Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 102 of 206 (262648)
11-23-2005 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Silent H
11-20-2005 11:43 AM


Re: enter holmes...
This whole thread is very scary.
What do mean science doesn't tell us what to do, only what happens if we do it?
Like science is a being all by itself. Science comes from humans, and limited to human ability and interpretation.
Most laws are based on what is good for you, and what is not, i.e. suicide being illegal. I consent to it, so its ok? Give me a break. So our laws become our morals, and it doesn't matter what you think it was based on.
Both science, and religion will give an indication that sex can be harmful to you, and some sense of responsibilty is required.
Sticking you dinky in someones ass isn't exactly a clean thing to do, even if it feels wonderful. That should be legal right? But then why by law do food handlers have to wash their hands?
I am not even involving my religious, personal moral beliefs here.
Do we ever learn anything from our past?
Or more specifically, what do you think should determine our morals?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2005 11:43 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Mammuthus, posted 11-23-2005 9:20 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 104 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2005 3:02 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 105 by Rrhain, posted 11-23-2005 5:57 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 106 of 206 (262773)
11-23-2005 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Mammuthus
11-23-2005 9:20 AM


Re: enter holmes...
Science does not tell food handlers what to do. Science shows that not washing your hands in food preparation can lead to the transmission of harmful bacteria to people who consume the food. Society then decides that this would be a bad thing and laws are enacted. However, the science did not tell them to do that. Only that the consequences of a certain procedure could cause sickness.
Yes I totally understand that premise. I also agree with it, but not fully, because lately I have been thinking differently. Science and the scientific method are set up to be blame free, or so we are taught to believe that way. But really science is only as good as the people doing it. (I am not saying it is bad) So we use that very same science, that was done by humans, to then make another human decsion based on our human findings, and then make laws, which help determine our morals.
So if you think for one second that in the real world that science doesn't affect our laws, and now our morals, then you are living in a state of denial. To further that is to say that science is sometimes wrong, and then we base our morals and laws on something that is sometimes wrong, and also allowed to be wrong. Not to much better than religion. This train of thought is not an absolute, but just a different way of looking at it, a realistic way I think.
Life is not a calculator, and there are many things that science has not explained yet. But there are many things we can learn from our past, religion included.
I would have ignored this but do you actually think that "sticking your dinky" in someones vagina is a clean thing to do?
No its not either. All sex is dangerous, just like guns.
Regardless, science can tell you which behaviors can lead to a higher chance of catching a disease. It does not tell you what to do about it.
Behind door #1 we have no chance of getting aids, behind door #2 you have a slight chance of getting aids, and behind door #3 you will most likely get aids. Which door do you pick? Science just laid out the odds in front of you, and so you had to consider the odds. You might still make a dumb choice, but most people would base it on the odds. Science just help you dictate what is wrong and right. Science is an accesory to the crime. And if we make everything ok to do, based on our scientific findings, I don't feel that is wise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Mammuthus, posted 11-23-2005 9:20 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Mammuthus, posted 11-24-2005 4:08 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 107 of 206 (262775)
11-23-2005 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Rrhain
11-23-2005 5:57 PM


Re: enter holmes...
rhain!!!! how ya been, you haven't bothered with me in a long time. I wondered if you still exsisted, or maybe you finally got banned or something.
Well anyway, in typical rhain fashion, you already have a preconcieved notion about what I believe in and why, so your response was so typical of, well, rhain.
Do we really need to go through the rigamorale of pointing out that AIDS is a heterosexual disease?
When did I say it wasn't?
And explain just how it is a heterosexual desease? Where did it come from?
If it is, it really doesn't matter.
Why are you so obsessed with what other men do with their penises? Are you trying to tell us something?
It's truely amazing, but your the one who went right to the gay thing, I wasn't even thinking about gay people when I wrote that. I was only pointing out that crap on your dicky is unhealthy. We have science to thank for knowing that.
Self check.
My point was, which you always seem to miss, is that science helps us determine what is good and bad for us, keeping in theme with the OP.
It would seem that some people would make anything legal, or morally acceptable just as long as the partys involved will consent to it. That is the excuse I keep hearing over and over. They want to live in a moral free society, where everything is ok if it really doesn't involve you. But that thought in itself is a moral. I also believe that everything we do, affects the next person, because I believe we are a human race, and it is my desire for us to live like one, in peace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Rrhain, posted 11-23-2005 5:57 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Rrhain, posted 12-04-2005 5:01 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 108 of 206 (262778)
11-23-2005 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Silent H
11-23-2005 3:02 PM


Re: enter holmes...
Laws and morals are separate issues. It is true that some base their morals on laws, and that some laws are based on morals.
Well then in reality, laws and morals are really not separate issues.
You can't in one sentence say they are separate, then in the very next sentence provide proof that they are, that doesn't make sense.
Science can show that drinking water can be harmful (result in damage) to you. Oh yes and both science and religion indicate that the other can be harmful. Everything requires responsibility.
*edit* That it is why there are laws on how your well in your house is to be set up, and how your municipal water system purifies its water. Science helps determine our laws. *end edit*
So please explain this responsibilty process you speak of.
I never used anal sex to make a sandwich, so this doesn't mean much to me.
Some people do. If that causes more desease, should it be ok? To make a comparison why I think it shouldn't, is to say that legally we can quaranteen people for certain deseases. I understand about airborne, and blood born, I worked in a hospital for years, I am pointing out the governments ability to get involved, and determine what is good for us, or bad for us. Since we are the people, it involves us too.
Nothing should determine our morals. There are many workable systems. I think consistency is necessary otherwise it is not a system. From what I have seen, those that attempt to direct action in a similar way for all using "right" and "wrong" labels are flawed. Artificial. I find descriptive systems more natural and allow for individuals to find who they are.
Actually it is my desire to accept everyone exactly the way the are. I am getting this from how I read the bible. Jesus came to save the world, not judge it.
But where do we draw the line?
Drugs are illegal, why?
Suicide is illegal, why?
Many other laws are in place to protect us from ourselves, why?
Is there really anything that we do, that does not affect someone else?
You can pretend to live in a box, where anything that anyone does, does not affect you, but the world around keeps changing, and sooner or later it will catch up to you.
This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 11-23-2005 09:43 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2005 3:02 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2005 6:50 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 114 of 206 (262851)
11-24-2005 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Mammuthus
11-24-2005 4:08 AM


Re: enter holmes...
Then you have been very poorly taught. Science is a means to describing natural phenomena and characterizing the way they work. It is set up to discover. I challenge you to point out where in the history of the development of the scientific method, scientists proposed developing a system that was blame free as opposed to a system of discovery.
I am not saying that the main purpose of science is to be blame free. I am saying because of the method we use, it IS blame free. I am not putting down, just pointing out the facts.
Can we just establish that science is in fact blame free, per say?
Laws determine your morals? That is a strange view of things.
No its not, its reality. Just read some of the responses to my post. again, its not an absolute, but a contributing factor. To completely disconnect the 2 would be wrong, and mis-leading.
Now you have changed your stance from "determines" to affects.
I don't think I said "determines", I think I said helps determine, I have to go back and check. If I made a mistake, I am correcting it now.
A strange pair of juxtaposed sentences...there is actually nothing scientific that I can learn from religion.
Sure there is. Just read the OT, an account of how people behaved. Then start a scientific study on why we used to behave that way. So religion becomes part of a scientific study.
Eating is also dangerous. Walking is very dangerous. In fact taking a shower is quite dangerous, as you can slip and fall, scald yourself with water, etc. Life is dangerous. But it beats the alternative.
Yes, I agree with that, but just where do we draw the line. If your going to use words like consent, and scientific study, in your reasoning to make one thing right or another, then it must be applied to all things, so that your not hypocritical.
claim that because they know these odds science has dictated their behavior. Nonesense.
I did not say dictated, I said:
Science just help you dictate what is wrong and right.
Help you dictate, and dictated are two different concepts.
Beats relying on dogmatic religion telling you what is right or wrong (which is totally changeable depending on which religion you decide to follow) based on no authority, no information, and an implied threat/reward system. I rather know based on fact what is behind door 1, 2, and 3 than just fly blind.
Sp basically your admitting to what I am trying to say here. And that is your choice. But your choice isn't any more right than a choice I might make. Science is not the "right way" and religion the "wrong way". I like the middle ground, and want to learn from both experiences. Especially when science and religious ideas both sort of say the same thing. An example is "sexual immortality" in the bible, and sex being bad for you in science.
You want to make it ok because we can consent to it, and it isn't hurting others. But is it? If it is not hurting others, then why is there so many people with STD's? Becuase they all consented to it, or most all. Seems like our own judgment is killing us.
I am not making a stance here, just pointing out the facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Mammuthus, posted 11-24-2005 4:08 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Mammuthus, posted 11-24-2005 9:30 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 115 of 206 (262860)
11-24-2005 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Silent H
11-24-2005 6:50 AM


Re: enter holmes...
What it does not do is tell us that ther should be a law regarding something. Lets take the water contaminants issue.
Yes it does. Sometimes they even hire scientists to find out what the law should be, based on their findings.
Okay, who uses anal sex to make a sandwich?
3 men?
2 black guys and a white girl? Like an oreo?
First of all sex does not and cannot CAUSE disease. It is a vector for transfering some diseases.
Ok I worded it incorrectly.
Second science cannot say whether it should or should not be considered ok. It is neutral. Individuals will then press upon its findings whether it is ok.
Would their decsion be any different if there were no scientific studys? If you say yes, then science is an accessory to the "crime".
Science does not stand alone by itself. It is not its on entity. Without humans, there is no science. So it is biased. Until the day when we know everything, then it can be an end all to what is wrong and right. I know your going to take this statement wrong.
For years and you can't spell quarantine?
I was a Sheet Metal mechanic, not a doctor. But I had to take orientation about all the deseases, and learn how to transport patients and such. We are the back-ups in case of disaster. Infection control, etc.
My spelling sucks, I am better with numbers, and science. Sometimes I just don't have the time to spell check. As long as your getting what I am trying to say. I apologize for the poor spelling. But be careful, if your going to start correcting my spelling, then be prepared to be a perfect speller. So far everyone that has coreccted me, has made many spelling errors of their own.
We don't want to suffer disease and so put in practical measures to prevent its spread. Some may find that good. I find it wise for people that do not enjoy being sick. Science does not help determine which is the right way to make this decision.
What????
Science absolutly tells use the best ppossible way to help stop these things. It's the best we can do with what we got.
What kind of practical measures should we take to stop AIDS? Should we enforce these? Or just tell people about it?
I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest that anything that effects someone else to any degree should be ruled against morally or legally?
No, I am just discussing with you guys, where should we draw the line. It's just an open discussion, and I am not imposing my personal views or morals, just stating facts.
By the way, alcohol is a poison. Science will tell you that its effects are detrimental to human health.
Thats not true. Getting drunk maybe. Another example of science and the bible agreeing with each other. I was under the impression that a glass of wine a day, can be good for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2005 6:50 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2005 9:57 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 121 of 206 (264555)
11-30-2005 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Mammuthus
11-24-2005 9:30 AM


Re: enter holmes...
quote:Can we just establish that science is in fact blame free, per say?
Then I don't understand the point you are arguing. If science is blame free (which I think it is) and you agree with that then we don't have a debate. But I don't think you mean this since you say the opposite below.
Then that is the problem, if you think science is blame free. You are treating science as though it was a noun.
quote:No its not, its reality. Just read some of the responses to my post. again, its not an absolute, but a contributing factor. To completely disconnect the 2 would be wrong, and mis-leading.
It is illegal to buy alcohol when you are under 21 in the US. Does that law make drinking immoral? If a 20 year old drinks a beer is he immoral and the 21 year old not? The law prescribes certain behaviors that will be punished (if caught)..not directly morality..or do you think zoning laws are a moral issue rather than a legal one? Which moral stance do zoning laws determine for you?
Absolutly. Morals is all about what is considered right and wrong. It's not just about personal morals.
From more than one source we can determine that drinking while under the age of 21 is not a good idea. If you do it, or encourage to do it, you are going against morals. Social morals. But its not always black and white, there are gray areas.
Being a hypocrite has nothing to do with all of this.
About the only scientific information I could imagine that would pertain to religion would be some of the studies that examine brain activity during religious experience..the same way they measure brain activity for other experiences. Or the fitness advantages religion may have conferred on groups by providing group identity historically. Otherwise, religion is irrelevant to science...certainly the OT.
Thats just your opinion.
It does not tell you what is right or wrong
Right and wrong is a part of morally acceptable. Go look up the word moral.
Science won't tell you what you should or should not do.
How many times are you going to repeat that, and ignore my point, even though I print it clear enough.
Example. You are holding a glass of brake fluid. You are contimplating taking a sip. Then someone presents a scientific study that reveals you will be dead in 20 minutes if you take that sip.
I am sure that science would then AFFECT your decsion. Where as before, without that knowledge, you would have made a mistake.
It's that simple, and to deny that it happens, is, well, living in denial.
People get STD's because they engage in risky behaviors and ignore the scientific studies that demonstrate the biological consequences. They have made their choice to ignore it. Before the biological basis of STD's were known, you know what? People still got STD's. Is that sciences fault to? Science did not tell them that having sex or getting STDs was right or wrong. Science established what STDs are, how you get them..and in some cases, has provided treatments against them. Religion has done none of this. People will ignore scientific data...heck, the general American public ignores science completely. The fact that religious people get STDs indicate that they ignore their religious rules of right and wrong to.
Yes, and getting, and spreading STD's is IMO morally wrong. It affects us as a society.
The facts are that science can inform you, can establish cause and effect, may even provide a means to preventing harmful effects..but it does not tell you what is right or wrong.
For the last time, I never said it tells you what is right or wrong. I said it influences you, sometimes very heavily, and sometimes incorrectly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Mammuthus, posted 11-24-2005 9:30 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Mammuthus, posted 12-01-2005 4:57 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 122 of 206 (264556)
11-30-2005 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Silent H
11-24-2005 9:57 AM


Re: enter holmes...
Yes it does. Sometimes they even hire scientists to find out what the law should be, based on their findings.
Again, look at what you just said, this does not show science telling us there should be a law. In the example you provided the people would have hired the scientists to investigate appropriate criteria within a law, not decide that one should be made.
Boy you are stubborn, and maybe a little to defensive of science. The example I provided, could also determine if there needs to be a law at all. So science can determine our laws, accept it.
How many times do I have to say that I agree that science can effect laws? There is a difference between that and saying they make the law, or suggest (that is tell people) that a law should be made.
It is impossible for science to tell anybody to do anything. Science is a verb. But it is that action, and the result of that action, made by individuals that just might.
Science is only as good as the people doing it.
Oh, I'm not a perfect speller. Its just that that was so far off it suggested a nonfamiliarity with its use, which would seem strange from someone involved with hospital work. Now that I understand it was sheet metal work in a hospital, things are much clearer.
It is at this point in time, that I would like to compare myself with a doctor. His spelling vs. mine. I really would, but I can never understand a word the doctor writes, so I can't.
We should have used a quarantine system of some kind. It is just like any other communicable illness which is deadly.
This just goes to show that while science can find something it can't tell us what to do about it. It can only suggest a variety of options, based on what we want from the phenomena being investigated.
Doesn't this process help us determine our social morals, and our personal morals.
It seems you want to disconnect morals from knowledge completely. But our morals are based on our knowledge. If our knowledge is wroing, then our morals can be wrong. Just look at history. I wish I could see into the future, and see how much we are wrong right now.
Just to let you know it has been found that sex is a great way to retain physical health. It not only makes people happier through internal processes, it chemically can improve people's lives (girls that get cum within them react to it physically). Men stay healthier and live longer through masturbation. And for girls, pregnancy at early ages can help against breast cancer.
I am not denying how great sex is. Neither would the bible, just read Song of Songs.
quote:
Song of Solomon 1
1 Solomon's Song of Songs.
Beloved
2 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth”
for your love is more delightful than wine.
3 Pleasing is the fragrance of your perfumes;
your name is like perfume poured out.
No wonder the maidens love you!
4 Take me away with you”let us hurry!
Let the king bring me into his chambers.
Song of Solomon 1 NIV - Solomon’s Song of Songs. She Let him - Bible Gateway

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2005 9:57 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Silent H, posted 12-03-2005 10:46 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 124 of 206 (264928)
12-01-2005 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Mammuthus
12-01-2005 4:57 AM


Re: enter holmes...
No, the problem is you are treating science as if it is the law or the determiner of the law.
Then you need to go back and read through all my posts. I never claimed that it determines the law.
So you equate morals with the law? Intersting. Drinking under 21 in Germany is legal but in America it is not...which is moral? Owning slaves was legal in the US...was it moral then? Is sharia law then moral because it is law in some countries?
Look up the definition of moral, I believe you will find the dictionary will agree with me.
And yes morals are relative to the times, and knowledge.
Then show me wrong. Religion has nothing to teach science..it is a major impediment to scientific progress in America in particular...please show me how religion will help me figure out the effects of epigenetics on the expression of HERVs in macaque brains?
You just assumed that I meant religion has something to teach science, I never said that either.
And what does this have to do with science? If you find stem cell research morally unacceptable, does this change the properties of stem cells?
The properties (actual) of stem cells is no more science than religion is. Science is the study of both. It is then what we do with the results, and how we factor it into our lives that make up morals. If one or the other is wrong, then your moral base is faulty.
quote:
How do you know what the consequences would have been without the scientific study?
Exactly Watson.
quote:
What if you knew the result of the study but decided not to tell the person?
That is not part of the story, and irrelevant.
quote:
Did science tell you to do that, to withhold the information?
We are not talking about withholding information here, do not change the topic.
quote:
The scientific study provided facts, the person made his own choice...
Based on the.......facts. You've almost got it.
quote:
he could have still consumed the poison.
What kind of moral choice would that have been based on the known facts?
quote:
How is this in anyway similar to a statement or "law" like "thou shalt not kill"?
Thou shall not kill is a law based on facts. Even if the facts were from God himself, after all he knows. The law is the end result, of the accumulation of facts, and knowledge, and what is morally acceptable.
Your problem is that you keep trying to separte them all. They are not the same exact things, but they all work together to provide us with morals, and laws.
Would you agree that ones morals could be wrong, even by their own judgement, if they did not know all the facts?
Or do you believe that morals are never wrong?
Can science and religion say the same thing, or is that just an impossibility with you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Mammuthus, posted 12-01-2005 4:57 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Mammuthus, posted 12-02-2005 4:50 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 127 of 206 (265353)
12-03-2005 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Mammuthus
12-02-2005 4:50 AM


Re: enter holmes...
Now this is interesting...I thought you fundamentalist types claimed morals are absolute? Now they change with the times?
Biblical morals, so far as I have tested, are absolute.
Whether you choose to take on these morals as your own, is up to you.
I do want to start a thread on biblical morals, but I don't think I am qualified enough yet.
Anyway, how does knowledge affect morals? I gave you an example where "morality", at least right wing Xian, goes against knowledge or denies the knowledge exists.
Well for unbelievers, it is obvious how knowledge affects morals, to me anyway.
For believers, it affects how we translate the morals of the bible. Just look at how many religions there are, and how the morals can vary slightly for religion to religion.
And studying the properties of stem cells is only done using science. The properties themselves are facts.
Right, thats what I just said. You were the implying that stem cells themselves are science.
quote:
And what does this have to do with science? If you find stem cell research morally unacceptable, does this change the properties of stem cells?
To me, in that statement you are implying that moral unacceptable ideas can change stem cell properties, But the morally unacceptable idea was the study of stem cells, not the cells themselves.
Your combining what is, with the study of what is, and that is the mistake I seem to discovering about most of the people here in this forum.
You see, I don't have a problem with what is, but I do have a problem with the study of what is. Just like I have a problem with religion.
I do not think the world should be without either.
Um..science is not the study of religion.
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
I never said it was the study of religion. But the study of religion and the things accociated with it, can be part of science. How many scientifical studies are there out there regarding prayer? You need to retract that statement.
Sure we are. You are claiming that science is responsible or as much of an influence on morality as religion because it gives us knowledge. Now you imply here that the knowledge is not relevant. Science is the gathering of knowledge.
Make up your mind..either knowledge is responsible for morality and thus science is or it is not..you cannot argue both ways.
I will try to clear up this mis-inderstanding.
Lets pretend science is a bar graph. Each bar on the graph represents all the different kinds of science there is. It also represents how this science is applied. There is many bars on the graph. The height of the bar represents how much we know relative to how much there is to be known. (of course we can't know where the top of the bar will end)
A good part of these bars are harmless science studys, like oceaneography, or astronomy.
But some are more directly affecting us, like medicine, nuclear bombs, microwaves, etc.
As you can already probably imagine. The bars on the graph are not going to be at equal heights.
Each science can be slightly dependant on the other sciences. So our focus on things can be biased, because money makes the world go round.
Withholding information has nothing to do with it. That is a completely different subject.
But you could see how doing such a thing can affect someones idea of what is right and wrong.
i.e. Take a scientist from 300 years ago, and bring him into the present. He would have to change his morals mighty fast, based on what he would learn. So we will have to change our morals in the future, as well learn more about ourselves, and the earth. It just keeps changing, so when is it ever right?
Religious morals do not change, and they hold up.
I try to learn from both.
quote:What kind of moral choice would that have been based on the known facts?
It would have been a stupid choice..not a moral choice. Maybe he has a distrust of facts or authority..or is just dense.
No, your wrong, it would have been a moral choice, because he has to decide if he is going to live or die. That is a moral decsion.
What do you think morals are?
Oh really? What facts are those? The US just executed its 1000th inmate. People kill people all the time for economic benefit or emotional reasons. What facts are these laws based on? Certainly not the bible...your god was a mass murderer in the old testament.
Its amazing how much damage you can do in a few sentences. They say it takes 7 truths to unfold 1 lie, and I see why now.
I don't agree with capitol punishment. I do blame each and everyone of us for people being the way they are. Maybe if we all loved each other the way Jesus told us to love, then there would be no need for any of this.
I am not going to stick up for God, but he can do what he wants with his creation. Nobody tells me how to hop my my 68 camaro, or send it to the crusher if I want.
No, not the way you mean it. In some cases you make decisions based on facts..in some cases you make them flying blind. Where is the morality stemming from if I am making decisions in either case or does morality have anything to do with it at all?
Where do you get your morals from?
And you conflate completely unrelated things.
So do you, if would care to answer the last question.
No, I don't think morals are never wrong. I think radical right wing Xians are completely immoral. They think that I am. Who is right. Facts seem to have no impact on their reasoning.
What does Jesus think of you?
Can you give me an example of science and religion actually addressing the same thing?
Of course your going to say its not exactly the same, that is because science tries to break down what actually works in religion, and give it another name, so as not to glorify God, because after all, God doesn't exist, or does any proof of God.
But if you walk through a hospital ward, and pray for people to be healed, it is a good thing according to biblical morals.
Science studys would agree that showing love to sick people can help them heal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Mammuthus, posted 12-02-2005 4:50 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Mammuthus, posted 12-05-2005 6:41 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 128 of 206 (265360)
12-03-2005 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Silent H
12-03-2005 10:46 AM


Re: enter holmes...
You just reasserted the point being challenged and then state I should accept it. Why? You are wrong. The example you provided could not determine if there NEEDS to be a law. That would all depend on some subjective desire of the lawmakers.
It could go both ways.
Why can't you at least be honest with yourself, never mind me.
If the law sees a need for a law, then asks for scientific research to define a law, then sciences is involved and an accessory to the "crime" (lol) What if the science was wrong? Well we will just have to change that law to adjust.
But, lets say someone invents microwaves......Then science finds out that microwaves can be harmful to flesh. So then the FCC says we need to make a laws regarding this for our own safty. Without that knowledge, there would have been no law, and people would get hurt.
So you are saying you do not know the difference between illegible and illiterate?
No, I am saying how do you know if someone is illiterate, if their writing is illegable.
But now that I think about it, isn't having illegable writing, a step in the direction of being illiterate?
I am arguing that knowledge is insufficient for morals.
Then we are arguing the same thing. Even though I expressed several times that knowledge does not define our morals, but it helps define our morals. We agree, how about that.
You know somewhere else at EvC I just recently argued with a Xian who was trying to suggest Song of Solomon wasn't sex positive. You guys are crazy!
You see, I don't think that is fair, calling me "you guys". Thats like a prejudice statement.
I don't go around thinking every atheist is going to hell, so I don't expect for you to call every rat who believes in God a Xian fundie gay basher.
Don't let that guy try to tell you there is no positive aspects of sex in the bible.
quote:
Proverbs 5:19
A loving doe, a graceful deer” may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love.
Song of Solomon 1:13
My lover is to me a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts.
Song of Solomon 4:5
Your two breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse
Ezekiel 16:7
I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew up and developed and became the most beautiful of jewels. Your breasts were formed and your hair grew, you who were naked and bare.
And just so we know one of the roles of the breast in the bible:
Ezekiel 23:3
They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. In that land their breasts were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Silent H, posted 12-03-2005 10:46 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Silent H, posted 12-04-2005 6:20 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 141 of 206 (265678)
12-05-2005 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Mammuthus
12-05-2005 6:41 AM


Re: enter holmes...
quote:Biblical morals, so far as I have tested, are absolute.
Whether you choose to take on these morals as your own, is up to you
This is exactly the opposite of what you said. In fact, you have been largely inconsistent. First, morals = law is something you supported. Then morals change with time. Now, morals are absolute.
Then why is science an issue for morals at all to you if Biblical morals are absolute?
I just get the feeling you have pre-concieved notions about me.
You are making the same mistake again.
I never said morals=law, show me where I said that.
I hope you don't think that I think, that everyones morals should be the same?
I see 2 kinds of morals. Social morals, which is like one large gray area, and personal morals. Whats good for soceity, and whats good for us.
We make up in our own head, what is acceptable for us as individuals. That is all based on knowledge. i.e. Upbringing, science, bilical, life experiences, and your own personal feelings. But even your own personal feelings are based largely on what you know, the rest is inhereted from your family, or if your religious, sin, or no sin.
Social morals are more of a majority thing. I am sure there are some things that everyone would find unacceptable, then there are gray areas, then there are things that no one would find unacceptable. I could be wrong on this.
But you said Biblical morals are absolute. They cannot vary slightly from religion to religion...that means all but one religion is wrong..which one is the absolute one?
There is no absolute religion. Only Jesus would be able to accomplish that. That is what the bible teaches me. I mean explain to me why one church would accept gay people in leadership, and another would not?
Best we could do is to see where we fit in best. That is why I do not have a problem with other religions. If I am to be like Jesus, then Jesus came not to judge the world, but to save it. So I will not judge those other religions, or pretend to know why they would be wrong or right. I really feel it all has a purpose.
So you would prefer that we remain ignorant? That is an interesting position...how do you justify ignorance morally?
So where did I say that I prefer to remain ingnorant?
I am instead careful how much science I let into my life. I mean I rellly love science, more than you know. But I am not a scientist, just a hobbyist. I also take a lot of it with a grain of salt, and if it crosses into my "religious" morals, then I have an issue. But so far my religious morals, are no different than the morals I had before I became "religious". God I hate that word.
I do not retract my statement. You phrased it in such a way that religion is somehow intrinsic to science. It is not. And by the way, the fraction of scientific articles on prayer is miniscule compared to just about any subject...and probably to your chagrin...the studies I have read have actually shown an increase in negative outcomes for those who pray than those who don't...maybe this is why you have a problem with studying what is?
I did not even remotely imply that religion is intrinsic to science. And by your own admission, it is a part of it, no matter the size.
Yes, I do have aproblem with the outcomes. This is a good example of where I run into a problem with science. How could we possibly pretend to know all the variables? You see, our knowledge is limited, and that affects our abilities to study things. THIS DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD STOP, but it does mean we should be careful what we claim to know.
Your claiming a negative outcome. That couldn't be further from the truth, I don't care how many scientific studys there are about it. This is what I have encountered in my life. Cleary science is wrong, and if I listened to it, it would keep me from spiritual truths, as it might be keeping you from it too.
Just so you know, I pray for people daily, I am on a prayer warrior team with my church, and never have I ever heard one bad comment or thing about prayer, or any result of it. Lets not get off topic on prayer now, ok?
What a load of horsecrap. Religious morals change like night and day...300 years ago you could have owned slaves as is allowed in the "absolute" moral bible. Your wife would be your property. So religious morals do not hold up...they shift with the times dramatically...so much for absolute morals.
Night and day? You'll have to provide some more examples before you can prove this night and day theory of yours.
But again, you blur the lines of topic in our discussion. Religous morals, and biblical morals are 2 different things.
That is an interesting position...so you admit your god may be immoral but that by following its rules, you are moral...rather schizophrenic.
So you ingnored half my statement, and only chose to reply to what you feel like.
Where do I say God is immoral? I clearly explained how he knows what is best for his own creation, just like I know what is best for my 68 camaro. It's not our fault that we don't understand it.
From myself and from my interactions with my environment...just like everyone else.
Ah, from knowledge.
Refer to my explanation at the begining of this post.
We agree, you are just being argumentave with me, for no reason that I can find.
quote:What does Jesus think of you?
Since I am an atheist..why would I care? But getting back to fundie Xians...which teachings of Jesus do they follow? Taking money from the poor, capital punishment, establishing a theocracy in the US, waging offensive wars....what would Jesus think of American Xians?
I will try to be careful what I say here. I do believe that I will be judged the same way Iam about to judge a whole bunch of people right now.
WE could refer to my 80% rule from another thread.
I personally don't think Jesus would be happy at all. But he is probably more forgiving than me. To say you believe in Jesus is to follow him.
This is where I get angry. I get angry because people like you can clearly see what is wrong with the way people are claiming to be Christian. But instead of fixing it, you choose to destroy it. In other words, I feel you telling me, yea there is nothing wrong with Jesus, and what he taught, but since it never works, then it must be wrong. How lame, and how lazy of you.
There is 6 billion people on this earth. 2 billion of them are "Christians". Then why is there over 1 billion starving people? What kind of Christians are we?
I don't know about you, but the way I find God is by loving people like you, and feeding people like those starving. Yea I sin, daily, I am a saint who sins. I accept people for the way they are, so I hope Jesus will accept me the same way. I am no better or worse than Paul, or anyone else on this planet.
But you didn't answer the quetion. What would Jesus think of you. I didn't ask if you care or not.
If you get a medical degree and treat people who are sick that is a good thing by my morals. Yours is wasting valuable time.
In the hospital where my wife works, she goes down on her lunch break to pray for people in the ICU, a restricted area. The doctors and nurses there welcome her, and her group with open arms. They say "go ahead in, there is nothing more we can do, prayer is the only thing that will save them now" Many people have "woken up" during prayer. People in comas have responded to prayer. People who can't talk respond with a gentle squeeze of a finger when asked, is it ok if we pray for you.
If you just lay down all the scientifical BS, you'll find that it just plain works. It really doesn't matter how. Stop trying to explain it. even if someone is going to die, and no amount of prayer is going to help, it helps them to find peace, and not go out suffering as much.
Medical degree equals good morals?
Why don't you go ask someone who lost a loved one to some form of bad medicine, or mal practice.
Getting a medical degree, does not automatically mean you are a good moral person. I have run into to many idiot doctors already, amd was almost killed by them. But on the other hand, I have been saved a few times too.
Science also shows that poeple who don't pray have a better prognosis after heart surgery than those who do....thems the breaks
Again, this is the biggest bunch of BS. But yet you take it as fact. How could that study possibly know all the variables?
They studied every single person who ever had a heart attack?
Give me a break.
Provide a link if your going to make claims like that, so I can comment more specifically on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Mammuthus, posted 12-05-2005 6:41 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by AdminPhat, posted 12-05-2005 8:29 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 144 by Mammuthus, posted 12-05-2005 9:04 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 143 of 206 (265685)
12-05-2005 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Rrhain
12-04-2005 5:01 AM


Can't remember your own words, eh? Did you or did you not say the following:
Sticking you dinky in someones ass isn't exactly a clean thing to do
Now, don't be disingenuous and claim that because the words "AIDS" or "HIV" did not appear in your post that it somehow means you weren't referring to them. And don't compound the problem by trying to claim that you weren't referring to male-male anal sex.
I was not refering to any particular brand of sex, just a fact. Being logical, you should aprecciate that. But you assume too much, which makes you illogical.
Sticking you dinky is someones anus is healthy or unhealthy? Answer please.
Next topic.
Are you incapable of reading? Three-quarters of all cases of HIV transmission happened through heterosexual sex. Thus, by definition, AIDS is a heterosexual disease. Heterosexuals are the ones most likely to be infected by it and they got infected by having heterosexual sex.
I disagree. I think it is a percentage thing. A more logical answer.
quote:Where did it come from?
Not from gay people. Not from anal sex. Why did you feel the need to bring them up? Remember, claims that you didn't are transparently false.
A simple question, yet you feel the need to include gays....again...get off it.
My point was that it was once rumored to have come from apes, or gorillas, or whatever. More unclean sex.
quote:If it is, it really doesn't matter.
Then why did you bring up male-male anal sex?
I did not, you did, next.
Nice try, but you were the one who brought it up: "Sticking you [sic] dinky in someones [sic] ass." It is of no use to try to claim that you weren't talking about male-male anal sex.
I bet you there are more heterosexual people having anal intercourse than gay people.
quote:I wasn't even thinking about gay people when I wrote that.
Right. Pull the other. It has bells on.
Tell us how you really feel, but this time don't hold anything back.
So much for intelligent conversation.
I really can't see how anyone could ever think you are logical.
Uh-huh...and why would you bring that up? After all, AIDS is a heterosexual disease transmitted primarily through heterosexual sex. Penis-vagina sex. Where does "crap" come into it? Are you of the opinion that the vagina is the orifice for defecation?
I wasn't even talking about AIDS when mentioning anal sex. I was merelt pointing out that anal sex is unhealthy, and I am right. But you in your infinate logical wisdom can't see this.
You will note that I am not saying that heterosexuals do not engage in anal sex. I am pointing out that penis-vagina sex is the most common transmission vector for heterosexuals acquiring HIV.
Your focus is limited. Lets try to pretend that gays, and Aids aren't the only thing we are talking about here.
It tells us that we should all become lesbians since they have the lowest risk of sexually transmitted HIV.
I wonder how many lesbians have yeast infections on their tongues?
quote:It would seem that some people would make anything legal, or morally acceptable just as long as the partys involved will consent to it.
Huh? We're back to the gay men, aren't we? Those icky, icky ho-mo-SECK-shuls are doing something that I don't like, therefore it is morally unacceptable and should be made illegal.
This right here should be made into its own topic. You will have to explain to the rest of this community how you pulled the word gay out of my comment.
The topic here is broader than that, and that is what the rest of us are talking about.
And thus, you have just proven that you don't understand what they're saying at all if you think they are advocating a "moral free society."
I didn't say that, and that would be impossible.
Then why do you keep making other people's lives difficult? If you truly believed this, why do you feel that your phobias and neuroses must be inflicted upon others?
Maybe they are not phobias, or neuroses. At least I don't have a web-site to try and stop people from doing what they think is right.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
Now there is a moral nightmare for ya.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Rrhain, posted 12-04-2005 5:01 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Rrhain, posted 12-10-2005 5:23 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 148 of 206 (266016)
12-06-2005 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Mammuthus
12-05-2005 9:04 AM


Re: enter holmes...
I just disagree with your points and don't see consistent logic in your posts.
I think you are misunderstanding a lot of my posts, that is why I think you have preconceived notions about my, and my beliefs.
Exactly, there is no absolute religion because there are no absolute morals.
I don't see it that way. There may be absolute morals, but we will never know them. There are absolute morals amoung religions. But I guess it can vary from religion to religion. Usually if you want to be a part of that religion, you must subscribe to their morals. I don't see this as a problem, unless you are being forced to subscribe to something you don't want to.
Those who proclaim that they follow absolute morals are only using it as a political device to separate themselves from others and to proclaim themselves better in some way.
Better in some way? I really don't think that is the case, and it sounds like to me, you have a problem with it.
But I do see your point, because I have a problem with 80-90% of it also.
those who prefer to cling to preconcieved notions based on mythology and reject real world observations prefer to remain ignorant. You cannot like science because it tells you what you want to hear. This is actually indicating a profound dislike of science.
To clear some things up.
My morals have been the same for the most part my whole life. I only recently became a believer.
What I don't like about science is that we live thinking things are a certain way for so long, using that knowledge to help us go through life, then science has the right to just say we were wrong, and this is how it really is based on new discoverys.
So thats what science is, thats ok. But it now plays a different role in my life. Science is right until its proven wrong. So is my religion, for me. Even the OP here is trying to use science to justify things.
quote:
In other words, I don't think there is a very good scientific explanation why a man should remain monogamous, or why willing people, should not engage in sex.
So if that isn't a prime example of what I am saying, then I don't know. This person wants to base a moral belief on science, while disregarding religous morals. Trading religion for science. If science is so correct all the time, and we can base how we live on it, then why is it allowed to be wrong? You see my point?
So, I don't have any preconceived notions, I was raised liberal, in NYC, surrounded by gay people, and other liberals. That did not stick with me. But I do not really sway one way or the other, I tend to lie in the middle about most things. I see both sides of the story.
Not knowing all the variables does not mean one can just decide to claim science knows nothing. We don't know all that much about how gravity works yet people fly in airplanes. One cannot equate not knowing all the variables with knowing nothing.
Science does not know a thing. Science knows no more than the word run.
Denying outcomes you don't like is a childish response.
My 40 years of existance tells me different
If any evidence contradicts this position, it is ignored or suppressed and thus never progresses.
It is right until it is wrong.
If your god encourages keeping of slaves (in the bible), killed off women and children...then why should you believe "thou shalt not kill"?
That was a different time, a different way of life. Maybe things were much harsher than we could ever imagine, and it was what had to be done to set things straight, so that Jesus may come.
Xians effectively sell themselves as the only source of morality.
Not exactly. The bible says there are many ways to live, but only one idea will get you into heaven. Believe in Jesus, Love God, and love others. Its pretty simple. Those are some of the absolutes I live by now that I am a witness.
Since I don't believe he was divine and since I am not even convinced that a single person named jesus ever existed, your question is irrelevant. I don't think about what Santa claus or the great pink unicorn that I don't believe exist think either.
I don't believe you.
You are just avoiding the quetion. You know what Jesus is all about, you've read the bible, what would he think of you?
So if believe that sticking a live frog in their butts and playing Mozart on the banjo will make them feel better even if it is scientifically shown to do otherwise,
Dam, you saw me.
How about gravity, I would prefer to be able to fly...I guess it is scientific BS that gravity crap...
Gravity does not = science.
Gravity is what is, science is the study of what is.
Your bluring the lines agian.
I know lots of total jackasses who pray...they certainly have not alleviated any condition I have or made my life more pleasant.
This is more evidence to me of what you might have been through regarding religion. It aggravates you, because of something that happened to you regarding religion. I understand that, I was there also.
Then gravity does not work either since not every single peson who ever lived has jumped off the Empire State Building...you also might want to avoid every medicine or medical procedure ever invented not to mention cars, boats or airplanes since not every variable has been studied on every individual..LOL
This is really just a big bogus statement and has nothing to do with any of what I am saying. If you were reading and comprehending everything I said, you wouldn't have said that.
Oh well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Mammuthus, posted 12-05-2005 9:04 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Mammuthus, posted 12-12-2005 10:13 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 151 of 206 (266518)
12-07-2005 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by AdminPhat
12-05-2005 8:29 AM


Re: enter holmes...
I understand your concern, but this is the coffee house, and I don't hold any punches, and take it as good as I give it.
I don't really feel I said anything wrong to him. If your going to make a comment about something, then back it up. (holmes)
If I am wrong, then I expect you to go and read some of the responses from others towards me, and give them the same warning. Fair is fair. there are many in here who argue the person, not the position, then claim to be logical.
I am in here to speak to people, as well as issues, thats part of Sreading the good word. I mean well in all of it, even if I am bit abrasive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by AdminPhat, posted 12-05-2005 8:29 AM AdminPhat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Silent H, posted 12-07-2005 6:00 PM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 157 by Phat, posted 12-08-2005 9:47 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024