Posted on 09/06/2007 3:58:17 PM PDT by Sopater
How far back do you want to go? How inclusive do you want to be? What are your goals? Are your goals based on improving society or following your religion?
"Then how do societies that are without the Bible or that don't support a biblical worldview come to the conclusion that homosexuality is taboo? The belief that homosexuality is dangerous to society has not historically been restricted to judeo-christian based societies."
Such as?
Many societies not based on Judaic principles do not conclude that homosexual behaviour is taboo. Even some very 'gay' societies have contributed to our current political, philosophical and scientific state.
In any case, is the reticence to change the marriage laws (or any other point made by the author) shown by the original author and the members of his belief system, based on societal consequences or some passage from the Bible?
If it is based on the Bible, then fine, but don't pretend that it is based on non-biblical concerns.
Please see my post at #57 above on the limitations of science regarding the question of life. As you know, Darwin's theory does not deal with life, only speciation issues.
Assuming that the conservative Christian I was listening to was correct.
"Homosexuals have shown a tendency to be the biggest Christian haters and bashers of any group going."
You have something to back this up?
Is the conservative Christian group not the biggest gay haters and bashers of any group going?
Where did this mutual hatefest start, with the gays or with the conservative Christians?
"They're argument about trying to have the same rights as married couples is just a smokescreen.
You have something more than a fearful feeling to support this?
"They can use other legal means to accomplish things like inheritance, if they wish.
Marriage has more than just a legal importance to many people. For some reason, it has an emotional importance for most people.
"The only purpose to this is to destroy the meaning of the family and when the family goes, society goes.
Since when is society based on the definition of family? Is not a family's most important function to support, foster, and train future adults? How do gay marriages change that?
I'm sorry but your argument sounds to me like an unfounded conspiracy theory.
As an aside, did the Greek culture not survive from at least 1000BC to 146BC? Did the Roman culture not last 1200 years?
The other thing is, a theocracy is rule by God. Not rule by religion, not rule by denomination, not rule by whacko sect leader. Without God's direct intervention, a theocracy is impossible.
Not really. The term, generally speaking, also implies rule by people who believe they make policy decisions on the direct advice/instigation of their particular deity, and/or according to the rules of their particular religion.
Sincerely,
d
Your statement "The Framers would have had no reason to believe otherwise." isn't really an answer. Everything you mention above is based on your current belief in when human life begins, which isn't necessarily the same as in the past. At one time life was thought to start at birth. At one time it was thought to start when 'blood entered the body', which would be at about 18 weeks. It has even been thought that life begins when the zygote is implanted.
What did the Framers believe?
Sopater made a point about the start of human life being in some way different than just the start of life, say as with a bacterium. This sounds to me that at some point in ontogenesis, human development becomes different from all other organisms. At what point does this (human life) occur - at conception, the formation of the bastula, implantation, the end of gastrulation, the end of embryogenesis or some other point?
What is it that demarks this beginning?
In a purely pragmatic sense, a cell or small group of cells is not a human,It only becomes a human worthy of protection when something additional is added to the conception such as a soul.
"How do you know? What basis do you use for that decision?
Let me be clear that my statement was in regard to the initial zygote and blastula. There is nothing in those few cells which are human like except the string of DNA. There is a potential that the zygote will turn out to be a human, but there is also a good likelihood that the zygote/blastula will not implant and will be flushed from the woman's body. For anyone to believe that this simple complex of cells is a human rather than a potential human means they have to imbue the cell bundle with more than just potential. I mentioned the soul because this is what most people who believe in God use to elevate the human zygote from just a collection of cells with a lot of potential.
"How do you know that the soul doesn't come into existence at conception? That it's *added* at some later point?
I don't believe there is such a thing as a soul.
I am not arguing whether abortion is a good or bad thing, I am arguing that the original author is basing his list of changes to be made not on scientific or societal grounds but on religious grounds and that his imposition of those changes based on his religion is akin to a Theocracy.
"Abortion is neither "good, nor "bad"; it's wrong. It's murder. That would be asking whether murder is good or bad."
Whether or not abortion is murder depends on your definition of life. That is what this discussion is about, when does the life in a womb become more than just a cell or two and become human. Is it murder to kill a cell? How about two cells? If you believe that human life starts at conception then you must postulate something that gives the initial cells more than their physical existence.
"What makes the making of laws on "scientific" or "societal" grounds any more valid a reason or any better a reason than religious reasons?
Laws shouldn't be based on science unless the science itself helps decide a salient point that no other approach will do as well.
All laws are based on societal values, even religiously based laws. However, all societal laws and conventions tend to evolve with the society as the society adapts to new technologies and memes, something religions are notoriously bad at. They do not adjust and become either irrelevant or dangerous to the society as a whole. Religion, and the beliefs behind the religion are very powerful and persuasive forces able to convince many to perform ultimately damaging actions. At some point the society outgrows the religion and a struggle between the static nature of religion and the fluid growth of society causes upheaval and in some cases violence. This is obvious throughout history.
" Is doing something on scientific or societal grounds a superior reason than doing them on religious grounds?
Yes, in many cases. There are many times when societal needs and religious views overlap, which is to be expected since religious laws and moral behaviour is a direct result of the advent of writing and the accretion of large numbers of people in agricultural communities where control became necessary.
On the other hand there are many times when the religious laws and morals need to change and do not leading to a situation where society as a whole or the individuals within that society are affected negatively. An example of this would be the 'dark ages'. Bad religious ideas are far more difficult to overcome than any other. With religion, stasis is the rule of law.
Sincerely,
d
Homosexuals have shown a tendency to be the biggest Christian haters and bashers of any group going. They're argument about trying to have the same rights as married couples is just a smokescreen. They can use other legal means to accomplish things like inheritance, if they wish. The only purpose to this is to destroy the meaning of the family and when the family goes, society goes.
Wait, wait--are you seriously trying to say that all the gay people who are advocating for the right to marry are doing so, not out of a desire to change their own lives for the better, but in a concerted effort to destroy society as we know it? Seriously?
Sincerely,
d
The definition of 'human' life is different than for any other organism?
" It must be, b_sharp. For I know of no other class of living organisms that writes constitutions. Do you?"
Then the definition of 'Aves' life is different than all others because they can fly higher, faster and more agilely than any other organism and do so without machines.
And the definition of 'Cetacean' life is different than any other organism because they can swim faster and sing louder than any other organism.
I'd go on but I suspect you get my point.
In what way is the ontogenesis of humans different than other organisms, such as any other mammal?
Sorry, dear lady, but the difference between human life and that of other organisms is one of degree not kind.
"Get your nose out of your doctrine and do some original looking and thinking for a change. Please."
You would prefer that I stick my nose in your doctrine? Sorry, I can't do that, I have no idea where that doctrine may have been.
If you consider 'thinking' to be the acceptance of mysticism, new-age madness, astrology, magnetic bracelets, questionable logic, nonsense such as comes from cranks like Attila Grandpierre who in his haste to be special, makes mistakes first year astronomy students would avoid, or other zeroth reality silliness then you can have it.
I will stick with rational, logical, skeptical, critical and informed modes of first reality thought, thank you.
Thank you so much for responding.
I was talking about the idea that it is impossible, because science has not defined when life starts, to make a decision on when life starts."
"Quote miner? You posted that statement in post 22.
Here is the restored context:
You missed my point. I was talking about the idea that it is impossible, because science has not defined when life starts, to make a decision on when life starts. AG was very clear in our discussion of what defines life that the continuum fallacy does not exist and had been debunked right here on FR. She in fact claimed that a pro-evo poster here invented that fallacy.
Please note the bolding, it becomes important in a moment.
From the post (8) the above was a response to:
Question: By that logic, shouldn't an ovum and a sperm be considered human life?
And to go all the way back, the post (3) the immediately previous comment was a response to:
Since science cannot present objective evidence on when human life begins, see the first point above.
Now if you follow those very carefully you will see that I was not the author of post 3 so I did not claim that science cannot identify life. Nor did I use the continuum fallacy, I in fact called the original author on his use of it.
"Why don't YOU go back and read the post if you have that short of a memory.
Oops. I'll just look away while you clean up that mess.
"You never answered the question either. I asked: "Do you mean to say that that science cannot look at a cell that is dividing and growing and know whether or not it is alive?"
"So what's your answer?
Your question is irrelevant since I did not say that science could not identify life.
Furthermore, your question is not the same as what was originally posted.
I will stick with rational, logical, skeptical, critical and informed modes of first reality thought, thank you.
Here is my version of that list:
They can have magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff.LOLI'll stick to science.
"So what's your answer?
b_ sharp: Your question is irrelevant since I did not say that science could not identify life.
It's not irrelevant. That's what I was trying to clear up, whether that was your opinion or not. That's all I asked.
Furthermore, your question is not the same as what was originally posted.
You mean the original question I asked in post 34? If so, on the contrary it is. I copied and pasted the original question from post 34 instead of retyping it and I just noticed that it contains the same grammatical error (which spell check won't catch) in each post; that is post 34, 50, and 54. I did not change the question.
OK, so sopater made this statement:
Since science cannot present objective evidence on when human life begins, see the first point above.
Now, you still haven't answered the question. I've read through all the posts. You refer to what what betty boop, Alamo-Girl, MHGinTN have had to say on the topic, you discuss ideas, but have never stated what you personally think about the question. So the question still remains:
Do you mean to say that that science cannot look at a cell that is dividing and growing and know whether or not it is alive?
What do YOU think? What is YOUR opinion? Is Sopater correct? You never denied it.
Universal? Where?
Across the whole world for virtually all of recorded history and in virtually all cultures and religions. Of course, there are going to be groups who advocate it and occasionally have some success but that is not the norm, just as homosexuality is not the norm.
Basing constraints purely on religious grounds will not better society, nor individual lives and so should be avoided.
Of course it will better society, if it's based on the Judeo-Christian religion. That's been demonstrated time and again throughout history. If it should be avoided, then on what do you propose to base constraints on? Popular opinion? Whatever whoever is in power feels like that day? The phase of the moon?
A Theocracy wants to impose constraints not in an attempt to better society, and consequently lives, but to limit actions to a very narrow, easily controlled range. Authority is useful and necessary, but damned scary in the hands of religions.
That's a bunch of poppycock, to put it nicely. Abuse of authority is not a religious issue, it's a human nature issue. It's scary in the hands of anyone with unbridled power. Tell that to the people who lived under Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, or any other atheistic dictator of choice. Authority is scary in the hands of someone with no constraints on their behavior, in the hands of the atheist as well as the corrupt politician who may choose to hide behind the cloak of religion. Christianity puts moral constraints on people's behavior to prevent evil. That's why a government based on Christianity's moral constraints will be successful and free.
You clearly know nothing of Christianity of you lump it together with all the other religions of the world and blame it along with all the other religions of the world, for all the worlds ills.
No. Christianity does not teach to hate, which you would know if you really knew what Christianity was really about. The hatred demonstrated by homosexuals comes across loud and clear when you read their rants and diatribes against Christians. They're the ones accusing Christians of hating gays.
Homosexuality is abnormal and deviant behavior, but recognizing that does not mean you hate the person. Christianity also recognizes that adultery, murder, lying are wrong and condemns them also but that doesn't mean that Christians hate the people who do that. It's the world system that can't seem to distinguish the difference condemning the behavior and hating the person.
ibtz
You clearly know nothing of Christianity of you lump it together with all the other religions of the world and blame it along with all the other religions of the world, for all the worlds ills.
So is it your position that Christianity should not be lumped "together with all the other religions of the world"? Do you believe, then, that religion has played no part in "all the worlds ills"? Not trying to be abrasive, here, but I find this stance intriguing. :)
Sincerely,
d
Christianity is not the same as most religions. It’s not man’s effort to reach of appease a god or gods; it’s God reaching down to man.
The teachings of Jesus stand head and shoulders above those of other religions.
Some religions have played a part in the world’s ills, but only in the sense that people use it to justify their bad behavior. The problem with the worlds ills is human nature, not religion.
In the event that I’m being baited here in regards to islam, there is debate as to whether it is a valid religion of merely a political system devised by a raving lunatic.
coyoteman is threadcrapping again - I would suggest ignoring him.
In the event that I’m being baited here in regards to islam
I was not thinking of Islam in particular, so no, you're not being baited. (Not my style, anyway.)
Christianity is not the same as most religions. It’s not man’s effort to reach of appease a god or gods; it’s God reaching down to man.
Hmmm ... I expect the adherents of other religions would disagree with you. Buddhists who strive to emulate the Bodhissatva of Compassion, Kwan Yin, do not try to appease her. Her name means "she who hears the cries of the world", and she pours out compassion on those who need it, from her "vase of sweet dew".
The teachings of Jesus stand head and shoulders above those of other religions.
It's understandable that Christians think so. More objectively, though, and again taking Buddhism as one example, the Buddha taught many of the same things Jesus did, and before Jesus did it. The Buddha was born about 500 years before Jesus of Nazareth, and there is even some speculation that Jesus knew of the Buddha's teachings.
Some religions have played a part in the world’s ills, but only in the sense that people use it to justify their bad behavior. The problem with the worlds ills is human nature, not religion.
Who started religion? Who are its adherents? People, of course. Many wars have been fought in the names of religions of various stripes, down through history--Christianity most definitely included.
It seems to me that the dangers posed by any particular religion increase in direct correlation to the certainty of its devotees that their religion is "the right one" or "the only one".
Just my 2 cents. Thanks for offering yours!
Sincerely,
d
An atheist coworker of my husbands is intrigued by Christianity because he says that it’s the only religion that talks about forgiveness.
Yeah, some teachings of some religions overlap, but the love mercy and forgiveness offered to people that God does, is unprecedented.
He’s not a god who needs to be appeased to ward off His wrath. He himself did for us what we couldn’t do ourselves so that we could spend eternity with Him. It’s offered as a free gift to anyone who wants it; just for the taking.
He offers us everything of His for everything of ours, which I consider a pretty good trade off.
No, Christianity is not like other religions, even if some of the other teachings overlap, which is bound to happen.
And so what if Jesus knew of Buddah’s teaching? That has nothing to do with His message and what He came to do. His knowing about them is irrelevant to His death and resurrection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.