Homosexual marriage II

[klatukatt]

EDIT: This thread is continued from this thread: homosexual marriage

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

A lot of people would say that homosexuality should not be allowed for the same reasons that shoving Jews in ovens should not be: because it's wrong.

Yes, but the best argument is who is homosexuality hurting?

There have been homosexuals for centuries, and most people turned a blind eye because the rich homosexuals were just "eccentric" and not hurting anyone.

Now that homosexuals want to have rights the same as heterosexuals the world despises them.

Is changing the definition of marriage so very harmful?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I can vote to kill all the jews but EVEN IF the majority agree with me IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. So therefore Liefs right to vote that way is largely irrelevant other then in theory.

Well that answers some of my questions as to what you and I were talking about.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well see I would disagree with that. Im not of the opinion that evolution and religion (even Christianity) are diametrically opposed. The problem is that so many Christians have allowed the extremist creationist types to hijack the scientific discussion and so that makes ANYONE else who says ANYTHING other then god created everything in 5 minutes a god hating atheist communist or something. Well how silly.

There's some bit of exaggeration in there, I'm trying to detect it...

I don't think that Religion and Science are opposed either, and perhaps some forms of evolutionary creation...that's not the problem. The problem is that evolution, no matter what scientist says "you can still believe in God!" (as if we needed THEIR permission), it is a theory that says it can account for the universe without a god. And it has taught it THIS particular way. And it's not that us brainwashed christians think "if only" evolutiuon hadn't come along, all would be well. We believe something MORE about the way we came into being, not less, than evolutionists. Nor do we think it was "God-magicked" the way Merlin makes the brooms and mops dance.

As for Extremist Creationist types, there aren't too many of them, most believing people have gotten behind the Intelligent Design theory (which is NOT a form of Extreme Creationism, btw)...which does NOT, as the "Extreme Evolutionist Community" would have you believe, throw rocks at evoltuion as a whole, or at science at all. They believe in a god/higher power in general, and they happen to think he created the world on purpose...and they also know just as much about biology and stuff as evolutionists. Where's the big deal?

Personally the role of evolution is irrelevant of the concept of a god. Just as the role of gravity is irrelevant of the concept of a god so when I talk about evolution I don’t do so to counter religious ideas. Evolution could be part of gods tool box after all. And Im pretty sure Ive said that many times before.

And by the way what you probably should have asked is so what are you and not assume atheism right off the bat. Believe it or not agnostics hold widely differing views.

Apperantly. Ok, look Rex, I'm really sorry for "pursuing" you down the path, assuming you an atheist (though I'm still not sure where you stand completely)...
From now on, I'll be better and make sure I don't chase all of you on the other side into the same door...

I get my “morals” from my genes and my environment. I see no worthy evidence of them coming from an outside higher source. I see no evidence that we are “programmed” with the ten commandments in our head or some such.

That's why they are commandments though, because WE DIDN'T follow that type of path.

But don’t forget raping is dangerous. It makes a lot of people mad at you. It can lead to injury or death. Whereas NOT raping is almost always the safest tactic to take. Now sometimes you CAN get away with it. And pass on your genes to boot because of it. So sometimes raping is the best course to take evolutionarily. Don’t believe me? Look at Genghis Khan. Something like 10% of all Asians on the face of the earth today are direct descendents of Genghis Khan.

Yeah, he wasn't too tactical when it came to the domestic issues...

Raping worked out pretty well for him because he was in a position to benefit from it and the risk was minimal (power combined with culture) so he took it. But for most of us more often then not its too dangerous. So then a system develops where raping is possible but in most situations theres a real stigma associated with it that limits it. But it still occurs. Every day. So what the scientific model predicts we see in practice.

Well, that sets up my question again: when the circumstances are in favor of bad people: does rape become OK since there isn't anyone to counter it? I'm not asking if you like it in that circumstance, only if you believe it is "right" in that circumstance, assuming that it was "the norm" back then.

Meanwhile your explanation is that being against rape is programmed into us by god but not quite so much that we still don’t see it because oh god wants us to be able to make our own choices about raping or not raping… And that’s why we have an aversion to raping but we still rape… To me that’s nonsensical contortioning and the scientific model makes much more sense.

The reason the scientific model makes more sense is because it simply states stuff. It will tell you that "might makes right". But the problem is that science is a tool, not a theology (strictly speaking). Science may be correct, but it is not always right, because it can't always tell us what we're looking for. If we asked "Does might make right, and is rape ok when nobody believes it's wrong?" The 'science machine' can probably only give you stats.

In other words, you could prove science's auto stats "wrong" about might makes right, such as in the case of Hannibals lesser numbers beating out Rome.

"The problem with the world is not that is is unreasonable, nor that it is reasonable. The problem is that is almost alwasy reasonable, but not quite...
...We have just enough confidence to pursue adventure, and just enough doubt about ourselves to make it adventurous."~Chesterton (Loosely quoted)

But more often then not being stabbed in the arm with a piece of metal can generally be understood to be bad news.

Unpleasant News, but if you had a bacterial infection, and that shot helped, it is GOOD news.

So its not too hard to understand why we would evolve to have an aversion to such things. 99% of the time when our stone age ancestors were being grabbed and having something sharp stuck in them it wasn’t for a good reason. So evolution causes flight or fight to kick in. Ever tried to give a two year old a shot? They don’t appreciate it and they generally don’t cooperate too much. Even some adults cant deal with needles and faint at the very thought of getting a shot. Now why would god program them like that if it’s a good thing!

Why didn't God just give me all the right instincts ready-made so I could just get through this earth and be done? Yeah, it's called A WORTHLESS LIFE.

The answer to that closing question Rex, is that while physical pain is Unpleasant, it is not necessarily bad. Maybe the shot was not a bad thing for the two year old thought she might have felt it was murder, but at least she won't sit in a frying pan and not notice! And you know, I'm kinda grateful to God that he didn't make one of the Ten Commandments "Get the shot, you need it." How on earth are we supposed to interpret THAT in days when we didn't even have vaccines?

But our species did not evolve to have rape be the primary means of reproduction (many species do although really how are we to know if that elephant seal chick really wanted it or not…) so therefore the world could NOT have gone “in the other direction”. If it had we would not be human. Or at least the type of human we are right now.

I agree since I was putting myself if your [presumed] position of beliefs, in the first palce.

Now that being said you can STILL have cultures and societies where rape is a greater part of the picture then other cultures and societies. But that just goes back to the notion that we will do what best maximizes our ability to pass our genes and survive. Rape is a radical short cut but its also an extreme option so many societies have developed taboos against it and therefore you don’t see it as wide spread in these societies. But then you have old Genghis Khan right? In his society, considering his position, it was well worth it. In effect you could say it was the “moral” thing to do from his point of view. Capturing a city and NOT raping the women might be considered an enormous weakness to everyone. Who knows. It could actually limit your ability to survive in the end.

*sigh*

“Evil” (a loaded term but Ill work with it for now) is suppressed because its risky… It is not defeated by “good” it is restricted by cost-benefit and reinforced by cultural abstracts (like religion).

So you do believe, not to your preference, that the "right" thing to do to a "good" person in a "bad" society would be to punish them, as a good society punishes a bad person.

Actually I was being serious. If you have something in your genetics that makes it more likely that youll be more violent then the next guy then it stands to assume that your children are more likely to inherit this trait as well. Now that is entirely irrelevant to the fact of what religion you may convert to. Islam is not in your genes…

So you're now admitting that Islam is a violent religion?!

Its not about someone punishing us for doing something “bad” its about the ramifications, long term and species wide, that these “bad” behaviors have on us in particular and humans as a rule. As far as I can tell that’s the only thing that provides the boundaries on our behavior. Does this mean that there cant be some divine referee out there deciding the rules and nudging us here and there as they see fit? Of course that’s possible but you cant measure it.

You can't measure it only if you don't believe in it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

There have been homosexuals for millenia; I imagine as long as or nearly as long as the human race has existed. People turned a blind eye because they were able to, but that is not the case anymore. They were much more homophobic in the old days; how likely is an agnostic these days to hate "buggers" as virulently as Queensberry did?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by klatukatt

Yes, but the best argument is who is homosexuality hurting?

There have been homosexuals for centuries, and most people turned a blind eye because the rich homosexuals were just "eccentric" and not hurting anyone.

Now that homosexuals want to have rights the same as heterosexuals the world despises them.

Is changing the definition of marriage so very harmful?

All those centuries of homosexuals did not demand marriage, it was a closet thing, really. I think the "hurting" of society as affected by gay marriage would be something along the lines of changing the standards of both morals, and of acceptability of a long train of other things.

[klatukatt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

All those centuries of homosexuals did not demand marriage, it was a closet thing, really. I think the "hurting" of society as affected by gay marriage would be something along the lines of changing the standards of both morals, and of acceptability of a long train of other things.

Okay.

Things have already changed though. Humans wear a lot less than what used to be "acceptable" for one thing. Other things such as BDSM are almost mainstreem these days.

For anything to progress things have to change and I think a lot of people are scared of that. That is why we have so many traditions and past to cling onto because in America we have no real culture. We stole culture from our ancestors, and instead of taking the risk of change that our ancestors did, we cling to the only things that made them different.

This is not a religious problem, for there are many religious people who support gay marriage, this is a problem encompasing the whole of humanity!

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by klatukatt

Okay.

Things have already changed though. Humans wear a lot less than what used to be "acceptable" for one thing. Other things such as are almost mainstreem these days.

Umm.. you mean like grass skirts, tribal women running through the jungle? Or those big Elizabethian dresses that showed just about all of a 's top there was to see? Or a Native American in a loin cloth?
And anyway, modesty is an issue among some, even these days.

For anything to progress things have to change and I think a lot of people are scared of that. That is why we have so many traditions and past to cling onto because in America we have no real culture. We stole culture from our ancestors, and instead of taking the risk of change that our ancestors did, we cling to the only things that made them different.

This is interesting. I think I would ask you to explain in what way you want us to be different from our ancestors. Or the same... Or what are you saying?
We have plenty of culture in America. Take one look at another country (say Canada for instance), and you will quickly see that America is distinct. And as for stealing its culture: what nation does not have ties to its origin, may I ask? It's part of who we are as humans to remember where we came from, good, bad, or indifferent.
So your argument for 'progress' is that it has to be 'different' from our ancestors?

This is not a religious problem, for there are many religious people who support gay marriage, this is a problem encompasing the whole of humanity!

It is a bit of a religious problem, but I would say not exclusively a religious problem. Yes, the whole world, secular and religious, is affected by it.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by klatukatt

Okay.

Things have already changed though. Humans wear a lot less than what used to be "acceptable" for one thing. Other things such as BDSM are almost mainstreem these days.

The question is whether we want it to change, neverminding whether it's possible or not, because of course it is....

Change is a very ambiguous thing, but if you have enough of it, you can buy a candy bar....ok, bad joke.

For anything to progress things have to change and I think a lot of people are scared of that.

They have a reason to be, because "change" and "progress" don't necessarily go hand in hand.

That is why we have so many traditions and past to cling onto because in America we have no real culture.

Traditions are part of culture.

We stole culture from our ancestors, and instead of taking the risk of change that our ancestors did, we cling to the only things that made them different.

Thats not a bad thing though...and some of the traditions change overtime, so you might call them "our own culture". Having a precedent in culture is not a bad thing.

This is not a religious problem, for there are many religious people who support gay marriage, this is a problem encompasing the whole of humanity!

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Exactly. Which is what Ive been trying to say for like the past 3 posts! Its not about someones "right" to vote. How inane. It doesnt end there in our system.

I think sometimes people have used "right" [to vote], rather than "reason(s)" [to vote]

[Gwaimir Windgem]

No, I'm sorry, but katt is right. America has no real culture of its own. The only thing we really have is Thanksgiving.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I gave the real world answer as opposed to some religio-psycho-moral philosophy. Religion doesn't promote morality in society. Thousands of years of human history proves it. Societal evolution has created the morality we have today.

'Societal evolution' is a description, WE have the morality we have today, because it's what we like/think/want.
Thousands of years of human history does not prove it, certainly not as a whole. The pagan romans threw christians to the lions, and then then romans (generally) became christians, but they did not throw pagans to the lions.

Rape is not accepted by us today, but it was accepted almost universally "back in the day". Even by Popes and Priests did it with little recourse, no matter what was written in scripture.

I don't know about that.

What is "right" is what the people in power can get away with. It is not right anymore, not because of scripture, but because they can't get away with it anymore.

And I say that you read this theory too far, because it is not always the case.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

The pagan romans threw christians to the lions, and then then romans (generally) became christians, but they did not throw pagans to the lions.

Um, right, they didn't go the lion route, they came up with stake-burning and Government By Religion via the catholic church, which essentially governed europe for like a thousand some-ought years or something. I mean, if that's not societal morality taking leaps backward due to religious domination, I don't know what you can call it, but it certainly ain't progress that's for sure.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Um, right, they didn't go the lion route, they came up with stake-burning and

What's wrong with burnt steak?
Seriously answering that though, I would admit that some steps were tacken backwards, but there were many steps FORWARD.

Government By Religion via the catholic church, which essentially governed europe for like a thousand some-ought years or something.

As if that was a bad thing!

I mean, if that's not societal morality taking leaps backward due to religious domination, I don't know what you can call it, but it certainly ain't progress that's for sure.

Your end result is that "religious domination" then, is the cause of all strife. But of course, atheistic Marxism (or any Marxism, as far as I'm concerned) didn't really do much better- in fact, they did worse- than the Czar line they overthrew. And thats more recent too, extra scary; especially when you see other Marxist countries springing up south of Mexico.

[klatukatt]

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

This is interesting. I think I would ask you to explain in what way you want us to be different from our ancestors. Or the same... Or what are you saying?
We have plenty of culture in America. Take one look at another country (say Canada for instance), and you will quickly see that America is distinct. And as for stealing its culture: what nation does not have ties to its origin, may I ask? It's part of who we are as humans to remember where we came from, good, bad, or indifferent.
So your argument for 'progress' is that it has to be 'different' from our ancestors?

We are already quite different from our ancestors, but mostly technologically. Morally, we are still very much the same.
I believe that we have progressed beyond the people we were born from.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

They have a reason to be, because "change" and "progress" don't necessarily go hand in hand.

That is very true, but you have to be willing to change for anything to happen at all.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

No, I'm sorry, but katt is right. America has no real culture of its own. The only thing we really have is Thanksgiving.

Thank you! I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees this!
(Oh, and we also have the Fourth of July, a great holiday celebrated by getting drunk and blowing stuff up. )

Do you notice that most Americans celebrate holidays by overeating more than usual? And drinking more than usual as well...

[Insidious Rex]

Because of course that IS our distinct culture: over consumption!

Have you finished your christmas shopping? Pass the pumpkin pie...

[hectorberlioz]

Do you guys read "Geography of Nowhere" like the Bible or what!

If you have read it: I agree with [Howard] Kunstler's view about our architecture being crap etc...but it just seems to me that he HAS to compare the best of Europe to the worst of the U.S. Not an objective comparison at all. I don't disagree that we center things around big business, I disagree that we have [good] culture. I think we do have it, but I think we trample over it a lot.


I'll have a bit of that Pumpkin Pie myself, please


NOTE TO MODS: Since we've gotten off-subject AND passed the "finish line" of 1000 posts, perhaps you could break off this discussion about culture, and make a new thread for it

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

The problem is that evolution, no matter what scientist says "you can still believe in God!" (as if we needed THEIR permission), it is a theory that says it can account for the universe without a god.

Where does it say that? Does the theory of gravity say that to? I think you mean it accounts for aspects of nature independent of the existence of anything divine. We have no idea if evolution isn’t exactly what god had in mind all along or if a god has perhaps steered evolution toward his “creation”.

We believe something MORE about the way we came into being, not less, than evolutionists.

Then why is it that so many of the public discussions coming from the Christian camps regarding evolution are about evolution being flawed and preposterous (in so much as explaining man’s existence at the very least)? Why is it so many Christians offer theories about creation that are simple attacks ON evolution and nothing more? Where does evolution end and the “MORE” start and what is that “MORE” exactly if it isn’t “not evolution”?

As for Extremist Creationist types, there aren't too many of them, most believing people have gotten behind the Intelligent Design theory (which is NOT a form of Extreme Creationism, btw)...which does NOT, as the "Extreme Evolutionist Community" would have you believe, throw rocks at evoltuion as a whole, or at science at all. They believe in a god/higher power in general, and they happen to think he created the world on purpose...and they also know just as much about biology and stuff as evolutionists. Where's the big deal?

Oh please “Intelligent Design” is simply a new and retooled weapon in the battle against evolution. They realized they were coming off more and more as buffoons by touting creationism seriously and they were losing court case after court case so they changed their tactics and decided a more stealth approach would be better. An approach that appears more scientific and main stream if you will. But when you try to nail down intelligent design scientists on exactly what IS the mechanism that they propose over the flaws of evolution they give you further smoke and mirrors and simply continue to bash evolution. You can dress a wolf up in sheeps clothing but you don’t always fool the sheep…

From now on, I'll be better and make sure I don't chase all of you on the other side into the same door...

Yes how asinine. Typical of you Christian types always lumping diverse populations under one umbrella. Youd never catch me doing that.

Well, that sets up my question again: when the circumstances are in favor of bad people: does rape become OK since there isn't anyone to counter it? I'm not asking if you like it in that circumstance, only if you believe it is "right" in that circumstance, assuming that it was "the norm" back then.

But its like asking if you were on the other team would you want your team to lose? Well yes I think so. After all Id be on the OTHER TEAM right?

The bottom line is rape is “ok” at any time if its worth while undertaking (evolutionarily). It will appear horrible TO US because of our perspective on it and because of the culture weve both been raised in but that doesn’t take away from its usefulness. But again remember that its probably a rare thing to develop as a “norm” in any given population because of its very nature. It happens. But not the majority of the time.

But the problem is that science is a tool, not a theology (strictly speaking).

And thank god for that… err… I mean…

Science may be correct, but it is not always right, because it can't always tell us what we're looking for. If we asked "Does might make right, and is rape ok when nobody believes it's wrong?" The 'science machine' can probably only give you stats.

The “science machine” gives you the naked unbiased truth of the situation. The science machine says yes sometimes rape is a good thing from certain perspectives no matter who is asking the question. It sounds like the question you are trying to ask is actually “should we think rape is bad”. And that’s a philosophical question not a scientific one.

In other words, you could prove science's auto stats "wrong" about might makes right, such as in the case of Hannibals lesser numbers beating out Rome.

Hannibal defeated the Romans because he had war technology they couldn’t match. Science. Are you implying he held the higher moral position and therefore won on that basis? He was pretty brutal himself.

"The problem with the world is not that is is unreasonable, nor that it is reasonable. The problem is that is almost alwasy reasonable, but not quite...

The world is. We just perceive it through the lens of our developing in it. That’s all you can say really.

Why didn't God just give me all the right instincts ready-made so I could just get through this earth and be done? Yeah, it's called A WORTHLESS LIFE.

For me, this argument has always been filed under “Christian circular logic thinking”. God gave us the sense to know “right” from “wrong”. Oh but he allowed us to make the “wrong” choice because he didn’t want to select it for us. That’s why theres rape when so many people think rape is horrible! Its so simple!

And you know, I'm kinda grateful to God that he didn't make one of the Ten Commandments "Get the shot, you need it." How on earth are we supposed to interpret THAT in days when we didn't even have vaccines?

Yeah look at the horrible job you guys have done just interpreting Genesis.

So you do believe, not to your preference, that the "right" thing to do to a "good" person in a "bad" society would be to punish them, as a good society punishes a bad person.

Can you be more specific? That sounds dangerously too general to answer really… But if you are referring to what you were referring to above regarding rape and different societies then I probably already answered it.

So you're now admitting that Islam is a violent religion?!

About as much as Im admitting that Christians can be determined by looking at their genes.

You can't measure it only if you don't believe in it.

Then how does a believer measure it? Measurement should be independent of belief.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Where does it say that? Does the theory of gravity say that to? I think you mean it accounts for aspects of nature independent of the existence of anything divine. We have no idea if evolution isn’t exactly what god had in mind all along or if a god has perhaps steered evolution toward his “creation”.

God "steered" evolution...that's a good one. Makes him sound like a mechanic who just happened to stop by the tumultous creation and helped it, but then we went away 'cuz he isn't judgemental.

Then why is it that so many of the public discussions coming from the Christian camps regarding evolution are about evolution being flawed and preposterous

Usually you will find, Rex, that they find the idea of evolution working independently to be the preposterous part. Admittedly we all frown on Macro-evolution, but we're not too stingy about micro-evolution.

(in so much as explaining man’s existence at the very least)? Why is it so many Christians offer theories about creation that are simple attacks ON evolution and nothing more? Where does evolution end and the “MORE” start and what is that “MORE” exactly if it isn’t “not evolution”?

Because the majority of christians are willing to accept that science and belief in God are obviously NOT opposed, while the majority of evolutionists (the most rabid seem to be zoologists) are vehemently against that idea.

The "more" is that believers can account for existence itself, not just the universe.

Oh please “Intelligent Design” is simply a new and retooled weapon in the battle against evolution.

And you are just repeating the stale formula I keep hearing on NPR about Intelligent Design. I've read some of the [easier] books on it, which dealt with the arguemental side of it primarily, but I do know that Michael Behe's work deals with the actual mechanics. It is a battle against the conventional evolution, yes.


They realized they were coming off more and more as buffoons by touting creationism seriously and they were losing court case after court case so they changed their tactics and decided a more stealth approach would be better.[/quote]
Nevermind that this form of creationism was around before Darwin (or the other chaps before Darwin who got there first)....

IMO, it's the evolutionists who feel really threatened. Their grasp on people's minds might actually be coming to a close, and they're not sure if they can live with it!

An approach that appears more scientific and main stream if you will. But when you try to nail down intelligent design scientists on exactly what IS the mechanism that they propose over the flaws of evolution they give you further smoke and mirrors and simply continue to bash evolution. You can dress a wolf up in sheeps clothing but you don’t always fool the sheep…

This is where you'd have to do some actual reading of ID theory, and as far asking an ID scientist about what is the actual thingamabob, I've certainly not experienced smoke and mirrors. IMO, the evolutionists have been playing smoke-and-mirrors for ages by their broad use of "Evolution".

Yes how asinine. Typical of you Christian types always lumping diverse populations under one umbrella. Youd never catch me doing that.

And yet you commit that crime below...

But its like asking if you were on the other team would you want your team to lose? Well yes I think so. After all Id be on the OTHER TEAM right?

The bottom line is rape is “ok” at any time if its worth while undertaking (evolutionarily). It will appear horrible TO US because of our perspective on it and because of the culture weve both been raised in but that doesn’t take away from its usefulness.

Well, you dodged my pointedness, but I'll accept this as an answer...

But again remember that its probably a rare thing to develop as a “norm” in any given population because of its very nature. It happens. But not the majority of the time.

You just turned around! It's very nature! Gasp!

The “science machine” gives you the naked unbiased truth of the situation.

It would give you the truth yes, in facts.

The science machine says yes sometimes rape is a good thing from certain perspectives no matter who is asking the question. It sounds like the question you are trying to ask is actually “should we think rape is bad”. And that’s a philosophical question not a scientific one.

As a student in learning the Cultural Values of the Moral Relativists Third-World Tribe, I've been trying to figure out if you guys actually believe your own stuff...

Hannibal defeated the Romans because he had war technology they couldn’t match. Science. Are you implying he held the higher moral position and therefore won on that basis? He was pretty brutal himself.

By no means...I only meant to point out a case of where smarts outdid the might of Rome. I think that history, assuming nothing like it had happened before, would have told you that Rome would crush Hannibal.

For me, this argument has always been filed under

racial/beliefs profiling!!!!!!!!!!

“Christian circular logic thinking”. God gave us the sense to know “right” from “wrong”. Oh but he allowed us to make the “wrong” choice because he didn’t want to select it for us. That’s why theres rape when so many people think rape is horrible! Its so simple!

Nobody ever said knowing right from wrong would make people want to follow it, there, just one more shred in favor of free will.

Yeah look at the horrible job you guys have done just interpreting Genesis.

Or the horrid ways you guys use the word "Science"

Can you be more specific? That sounds dangerously too general to answer really… But if you are referring to what you were referring to above regarding rape and different societies then I probably already answered it.

It was basically the same thing as above, so you get off on this one.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

On the other hand, you ignored my assertion that your previous reply was simply a "blueprint" answer.

I didn't ignore it at all.

Telling someone they are giving a "blueprint" answer means that you don't really want to talk about the details of that answer and would rather brush it off. I don't give blueprint answers. I think deeply about what I post, usually.

As far as sources on my comment about rape being mostly accepted, and society, not religion, changing this morality (eventhough it has a long way to go), this book is a good resource to start with: Misogyny: The World's Oldest Prejudice

[klatukatt]

Well, thanks for having me in on this discussion, but I'm not cut out for this sort of debating.

I support anyone who wants to get married, even to their dog. Well, not to their dog because that's just trying to con the government.

Marrage should be for everyone. Thank you.

Good night and good luck.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

God "steered" evolution...that's a good one.

Sounds more reasonable then god created us in whole form in his image. When a sculptor makes a sculpture does he not use the law of gravity in the process of his creation? Why shouldn’t a divinity take advantage of natural laws (whether he created them or not) in his creating?

Usually you will find, Rex, that they find the idea of evolution working independently to be the preposterous part.

Independently from what? Werent you JUST scoffing at the suggestion that god may be using evolution to his purpose?

Admittedly we all frown on Macro-evolution, but we're not too stingy about micro-evolution.

You “frown” on “macro” evolution because it seems more conflicting with the notion that man was created in whole form in gods image rather then a descendent of ancient hominids which seems to disturb some Christians like nothing else. But Ive never understood how one can support a concept in some instances but then turn around and say it could never work in other instances (and it seems disingenuous when those other instances all happen to tread on your theological toes aka: man’s decent).

Because the majority of christians are willing to accept that science and belief in God are obviously NOT opposed, while the majority of evolutionists (the most rabid seem to be zoologists) are vehemently against that idea.

I would disagree. I think the millions and millions of people who don’t think evolution is all hogwash have little problem with the idea that “science” and god can coexist without conflict. In fact I would say the average American thinks evolution is probably true AND that god exists. Even the most “rabid evolutionists” don’t maintain that evolution is the proof that god doesn’t exist. Many just happen to believe that god doesn’t exist independent of evolution (the atheists). And they state that. It’s the anti-evolution Christians that want to set up the scientific community to be simply a vehicle for disproving god and that’s their problem.

The "more" is that believers can account for existence itself, not just the universe.

How is that relevant to evolution or the discussion we were having exactly? Im getting the feeling that you are continually trying to position evolution to be more then what it really is. Why stick fake horns on it and call it the devil?

And you are just repeating the stale formula I keep hearing on NPR about Intelligent Design. I've read some of the [easier] books on it, which dealt with the arguemental side of it primarily, but I do know that Michael Behe's work deals with the actual mechanics.

Behe’s main assertion is that biological mechanisms show an "irreducible complexity" that cannot be fully explained by evolution. When shown numerous examples of exactly HOW some of the biological mechanisms he sites CAN be explained within the bounds of evolution Behe has balked and basically said “nuh uh”. This is why the concept of intelligent design has lost court cases recently as well. Because when exposed, its thin skin of “scientific” respectability begins to frail and the creationist bones stick through… They propose to teach this to kids in high school yet there is nothing there to teach other then “evolution cant be because things are too complex. Therefore it must be god”. Well what garbage. Complexity can be a perfectly acceptable issue to ASK about in biology but it is by no means a field unto itself or an alternative to evolution…

IMO, it's the evolutionists who feel really threatened. Their grasp on people's minds might actually be coming to a close, and they're not sure if they can live with it!

No hector. The “evolutionists” are just annoyed. Wouldn’t you be annoyed if scientist types were constantly insisting that they not teach the Noahs Ark legend in Sunday School and were constantly attempting to take over church boards in order to accomplish that? And that the tactic they used to do that was to gather a few “free thinking” pastors around who wrote in genuinely theological style saying well the idea of maintaining all the animals in the world on one ship for 40 days is simply too complex to be accomplished by a wood cutter and his family… And we think that’s what you should teach in place of the Noah’s Ark legend…

And yet you commit that crime below...

That’s what they call IRONY my dear hector… of the self deprecating sort… work with me here…

As a student in learning the Cultural Values of the Moral Relativists Third-World Tribe, I've been trying to figure out if you guys actually believe your own stuff...

I only believe what there is evidence for generally. How bout you?

By no means...I only meant to point out a case of where smarts outdid the might of Rome. I think that history, assuming nothing like it had happened before, would have told you that Rome would crush Hannibal.

History? Were we talking about history or science? Science would have told you Rome had a 78.389367% chance of victory. Science always allows room for the underdog.

Nobody ever said knowing right from wrong would make people want to follow it, there, just one more shred in favor of free will.

Then why program us with whats right and wrong in the first place? So that there will always be moral tests for us to fail? Does this just come down to a heaven/hell selection mechanism?