get married were struck down, much to the horror and anger of the xians who own marriage.
Take for example this case:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/200...red-loving.html
So? Looks like our system of government WORKS to me?
So no DB, it was not public opinion or your xian mob rule that allowed such to happen, but as usual, it took legal action to uphold the rights of the individual and protect them against the xian religious laws that are incompatible with the secular society we live in.
just reminding you, SECULAR does not mean ATHEIST. And yes, that is how our terrible "Mob Rule" government works. The old "checks and balances" thing. Wonder why you hate this country so much?
And your understanding of history, not to mention factual representation of history, is very lacking.
Lacking any kind of support for your misleading claims? Absolutely. Honest and complete as I can make it? Absolutely.
I am mot the only one who has demonstrated this fact over and over. You simply make claim after claim with nothing more than your blind faith to back it up.
Well and all of those inconvenient external links and sound basis in logic and internally and externally consistent reason, yeah.
But feel free to post your “uh uh” reply, denounce the case and people I cited, make more claim of how thing work and worked now and in the past, denounce that which you do not like (evolution, atheism, etc) with a set of standards not applicable to what you hold sacred (RCC) and post more personal comments about me and others.
Not like Evolution? Hardly, I support it fully and deny ID and CS, which I consider deeply troubling. Atheism? Oh yes I find Atheism to be misled and insipid, but of course your opinions may vary.
Oh, and do be sure to copy the terminology, writing styles and points made by others. It is very flattering to have to follow our lead.
HAHAHA I have had to lead you to the truth kicking and screaming, and FORCING it down your throats at great personal sacrifice in time and patience. I would sooner eat compost than "follow your lead".
Only after you failed to back up the claim that marriage was the creation of your particular religion and xian. Just keep shifting those goal posts.
Do post where I SAID my religion or christianity in general CREATED marriage.
It does not exist. Another disingenous and after all of this reminding of you, obviously dishonest assertion. I said RELIGION in general was responsible.
So, since any religion is responsible for marriage that would tend to lead one to think that any god or gods were of equal value and worth.
To you, certainly, but we Catholics call that "moral relativism" which our wonderful Pope has INFALLIBLY declared unethical and immoral.
And the proof for this is… Still not seeing anything to back up your claims.
You will have to look between your fingers of the hands covering your eyes, and actually READ the responses, and you will see a literal cornucopia of "backing up my claim".
And you still ignore the instances of marriage pointed out before that were not religious.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Again, part those fingers a wee bit and look up a couple inches to the PAGANISM description.
I’d reference you back to a few pages in various threads, but as you have demonstrated so many times before, you are not capable of following links to other parts of this forum not to mention going back just a few pages.
Only because you hide behind vague pompous claims and statements, and cannot restate or EVER state supporting facts or reasoning, you bury it in incomprehensible links to endless pages of irrelevant blathering.
While I have READDRESSED your ridiculous claims, ONCE AGAIN typing in references and arguments to the same old tired and repetitive ridiculous assertions you continue to forward, TIME AND TIME AGAIN. I will let the reader decide who is evading and disingenous.
Ah. So you have nothing to back up those claims of fact and truth. It is just your belief.
HAHA you haven't pulled that old chestnut out of the fire in a while. I have not made CLAIMS OF FACT or TRUTH. These are SUBJECTIVE concerns, and all we have is logic and reason, and SUPPORTING facts and truth, but in the end it is always opinion or BELIEF based on assumption and examination of the preponderance of presented information.
If it were simply amenable ONLY to FACT and TRUTH, simple experimentation and falsification could be performed and reveal the SINGLE right or most correct answer. Subjective concerns like Philosophy are not amenable to those methods, because there are an INFINITE number of possible answers, which we must analyze and discriminate subjectively to determine which best fits our beliefs and learning. Again, I restate OVER and OVER again the obvious, but maybe someday you might accidentally read it and learn something.
Odd how you keep posting your beliefs as fact and only after failing to provide substance to back up your claim do you finally admit they are just beliefs and hollow.
HAHAH Same chestnut. I NEVER STATED my SUBJECTIVE assertions were FACTS, that is a twisted and dishonest misrepresentation of my words YOU make.
Let me just ask something, deadbeat. You're not married, aren't you????
Let me just ask something, deadbeat. You're not married, aren't you????
twice, but thankfully never again. hehe
They already have, and continue to do so daily. It is called "feedback" and any OBJECTIVE analysis or comparison of yours to GeneSplicer's or mine will clearly show that the readers have spoken AGAINST YOUR DRIVEL AND RIDICULOUS, ILLOGICAL, POORLY REASONED AND INANE RANTS IN THIS FORUM. YOU ARE THE LAUGHING STOCK OF THIS FORUM IN THE SAME MANNER AS DAD1 WAS BEFORE YOU. AND YOU CAN'T SEE THAT? STILL?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
Only if you ignore the cited information that has appeared in these threads before.
Again, only if you were to ignore that which you will not or cannot accept due to your willful ignorance or the demands of your religion.
And what examples do you have that marriage, pair bonding and the like was created by religion?
As I have stated before. The entire historical panoply, pick one. You see BDW tries to make the argument ridiculous by saying I was implying My religion, the Roman Catholic church was the inventor, which is silly, as Judaism preceded christianity, and obviously had marriage.
My point was that EVERY religion in recorded history that I am aware of had some form of the institution of "marriage". From Tribal custom and Taboos, to modern day religions.
The entire point of "marriage" is to establish a relationship that is communally recognized, that has ethical and moral consequences, both positive (like monogamy and family creation) and negative (adultery, and prohibitions of various kinds like that). The entire point of the idea is to make an ethical and moral discrimination, a definition of a new social construct, which has been the purpose and intent of religion throughout history.
The willfully deluded Atheists point to modern practices, especially of so-called "secular" marriage. Until recent history, to my knowledge, this has never been practiced.
Our form of government, and most other modern governments have followed America's lead, was not to make marriage "non-religious", rather it was to recognize and ethical and moral construct of religion in a way that prefers no partivular religion, but still supports and defends the social construct itself, and preserves the socila constructive advantages it implies.
Seriously, think about it.
The laws enacted since the earliest so called "secular" marriage legislated behaviors and responsibilities exactly as represented by the then consensus religious christian view, such as: (not that the changes away from many of them were not good, it just simply demonstrates the linkage with religion.)
Adultery was illegal
Same Sex partners were illegal
Racial intermixing was illegal
and particular advantages
Establishing a family unit
Tax advantages
Social respect and tradition
So this has morphed into a "secular" (WHICH DOES NOT MEAN ATHEIST) marriage concept. It is not that religion is BARRED from consideration in government and lawmaking (something the Atheists continually push) just that as a group, no particular religion may be preferred or endorsed, or participate DIRECTLY.
But that is another entirely complicated argument, I will leave it there. Even our so-called "secular" marriage in the United States is obviously descended from the Christian tradition. To deny it is folly and self delusion.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
What examples do you have to support your claim that mankind did not create religion to suite our needs?
A meaningless question. Religion serves a purpose and fills a need. I fail to see how that is even germaine.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
Again, I can point to marriages that existed before the creation of your religion, the one you claimed owned and/or created marriage.
MY RELIGION, certainly, but ALL RELIGION, definitely not. Every example examined was descended from and described by RELIGION. The only example you cited was "broom-jumping", a Pagan tradition. Let us look at the Pagan tradition.
Paganism on Wiki
QUOTE ( wikipedia+ Paganism)
Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller, rustic") is a word used to refer to various religions and religious beliefs from across the world. It is a term which, from a Western perspective, has modern connotations of spiritualist, animistic or shamanic practices or beliefs of any folk religion, and of historical and contemporary polytheistic religions in particular.
THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH shows that Paganism was a RELIGION. How ridiculous is your argument now?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
And the proof of your claims is where? Again, a litany of claim from you bereft of any cited example as proof, jus more hollow claims.
Wow, the proof is ALL AROUND YOU, and more specifically about an inch up the page. Sheesh.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
You ignore or fail to comprehend the meaning of that article. The claim that science without religion leads to horror is a poor theistic argument to begin with, but to try to claim that reason without faith leads to the same is simply nonsensical.
The entire point of REASON WITHOUT FAITH being bad, is that REASON by itself in a scientific, objective context, is entirely FREE of ethical and moral restriction.
Like Eugenics and the horrific ethical tragedies that resulted, INCLUDING A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, Nazis performing experiments on the Jews, or if you do not like the Nazi example, in the United States, the Tuskegee Institute deliberately allowing Black patients to suffer untreated Syphilis and all of the dire consequences resulting from that neat little experiment. There are ENDLESS examples.
Objective science has been an incredible advance and responsible for the explosive growth and success of humanity and society. However, the success has been the result of REMOVING BIAS from the science, and focusing only on truth and knowledge, removing the subjective as much as is possible and completely where practicable.
The result of that is, that science must be constrained externally by ethical and moral concerns, as it has no internal constraints of any kind. They should not be random or silly constraints, but there MUST be constraints.
Otherwise horrors WILL happen again, like Tuskegee, Nazi Germany, Nuclear effects on soldiers, any incredible variety of possible horrors.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
Reason has led mankind away from the dark age domination of religion and the irrational claims it presented and still tries to present as fact.
yes, yes, I just said that. But again it MUST BE ETHICALLY AND MORALLY CONSTRAINED, or terrible tragedy will result.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
You constantly try to equate anything that is not xian with any evil that occurred anywhere but mentioning the rather long and detailed history of the RCC in trying to keep people ignorant not to mention killing and such is so easily dismissed by you. How very Ben Stein of you.
Yes, yes, anyone with any serious contemplation can see from past history, that religion is not the only and sole cause of misery and tragedy, Atheist philosophy and Enlightened Objective Science have been abused, like religion, by fanatics, despots, dictators and just evil people for consolidation of personal power, or other selfish wicked purposes. No institution or philosophy is immune to contamination or perversion, and your continual berating of christianity while ignoring the crimes committed in the name of or justified by Atheism and Science.
I am NOT saying the church is innocent or the crimes committed by it or in its name should be forgotten. I am saying you had better remember those of your pet ideologies as well.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
And again DB, that argument is simply ridiculous. We are talking about an institution, not a person or lineage.
HAHAHA and here you ignore the beam in your own eye to decry the splinter in mine.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
If what you say is true, then you are a hypocrite since you keep trying to blame people alive today who are involved in research or who support evolution with action taken in the past by Nazis and the like.
No, I merely remind you that they are no less or more guilty or responsible than religion for their own crimes.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
And that is irrelevant to the point since it can also be said that scientists today would not support those constant red hearings you list regarding evolution.
You still fail to recognize your double standard when it comes to your demands of how the church it to be treated versus everything you have issues with.
redundant restating of the same argument
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
So, it was xian to want to prevent interracial marriages? This is the religious lineage and ownership of marriage you are trying to defend? Too sad.
I am not saying it was "right" or "ethical", especially in light of todays modern thinking and acceptance, but it illustrates how religions defined "marriage" in its earliest "secular" inception. You merely try to distract away from the obvious flaw in your argument it illustrates by focusing on whether it was "right". We have changed, and so has the laws and institution of marriage.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
Not so as far as the “self delusion” claim goes. You claim that the xians or your church created and owns marriage, but we have the fact that while you and other xians stood against interracial marriages, there were and are legal due to the fact that in our secular society, such is a personal freedom not beholden to the mob xian rule you seek.
Yeah, "Mob Rule" or as we call it here in America "representative Democracy" really offends you. Because we are so stupid and we all need to be forced to do things YOUR way, because you are so much smarter and superior to the common masses. Bravo for you.
And again, I said RELIGION, not my church or even christianity. You are so disingenous you try to move the goal posts constantly, redefining what I said to make it obviously in error, because you are defeated and it is the only way to some semblance of a win.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
And again, you ignore or simply fail to comprehend my post. In the end, ethical and moral definition of the faithful gave way to the rule of law, and exactly that has happened and will happen again. The faithful cannot push their religious beliefs onto others in violation of the law.
HAHAHA the "rule of law" in a representative democracy IS the ethical and moral definition of the masses encoded into government. It cannot GIVE WAY to something which IT CREATES TO REPRESENT ITSELF. Just silly and vacuous.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
You mean you desired xian mob rule?
I desire REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, not the fascist despotic forcing of a minority view on the masses. Since the overwhelming majority of Americans are christian, it will largely represent CHRISTIAN views and ethical and moral judgements, not those of the Atheist minority. It is an example of the goodness of the American people that minority views are respected and protected with zeal, and many laws and legal concepts have bent to these peoples and small groups. However you mistake the "secular" representation as what you believe should be an ATHEIST government instead. Secular is NOT atheist.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
And you still do not comprehend the ramification of what you even admit to here. It wasn’t just a change of opinion unless of course you believe in mob rule.
Again displaying your hatred of democracy and the good sense of the common people.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
You and similar xians who sought to violate the rights of others by imposing your racists religious laws in violation of personal rights and freedoms were stopped in doing so.
AMAZINGLY it is WE who stopped ourselves? Strange that eh? Old "Mob Rule" helping you out? I guess maybe you should apologize to the American people.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
But what a nice legacy of the ownership and stewardship of marriage you have.
Thanks, we do try.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
Riiight. So you just granted people the right to marry outside of their “race” by public vote or opinion. Not so. Laws that sought to prevent the exercise of the freedoms to get married were struck down, much to the horror and anger of the xians who own marriage.
Take for example this case:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/200...red-loving.html
So? Looks like our system of government WORKS to me?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
So no DB, it was not public opinion or your xian mob rule that allowed such to happen, but as usual, it took legal action to uphold the rights of the individual and protect them against the xian religious laws that are incompatible with the secular society we live in.
just reminding you, SECULAR does not mean ATHEIST. And yes, that is how our terrible "Mob Rule" government works. The old "checks and balances" thing. Wonder why you hate this country so much?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
And your understanding of history, not to mention factual representation of history, is very lacking.
Lacking any kind of support for your misleading claims? Absolutely. Honest and complete as I can make it? Absolutely.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
I am mot the only one who has demonstrated this fact over and over. You simply make claim after claim with nothing more than your blind faith to back it up.
Well and all of those inconvenient external links and sound basis in logic and internally and externally consistent reason, yeah.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
But feel free to post your “uh uh” reply, denounce the case and people I cited, make more claim of how thing work and worked now and in the past, denounce that which you do not like (evolution, atheism, etc) with a set of standards not applicable to what you hold sacred (RCC) and post more personal comments about me and others.
Not like Evolution? Hardly, I support it fully and deny ID and CS, which I consider deeply troubling. Atheism? Oh yes I find Atheism to be misled and insipid, but of course your opinions may vary.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
Oh, and do be sure to copy the terminology, writing styles and points made by others. It is very flattering to have to follow our lead.
HAHAHA I have had to lead you to the truth kicking and screaming, and FORCING it down your throats at great personal sacrifice in time and patience. I would sooner eat compost than "follow your lead".
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
Only after you failed to back up the claim that marriage was the creation of your particular religion and xian. Just keep shifting those goal posts.
Do post where I SAID my religion or christianity in general CREATED marriage.
It does not exist. Another disingenous and after all of this reminding of you, obviously dishonest assertion. I said RELIGION in general was responsible.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
So, since any religion is responsible for marriage that would tend to lead one to think that any god or gods were of equal value and worth.
To you, certainly, but we Catholics call that "moral relativism" which our wonderful Pope has INFALLIBLY declared unethical and immoral.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
And the proof for this is… Still not seeing anything to back up your claims.
You will have to look between your fingers of the hands covering your eyes, and actually READ the responses, and you will see a literal cornucopia of "backing up my claim".
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
And you still ignore the instances of marriage pointed out before that were not religious.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Again, part those fingers a wee bit and look up a couple inches to the PAGANISM description.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
I’d reference you back to a few pages in various threads, but as you have demonstrated so many times before, you are not capable of following links to other parts of this forum not to mention going back just a few pages.
Only because you hide behind vague pompous claims and statements, and cannot restate or EVER state supporting facts or reasoning, you bury it in incomprehensible links to endless pages of irrelevant blathering.
While I have READDRESSED your ridiculous claims, ONCE AGAIN typing in references and arguments to the same old tired and repetitive ridiculous assertions you continue to forward, TIME AND TIME AGAIN. I will let the reader decide who is evading and disingenous.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
Ah. So you have nothing to back up those claims of fact and truth. It is just your belief.
HAHA you haven't pulled that old chestnut out of the fire in a while. I have not made CLAIMS OF FACT or TRUTH. These are SUBJECTIVE concerns, and all we have is logic and reason, and SUPPORTING facts and truth, but in the end it is always opinion or BELIEF based on assumption and examination of the preponderance of presented information.
If it were simply amenable ONLY to FACT and TRUTH, simple experimentation and falsification could be performed and reveal the SINGLE right or most correct answer. Subjective concerns like Philosophy are not amenable to those methods, because there are an INFINITE number of possible answers, which we must analyze and discriminate subjectively to determine which best fits our beliefs and learning. Again, I restate OVER and OVER again the obvious, but maybe someday you might accidentally read it and learn something.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 13 2008, 02:43 PM)
Odd how you keep posting your beliefs as fact and only after failing to provide substance to back up your claim do you finally admit they are just beliefs and hollow.
HAHAH Same chestnut. I NEVER STATED my SUBJECTIVE assertions were FACTS, that is a twisted and dishonest misrepresentation of my words YOU make.
QUOTE
The entire point of "marriage" is to establish a relationship that is communally recognized, that has ethical and moral consequences, both positive (like monogamy and family creation) and negative (adultery, and prohibitions of various kinds like that). The entire point of the idea is to make an ethical and moral discrimination, a definition of a new social construct, which has been the purpose and intent of religion throughout history.
Let me just ask something, deadbeat. You're not married, aren't you????
QUOTE (howtothinklikegod+May 14 2008, 07:12 AM)
Let me just ask something, deadbeat. You're not married, aren't you????
twice, but thankfully never again. hehe
QUOTE
I will let the reader decide who is evading and disingenous.
deadbeat quote replying to GeneSplicer. They already have, and continue to do so daily. It is called "feedback" and any OBJECTIVE analysis or comparison of yours to GeneSplicer's or mine will clearly show that the readers have spoken AGAINST YOUR DRIVEL AND RIDICULOUS, ILLOGICAL, POORLY REASONED AND INANE RANTS IN THIS FORUM.
YOU ARE THE LAUGHING STOCK OF THIS FORUM IN THE SAME MANNER AS DAD1 WAS BEFORE YOU. AND YOU CAN'T SEE THAT? STILL?
QUOTE (photojack+May 14 2008, 09:14 AM)
deadbeat quote replying to GeneSplicer.
They already have, and continue to do so daily. It is called "feedback" and any OBJECTIVE analysis or comparison of yours to GeneSplicer's or mine will clearly show that the readers have spoken AGAINST YOUR DRIVEL AND RIDICULOUS, ILLOGICAL, POORLY REASONED AND INANE RANTS IN THIS FORUM. YOU ARE THE LAUGHING STOCK OF THIS FORUM IN THE SAME MANNER AS DAD1 WAS BEFORE YOU. AND YOU CAN'T SEE THAT? STILL?
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
You guys (the same names over and over) spam feedback all the time, like I or anyone else puts any stock in it.
You notice I do not negative ANYONE, it is a worthless and useless thing and has been for years.
I let my posts stand for themselves
They already have, and continue to do so daily. It is called "feedback" and any OBJECTIVE analysis or comparison of yours to GeneSplicer's or mine will clearly show that the readers have spoken AGAINST YOUR DRIVEL AND RIDICULOUS, ILLOGICAL, POORLY REASONED AND INANE RANTS IN THIS FORUM.
YOU ARE THE LAUGHING STOCK OF THIS FORUM IN THE SAME MANNER AS DAD1 WAS BEFORE YOU. AND YOU CAN'T SEE THAT? STILL? HAHAHAHAHAHAH
You guys (the same names over and over) spam feedback all the time, like I or anyone else puts any stock in it.
You notice I do not negative ANYONE, it is a worthless and useless thing and has been for years.
I let my posts stand for themselves
QUOTE (deadbeat+May 14 2008, 04:28 AM)
You guys (the same names over and over) spam feedback all the time, like I or anyone else puts any stock in it.
You say that, but one of your staunchest opponents in debate has never given you anything but positive feedback. (2 of them.)
Well, that certainly explains your 21 unique negatives.
You say that, but one of your staunchest opponents in debate has never given you anything but positive feedback. (2 of them.)
QUOTE
I let my posts stand for themselves
Well, that certainly explains your 21 unique negatives.
deadhead
Which came first, marriage or sex??? Does pair bonding ring any bells??? How did humans reproduce before they invented gods and religions???
Marriage is simply Society's recognition of Nature's reproductive necessity. Many animals are monogamous for life, the very essence of what marriage is. And it was thus long before man evolved.
Grumpy
Which came first, marriage or sex??? Does pair bonding ring any bells??? How did humans reproduce before they invented gods and religions???
Marriage is simply Society's recognition of Nature's reproductive necessity. Many animals are monogamous for life, the very essence of what marriage is. And it was thus long before man evolved.
Grumpy
QUOTE (deadbeat+May 14 2008, 07:56 AM)
twice, but thankfully never again. hehe
Sorry to hear your first wife died.
I mean if you are RC then she must have or your couldn't have remarried.
Unless you converted after the first marriage.
Sorry to hear your first wife died.
I mean if you are RC then she must have or your couldn't have remarried.
Unless you converted after the first marriage.
QUOTE (DB+)
As I have stated before. The entire historical panoply, pick one. You see BDW tries to make the argument ridiculous by saying I was implying My religion, the Roman Catholic church was the inventor, which is silly, as Judaism preceded christianity, and obviously had marriage.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=294248
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=294248
QUOTE (DB+)
On marriage, the term "marriage" has for 2000 years meant the joining of a man and a woman in a sacred christian tradition. Even though offered the same priviledges and rights as any "married" couple, they insist that they are not truly "equal" unless they can call it the same thing. All we ask is that you call it something else, and not insult our faith. A rose by any other name...is apparently not rose enough for you. Bigot.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=336033
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=336033
QUOTE (GS+)
And again, that is an unfounded and unsupported claim. You are assuming that since the church had control of marriage for so long that they created it while you forget that marriage predate the creation of your religion.
QUOTE (DB+)
Yes, yes, so you continue to say...but there is not a single recorded historical incidence of what you say. Again, you fail to see that losing that point does not lose the battle. You have already won the battle.
QUOTE (GS+)
As with most things in human society, the concept of marriage most likely started as simply a result of human activity that was later usurped and taken over by religion.
QUOTE (DB+)
Due to first amendment concerns, a particular religion was not referred to or enforced, but it is silly to think it did not originate from the christian legacy we brought with us.
QUOTE (GS+)
And it is silly to assume it originate with a religion that was created long after marriage or bonding was a factor of human civilization. You assume that since the majority of those in the nation were xian and supported their view of marriage over others that it was and is the creation and property of religion.
QUOTE (DB+)
Again, it must be dawning on you by now that it is INDEED derived from religious sources. But that does not matter to win your argument. Which I have already submitted to from a constitutional standpoint.
And you keep mentioning the “sacrament” of marriage. This may be simply due to your religious adherence or your notion that marriage is indeed a xian creation. Let’s be deabeat pedantic and cite the definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?...crament&ia=ahd4
1. Christianity A rite believed to be a means of or visible form of grace, especially:
a. In the Eastern, Roman Catholic, and some other Western Christian churches, any of the traditional seven rites that were instituted by Jesus and recorded in the New Testament and that confer sanctifying grace.
b. In most other Western Christian churches, the two rites, Baptism and the Eucharist, that were instituted by Jesus to confer sanctifying grace.
c. The Eucharist.
d. The consecrated elements of the Eucharist, especially the bread or host.
2. A religious rite similar to a Christian sacrament, as in character or meaning.
Of course, this is probably just another case of you arguing for something you do not really believe in as you have admitted to doing in the past.
Of course, this is probably just another case of you arguing for something you do not really believe in as you have admitted to doing in the past.
My point was that EVERY religion in recorded history that I am aware of had some form of the institution of "marriage". From Tribal custom and Taboos, to modern day religions.
Based upon an assumption or baseless belief. Again, mankind existed prior to the creation of religion. Are you now trying to claim that none was married, pared together or publically bonded until mankind created some for of religion first?
Again, according to you with no references, just your opinion. And again, back in our primitive past, you seriously think that no one pared together prior to the creation of marriage?
Again, according to you with no references, just your opinion. And again, back in our primitive past, you seriously think that no one pared together prior to the creation of marriage?
The entire point of the idea is to make an ethical and moral discrimination, a definition of a new social construct, which has been the purpose and intent of religion throughout history.
Eventually perhaps but not throughout history as you claim. Again, our nature has much more to do with the establishment of our laws and activities like marriage than religion does. Religion has historically simply complicated such matters and caused harm.
And again, that means that no one in our primitive past bonded or selected a preferred mate to be with until religion was established. Your claim is untenable.
And again, that means that no one in our primitive past bonded or selected a preferred mate to be with until religion was established. Your claim is untenable.
Our form of government, and most other modern governments have followed America's lead, was not to make marriage "non-religious", rather it was to recognize and ethical and moral construct of religion in a way that prefers no partivular religion, but still supports and defends the social construct itself, and preserves the socila constructive advantages it implies.
As far as the government goes, marriage is non-religious. It is nothing more than a contract. If one wished to include extra pomp and circumstance of a religion, that is fine, but the government is not and cannot be concerned with such an irrelevant matter. Again, secular society.
Seriously, follow your own advice.
Seriously, follow your own advice.
The laws enacted since the earliest so called "secular" marriage legislated behaviors and responsibilities exactly as represented by the then consensus religious christian view, such as: (not that the changes away from many of them were not good, it just simply demonstrates the linkage with religion.)
Really? Please cite the law that sex was only for procreation. Or that a man could not be with a woman while she menstruated.
When the xian religious laws you speak of were challenged by law, they were found to be unconstitutional. This fact of history alone illustrates just how the xian concept of marriage is not the same concept upheld by the government.
Contract violation and it has been addressed.
Contract violation and it has been addressed.
Same Sex partners were illegal
Homosexuality was and still is considered illegal by many xians regardless of the topic of marriage.
And yet another xian bigotry found to be unconstitutional.
And yet another xian bigotry found to be unconstitutional.
and particular advantages
Establishing a family unit
Which has been done in the past without the baggage of religion or its presence. Again, our primitive past for one example and the common law marriages of the lower social status Romans for another.
Yes, and such respect even when the xians frowned on or simply did not want to allow divorces even if abuse was taking place.
Yes, and such respect even when the xians frowned on or simply did not want to allow divorces even if abuse was taking place.
So this has morphed into a "secular" (WHICH DOES NOT MEAN ATHEIST) marriage concept.
Yet whenever secular is pointed out, you demand homage to religion or you call it atheist. Secualr means just that. It has nothing to do with or concern of any religion.
Absolutely wrong and why when the proper form and definition of secular is pointed out to you that you cry “that is atheism”. Secular mean that is cannot and will not give consideration to any religion.
Absolutely wrong and why when the proper form and definition of secular is pointed out to you that you cry “that is atheism”. Secular mean that is cannot and will not give consideration to any religion.
But that is another entirely complicated argument, I will leave it there.
You mean get it wrong yet again.
And your xian tradition originated form our secular past. To deny that is to be blinded by your theism unless of course you are going to claim that no one was ever bonded or pared off until religion was created. Or are you going to try to argue that religion was created prior to mankind?
And your xian tradition originated form our secular past. To deny that is to be blinded by your theism unless of course you are going to claim that no one was ever bonded or pared off until religion was created. Or are you going to try to argue that religion was created prior to mankind?
A meaningless question. Religion serves a purpose and fills a need. I fail to see how that is even germaine.
Because you tend to avoid that which you cannot honestly address. You keep claiming that marriage is a creation of religion and that it did not exists prior to it.
What examples do you have that marriage, pair bonding and the like was created by religion?
What examples do you have to support your claim that mankind did not create religion to suite our needs?
Fine. Then you believe that mankind simply did not bond at all until they created religion. You have no proof for your belief, but you believe it none the less.
Fine. Then you believe that mankind simply did not bond at all until they created religion. You have no proof for your belief, but you believe it none the less.
Every example examined was descended from and described by RELIGION.
Not the common law marriage cited for the commoners of Rome, but again, you tend to ignore such sources.
Like I stated, you tend to ignore what is posted, especially if it does not support your preconceived notions.
Like I stated, you tend to ignore what is posted, especially if it does not support your preconceived notions.
THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH shows that Paganism was a RELIGION. How ridiculous is your argument now?
Not very considering that you cannot even honestly relate a definition you yourself even quote. It clearly states various religions and religious beliefs from across the world, not “a” religion.
You also ignore the pejorative use of the term by the church and the xian religion in general to describe anything not of the xian faith or something that ignores it or excludes the xian faith. And pagan was also associated with the label of heathen.
I give you credit for finally including a proper link, but you simply quote minded again.
The term "pagan" is a Christian adaptation of the "gentile" of Judaism, and as such has an inherent Christian or Abrahamic bias, and pejorative connotations among Westerners,[2] comparable to heathen, and infidel, mushrik and kafir (كافر) in Islam. For this reason, ethnologists avoid the term "paganism," with its uncertain and varied meanings, in referring to traditional or historic faiths, preferring more precise categories such as polytheism, shamanism, pantheism, or animism; however others criticise the use of these terms, claiming that these are only aspects that different faiths may share and do not denote the religions themselves.
And you keep mentioning the “sacrament” of marriage. This may be simply due to your religious adherence or your notion that marriage is indeed a xian creation. Let’s be deabeat pedantic and cite the definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?...crament&ia=ahd4
QUOTE
1. Christianity A rite believed to be a means of or visible form of grace, especially:
a. In the Eastern, Roman Catholic, and some other Western Christian churches, any of the traditional seven rites that were instituted by Jesus and recorded in the New Testament and that confer sanctifying grace.
b. In most other Western Christian churches, the two rites, Baptism and the Eucharist, that were instituted by Jesus to confer sanctifying grace.
c. The Eucharist.
d. The consecrated elements of the Eucharist, especially the bread or host.
2. A religious rite similar to a Christian sacrament, as in character or meaning.
Of course, this is probably just another case of you arguing for something you do not really believe in as you have admitted to doing in the past.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
1. Christianity A rite believed to be a means of or visible form of grace, especially: a. In the Eastern, Roman Catholic, and some other Western Christian churches, any of the traditional seven rites that were instituted by Jesus and recorded in the New Testament and that confer sanctifying grace. b. In most other Western Christian churches, the two rites, Baptism and the Eucharist, that were instituted by Jesus to confer sanctifying grace. c. The Eucharist. d. The consecrated elements of the Eucharist, especially the bread or host. 2. A religious rite similar to a Christian sacrament, as in character or meaning. |
Of course, this is probably just another case of you arguing for something you do not really believe in as you have admitted to doing in the past.
My point was that EVERY religion in recorded history that I am aware of had some form of the institution of "marriage". From Tribal custom and Taboos, to modern day religions.
Based upon an assumption or baseless belief. Again, mankind existed prior to the creation of religion. Are you now trying to claim that none was married, pared together or publically bonded until mankind created some for of religion first?
QUOTE
The entire point of "marriage" is to establish a relationship that is communally recognized, that has ethical and moral consequences, both positive (like monogamy and family creation) and negative (adultery, and prohibitions of various kinds like that).
Again, according to you with no references, just your opinion. And again, back in our primitive past, you seriously think that no one pared together prior to the creation of marriage?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The entire point of "marriage" is to establish a relationship that is communally recognized, that has ethical and moral consequences, both positive (like monogamy and family creation) and negative (adultery, and prohibitions of various kinds like that). |
Again, according to you with no references, just your opinion. And again, back in our primitive past, you seriously think that no one pared together prior to the creation of marriage?
The entire point of the idea is to make an ethical and moral discrimination, a definition of a new social construct, which has been the purpose and intent of religion throughout history.
Eventually perhaps but not throughout history as you claim. Again, our nature has much more to do with the establishment of our laws and activities like marriage than religion does. Religion has historically simply complicated such matters and caused harm.
QUOTE
The willfully deluded Atheists point to modern practices, especially of so-called "secular" marriage. Until recent history, to my knowledge, this has never been practiced.
And again, that means that no one in our primitive past bonded or selected a preferred mate to be with until religion was established. Your claim is untenable.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The willfully deluded Atheists point to modern practices, especially of so-called "secular" marriage. Until recent history, to my knowledge, this has never been practiced. |
And again, that means that no one in our primitive past bonded or selected a preferred mate to be with until religion was established. Your claim is untenable.
Our form of government, and most other modern governments have followed America's lead, was not to make marriage "non-religious", rather it was to recognize and ethical and moral construct of religion in a way that prefers no partivular religion, but still supports and defends the social construct itself, and preserves the socila constructive advantages it implies.
As far as the government goes, marriage is non-religious. It is nothing more than a contract. If one wished to include extra pomp and circumstance of a religion, that is fine, but the government is not and cannot be concerned with such an irrelevant matter. Again, secular society.
QUOTE
Seriously, think about it.
Seriously, follow your own advice.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Seriously, think about it. |
Seriously, follow your own advice.
The laws enacted since the earliest so called "secular" marriage legislated behaviors and responsibilities exactly as represented by the then consensus religious christian view, such as: (not that the changes away from many of them were not good, it just simply demonstrates the linkage with religion.)
Really? Please cite the law that sex was only for procreation. Or that a man could not be with a woman while she menstruated.
When the xian religious laws you speak of were challenged by law, they were found to be unconstitutional. This fact of history alone illustrates just how the xian concept of marriage is not the same concept upheld by the government.
QUOTE
Adultery was illegal
Contract violation and it has been addressed.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Adultery was illegal |
Contract violation and it has been addressed.
Same Sex partners were illegal
Homosexuality was and still is considered illegal by many xians regardless of the topic of marriage.
QUOTE
Racial intermixing was illegal
And yet another xian bigotry found to be unconstitutional.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Racial intermixing was illegal |
And yet another xian bigotry found to be unconstitutional.
and particular advantages
Establishing a family unit
Which has been done in the past without the baggage of religion or its presence. Again, our primitive past for one example and the common law marriages of the lower social status Romans for another.
QUOTE
Social respect and tradition
Yes, and such respect even when the xians frowned on or simply did not want to allow divorces even if abuse was taking place.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Social respect and tradition |
Yes, and such respect even when the xians frowned on or simply did not want to allow divorces even if abuse was taking place.
So this has morphed into a "secular" (WHICH DOES NOT MEAN ATHEIST) marriage concept.
Yet whenever secular is pointed out, you demand homage to religion or you call it atheist. Secualr means just that. It has nothing to do with or concern of any religion.
QUOTE
It is not that religion is BARRED from consideration in government and lawmaking (something the Atheists continually push) just that as a group, no particular religion may be preferred or endorsed, or participate DIRECTLY.
Absolutely wrong and why when the proper form and definition of secular is pointed out to you that you cry “that is atheism”. Secular mean that is cannot and will not give consideration to any religion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is not that religion is BARRED from consideration in government and lawmaking (something the Atheists continually push) just that as a group, no particular religion may be preferred or endorsed, or participate DIRECTLY. |
Absolutely wrong and why when the proper form and definition of secular is pointed out to you that you cry “that is atheism”. Secular mean that is cannot and will not give consideration to any religion.
But that is another entirely complicated argument, I will leave it there.
You mean get it wrong yet again.
QUOTE
Even our so-called "secular" marriage in the United States is obviously descended from the Christian tradition. To deny it is folly and self delusion.
And your xian tradition originated form our secular past. To deny that is to be blinded by your theism unless of course you are going to claim that no one was ever bonded or pared off until religion was created. Or are you going to try to argue that religion was created prior to mankind?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Even our so-called "secular" marriage in the United States is obviously descended from the Christian tradition. To deny it is folly and self delusion. |
And your xian tradition originated form our secular past. To deny that is to be blinded by your theism unless of course you are going to claim that no one was ever bonded or pared off until religion was created. Or are you going to try to argue that religion was created prior to mankind?
A meaningless question. Religion serves a purpose and fills a need. I fail to see how that is even germaine.
Because you tend to avoid that which you cannot honestly address. You keep claiming that marriage is a creation of religion and that it did not exists prior to it.
What examples do you have that marriage, pair bonding and the like was created by religion?
What examples do you have to support your claim that mankind did not create religion to suite our needs?
QUOTE
MY RELIGION, certainly, but ALL RELIGION, definitely not.
Fine. Then you believe that mankind simply did not bond at all until they created religion. You have no proof for your belief, but you believe it none the less.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| MY RELIGION, certainly, but ALL RELIGION, definitely not. |
Fine. Then you believe that mankind simply did not bond at all until they created religion. You have no proof for your belief, but you believe it none the less.
Every example examined was descended from and described by RELIGION.
Not the common law marriage cited for the commoners of Rome, but again, you tend to ignore such sources.
QUOTE
The only example you cited was "broom-jumping", a Pagan tradition. Let us look at the Pagan tradition.
Like I stated, you tend to ignore what is posted, especially if it does not support your preconceived notions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The only example you cited was "broom-jumping", a Pagan tradition. Let us look at the Pagan tradition. |
Like I stated, you tend to ignore what is posted, especially if it does not support your preconceived notions.
THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH shows that Paganism was a RELIGION. How ridiculous is your argument now?
Not very considering that you cannot even honestly relate a definition you yourself even quote. It clearly states various religions and religious beliefs from across the world, not “a” religion.
You also ignore the pejorative use of the term by the church and the xian religion in general to describe anything not of the xian faith or something that ignores it or excludes the xian faith. And pagan was also associated with the label of heathen.
I give you credit for finally including a proper link, but you simply quote minded again.
QUOTE
The term can be defined broadly, to encompass the faith traditions outside the Abrahamic monotheistic group of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The group so defined includes many of the Eastern religions, Native American religions and mythologies, as well as non-Abrahamic ethnic religions in general. More narrow definitions will not include any of the world religions and restrict the term to local or rural currents not organized as civil religions. Characteristic of pagan traditions is the absence of proselytism and the presence of a living mythology which explains religious practice.[1]
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The term can be defined broadly, to encompass the faith traditions outside the Abrahamic monotheistic group of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The group so defined includes many of the Eastern religions, Native American religions and mythologies, as well as non-Abrahamic ethnic religions in general. More narrow definitions will not include any of the world religions and restrict the term to local or rural currents not organized as civil religions. Characteristic of pagan traditions is the absence of proselytism and the presence of a living mythology which explains religious practice.[1] |
The term "pagan" is a Christian adaptation of the "gentile" of Judaism, and as such has an inherent Christian or Abrahamic bias, and pejorative connotations among Westerners,[2] comparable to heathen, and infidel, mushrik and kafir (كافر) in Islam. For this reason, ethnologists avoid the term "paganism," with its uncertain and varied meanings, in referring to traditional or historic faiths, preferring more precise categories such as polytheism, shamanism, pantheism, or animism; however others criticise the use of these terms, claiming that these are only aspects that different faiths may share and do not denote the religions themselves.
QUOTE (DB+)
Wow, the proof is ALL AROUND YOU, and more specifically about an inch up the page. Sheesh.
To support the claim that marriage originated from religion? Again, where is your support for this claim?
According to whom? You? Again, let us be DB pedantic:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason
According to whom? You? Again, let us be DB pedantic:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason
1 a: a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> b: a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon> c: a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action> d: the thing that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay — Graham Greene>
2 a (1): the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE (2): proper exercise of the mind (3): SANITY b: the sum of the intellectual powers
3archaic : treatment that affords satisfaction
So, according to you, being rational, logical or lawful is being bereft of ethical and moral restriction.
Only if you are being illogical and irrational. In other words, if you are being unreasonable.
Then there is the intellectual disconnect form your previous claims. You were so fond of claiming that atheist make up so little of the populous yet you like to credit atheist with these evil actions. I’m sure no moral and ethical xians were involved in any of them.
Only if you are being illogical and irrational. In other words, if you are being unreasonable.
Then there is the intellectual disconnect form your previous claims. You were so fond of claiming that atheist make up so little of the populous yet you like to credit atheist with these evil actions. I’m sure no moral and ethical xians were involved in any of them.
Objective science has been an incredible advance and responsible for the explosive growth and success of humanity and society. However, the success has been the result of REMOVING BIAS from the science, and focusing only on truth and knowledge, removing the subjective as much as is possible and completely where practicable.
The result of that is, that science must be constrained externally by ethical and moral concerns, as it has no internal constraints of any kind. They should not be random or silly constraints, but there MUST be constraints.
Again, according to you, but you think that to be reasonable (logical, rational) is to be unethical and immoral. You also think that science must bow down to the superstitious, nonsensical and irrational demands of any and all religions.
Yes, with such constraints we have a limitation in research that could revolutionize our medical system and cure disease on a level only dreamed of. Oh, wait. Scientists aren’t doing that. Theists are.
Yes, with such constraints we have a limitation in research that could revolutionize our medical system and cure disease on a level only dreamed of. Oh, wait. Scientists aren’t doing that. Theists are.
yes, yes, I just said that.
You just admitted that reason has led mankind away from the dark age domination of religion and the irrational claims it presented and still tries to present as fact? Where?
Ethically and morally restrained by whom? Theists? The same theists that would have people killed for being gay? For pursuing stem cell research?
Ethically and morally restrained by whom? Theists? The same theists that would have people killed for being gay? For pursuing stem cell research?
Yes, yes, anyone with any serious contemplation can see from past history, that religion is not the only and sole cause of misery and tragedy, Atheist philosophy and Enlightened Objective Science have been abused, like religion, by fanatics, despots, dictators and just evil people for consolidation of personal power, or other selfish wicked purposes.
Yet you just claimed that science without religion leads to those tragedies. Your reasoning appears convoluted.
And that is just the convolution I speak of. I can cite where crime were committed by and in the name of religion and the church. Show me where crimes were committed in the name of science and atheism. You like to try to equate actions taken by Nazis as such, but you ignore the fact that those crimes were committed in the name of the Nazi ideology, not atheism or science.
In other words, you like to selective blame a tool, like science, for the actions of the person wielding it, like the Nazis.
On the other hand, the tool of religion is designed to be oppressive by its fundamental nature. This is why more secular version of the faith are acceptable in secular societies and why fundamental versions (see Islam and fundamental xians) are not.
And that is just the convolution I speak of. I can cite where crime were committed by and in the name of religion and the church. Show me where crimes were committed in the name of science and atheism. You like to try to equate actions taken by Nazis as such, but you ignore the fact that those crimes were committed in the name of the Nazi ideology, not atheism or science.
In other words, you like to selective blame a tool, like science, for the actions of the person wielding it, like the Nazis.
On the other hand, the tool of religion is designed to be oppressive by its fundamental nature. This is why more secular version of the faith are acceptable in secular societies and why fundamental versions (see Islam and fundamental xians) are not.
I am NOT saying the church is innocent or the crimes committed by it or in its name should be forgotten. I am saying you had better remember those of your pet ideologies as well
Again, cite where crimes have been committed in the name of science. While I do not doubt that there exists a few examples, you are misrepresenting the facts of history in regards to the Nazis and such.
Again, your ignorance to try to compare the action of a person versus the actions of an institution. Again, if what you say is true, then you are a hypocrite since you keep trying to blame people alive today who are involved in research or who support evolution with actions taken in the past by Nazis and the like.
Institutions can be held liable for the actions they took in the past be it under different leadership or not. A person cannot be held liable for the actions taken by a father or ancestor.
To claim otherwise is to be bereft of common sense.
Again, your ignorance to try to compare the action of a person versus the actions of an institution. Again, if what you say is true, then you are a hypocrite since you keep trying to blame people alive today who are involved in research or who support evolution with actions taken in the past by Nazis and the like.
Institutions can be held liable for the actions they took in the past be it under different leadership or not. A person cannot be held liable for the actions taken by a father or ancestor.
To claim otherwise is to be bereft of common sense.
redundant restating of the same argument
And one you keep ignoring or simply reinforcing by engaging in the very actions I describe.
No, it illustrated the pollution of the concepts of personal freedom by a religion. And the over turning of such laws illustrated the justice of our secular society.
No, it illustrated the pollution of the concepts of personal freedom by a religion. And the over turning of such laws illustrated the justice of our secular society.
You merely try to distract away from the obvious flaw in your argument it illustrates by focusing on whether it was "right". We have changed, and so has the laws and institution of marriage.
And you ignore the fact that your ownership and stewardship of marriage has in the past violated personal freedom and our secular society and was only corrected by the action of the law. It would not have been corrected by the xians who claimed that ownership and supported the ban.
Odd how you didn’t use that term until corrected in earlier past.
And you really need to stop lying about what I support. I have stated over and over that I support our constitutional republic over your xian mob rule.
You are on record in support of a direct democracy which is mob rule. You have claimed that the religious desires of the populous are to be reflected in the laws and you have publically stated that you wish to do away with the separation of church and state and the establishment clause.
Odd how you didn’t use that term until corrected in earlier past.
And you really need to stop lying about what I support. I have stated over and over that I support our constitutional republic over your xian mob rule.
You are on record in support of a direct democracy which is mob rule. You have claimed that the religious desires of the populous are to be reflected in the laws and you have publically stated that you wish to do away with the separation of church and state and the establishment clause.
Because we are so stupid and we all need to be forced to do things YOUR way, because you are so much smarter and superior to the common masses. Bravo for you.
That is your baseless claim and not reflective of my posts. You have the same rights as anyone else, you just do not have the right to force your religious laws unto me or others.
And again, just because my atheist views are more in line with our secular society does not mean I am trying to force you to live by my rules. This is yet another example of how you confuse secular for atheism.
Not so as I pointed out before.
Not so as I pointed out before.
You are so disingenous you try to move the goal posts constantly, redefining what I said to make it obviously in error, because you are defeated and it is the only way to some semblance of a win.
Again, not so. Not my fault you cannot remember the arguments you addressed or the fact that you like to argue topic you claim you have no interest in.
And I am not interested in a “win”. You have mentioned a pandering to the readers of this forum on several occasions. I don’t think it is I who is interested in a “win”.
Not when that “ethical and moral” definition violates the rights of the individual as it clearly did in the case of xians wishing to outlaw interracial marriages. And it took the courts and legal action to uphold the rights of the individual over the demands of the xian mob, who were perfectly willing to keep the laws as they were.
This fact of history had nothing to do with representative government in relation to upholding the rights of the one over the desires of the xian mob. Quite the opposite. It has everything to do with the desires of the xian mob being put in their place.
Not when that “ethical and moral” definition violates the rights of the individual as it clearly did in the case of xians wishing to outlaw interracial marriages. And it took the courts and legal action to uphold the rights of the individual over the demands of the xian mob, who were perfectly willing to keep the laws as they were.
This fact of history had nothing to do with representative government in relation to upholding the rights of the one over the desires of the xian mob. Quite the opposite. It has everything to do with the desires of the xian mob being put in their place.
It cannot GIVE WAY to something which IT CREATES TO REPRESENT ITSELF. Just silly and vacuous.
The only “silly” thing here is your comprehension of what took place. Again, the legal system upheld the law while the xian demands were to violate the law and the xian demands lost.
You mean the representative democracy where the separation of church and state is overturned and the establishment clause ahs been removed from the U.S. Constitution?
To support the claim that marriage originated from religion? Again, where is your support for this claim?
QUOTE
The entire point of REASON WITHOUT FAITH being bad, is that REASON by itself in a scientific, objective context, is entirely FREE of ethical and moral restriction.
According to whom? You? Again, let us be DB pedantic:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The entire point of REASON WITHOUT FAITH being bad, is that REASON by itself in a scientific, objective context, is entirely FREE of ethical and moral restriction. |
According to whom? You? Again, let us be DB pedantic:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason
1 a: a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> b: a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon> c: a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action> d: the thing that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay — Graham Greene>
2 a (1): the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE (2): proper exercise of the mind (3): SANITY b: the sum of the intellectual powers
3archaic : treatment that affords satisfaction
So, according to you, being rational, logical or lawful is being bereft of ethical and moral restriction.
QUOTE
Like Eugenics and the horrific ethical tragedies that resulted, INCLUDING A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, Nazis performing experiments on the Jews, or if you do not like the Nazi example, in the United States, the Tuskegee Institute deliberately allowing Black patients to suffer untreated Syphilis and all of the dire consequences resulting from that neat little experiment. There are ENDLESS examples
Only if you are being illogical and irrational. In other words, if you are being unreasonable.
Then there is the intellectual disconnect form your previous claims. You were so fond of claiming that atheist make up so little of the populous yet you like to credit atheist with these evil actions. I’m sure no moral and ethical xians were involved in any of them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Like Eugenics and the horrific ethical tragedies that resulted, INCLUDING A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, Nazis performing experiments on the Jews, or if you do not like the Nazi example, in the United States, the Tuskegee Institute deliberately allowing Black patients to suffer untreated Syphilis and all of the dire consequences resulting from that neat little experiment. There are ENDLESS examples |
Only if you are being illogical and irrational. In other words, if you are being unreasonable.
Then there is the intellectual disconnect form your previous claims. You were so fond of claiming that atheist make up so little of the populous yet you like to credit atheist with these evil actions. I’m sure no moral and ethical xians were involved in any of them.
Objective science has been an incredible advance and responsible for the explosive growth and success of humanity and society. However, the success has been the result of REMOVING BIAS from the science, and focusing only on truth and knowledge, removing the subjective as much as is possible and completely where practicable.
The result of that is, that science must be constrained externally by ethical and moral concerns, as it has no internal constraints of any kind. They should not be random or silly constraints, but there MUST be constraints.
Again, according to you, but you think that to be reasonable (logical, rational) is to be unethical and immoral. You also think that science must bow down to the superstitious, nonsensical and irrational demands of any and all religions.
QUOTE
Otherwise horrors WILL happen again, like Tuskegee, Nazi Germany, Nuclear effects on soldiers, any incredible variety of possible horrors.
Yes, with such constraints we have a limitation in research that could revolutionize our medical system and cure disease on a level only dreamed of. Oh, wait. Scientists aren’t doing that. Theists are.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Otherwise horrors WILL happen again, like Tuskegee, Nazi Germany, Nuclear effects on soldiers, any incredible variety of possible horrors. |
Yes, with such constraints we have a limitation in research that could revolutionize our medical system and cure disease on a level only dreamed of. Oh, wait. Scientists aren’t doing that. Theists are.
yes, yes, I just said that.
You just admitted that reason has led mankind away from the dark age domination of religion and the irrational claims it presented and still tries to present as fact? Where?
QUOTE
But again it MUST BE ETHICALLY AND MORALLY CONSTRAINED, or terrible tragedy will result.
Ethically and morally restrained by whom? Theists? The same theists that would have people killed for being gay? For pursuing stem cell research?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But again it MUST BE ETHICALLY AND MORALLY CONSTRAINED, or terrible tragedy will result. |
Ethically and morally restrained by whom? Theists? The same theists that would have people killed for being gay? For pursuing stem cell research?
Yes, yes, anyone with any serious contemplation can see from past history, that religion is not the only and sole cause of misery and tragedy, Atheist philosophy and Enlightened Objective Science have been abused, like religion, by fanatics, despots, dictators and just evil people for consolidation of personal power, or other selfish wicked purposes.
Yet you just claimed that science without religion leads to those tragedies. Your reasoning appears convoluted.
QUOTE
No institution or philosophy is immune to contamination or perversion, and your continual berating of christianity while ignoring the crimes committed in the name of or justified by Atheism and Science.
And that is just the convolution I speak of. I can cite where crime were committed by and in the name of religion and the church. Show me where crimes were committed in the name of science and atheism. You like to try to equate actions taken by Nazis as such, but you ignore the fact that those crimes were committed in the name of the Nazi ideology, not atheism or science.
In other words, you like to selective blame a tool, like science, for the actions of the person wielding it, like the Nazis.
On the other hand, the tool of religion is designed to be oppressive by its fundamental nature. This is why more secular version of the faith are acceptable in secular societies and why fundamental versions (see Islam and fundamental xians) are not.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No institution or philosophy is immune to contamination or perversion, and your continual berating of christianity while ignoring the crimes committed in the name of or justified by Atheism and Science. |
And that is just the convolution I speak of. I can cite where crime were committed by and in the name of religion and the church. Show me where crimes were committed in the name of science and atheism. You like to try to equate actions taken by Nazis as such, but you ignore the fact that those crimes were committed in the name of the Nazi ideology, not atheism or science.
In other words, you like to selective blame a tool, like science, for the actions of the person wielding it, like the Nazis.
On the other hand, the tool of religion is designed to be oppressive by its fundamental nature. This is why more secular version of the faith are acceptable in secular societies and why fundamental versions (see Islam and fundamental xians) are not.
I am NOT saying the church is innocent or the crimes committed by it or in its name should be forgotten. I am saying you had better remember those of your pet ideologies as well
Again, cite where crimes have been committed in the name of science. While I do not doubt that there exists a few examples, you are misrepresenting the facts of history in regards to the Nazis and such.
QUOTE
HAHAHA and here you ignore the beam in your own eye to decry the splinter in mine.
Again, your ignorance to try to compare the action of a person versus the actions of an institution. Again, if what you say is true, then you are a hypocrite since you keep trying to blame people alive today who are involved in research or who support evolution with actions taken in the past by Nazis and the like.
Institutions can be held liable for the actions they took in the past be it under different leadership or not. A person cannot be held liable for the actions taken by a father or ancestor.
To claim otherwise is to be bereft of common sense.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| HAHAHA and here you ignore the beam in your own eye to decry the splinter in mine. |
Again, your ignorance to try to compare the action of a person versus the actions of an institution. Again, if what you say is true, then you are a hypocrite since you keep trying to blame people alive today who are involved in research or who support evolution with actions taken in the past by Nazis and the like.
Institutions can be held liable for the actions they took in the past be it under different leadership or not. A person cannot be held liable for the actions taken by a father or ancestor.
To claim otherwise is to be bereft of common sense.
redundant restating of the same argument
And one you keep ignoring or simply reinforcing by engaging in the very actions I describe.
QUOTE
I am not saying it was "right" or "ethical", especially in light of todays modern thinking and acceptance, but it illustrates how religions defined "marriage" in its earliest "secular" inception.
No, it illustrated the pollution of the concepts of personal freedom by a religion. And the over turning of such laws illustrated the justice of our secular society.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am not saying it was "right" or "ethical", especially in light of todays modern thinking and acceptance, but it illustrates how religions defined "marriage" in its earliest "secular" inception. |
No, it illustrated the pollution of the concepts of personal freedom by a religion. And the over turning of such laws illustrated the justice of our secular society.
You merely try to distract away from the obvious flaw in your argument it illustrates by focusing on whether it was "right". We have changed, and so has the laws and institution of marriage.
And you ignore the fact that your ownership and stewardship of marriage has in the past violated personal freedom and our secular society and was only corrected by the action of the law. It would not have been corrected by the xians who claimed that ownership and supported the ban.
QUOTE
Yeah, "Mob Rule" or as we call it here in America "representative Democracy" really offends you.
Odd how you didn’t use that term until corrected in earlier past.
And you really need to stop lying about what I support. I have stated over and over that I support our constitutional republic over your xian mob rule.
You are on record in support of a direct democracy which is mob rule. You have claimed that the religious desires of the populous are to be reflected in the laws and you have publically stated that you wish to do away with the separation of church and state and the establishment clause.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yeah, "Mob Rule" or as we call it here in America "representative Democracy" really offends you. |
Odd how you didn’t use that term until corrected in earlier past.
And you really need to stop lying about what I support. I have stated over and over that I support our constitutional republic over your xian mob rule.
You are on record in support of a direct democracy which is mob rule. You have claimed that the religious desires of the populous are to be reflected in the laws and you have publically stated that you wish to do away with the separation of church and state and the establishment clause.
Because we are so stupid and we all need to be forced to do things YOUR way, because you are so much smarter and superior to the common masses. Bravo for you.
That is your baseless claim and not reflective of my posts. You have the same rights as anyone else, you just do not have the right to force your religious laws unto me or others.
And again, just because my atheist views are more in line with our secular society does not mean I am trying to force you to live by my rules. This is yet another example of how you confuse secular for atheism.
QUOTE
And again, I said RELIGION, not my church or even christianity.
Not so as I pointed out before.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And again, I said RELIGION, not my church or even christianity. |
Not so as I pointed out before.
You are so disingenous you try to move the goal posts constantly, redefining what I said to make it obviously in error, because you are defeated and it is the only way to some semblance of a win.
Again, not so. Not my fault you cannot remember the arguments you addressed or the fact that you like to argue topic you claim you have no interest in.
And I am not interested in a “win”. You have mentioned a pandering to the readers of this forum on several occasions. I don’t think it is I who is interested in a “win”.
QUOTE
HAHAHA the "rule of law" in a representative democracy IS the ethical and moral definition of the masses encoded into government.
Not when that “ethical and moral” definition violates the rights of the individual as it clearly did in the case of xians wishing to outlaw interracial marriages. And it took the courts and legal action to uphold the rights of the individual over the demands of the xian mob, who were perfectly willing to keep the laws as they were.
This fact of history had nothing to do with representative government in relation to upholding the rights of the one over the desires of the xian mob. Quite the opposite. It has everything to do with the desires of the xian mob being put in their place.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| HAHAHA the "rule of law" in a representative democracy IS the ethical and moral definition of the masses encoded into government. |
Not when that “ethical and moral” definition violates the rights of the individual as it clearly did in the case of xians wishing to outlaw interracial marriages. And it took the courts and legal action to uphold the rights of the individual over the demands of the xian mob, who were perfectly willing to keep the laws as they were.
This fact of history had nothing to do with representative government in relation to upholding the rights of the one over the desires of the xian mob. Quite the opposite. It has everything to do with the desires of the xian mob being put in their place.
It cannot GIVE WAY to something which IT CREATES TO REPRESENT ITSELF. Just silly and vacuous.
The only “silly” thing here is your comprehension of what took place. Again, the legal system upheld the law while the xian demands were to violate the law and the xian demands lost.
QUOTE
I desire REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, not the fascist despotic forcing of a minority view on the masses.
You mean the representative democracy where the separation of church and state is overturned and the establishment clause ahs been removed from the U.S. Constitution?
QUOTE (->