Bred in the bone? (Study suggests children have a sense of morality at a very young age)

WORLD ^ | June 19, 2010 | Janie B. Cheaney

[wagglebee]

It is a phrase that Jefferson wrote in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, a document that the left has used to advance their secular agenda for two centuries.

[valkyry1]

//Hitler Advocated “Gun Control” just like you evidently advocate Knowledge Control, and for much the same reason//

You like to play around the edges with your little taunts and insults dont you thinking you wont get caught, everyone sees through it by the way.

[valkyry1]

Oh so they hang their hat on one quote rather than the totally of his work, or act they like he was the only player back then.

[valkyry1]

or act they or they act

[Diggity]

There is some evidence that violent events affect the sperm and egg and therefore the children.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1951968,00.html

[LomanBill]

>>Stopping your evil agenda of “reproductive fitness”

Evil Agenda?

Recognizing that some behaviors impact long term social and biological health and survival - how is that an “evil agenda”?

“reproductive fitness” is just a formalized study of what is reproductively healthy, and what isn’t.

Obviously, being unable to identify a correct-sexed member of the same species with whom to procreate would be rather reproductively UNhealthy.

Likewise, the inability to maintain long term male-female reproductive relationships, observable in the high divorce rate and multiple generations of dysfunctional latch-key children, is UNHEALTHY.

There is a plethora of reproductively related behaviors which have contributed to the loss of the cultural war, and the accelerated destruction of this nations moral (and financial) infrastructures....

Or haven’t you noticed that “sex sells”?

[LomanBill]

>>affect the sperm and egg and therefore the children.

Violent events and environmental stress in general.

[wagglebee]

Recognizing that some behaviors impact long term social and biological health and survival - how is that an “evil agenda”?

What you are advocating has been done before and it is evil.

“reproductive fitness” is just a formalized study of what is reproductively healthy, and what isn’t.

It is nothing more than eugenics relabeled.

Likewise, the inability to maintain long term male-female reproductive relationships, observable in the high divorce rate and multiple generations of dysfunctional latch-key children, is UNHEALTHY.

Here comes the selective breeding.

There is a plethora of reproductively related behaviors which have contributed to the loss of the cultural war, and the accelerated destruction of this nations moral (and financial) infrastructures....

We've heard this before.

Or haven’t you noticed that “sex sells”?

You're pushing evil.

[valkyry1]

Romans 1:18

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

[LomanBill]

>>It is a phrase that Jefferson wrote in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

 

Correct - The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom;  about which Jefferson later articulated this clarifying remark:

 

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

 

http://www.history1700s.com/etext/html/texts/jefferson/jeff1.txt

"the insertion [of Jesus Christ] was rejected by the great majority"

 

Why was it rejected?

 

Which faith is truer - a feigned obedient "faith" which is the product of dogmatic coercion under threat of religionist's temporal punishment - OR - a faith that is the work-product of logic, reason, and self-evident truth - derived inquisitively by FREE MINDS, created in God's own image, via direct interaction with creation and its Creator?

[wagglebee]

Which faith is truer - a feigned obedient "faith" which is the product of dogmatic coercion under threat of religionist's temporal punishment - OR - a faith that is the work-product of logic, reason, and self-evident truth - derived inquisitively by FREE MINDS, created in God's own image, via direct interaction with creation and its Creator?

Your ability to cut and paste from the writings of Thomas Jefferson have NOTHING to do with your desire to implement eugenics (aka "reproductive fitness").

[valkyry1]

You place a lot of importance on an isolated document from Virginia in the 1700’s which never made up to the level of the Constitution. A document you pick and choose out of as is convenient for for you and in that way you distort his works.

Why dont you try sticking with the US Constitution. And quit it with your red herrings, false dilemmas, etc. And also cut it out with your slyly worded Ad Hominems. In case you haven’t figured it out, no one is convinced or even impressed with whatever it is you are trying to do.

[LomanBill]

>>What you are advocating

 

No, what I'm advocating is the simple recognition that behavior has natural, measurable, consequences.

Rom 1:25-28
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised. Amen.

 

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 

28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
NIV

Behavior, Behavior, Behavior.

 

What impact you suppose being given over to "shameful lusts" and "a depraved mind" would have upon the number of viable offspring produced by those individuals who were "given over"?

 

Doesn't sound like a plan for social or biological prosperity, does it?  How the Greeks, Romans, Sodomites, and Gomorrans prospering these days?   No "Eugenics" required - GOD tells us He handled them all by Himself.   

 

But how might those consequential effects be observed and measured -  forensic archeology of population density, perhaps? 

 

Applied in that historical context, measuring reproductive fitness is simply a means of studying how His hand effects His natural, cathartic, solution.   Used this way, the science of reproductive fitness is no more evile than wondering where Noah's Ark might have ended up.   

 

Humans are curious,  we like to know how things are done.  That's not evil, its just a natural result of being created in His image - with a reflection of His creative desire; and the desire understand and seek Him out..... with MINDS CREATED FREE.

[LomanBill]

[A document you pick and choose out of as is convenient for for you and in that way you distort his works.]

 

Distort his [Jefferson's] works?

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

 

http://www.history1700s.com/etext/html/texts/jefferson/jeff1.txt

 

"the insertion [of Jesus Christ] was rejected by the great majority"

 

Who's the historical Revisionist - Thomas Jefferson in his own Autobiography - or the religionists down in Texas pretending the founders intended this to be a "christian nation"; and shoving their coercive dogma down the throats the public via government curriculum?

[valkyry1]

So what is it with your obsession with this one paper of his. Was it ever made into Virgina law? Was it ever made into law or part of a state or nations founding documents anywhere?

Texas?? Why are bringing Texas up. Texas was not even a state until 1948, and why are you changing the topic to historical revisionism. Free association does equal a cogent argument.

Why dont you read that last paragraph of yours out loud back to yourself

[stuartcr]

Didn’t God know all this prior to the creation?

[stuartcr]

OK

[stuartcr]

Is what kids do really bad, or is it just disobedience?

[LomanBill]

Your ability to cut and paste my question evidently exceeds your ability to answer it.

 

Here, try again:

Which faith is truer - a feigned obedient "faith" which is the product of dogmatic coercion under threat of religionist's temporal punishment - OR - a faith that is the work-product of logic, reason, and self-evident truth - derived inquisitively by FREE MINDS, created in God's own image, via direct interaction with creation and its Creator?

 

IOW, who's faith is more valid - a subject who pretends to have faith to avoid being punished by his owner/King; or faith of citizens who are FREE to have it... or not?

We gots no "church" of England here.   Deal wif it.

[stuartcr]

I do not know about Enoch and his city.

I think a lot of what is considered bad, or corrupt, depends on what one believes. Christians and non-Christians believe differently, people from one part of the world believe differently than some from other parts, and also depending on when in history one lives..