PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolution: an ancient religion

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I found this interesting article on Answers in Genesis today.  Evolutionary naturalism: an ancient idea

The theory of biological evolution is not a modern idea as is often supposed. Organic evolution was first taught by the Greeks at least as early as the 7th century BC. Greek philosophers probably borrowed and adapted their evolutionary ideas from the Hindus, who believed that souls transformed from one animal to another until they reached a perfection state called nirvana. Charles Darwin allegedly made no contributions to the development of the theory of evolution by natural selection, but simply helped to popularize it. Evolutionists today argue that evolution is a modern idea (i.e. a product of scientific research), in part as an effort to lend credibility to their worldview.

Ancient theories of evolution
It is frequently implied that the theory of biological evolution is a modern idea—a product of our advanced scientific age. Conversely, a creationist worldview is often criticized as being a product of our less informed ancestors, and that this view is now a disproven relic of the past.  Where have I heard that on this forum before? -Gup

The Mayan culture began about 600 BC, and its religion incorporated a ‘streamlined evolution’ that taught that the rain-god constructed humans by adding to (and thereby modifying) his previous creations. This rain-god first made rivers, then fish, next serpents and, last, humans. The members of a totem clan believed:

‘themselves to be of one blood, descendants of a common ancestor. … Thus, the Turtle clan of the Iroquois are descended from a fat turtle, which, burdened by the weight of its shell in walking … gradually developed into a man. The Cray-Fish clan of the Choctaws were originally cray-fish and lived underground, coming up occasionally through the mud to the surface. Once a party of Choctaws smoked them out, and, treating them kindly … taught them to walk on two legs, made them cut off their toe nails and pluck the hair from their bodies, after which they adopted them into the tribe. But the rest of their kindred, the cray-fish, are still living underground. The Osages are descended from a male snail and a female beaver.’1

The relationship of totemism to evolution is described in more detail in the following quote:

‘The luck attributed to a rabbit’s foot stems from a belief rooted in ancient totemism, the claim, predating Darwinism by thousands of years, that humankind descended from animals. Differing from Darwinism, however, totemism held that every tribe of people evolved from a separate species of animal. A tribe worshiped and refrained from killing its ancestral animal and employed parts of that animal as amulets, called totems.’2

One of the first evolutionary theories was proposed by Thales of Miletus (640–546 BC) in the province of Ionia on the coast near Greece. He was also evidently the first person to advance the idea that life first originated in water.3 Birdsell notes that Thales’ view of biological evolution ‘was not too far from modern truth’. One of Thales’ students, Anaximander (611–547 BC), developed these ideas further, concluding that humans evolved from fish or fishlike forms.4 These fish-men eventually cast off their scaly skin and moved to dry land where they have been ever since.

The Greek philosopher Empedocles (493–435 BC), often called the father of evolutionary naturalism, argued that chance alone ‘was responsible for the entire process’ of the evolution of simple matter into modern humankind.5 Empedocles concluded that spontaneous generation fully explained the origin of life, and he also taught that all living organism types gradually evolved by the process of trial-and-error recombinations of animal parts.6 He also believed that natural selection was the primary mechanism of evolution, the fittest being more likely to survive to pass their traits on to their offspring.7

In short, Empedocles’ pre-Darwin ‘survival–of-the-fittest’ theory taught that life evolved by pruning the less-fit life forms—i.e. the merciless destruction of the weaker animals and plants. Unfortunately, many early Greek manuscripts have been lost, but the texts that survive provide enough details to determine with some accuracy what the ancient Greeks believed. This evidence motivated Osborn to conclude that ‘Darwin owes more even to the Greeks than we have ever recognized.’8

Evidence also exists that the Greek philosophers gleaned their evolution-of-life ideas from the Hindus, who believed that souls transformed from one animal to another until they reached a level of perfection called nirvana. Both the Greeks and Hindus also could have obtained their evolution-of-life ideas from even more ancient peoples. Aristotle (384–322 BC) claimed that humans are the highest point of one long, continuous ‘ascent with modification’ of life.7 Modern scientific research, though, has found that that natural selection often does not eliminate weak individuals in a species. Evidence now points to the conclusion that nearly all extinctions are the result of chance and/or human mismanagement.9 Natural selection cannot create, but can only prune the less-perfect organisms, serving primarily to slow the rate of biological degeneration.10

Nor is the paleontological record, as a putative evidence of evolution, a recent conclusion. The first person ‘known to have explicitly recognized fossils as memorials of geological change and the succession of life’ was evidently Xenophanes of Colophon.11 Some speculate that Thales and Anaximander also may have concluded that the fossil evidence supported biological and geological evolution.

Modern theories of evolution: did Darwin contribute?
Darwin was not even the first modern-day biologist to develop the idea of organic evolution. De Vries noted that

‘evolution, meaning the origin of new species by variation from ancestor species, as an explanation for the state of the living world, had been proclaimed before Darwin by several biologists—thinkers, including the poet Johann Wolfgang Goethe in 1795. Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck in 1809, Darwin’s grandfather, the ebullient physician-naturalist-poet-philosopher Erasmus Darwin, and in Darwin’s time anonymously by Robert Chambers in 1844.’12

Even Darwin’s commonly alleged major contribution to evolution, natural selection, was developed earlier by others including William Charles Wells in 1813, and later Alfred Russell Wallace. Wallace sent Darwin a copy of his paper describing his independently developed theory of evolution by natural selection in 1858.13 De Vries noted that some critics have concluded that Darwin actually made no major new contributions to this theory.

The modern theory of biological evolution probably was first developed by Charles De Secondat Montesquieu (1689–1755), who concluded that ‘in the beginning there were very few [kinds of] species, and they have multiplied since’.14 Another important evolutionist was Benoit de Maillet (1656–1738), whose book on evolution was published in 1748. In his book, de Maillet taught that fish were the forefathers of birds, mammals and men.15 Maupertuis wrote in 1751 that new species may result from the fortuitous recombining of different parts of living beings. About this same time, Diderot the Encyclopedist taught that all animals came from one primeval animal, and that this prototype was fashioned by nature into all those types of animals alive today.16 George Louis Buffon (1707–1788) even expounded the idea that ‘the ape and man had a common ancestry’. Macrone notes that while Darwin indeed gave evolution a firmer scientific basis,

‘he was hardly the first to propose it. A century before Darwin the French naturalist Georges Buffon wrote extensively on the resemblance among various species of birds and quadrupeds. Noting such similarities and also the prevalence in nature of seemingly useless anatomical features (such as toes on a pig), Buffon voiced doubts that every single species had been uniquely formed by God on the fifth and sixth days of creation. Buffon suggested in guarded language at least a limited sort of evolution that would account for variances among similar species and for natural anomalies.’17

One of the most important pre-Darwinists was Charles Darwins’ grandfather, Erasmus Darwin (1731–1802). He expounded his ideas at length in his book Zoonomia, published in 1794. This work was no obscure volume, but sold well and even was translated into German, French and Italian. Darlington argued that Erasmus Darwin ‘originated almost every important idea that has since appeared in evolutionary theory’, including natural selection.18 Darwin admitted that he probably got many of the major portions of his biological evolution theory from his grandfather.

It usually is asserted that Erasmus Darwin’s view was less well developed than Charles Darwin’s and was actually erroneous in many areas. Desmond King-Hele made an excellent case for the view that Charles Darwin’s theory, even ‘in its mature form in the later editions of the Origin of Species, is, in some important respects, less correct than that of Erasmus’.19 Both writers stressed that evolution occurred by the accumulation of small fortuitous changes that then were sifted by natural selection. Erasmus wrote that

‘in the great length of time since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind, would it be too bold to imagine, that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE endued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end!’20

Charles Darwin even evidently accepted Lamarckian evolution to a greater extent than did Erasmus, a conclusion that proved to be a major blunder for him.21 For example, in explaining the evolution of the giraffe’s long neck, Darwin accepted the validity of evolution by use and disuse although in this case he also used natural selection as the major explanation of giraffe neck evolution.22

Another important pre-Darwinian book was Robert Chambers’ Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, which was published in 1844. Without this book, Darwin said he might never have written Origin of Species.23 In a summary of this work, Crookshank concluded that Chambers (1802–1871) believed that the extant varieties of humans resulted from evolutionary advances and regressions. Yet another person who came up with Darwin’s main conclusions was Patrick Matthew. Matthew,

‘whose priority was acknowledged later by both Charles Darwin and Edward Blyth, anticipated all Darwin’s main conclusions by 28 years, yet he thought them so little important that he published them as an appendix to his book on naval timber and did not feel the need to give substance to them by continuous work. Darwin’s incessant application, on the other hand, makes one think that he had found in evolution and its related concepts not merely a scientific theory about the world, but a vocation: he had discovered the theory and practice of himself.’24

Not only is evolutionary naturalism an old idea, but the creation-evolution conflict is ancient as well:

‘In the eighteenth-century European “Age of Reason”, an attempt at a complete separation of faith and reason, coupled with a belief in the self-sufficiency of reason to explain all causality, precipitated what Andrew White later called the “warfare of science with theology”. Yet, even in Aristotle’s time the ideas of Democritus and the Atomists and the reflections of Empedocles on gradual adaptation and change in organisms must have stimulated conflict between religion and natural science.’25

Darwin’s work was only the ‘“palace coup” among the elite, the final act in a long drama, with the real fight to establish a lawful, evolutionary worldview among the “people” taking place a generation earlier’.26

Summary
Although Charles Darwin was highly successful in popularizing the idea of organic evolution by natural selection, he was by no means the originator of the theory as commonly supposed. Nor was Darwin the originator of even those aspects of the evolution theory for which he is most often given credit today—natural selection and sexual selection. Organic evolution is part of the past and present culture of many nations, and is not a modern (or even an exclusively scientific) idea as is often claimed. This claim often is an attempt to give the theory credibility. This fact was expressed well by one evolutionist when he wrote that the ‘idea of miraculous change, which is supposed to be an exclusive prerogative of fairy-tales, is a common phenomenon of evolution …’.27

The popularity of the modern evolutionistic worldview is not, as many assume, because modern science has replaced old superstitions about origins. Evolution’s acceptance has much more to do with the use of the tools of science by multi-thousands of dedicated researchers, using the billions of dollars provided by governments to build a case for an ancient theory intended to support the atheism that now dominates both science and our increasingly secular society. This fact is important because the claim that Darwinism is a modern scientific idea is used as a major argument for its validity.


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 12:50 PM on June 2, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

Nice copy and paste job, but what exactly was the point?  The greeks were also the first to develop "atomic theory".  Does this mean that's false as well?  Pretty sad when you're reduced to this...


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 1:43 PM on June 2, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ's response is a bit rude, but he has a point.  What is the article trying to say?  That Darwin didn't develop the theory of evolution from scratch?  Well duh!  He was a scientist.  Every scientist is standing on the shoulders of the one's who came before.  This should come to no surprise to anyone who knows anything about the way science works.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 2:51 PM on June 2, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nice copy and paste job

I can't tell if you are being facetious or not.  I said before pasting the article that this was an interesting AiG article and then I gave the source.

The 'point' is that evolution has been around much longer than Darwin.  Remember our discussions on whether evolution was a religion?  Well, here we can see clear ties back to greek mythology and from there back to hinduism.  Our discussion on evolution being a religion was from the mindset that Darwin started evolutionary thought, and contributing to much of the criticism you and others have leveled against me and other creationists is that Evolution is a modern idea therefore giving it more credibility than creation.  In fact, evolution is not a modern idea... it's ideas derrive from ancient religions.  I remember distictly arguments telling me how creation was disproven hundreds of years ago, and how darwin based evolution on 'what he saw'.   But truth be told... Darwin based his theories primarily on the writings and work of others, the ideas of which had been started by these ancient religions and mythologies.  

So here is more evidence to show that evolution is a religion.  It started as a hindu religion and has morphed into a form of secular (read 'natural') pantheism.  It is born out of humanism - as is all false religions.  


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:20 PM on June 2, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The 'point' is that evolution has been around much longer than Darwin.

It's not much of a point.  As I stated earlier, "atomic theory" was stated by greek philosopher's as well, but it bears no more than a passing resemblance to modern atomic theory (atoms are the smallest constituent parts of an element).  That's about it, and that's about the extent of the similarity between greek "evolution" and the modern ToE.

BTW, greek "evolution" is not based on greek mythology, but on philosophical musings.

As for the "connection" to Hindu mythology, are you really that desperate?  Trying to connect reincarnation and evolution?  This is getting beyond sad already.

And you constantly saying that evolution is a humanist religion does not make it so. (again!)


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 3:41 PM on June 2, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You reject creation because it comes from the Bible.  I reject evolution because it does not come from the Bible.  You would try to deny this and give some pretense of good science vs bad science.  But science is science.  We use the same science you do... yet we come to drastically different conclusions.  Therefore it must be our presuppositions and interpretations that are different.  This is why this discussion is important.  It goes to the root causes of the evolutionary paradigm's presuppositions.  

The ideas that evolution 'come from' are religious ones.  This lends itself to understanding the longevity of the creation vs evolution debate.  You may not want to admit it, but it doesn't make it any less true that it is a humanism vs theism debate.  Religion vs religion.  Only, we wrap it up and put a little bow on it that says 'secular' and pretend it's not what it is.  Is it any wonder the debate never goes anywhere... it's like arguing about the symptoms of an illness rather than the cause, let alone looking for a cure.    
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:50 PM on June 2, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You reject creation because it comes from the Bible.

Wrong, I reject creationism because there is no viable scientific evidence for it.

I reject evolution because it does not come from the Bible.

Bingo, so why do you keep trying to dress creationism up in science?

You would try to deny this and give some pretense of good science vs bad science.  But science is science.  We use the same science you do

Wrong, you've just told me yourself that you reject evolution not on the science but because it's not stated in your holy book.  There goes the science claim now and forevermore.

The ideas that evolution 'come from' are religious ones.

Nope, wrong again.  That little article you copied from just rehashed a bunch of origin theories from other cultures, that's all.  Guess what?  Christianity isn't original either.  Pretty much every story in the bible is a rehash of older myths from other cultures with a little spin to make them monotheistic.  According to your reasoning, that makes christianity false.  Pity.

And once again, evolution does not equal humanism.  Humanists may whole heartedly support evolution, but that does not mean that evolution is a religion.  Using this reasoning, every branch of science is a religion.



-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 4:08 PM on June 2, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wrong, I reject creationism because there is no viable scientific evidence for it.

We both know this isn't true.  

Bingo, so why do you keep trying to dress creationism up in science?

Why do you try to rationalize your rejection of God by 'trying to dress it up in science'?  

Wrong, you've just told me yourself that you reject evolution not on the science but because it's not stated in your holy book.  There goes the science claim now and forevermore.

Yes, I do reject evolution at it's face value because it goes against the Bible.  God, the creator of the universe and the only one who WAS there when everything started says He didn't do it that way.  I believe Him.  However, like any deception it carries a margin of truth with it.  There are parts of evolution that are scientifically viable, such as Natural Selection.  However, we are seeing a very sharp increase in viability in the 'YEC model' over the last 20 years.  Many long held evolutionary paradigms are coming under the scrutiny of YEC's as that viability increases.  There is such a high emphasis on building a solid foundation, which can be contributed to the criticisms of those with the evolutionary paradigm.  At each step we have to come up with science that is irrefutable before continuing.  

Contrast that with the evolutionary paradigm.  We see such large swings in what is generally thought and accepted from day to day.  Take the extinction of dinosaurs, for example.  First it's volcanism... then it's meteors... then it's climate... then it's meteors again... it never stops and the evidence doesn't heavily favor any of these as the catch all for the dinosaur extinction.  If creation research made such swings we would be criticised to no end.  

The work of YEC progresses slowly and methodically.  If an idea can't stand up to peer review it's abandoned or modified.  Of the many YEC scientists there are few actually doing YEC work, aswell.  

Guess what?  Christianity isn't original either.  Pretty much every story in the bible is a rehash of older myths from other cultures with a little spin to make them monotheistic.

Since you offer no evidence whatsoever for this, it's pretty easy to reject as completely false.  In fact, if you go back and look at the oldest of ancient Chinese religions it parallels the hebrew religion so closely as to be practically the same.  If the Bible is true (and we believe it is) then 'christianity' started on day 6 of creation, making it the first and oldest religion.  Adam, the first man and Eve the first woman both worshiped the God of the Bible, as did their children.  

Humanists may whole heartedly support evolution, but that does not mean that evolution is a religion.

And you don't think that basing an ideology on a religion gives that ideology a religious basis?

Using this reasoning, every branch of science is a religion.

You have so many assumptions and preconcieved notions built into that statement it's silly.  For example, you percieve that every branch of science is based on and cannot function without an evolutionary paradigm.  In fact, this is not correct.  Isaac Newton did pretty good without it... Russel Humphreys works on top secret nuclear weapons and he is a dedicated YEC.  Yet he continues to recieve awards of achievement from his employer and peers.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 5:08 PM on June 2, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We both know this isn't true.  

Um, no, we don't.  I think I probably know my own motivations better than you, so I think I have the valid point here.

Why do you try to rationalize your rejection of God by 'trying to dress it up in science'?

See above

Contrast that with the evolutionary paradigm.  We see such large swings in what is generally thought and accepted from day to day.

Do I have to explain the scientific method to you again.  As new evidence is discovered, ideas and theories are either adapted or discarded.

Take the extinction of dinosaurs, for example.  First it's volcanism... then it's meteors... then it's climate... then it's meteors again...

Or maybe al three?  Once again, evidence is discovered, and ideas are discarded or refined.

it never stops

Science marches on!

and the evidence doesn't heavily favor any of these as the catch all for the dinosaur extinction.

Really?  Funny, what is the K-T oundary again?

If creation research made such swings we would be criticised to no end.

But it doesn't, because it's dogmatic religion, not science.

The work of YEC progresses slowly and methodically.  If an idea can't stand up to peer review it's abandoned or modified.  Of the many YEC scientists there are few actually doing YEC work, aswell.  

Once again, if I submitted a paper to "Flat Earth Quarterly" about "scientific evidence" in support of a flat earth, would this be considered valid science?  After all, it meets your criteria for "peer review".

Since you offer no evidence whatsoever for this, it's pretty easy to reject as completely false

Right, despite the fact that everyone is aware of it.  Here's one site to help you on your way:
pagan origins of christianity

And you don't think that basing an ideology on a religion gives that ideology a religious basis?

I would, if you had ever even come close to making any kind of a connection between evolution and humanism either than humanists think evolution is true.

You have so many assumptions and preconcieved notions built into that statement it's silly.  

I agree, seeing as how I made that statement based on the connections you were trying to make between humanism and evolution.

For example, you percieve that every branch of science is based on and cannot function without an evolutionary paradigm

No, merely stating that evolution is a science.  You are the one stating it must be a religion since humanists like it so much.  Every other branch of science explores the workings of the natural world, just the same as the ToE does.  They just don't tread on your toes quite as much because they don' make direct statements about human origins like the ToE does.

Isaac Newton did pretty good without it... Russel Humphreys works on top secret nuclear weapons and he is a dedicated YEC.

Agreed.  Now is either of those a biologist?  Did either one propose any valid theories in the field of biology?  Since both of them primarily work with physics, the ToE doesn't really have anything to do with how they go about their scientific careers, does it?



(Edited by TQ 6/2/2004 at 6:47 PM).


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 6:36 PM on June 2, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay, I read the article and a few observations I made.

The article has two broad themes. Firstly discredit (or in mainly in this case downplay) the role of a prominent evolutionist (Charles Darwin) in their field. Secondly, associate the opponent (evolution/humanism) with paganism.


Character assassination is a common tactic (yes, we all use it from time to time) but Darwin, unsurprisingly, comes in for an especially generous helping from those who object to evolution. With regard to development of the concept of biological evolution it covers most of Darwins peers and predessors correctly (insofar as it names most of those recognised by history). It also plays up their role to make Darwin seem insignificant (whereas in actual terms his contribution was quite the opposite). That is not to say they were not great thinkers, but they did not reach the conclusions Darwin did.

Except of course Alfred Russel Wallace who did indeed come to some similar conclusions to Darwin. However, where the article makes an oblique suggestion of plagarism towards Darwin, Wallace sent his article to Darwin as a continuation of a professional correspondance the two had struck up two years previous. Wallace knew of Darwins in depth studies regarding natural selection, and was off course interested to hear what he had to say about his own findings. Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker persuaded Darwin to publish two papers along with Wallace's, and the result was the papers presented to the Linnean Society in London on 1 July 1858 (although Darwin had not sought Wallace's permission to do so).

In that regard, the piece has put a great deal of "spin" (Alastier Campbell would have been proud!) on a subject to present it in a certain way.


The other theme running through the article is that which attempts to associate the scientific analysis of evolution with "old superstitions about origins". Two things are notable here- it puts evolution in terms of being a belief as opposed to science and also puts it with those beliefs that could be regarded as pagan (ie. godless) by some Christians.

That in turn is an attempt to muddy the waters of the debate- presenting evolution as what it is not- and in a light that makes it appear as the opponent to Christianity.


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 8:25 PM on June 2, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Since you offer no evidence whatsoever for this, it's pretty easy to reject as completely false.  In fact, if you go back and look at the oldest of ancient Chinese religions it parallels the hebrew religion so closely as to be practically the same.  If the Bible is true (and we believe it is) then 'christianity' started on day 6 of creation, making it the first and oldest religion.  Adam, the first man and Eve the first woman both worshiped the God of the Bible, as did their children


Now, wait on a second. Christianity did not exist until (at the very earliest) Jesus's period of ministry shortly before his cruicifixion. To become a fully established religon, another 400 or so years passed. Before Jesus's time the nearest thing was Judaism, which in effect was Christianity's direct predecessor.



-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 06:23 AM on June 3, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Um, no, we don't.  I think I probably know my own motivations better than you, so I think I have the valid point here.


Focus less on the 'I reject creationism because' and more on the 'there is no viable scientific evidence for it'.  My response of 'we both know this isn't true' is in regards to that portion of your statement.  I have no doubt you are decieved, I am attempting to combat that deception.  

Right, despite the fact that everyone is aware of it.

Wow... everyone is aware, yet not a single shred of evidence is produced.  

Agreed.  Now is either of those a biologist?  Did either one propose any valid theories in the field of biology?  Since both of them primarily work with physics, the ToE doesn't really have anything to do with how they go about their scientific careers, does it?


You seem to be fond of the argument that the ToE is somehow a stand alone issue regarding the point AFTER life started and now.  However, when I refer to evolution I am regarding this plus every mechanism that enables that mythology - evolution, big bang, abiogenesis, whatever labels you want to put in your 'we believe it because it isn't the Bible' fairy tales.  

Nothing else in your post was worth responding to.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 5:28 PM on June 3, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I almost felt dirty responding to your post, OR, in the same post as TQ's.  So I started a new post for my response to you.

I was prepared for the majority of your post.  I can see the very same things you see.  Despite the reasons for the article (surely as a refutation to common arguments made against YEC) and it's obvious bias (AiG's position in the debate is very clear) it does bring up some interesting factual information.  For example that the idea of evolving from one animal to another is not a modern idea, but one that permeates many false religions.  I accept your viewpoint, for the most part, as I would have expected you to feel.  

However when I came to your conclusion, I was a bit surprised.  

That in turn is an attempt to muddy the waters of the debate- presenting evolution as what it is not- and in a light that makes it appear as the opponent to Christianity.


With the basis of Christianity being the Bible... and evolution being a direct contradiction to the Bible... I am curious to find that you think Christianity and Evolution are somehow compatible world views.  Especially when evolution so demonstrably undermines the foundation of Christian principles, doctrine, and morality.  Jesus himself made reference to Genesis.  

Now, wait on a second. Christianity did not exist until (at the very earliest) Jesus's period of ministry shortly before his cruicifixion. To become a fully established religon, another 400 or so years passed. Before Jesus's time the nearest thing was Judaism, which in effect was Christianity's direct predecessor.


Technically this is true.  However, if you really knew anything about Christianity, you would know that we are called Christians because we find our salvation in Jesus Christ.  While he is our saviour, Yaweh is still our God.  The God who created the heaven and earth... the God who created man in his own image.  This is who we worship.  This is also the God of Judaism.  Judaism continues to worship the same God as the christian, however, without acknowleging that Jesus was the Messiah - the one who God promised would come in the Old testament to fulfil his promise to the Jews of someone who would Save the world from Adam's sin.  

So while we call ourselves christians, because we are now IN CHRIST - meaning we share the fate of christ who purchased our salvation - we still worship THE God, the one and only true creator... the one and only true God.  Jesus was God's son.  The Bible doesn't start at Jesus' birth.   The Bible starts at creation.  Christianity is oriented toward worshiping God.  Even Jesus glorified his Father (God) while on the earth as being the ultimate God.  

So while we, being Gentiles (non-jewish) can only be saved through Jesus Christ, and are therefore called Christians, we worship God The Father, Creator of all things.  

So this is why I say "Christianity started on Day 6 of creation".  Our religion starts at the foundations of the earth.  We worship the one and only true Creator.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 5:56 PM on June 3, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Focus less on the 'I reject creationism because' and more on the 'there is no viable scientific evidence for it'.  My response of 'we both know this isn't true' is in regards to that portion of your statement.  I have no doubt you are decieved, I am attempting to combat that deception.  

Riiight. As you already stated, you base your belief in creationism on the bible, not scientific evidence, so all you're doing here is misrepresenting your agenda yet again.  Believe whatever you want, just don't try and pass it off as science.

Wow... everyone is aware, yet not a single shred of evidence is produced.  

Thanks for proving a point gup

However, when I refer to evolution I am regarding this plus every mechanism that enables that mythology

That's nice.  It doesn't mean it's correct.  I can make up definitions to suit my needs as well, I just don't expect anyone else to buy them, which is what you seem to expect.

Nothing else in your post was worth responding to.  




-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 7:14 PM on June 3, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As you already stated, you base your belief in creationism on the bible, not scientific evidence, so all you're doing here is misrepresenting your agenda yet again.


A fact which I proclaim quite unabashedly.  However, we both know that scientific evidence exists which supports the Bible, therefore your original implication is still in question.  My personal feelings are irrelevant to facts.

Thanks for proving a point gup

You mean that you were wrong?  Well thank you for conceeding, TQ.  You are quite right when you say that I have proven my point.


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 12:40 PM on June 4, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 12:40 PM on June 4, 2004 :
However, we both know that scientific evidence exists which supports the Bible,



Incorrect.  There is evidence to support some of the Bible.  We have archeological evidence that some of the cities and civilaztions mentioned did in fact exist, for example.  Just becasue part of something is verifiable doesn't mean the whole thing is, however.  There is no scientific evidence to support that claim that Methusela lived to be 600+ years old, for example.

And as long as I'm here, the point that TQ was refering to was his, not yours.  
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 1:14 PM on June 4, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup20 wrote:
However when I came to your conclusion, I was a bit surprised.  

That in turn is an attempt to muddy the waters of the debate- presenting evolution as what it is not- and in a light that makes it appear as the opponent to Christianity.


With the basis of Christianity being the Bible... and evolution being a direct contradiction to the Bible... I am curious to find that you think Christianity and Evolution are somehow compatible world views.  Especially when evolution so demonstrably undermines the foundation of Christian principles, doctrine, and morality.  Jesus himself made reference to Genesis.


Well, I'd hate to get too predictable

But, thats the point- being a Christian and accepting the science behind an old earth and evolution etc, are not irreconcilable. They are to (for example) a young earth literal creationist, but not every Christian can be catagorized as such.

The fact of the matter is there are Christains who can reconcile both concepts of faith, belief and spirituality as read from the Bible with those of the science that leads us to the conclusion the earth is ~4.6 billion years old and the history of life in that timeframe.

Which poses an interesting question to you: how do you view a person who holds such a position?


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 11:58 AM on June 6, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OR:  how do you view a person who holds such a position?

To put it quite simply... I view them as a person who is decieved.  I view them as I would a person who believes that homosexuality or abortion are ok.  

Here is a good analogy to the way I see these people -

Lets say you have a brother or sister.  Now you think the Braves are the best team in baseball... they think the Yankees are the best team in baseball.  Does this difference in belief change the ammount of love you have for you sibling?  Does this difference in belief change the respect you have for your sibling?  Should you treat your sibling with contempt or loathe them?  No.  You love your sibling, but disagree with what they think.  What they believe really has no bearing on how you treat them (well... in most families anyway) because you love them.  This is what I mean when I say - love the sinner, hate the sin.  

Tell me if this statement is fair or not - the laws and rules of a society are based on the collective values of that society.

If this is true, then we can say that if the values of a society are good - then their laws and rules are good.  If their values are not good, the laws are rules are not good.  

Lets put it in a different light.  Lets take murder - we all would agree that murder is wrong, wouldn't we?  Well, most people agreed that homosexuality was wrong 100 years ago - yet here we are changing the definition of marriage to suit a homosexual lifestyle.  Who is to say that a man who loves another man can't marry him?  If as a society we agree that this should be ok, should it be allowed?  Who is say it's wrong?  Is the law absolute or can it be changed to suit the will of the people?  So then, if a man can marry another man... why can't a man marry 2 women?  After all... if that's what they want to do... if that makes them happy and society has no problem with it... couldn't that be legal?  Who is the US government to say that men and women can marry ... and that men and men can marry... but that more than 2 people can't marry... after all they love each other - why can't they do what makes them happy?  So then, if a man falls helplessly in love with a horse - who is to say that this is wrong, or that he can't marry his horse?

Is any of this right or wrong?  Who decides right or wrong?  Does society decide right or wrong, or is there an ultimate or absolute right or wrong?  If society decides right and wrong, then right and wrong is based on the opinion of people.  If a person can decide for themselves what is right or wrong abcent an ultimate or absolute authority, then who is to say that any person's opinion is better or more valid than another person's opinion?  Doesn't the constitution say that we are all equal?  Shouldn't all people be able to decide their sexual preferences and have that legally backed by the government?  Who is the goverment to say that a 1 man 1 woman household is better suited for adopting a child than a 2 man, 3 woman, 1 horse, 1 dog family?

You see, if laws of a society are based on the values of a society, and the values of a society are not based on an absolute, but are changeable... that means that right and wrong is not a constant.  Moreover, the dynamic is based upon what each person decides is right and wrong for themselves.  This is the basis and most root concept in humanism... that man decides absolutes for himself.  

Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.

Would we ask a recoving alcholic to take a drink with us?  No - because that one drink may lead that person back down the path to self destruction.  
Is it good that a Christian believes in evolution?  No - because undermining Biblical authority may lead that person back down the path to self destruction.  

Make no mistake... hell is a choice.  It is one choosing to reject salvation because of a the humanistic influence in their lives telling them they don't have to believe in Jesus.  

Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?  
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.  

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:43 PM on June 8, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lets put it in a different light.  Lets take murder - we all would agree that murder is wrong, wouldn't we?  Well, most people agreed that homosexuality was wrong 100 years ago - yet here we are changing the definition of marriage to suit a homosexual lifestyle.  Who is to say that a man who loves another man can't marry him?  If as a society we agree that this should be ok, should it be allowed?  Who is say it's wrong?  Is the law absolute or can it be changed to suit the will of the people?  So then, if a man can marry another man... why can't a man marry 2 women?  After all... if that's what they want to do... if that makes them happy and society has no problem with it... couldn't that be legal?  Who is the US government to say that men and women can marry ... and that men and men can marry... but that more than 2 people can't marry... after all they love each other - why can't they do what makes them happy?  So then, if a man falls helplessly in love with a horse - who is to say that this is wrong, or that he can't marry his horse?

Do you guys take classes on this stuff?  This is almost verbatim the repeat of an argument I saw on another board.  Why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry?  Why should they not be allowed the same rights as anyone else in society?   Because your book says they should be killed?  Sorry, not a good enough reason.



-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 7:50 PM on June 8, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why should they not be allowed the same rights as anyone else in society?   Because your book says they should be killed?  Sorry, not a good enough reason.


Firstly, no one is advocating that homosexuals be killed.  In fact, the message of the Bible is that any person - homosexual or otherwise - can be redeemed from the curse of sin & death, and live with Jesus and God forever in heaven.  

Secondly, homosexuality is not a right.  No where in the constitution does it say 'we hold this to be self evident that some people are gay and should be allowed to have sex with others their own gender'.  It says that all people are created equal.  Now let me ask you a question - is it legal in the USA to create laws against people of a certain gender, skin color, or racial grouping?  No.  Is it legal to create laws that govern people's behavior?  Yes.  If we didn't... then we couldn't lock people up for murder, or rape, or give speeding tickets.  The point here is that homosexuality is not a right... it's a choice - and it's a behavioral choice at that.  

The primary humanistic response to that is that homosexuals didn't choose to be attracted to the same sex... they were born that way.  Well - to this I would respond that pedophiles and rapists would probably use the same line of reasoning to justify themselves.  The question is where do we draw the line as a society.  What do we consider right or wrong.  What is ok... what is not ok.  Here again we come to the path of how do we determine right and wrong.  What is moral and immoral?  If we base that decision on what we as a society find acceptable, then a downward trend is inevitable.  The more people deviate from the accepted norm, the more the deviation becomes the accepted norm.  It is human nature.  So today, we see homosexuality... tomorrow we will see polygamy, beastiality, and pedophilia become accepted norms.  It won't stop unless there is an absolute line somewhere... and as long as that absolute line is based on man's idea of what is right and wrong... that line will continue to change to allow more and more and more.

This is exactly the condition that man was in before the flood.  

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

We see revelation of human nature here:

Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.

Also if we look at the account of Lot and his wife and family.... the city they lived in (sodom and gomorrah) was destroyed by fire, if you remember.  When the two angels came to tell Lot and his family to leave, the men of the town came to Lot and told Lot to let them rape the two men they had seen go into his house.  

Today, anal sex is named after that city - Sodom.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 1:06 PM on June 9, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

An interesting position, but one which is tottaly refuted by history.  What we see is not your predicted decline, but an increase in rights and freedoms bestowed upon people.

The essence of morality is simple:  Does a given act hurt or help others.  The "trick" over the ages has been who we are willing to include in the list of others.  For example, way back when, you were expected to act a certain way towards members of your tribe, but you could do anything you want to other tribes.  The ancient Greeks provided many priveledges, as long as you were a Greek, male, landowner.  In America we have over time recognized that women should in fact be allowed to vote, and that blacks shouldn't be slaves.  As a society grows to realise that a certain group, which previously had been considered "other", are in fact just people like everyone else, the laws have been changed to guarantee them the rights and priveldges that everyone enjoys.  Social progess comes from recognizing the difference between those who do harm, and those who are simply different, and learning not to fear the differences.

Of course the feared decline won't occurr, because the basic premise of morailty hasn't changed.  Pedophilia and bestiality are harmfull, and so will never be condoned.  Having two people who love each other express their love, regardless of gender, hurts no one, and in fact is good, and so should be condoned.  The yardstick for measuring morality hasn't changed, we're just learning, slowly, to apply it fairly.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 1:44 PM on June 9, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well - to this I would respond that pedophiles and rapists would probably use the same line of reasoning to justify themselves.

Does the phrase "consenting adults" ring any bells?

So today, we see homosexuality... tomorrow we will see polygamy, beastiality, and pedophilia become accepted norms.

I always love when people like you try to draw comparisons between homosexuality and beastiality/pedophilia.

Today, anal sex is named after that city - Sodom.  

Wow, way to make your point gup!

As a society grows to realise that a certain group, which previously had been considered "other", are in fact just people like everyone else, the laws have been changed to guarantee them the rights and priveldges that everyone enjoys.  Social progess comes from recognizing the difference between those who do harm, and those who are simply different, and learning not to fear the differences.

Bravo Kronus.  Exactly my thoughts





-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 2:29 PM on June 9, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20:

To put it quite simply... I view them as a person who is decieved.  I view them as I would a person who believes that homosexuality or abortion are ok.


Now, before I get started with the rest of your posts, who gives you the authority to pass such a judgement on a fellow Christain?

Here is a good analogy to the way I see these people -

Lets say you have a brother or sister.  Now you think the Braves are the best team in baseball... they think the Yankees are the best team in baseball.  Does this difference in belief change the ammount of love you have for you sibling?  Does this difference in belief change the respect you have for your sibling?  Should you treat your sibling with contempt or loathe them?  No.  You love your sibling, but disagree with what they think.  What they believe really has no bearing on how you treat them (well... in most families anyway) because you love them.  This is what I mean when I say - love the sinner, hate the sin.


Fair enough- but the consequence of such a viewpoint is dependant on the personal qualities of those who hold it. The distinction between the hated sin and loved sinner is all to easily forgotten, and a collective view ends up left with the hate alone. I'm sorry to say, but humanity lacks the benign outlook as a whole to reliably hold such a subtle perspective.

Tell me if this statement is fair or not - the laws and rules of a society are based on the collective values of that society.

If this is true, then we can say that if the values of a society are good - then their laws and rules are good.  If their values are not good, the laws are rules are not good.


This depends on how one is allocating good and bad. Too simple an approach when dealing with such a complex entity as a society.

Lets put it in a different light.  Lets take murder - we all would agree that murder is wrong, wouldn't we?  Well, most people agreed that homosexuality was wrong 100 years ago - yet here we are changing the definition of marriage to suit a homosexual lifestyle.


You cannot seriously tell me you view a murderer in the same light as a gay man or lesbian woman. Or even any person who has committed a crime for that matter. Has it not occured to you that it is (Western Christian) society is wrong in its outlook to homosexuality 100 years ago? How about the laws to protect children 100 years ago- were they right too? or what about the lack of protection for a woman in the event she is sexaully assaulted by a man- not exactly a shining paradigm by modern standards was it?

Who is to say that a man who loves another man can't marry him?  If as a society we agree that this should be ok, should it be allowed?  Who is say it's wrong?  Is the law absolute or can it be changed to suit the will of the people?  So then, if a man can marry another man... why can't a man marry 2 women?  After all... if that's what they want to do... if that makes them happy and society has no problem with it... couldn't that be legal?  Who is the US government to say that men and women can marry ... and that men and men can marry... but that more than 2 people can't marry... after all they love each other - why can't they do what makes them happy?  So then, if a man falls helplessly in love with a horse - who is to say that this is wrong, or that he can't marry his horse?


Ah, but legal laws are not absolute, at least with regard to their persistence through time- laws change, thats an undenyable fact. As to the man with his horse, thats another legal kettle of fish, as his horse is not a human, and is not a citizen, and so not afforded the rights and responsibilities that a person has.

Is any of this right or wrong?  Who decides right or wrong?  Does society decide right or wrong, or is there an ultimate or absolute right or wrong?  If society decides right and wrong, then right and wrong is based on the opinion of people.  If a person can decide for themselves what is right or wrong abcent an ultimate or absolute authority, then who is to say that any person's opinion is better or more valid than another person's opinion?  Doesn't the constitution say that we are all equal?  Shouldn't all people be able to decide their sexual preferences and have that legally backed by the government?  Who is the goverment to say that a 1 man 1 woman household is better suited for adopting a child than a 2 man, 3 woman, 1 horse, 1 dog family?


You seem to miss some existing distinctions here: people are different from animals legally speaking, and laws exist to protect those beneath the age of consent from sexual exploitation and predation.

You see, if laws of a society are based on the values of a society, and the values of a society are not based on an absolute, but are changeable... that means that right and wrong is not a constant.  Moreover, the dynamic is based upon what each person decides is right and wrong for themselves.  This is the basis and most root concept in humanism... that man decides absolutes for himself.


Your so despised humanism has resulted in many laws that offer protection for people in all sorts of situations and circumstances. Getting away from irreconcilable and simplyfied notions of right and wrong/black and white has led to many postive changes in society. There are off course things that remain wrong, with good reason and have strong laws to punish those who break such law.

However, I don't for one minute buy the arguement that allowing a gay couple to wed is somehow going to make society view murder/manslaughter legal any sooner than I accept the moon is made of green cheese.

Would we ask a recoving alcholic to take a drink with us?  No - because that one drink may lead that person back down the path to self destruction.  
Is it good that a Christian believes in evolution?  No - because undermining Biblical authority may lead that person back down the path to self destruction.


Once again, you resolve try to justify your attiudes by juxtaposing unrelated examples. An interest in evolution may lead you to spend time reading books with lots of greek in them and visiting museums to look at bits of stone that are millions of years old, but it is not going to give you heart disease, high blood pressure, fits, cirrhosis of the liver or bring misery, injury or financial ruin on your family and friends.

I suppose those Christians who do not dispute evolution have a different perspective of the details on biblical authority.

Make no mistake... hell is a choice.  It is one choosing to reject salvation because of a the humanistic influence in their lives telling them they don't have to believe in Jesus.


Actually Gup, according to my reading of your statements hell is not a choice for a very great number of people.

(Edited by OccamsRazor 6/9/2004 at 4:00 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 3:58 PM on June 9, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Secondly, homosexuality is not a right.  No where in the constitution does it say 'we hold this to be self evident that some people are gay and should be allowed to have sex with others their own gender'.  It says that all people are created equal.  Now let me ask you a question - is it legal in the USA to create laws against people of a certain gender, skin color, or racial grouping?  No.  Is it legal to create laws that govern people's behavior?  Yes.  If we didn't... then we couldn't lock people up for murder, or rape, or give speeding tickets.  The point here is that homosexuality is not a right... it's a choice - and it's a behavioral choice at that.


I'm not surprised that as usual you resolve the issue into right and wrong, and don't acknowledge any middle ground.

I think you misread the point about "rights". I'm not very familiar with the US consitution, but I have a feeling there are a whole set of activities that are not explicitly mentioned as being a right and are allowed to happen within US law.

I think TQ was getting at the legal rights gay couples are entitled too (or not I would imagine).

On the other side of the Atlantic where I live there are similar struggles going on. It is just that a gay couple can live in a faithful relationship for 25 years and have no entitlements in the event one of them dies? (an unmarried man and a woman in a similar situation do). Lets think practicalities- the survivor of the first to die has no entitlement to estate, pension or life benefits as things stand at the moment (although that is finally about to change).

Do you think that is a fair, even handed treatment of the situation?


Finally, that was a well written post Kronus

(Edited by OccamsRazor 6/9/2004 at 4:26 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 4:25 PM on June 9, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The essence of morality is simple:  Does a given act hurt or help others.  The "trick" over the ages has been who we are willing to include in the list of others.

If that is the case - AIDS is exponentially higher in the US amoung homosexuals than amoung heterosexuals.  It is obviously a hurtful practice.  Also this philosophy is diametricly opposed to the survival of the fittest mantality.  According to your definition there, we should reward those who fail the most.  I doubt this is what you truely believe.  

As a society grows to realise that a certain group, which previously had been considered "other", are in fact just people like everyone else, the laws have been changed to guarantee them the rights and priveldges that everyone enjoys.  Social progess comes from recognizing the difference between those who do harm, and those who are simply different, and learning not to fear the differences.


Ah... but again, our constitution affirms that all men were created equal.  Therein is where our equalities end.  Homosexuals are not a minority group - they are a group of people exhibiting a particular behavior.  Surely you would see someone with a doctorate degree more qualified to be a teacher than somone who dropped out of school... therefore we have demonstrated that while all people are born equal, all people are NOT equal.  Qualification by definition is dependent on behavior and ability.  Therefore we, as a society, are justified in judging behavior as more or less qualifying.  While the person cannot be disqualified for anything present at birth, they can be disqualified for progress since then, or for wrong behavior (for example, if an employee does bad work, or shows up late and is fired).  Because homosexuality is purely behavioral, it doesn't qualify as a minority... nor should it recieve special status as such.  

An interesting position, but one which is tottaly refuted by history.

Oh... I dunno - I think the biblical examples are pretty clear.  Also, if you take a look at the downfall to every major 'free' world power or empire (such as the Roman Empire for example) in history, you can trace it's fall to corruption and moral decay.  

In fact, if you take communism and look at the communistic methods of defeating capitalism and freedom you will see that the steps to toppling such a system are to introduce moral and political corruption.  

TQ:  Does the phrase "consenting adults" ring any bells?

Does the phrase 'but we love each other' ring any bells?

I always love when people like you try to draw comparisons between homosexuality and beastiality/pedophilia.

It always astounds me that 'people like you' can't grasp the concept that the more a deviation from a standard becomes acceptable... the more the deviation becomes the standard.  Beastiality and pedophilia are not comparrisons of homosexuality - they are degrees of progression.  

Bravo Kronus.  Exactly my thoughts

These sentiments remind me of the world 'tolerance'.  Homosexuality is something that is tolerated.  To tolerate doesn't mean to accept with open arms.  It is to allow in spite of your strong feelings against.  Somewhere along the line, tolerance has been blurred to mean acceptance.  That absolute line of morality becomes more and more blurred.

OR:  Now, before I get started with the rest of your posts, who gives you the authority to pass such a judgement on a fellow Christain?

Indeed it isn't my place to judge - and so I do not - however it is my place to resist evil.  Judgement is declaring guilt and assigning blame/punishment.  That is not a christian's place (which is why you don't see christian suicide bombers).  However, often christians do judge each other - for example the catholic church excommunicating someone, or kicking them out of church.  Or perhaps a religious fanatic who brings a gun to an abortion clinic and starts shooting doctors.  This is abhorrent.  However, as I said, it is my role as a christian to oppose evil in the earth and to resist it.  I can do so without pronouncing judgement or doling out punishment.  Evil is simply anything that exhaults itself against the knowledge of God.  Now... that being said (so that the following is in the proper context and light) - He that is in me is greater than he that is in the world.  If I am in christ I then he is in me - and it is by that authority that I cast out that which exhaults itself against the knowledge of God.  

2Cr 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:  
4 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)  
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;  


Tts 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;  
14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.  
15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.  

Fair enough- but the consequence of such a viewpoint is dependant on the personal qualities of those who hold it. The distinction between the hated sin and loved sinner is all to easily forgotten, and a collective view ends up left with the hate alone. I'm sorry to say, but humanity lacks the benign outlook as a whole to reliably hold such a subtle perspective.

I agree.  It is only through a revelation of God's love for these individuals that this can be avoided.  This can only come through personal relationship with God.  Those holding their christianity as a religion and repetitive duty will almost certainly fail to act and view the situation appropriately.  

Another thing I wanted to point out here - Kronus spoke of fearing the differences between people.  This is not the case.  Here we have a standard of morality set by God, and we are simply trying to resist the downward trend to move away from such as standard.  Why is this the case?  Because God created us, and he knows what makes us tick.  He knows what will give us the greatest opportunity for success and happiness.  The farther away from God's code of morality we get in search of that happiness, the more elusive that happiness becomes.   It is not out of fear that we resist evil, but out of love and compassion.  

You cannot seriously tell me you view a murderer in the same light as a gay man or lesbian woman.

I may not, but God does.  However extreme the example, it could be - in fact IT HAS BEEN changed to fit the will of the people.  For example, fast draws and gentlemen's challenges are no longer legal... this is now considered murder.  Take that another step - abortion - once considered murder is now legal.  This is clear evidence that our laws change as our values change.  Our interpretation of laws fluctuate with the eb and tide of societies opinions.  What is unthinkable today will be commonplace tomorrow.  What was unthinkable yesterday is commonplace today.  

How about the laws to protect children 100 years ago- were they right too? or what about the lack of protection for a woman in the event she is sexaully assaulted by a man- not exactly a shining paradigm by modern standards was it?

Let me answer that question by posing this question to you - How many public schools had problems with guns, drugs, and sex in classrooms in the 1950's?  Few if any.  Why is it such a big problem today?  Was there a higher crime rate then, or is there more crime now?  Society as a whole held christian values in higher regard at that time.  Certainly, it wasn't a perfect system... but I would imagine that it was a much happier time.  Clearly, our country had not become what our founding fathers had wanted it to be - a place where all men were created equal.  It is biblical that men should be free... it is biblical that women should have the same rights as men.  Every idea and doctrine is like a path with a ditch (or extreme) on either side.  In correctng the problem of inequality, we went from one ditch (no equality) to the other ditch we see today where every group who doesnt' get what they want claims they need equal protection.  

As to the man with his horse, thats another legal kettle of fish, as his horse is not a human, and is not a citizen, and so not afforded the rights and responsibilities that a person has.

Ah but what about the poor man in love with the horse... what about HIS rights.  What about his needs and wants and desires.  Are they any less valid than any other persons?  How can the goverment tell him who to love.  He can't help it... after all wasn't he born with the preclevity to love animals - he didn't choose who to fall in love with... why should he be punished for it?  Doesn't this man have rights?

You seem to miss some existing distinctions here: people are different from animals legally speaking, and laws exist to protect those beneath the age of consent from sexual exploitation and predation.

Ah... but you just said "Ah, but legal laws are not absolute, at least with regard to their persistence through time- laws change, thats an undenyable fact."  Do you know that I was walking through Target a few weeks ago - and I walked by the childrens clothing section.  To my astonishment there on the rack sitting in full view of the isle is underwear for 5-9 year olds - THONG underwear for 5-9 year olds!  Thong underwear with the playboy logo on THONG UNDERWEAR FOR 5-9 YEAR OLDS!  What purpose does a 5 year old (or even a 9 year old) have for wearing 'sexy' underwear?  Do you know that 10, 11, and 12 year old students are now raping each other... and having sexual intercourse in our public school classrooms!  Have you ever seen a Britney Spears concert?  You have little girls going to these concerts watching Britney basically doing dance move depicting sex on stage.  You and I agree - laws change.  I have shown you that laws change in the direction of societal norms or within the range of what society deems appropriate.  We see in the case of homosexual marriage and the sodomy law in Texas that sex is becoming an issue the goverment is unwilling to restrict.  It is an issue that is gaining a 'rights movement' of it's own.  It is currently legal for a 17 year old to get their parents permission to marry, for example.  The line eventually, the legal age for marriage will come into question, and if there is enough people who oppose 18, it will be dropped to 17 or 16.  Currently, for example, it is legal in Holland for teenagers under the age of 18 to be in pornagraphy.  It isn't long before this becomes acceptable here as well.  Why?  Because we can already see we are in the same stages of social progression.  

Your so despised humanism has resulted in many laws that offer protection for people in all sorts of situations and circumstances.

Such as the laws protecting doctors who murder unborn fetuses and laws protecting those who engage in child pornagraphy under the guise of 'art'?  Perhaps you are referring to striking down laws that made anal sex illegal, or removing a student's right to prayer in the classroom?  Perhaps you are referring to laws allowing sex education in our middle schools or allowing the F-word to be used in prime-time broadcast television.  Perhaps you refer to laws that let us show completely naked people on television during the time our children are watching TV as long as they put little blurry boxes over thier private parts?  

Let me tell you, OR, back in the 1950's we had rules about chewing gum in class... in the year 2004 we have rules about carrying a gun in class.  Oh yes.... all sorts of new laws are a result of humanistic influence on our society.  Why?  Because we didn't use to NEED these laws.  People did what was right on their own.  They had a moral compass at that time.  Whenever abuse of a liberty goes to far, we make a new law.  Isn't that the way it always goes?

but it is not going to give you heart disease, high blood pressure, fits, cirrhosis of the liver or bring misery, injury or financial ruin on your family and friends.

Jhn 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly.

Evolution is a harmless little belief, isn't it?  We don't have to believe in all that creation stuff ... it's not that big of deal.... right?  Who is the author of humanistic belief?  Satan.  What is Satan's purpose?  To kill, steal, and destroy.  When you believe evolution, you align your thinking with someone who is trying to kill you and take away your purpose for being.  

Hath God said? - surely god didn't say that....   Sounds just like what Satan told Eve in the garden.  Believing evolution is like that alcholic taking that one drink... it won't destroy him, but the path it takes him down sure will.  

Actually Gup, according to my reading of your statements hell is not a choice for a very great number of people.

It's as much a choise as the captain has to 'go down with the ship'.  The ship is sinking... there are plenty of life boats... you can either stay and die, or get in the boat and live.  You choose.  

Saying No to God is tantamount to choosing death.  All have sinned and all deserve hell.  If you can find a single person on this planet who has never sinned, be my guest.  The fact that we see death and decay is physical evidence of Adam's sin and the punishment thereof.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 6:08 PM on June 9, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Therefore we, as a society, are justified in judging behavior as more or less qualifying.  While the person cannot be disqualified for anything present at birth, they can be disqualified for progress since then, or for wrong behavior (for example, if an employee does bad work, or shows up late and is fired).  Because homosexuality is purely behavioral, it doesn't qualify as a minority... nor should it recieve special status as such.  


Oh Gup, you were so close!  Just two more steps!

"And so we won't treat homosexuals as special, but instead treat them like everyone else (since they've done no wrong) and give them all the rights that we enjoy"

Addressing some of your other random silliness:

"Survival of the fittest" isn't a mindset, it's a natural tendancy.  You might as well say that parachutes violate the law of gravity and shouldn't be used.

As for the fact the gays have a higher rate of AIDS, duh!  Patient 0 in North America was gay.  AIDS is spread though transmission of bodily fluids, like during sex.  Gay people have sex with gay people.  So of course it spread faster through the gay community than the het community, at least at first.  If the patient 0 had been straight, it would be mostly a strieght disease.  All you're really saying here is that having unprotected sex while you have an STD is bad.  

Or, to paraphrase the NRA, butt sex doesn't cause AIDS, the HIV virus causes AIDS.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 6:35 PM on June 9, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup, I say this in all seriousness:  Seek the help of a mental health professional.

It always astounds me that 'people like you' can't grasp the concept that the more a deviation from a standard becomes acceptable... the more the deviation becomes the standard.  Beastiality and pedophilia are not comparrisons of homosexuality - they are degrees of progression.

And there we have it.  In gup's mind, homosexuals are merely one step away from bestiality and pedophilia.  That's simply pathetic.

These sentiments remind me of the world 'tolerance'.  Homosexuality is something that is tolerated.  To tolerate doesn't mean to accept with open arms.  It is to allow in spite of your strong feelings against.  Somewhere along the line, tolerance has been blurred to mean acceptance.  That absolute line of morality becomes more and more blurred.

Blah blah blah.  This meant nothing the first time you posted it.  what makes you think it improved with age.  I don't remember using the term "tolerance", so what is your point? I am saying that gays are entitled to the same rights and freedoms as anyone else.

For example, fast draws and gentlemen's challenges are no longer legal... this is now considered murder.  Take that another step - abortion - once considered murder is now legal.  This is clear evidence that our laws change as our values change.  Our interpretation of laws fluctuate with the eb and tide of societies opinions.  What is unthinkable today will be commonplace tomorrow.  What was unthinkable yesterday is commonplace today.
Right, like slavery, women's rights, child labour laws, etc.  Too bad we can't be back in the good old days when you could backhand a woman for being uppity and hire five year olds to work the mines, eh gup?

Let me answer that question by posing this question to you - How many public schools had problems with guns, drugs, and sex in classrooms in the 1950's?  Few if any.  Why is it such a big problem today?  Was there a higher crime rate then, or is there more crime now?  Society as a whole held christian values in higher regard at that time.

Maybe I can get an answer out of you this time gup.  Why is it that America, one of the most christian nations on earth, has one of the highest crime rates?  I live in Canada, and we have none of these problems, and we are not as religous as Americans.  There goes that theory.

Ah but what about the poor man in love with the horse... what about HIS rights.

Is the horse a consenting adult?  No.  It's a simple concept gup.  Try and keep up here.

Do you know that I was walking through Target a few weeks ago -

I'll snip the rest of this rant.  So, we should censor anyone and anything that you don't like?  I din't realize the Taliban was offering franchise opportunities.

It is currently legal for a 17 year old to get their parents permission to marry, for example.

And it used to be 12 or so back in the good old days, so there goes another "theory".

Gup, you are an ignorant bigot who won't be happy until you have a theocratic state where whoever disagrees with your version of the truth is imprisoned, "re-educated", or dead.  Why would anyone take you seriously after this?

Seriously, go to therapy.

(Edited by TQ 6/9/2004 at 7:14 PM).


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 7:14 PM on June 9, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"And so we won't treat homosexuals as special, but instead treat them like everyone else (since they've done no wrong) and give them all the rights that we enjoy"

Homosexuals currently enjoy all the rights we enjoy.  In fact, creating a law to allow homosexual marriage is treating them as 'special' or like some group that requires minority protection.  According to this logic, we should give special priviliges to anyone who decides to act outside the bounds of the norm or acceptable.  

"Survival of the fittest" isn't a mindset, it's a natural tendancy.

So those who excel in sports don't become professionals... is it the worst athletes that play in the big leagues?  Or is it the worst business people that make the most money in business... or is it the ugliest people who get chosen in beauty contests?  

TQ:  Gup, I say this in all seriousness:  Seek the help of a mental health professional.

Maybe you'll feel differently when you reach the age of 13.  

TQ:  And there we have it.  In gup's mind, homosexuals are merely one step away from bestiality and pedophilia.  That's simply pathetic.

Try to 'keep up' here buddy... you are skipping a step - poligamy comes next - THEN beastiality and then pedophilia.  

TQ:  I am saying that gays are entitled to the same rights and freedoms as anyone else

Gays and lesbians have the same rights as everyone else... but that's not good enough for them.  They want special rights... they want more rights... they want 'their own rights'.  You are not saying they are entitled to the same rights... you are saying they are entitled to additional rights that NO ONE currently has.  

Why is it that America, one of the most christian nations on earth, has one of the highest crime rates?

Because shortly after the 1950's America stopped being 'one of the most christian' countries.  It co-incides with the removal of religous liberties in this country.  As soon as it became illegal to pray in school and read the Bible in school the decline started.  Today, roughly 4% of public school students profess christian faith, and is the crime rates in public schools any wonder?  Try this my Cannuk friend - compare the 1950's crime rates in the US with the current crime rates in Canada.  What do you see then?  Because that is truely the last era that the US was a Christian Country.  

I live in Canada, and we have none of these problems, and we are not as religous as Americans.

You also have a socialist totalitarian-esk government that disallows free speech and provides severe mis-information to it's citizens.  

So, we should censor anyone and anything that you don't like?

No... that would be the Cannadian way, though.  Do you really think that playboy logo thong underwear for 5 year old girls is acceptable?  Perhaps it is YOU who should seek that mental health professional.  

TQ:  Gup, you are an ignorant bigot who won't be happy until you have a theocratic state where whoever disagrees with your version of the truth is imprisoned, "re-educated", or dead.

Besides being a blatent violation of this message boards policies, it is an ad hominem attack that carries no weight.  Furthermore, I have stated that I would not endorse a theocratic state, espeicially the theocracy of atheism that currently permiates our judicial branch of Goverment (driven and supported by your local ACLU).  All people, including goverment officials, should have the liberty to practice and express their religion freely without the hinderance of the state or federal government.  


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 8:19 PM on June 9, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In fact, creating a law to allow homosexual marriage is treating them as 'special' or like some group that requires minority protection.

Right, because nobody else is allowed to marry the person they love. This point makes a lot of sense gup.

So those who excel in sports don't become professionals... is it the worst athletes that play in the big leagues?  Or is it the worst business people that make the most money in business... or is it the ugliest people who get chosen in beauty contests?

This has what to do with anything?


Maybe you'll feel differently when you reach the age of 13.

Maybe, but since I'm long past that age...

Gays and lesbians have the same rights as everyone else... but that's not good enough for them.  They want special rights... they want more rights... they want 'their own rights'.  You are not saying they are entitled to the same rights... you are saying they are entitled to additional rights that NO ONE currently has

No one currently has the right to marry the person that they love?

Because shortly after the 1950's America stopped being 'one of the most christian' countries.  It co-incides with the removal of religous liberties in this country.  As soon as it became illegal to pray in school and read the Bible in school the decline started.  Today, roughly 4% of public school students profess christian faith, and is the crime rates in public schools any wonder?  Try this my Cannuk friend - compare the 1950's crime rates in the US with the current crime rates in Canada.  What do you see then?  Because that is truely the last era that the US was a Christian Country.

Try and keep up here gup.  America is much more religious than most countries.  I'm speaking of today.
US one of the most religous
I find it strange that the ones that rank lowest (Japan being a good example) are the ones with the lowest crime rates.  Shouldn't that be the other way around, according to you?

BTW, it's "canuck".

You also have a socialist totalitarian-esk government that disallows free speech and provides severe mis-information to it's citizens.  



No... that would be the Cannadian way, though.



Do you really think that playboy logo thong underwear for 5 year old girls is acceptable?

Usually I don't concern myself with the undergarments of minors, so...

Besides being a blatent violation of this message boards policies

Possibly, but if the shoe fits...

espeicially the theocracy of atheism that currently permiates our judicial branch of Goverment

Please explain to me how atheism, the disbelief in any god or gods, can possibly be behind the introduction of a theocracy, a government ruled by religous authority.  I'm curious how a belief in no religion can be a religion.

(driven and supported by your local ACLU)

How is an organization devoted to protecting your constitutional rights spearheading the installation of an "atheist theocracy"?

All people, including goverment officials, should have the liberty to practice and express their religion freely without the hinderance of the state or federal government.

Right, but it shouldn't be government sponsored or coerced, which is why prayer does not belong in public school, unless you want prayers to each and every deity so that no one religion is favoured, and we all know you don't want that.



(Edited by TQ 6/9/2004 at 9:15 PM).

(Edited by TQ 6/9/2004 at 9:16 PM).


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 9:12 PM on June 9, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20
If that is the case - AIDS is exponentially higher in the US amoung homosexuals than amoung heterosexuals.  It is obviously a hurtful practice.  Also this philosophy is diametricly opposed to the survival of the fittest mantality.  According to your definition there, we should reward those who fail the most.  I doubt this is what you truely believe.


Although your response was to Kronus I would like to comment on this as well.

The nature of the HIV/AIDS infections is highly dependent on the country you are looking at. Firstly, in terms of total infections worldwide AIDS is very much a problem for the hetrosexual community. In the West, we have a skewed view of the problem as a whole because the (compartively) small numbers of cases have originated in the gay men communities. This is not the case in countries where the problem is the most serious (say South Africa etc) where hetrosexuals account for the great majority of infections.

Even so, in the UK where I live, HIV infection rates are now greater amongst hetrosexuals than homosexuals. Actually, this has been the case for the last five years since 1999. If you don't believe me check the figures out:

CDR weekly, June 4 2004

No doubt there is some cross over between the hetrosexual and homosexual communities, but AIDS is far from a "gay men only" problem. Perhaps you should check out your governments official figures to see exactly what the situation is like in the US?

Indeed it isn't my place to judge - and so I do not - however it is my place to resist evil.  Judgement is declaring guilt and assigning blame/punishment.  That is not a christian's place (which is why you don't see christian suicide bombers).  However, often christians do judge each other - for example the catholic church excommunicating someone, or kicking them out of church.  Or perhaps a religious fanatic who brings a gun to an abortion clinic and starts shooting doctors.  This is abhorrent.  However, as I said, it is my role as a christian to oppose evil in the earth and to resist it.  I can do so without pronouncing judgement or doling out punishment.  Evil is simply anything that exhaults itself against the knowledge of God.  Now... that being said (so that the following is in the proper context and light) - He that is in me is greater than he that is in the world.  If I am in christ I then he is in me - and it is by that authority that I cast out that which exhaults itself against the knowledge of God.


Okay then, I see you can justify your stance. The thing is though, it could be reversed on you by a "old earth Christian" in defence of their viewpoint. So then it comes down to, ultimately personal opinion. You have the truth of the Bible on your side, but so do they.

I agree.  It is only through a revelation of God's love for these individuals that this can be avoided.  This can only come through personal relationship with God.  Those holding their christianity as a religion and repetitive duty will almost certainly fail to act and view the situation appropriately.


So you do you understand when, for example, I am alarmed by statements like hate the sin, love the sinner? I don't doubt some people can fully appreciate the principle, but I also know that it plays to the prejudices of others.

Another thing I wanted to point out here - Kronus spoke of fearing the differences between people.  This is not the case.  Here we have a standard of morality set by God, and we are simply trying to resist the downward trend to move away from such as standard.  Why is this the case?  Because God created us, and he knows what makes us tick.  He knows what will give us the greatest opportunity for success and happiness.  The farther away from God's code of morality we get in search of that happiness, the more elusive that happiness becomes.   It is not out of fear that we resist evil, but out of love and compassion.


So how then can you reconcile a gay person who wishes to have a relationship with a member of the same sex, because they want to be happy? would you have them be celibate rather than have any relationship at all? thats not going to make them happy is it? (and don't use the "it's behavioural" line as that is not unequoivcally true).

Let me answer that question by posing this question to you - How many public schools had problems with guns, drugs, and sex in classrooms in the 1950's?  Few if any.  Why is it such a big problem today?


In the case of North America you are talking about, well drugs and guns are readily available to the society, so their prescene is hardly surprising is it? Also, compared with the 50's drugs were not present in the country in the same way they are today, so you cannot make a direct comparison there. As to the sex bit, western culture is much more open on issues of sexuality today than it as 50 years ago. I also think you are overstating the magnitude of any problems.

Was there a higher crime rate then, or is there more crime now?  Society as a whole held christian values in higher regard at that time.  Certainly, it wasn't a perfect system... but I would imagine that it was a much happier time.


I can believe that peoples outlook on life was generally less complex than it is today. Happiness? well that depends which bit of that society you occupied

Clearly, our country had not become what our founding fathers had wanted it to be - a place where all men were created equal.  It is biblical that men should be free... it is biblical that women should have the same rights as men.  Every idea and doctrine is like a path with a ditch (or extreme) on either side.  In correctng the problem of inequality, we went from one ditch (no equality) to the other ditch we see today where every group who doesnt' get what they want claims they need equal protection.


Yes because going from a situation of no equality to equal equality does not address the huge gulf of separation that has been allowed to develop (in whatever area we care to name) in all those centuries of the unequal status quo was allowed to persist. In other words white male finally gets a (much watered down) taste of what everyone else put up with for so long.

Ah but what about the poor man in love with the horse... what about HIS rights.  What about his needs and wants and desires.  Are they any less valid than any other persons?  How can the goverment tell him who to love.  He can't help it... after all wasn't he born with the preclevity to love animals - he didn't choose who to fall in love with... why should he be punished for it?  Doesn't this man have rights?


The man has all the rights the state accords him. Nelly on the other hand remains a horse, and barring a highly unusual change of outlook, is not a person. Your man in the example cannot marry his horse in the same way he cannot marry his house, his wheelbarrow or his tree.

Ah... but you just said "Ah, but legal laws are not absolute, at least with regard to their persistence through time- laws change, thats an undenyable fact."


I also draw your attention to my comment regarding the legal protection accorded those under the age of consent.

Do you know that I was walking through Target a few weeks ago - and I walked by the childrens clothing section.  To my astonishment there on the rack sitting in full view of the isle is underwear for 5-9 year olds - THONG underwear for 5-9 year olds!  Thong underwear with the playboy logo on THONG UNDERWEAR FOR 5-9 YEAR OLDS!  What purpose does a 5 year old (or even a 9 year old) have for wearing 'sexy' underwear?


It sounds like here you have a disagreement with the Product Lines Manager at Target. Seriously.
If you had a daughter of that age would you allow her to have underwear like that?

Do you know that 10, 11, and 12 year old students are now raping each other... and having sexual intercourse in our public school classrooms! Have you ever seen a Britney Spears concert?  You have little girls going to these concerts watching Britney basically doing dance move depicting sex on stage. You and I agree - laws change.  I have shown you that laws change in the direction of societal norms or within the range of what society deems appropriate.  We see in the case of homosexual marriage and the sodomy law in Texas that sex is becoming an issue the goverment is unwilling to restrict.  It is an issue that is gaining a 'rights movement' of it's own.  It is currently legal for a 17 year old to get their parents permission to marry, for example.  The line eventually, the legal age for marriage will come into question, and if there is enough people who oppose 18, it will be dropped to 17 or 16.  Currently, for example, it is legal in Holland for teenagers under the age of 18 to be in pornagraphy.  It isn't long before this becomes acceptable here as well.  Why?  Because we can already see we are in the same stages of social progression.


Holland is the most liberal of the western nations, but I do wonder exactly how the law is worded with regards to the teenagers participating in pornography. As to the rest- I get the impression you are terrified the USA is heading for some sort of cataclysmic sexual meltdown...

Oh and about US sodomy laws: you do know in the not too distant past they could be used to make just about any sexual activity, apart from copulation, illegal?

Such as the laws protecting doctors who murder unborn fetuses and laws protecting those who engage in child pornagraphy under the guise of 'art'?


If your former comment refers to an abortion, yes.  If you want a more in depth discussion on that  topic, I suggest you start a thread in the provided forum (although I'm am hardly surprised you made no mention of the issue from the womans point of view- but of course its nothing to do with them!) As to the latter, you will have to be more specific.

Perhaps you are referring to striking down laws that made anal sex illegal, or removing a student's right to prayer in the classroom?  Perhaps you are referring to laws allowing sex education in our middle schools or allowing the F-word to be used in prime-time broadcast television.  Perhaps you refer to laws that let us show completely naked people on television during the time our children are watching TV as long as they put little blurry boxes over thier private parts?


Sounds like you don't like the content of your TV viewing. What can I say? watch BBC News 24? Tim Sebastian does a very good interview programme called Hard Talk.

Let me tell you, OR, back in the 1950's we had rules about chewing gum in class... in the year 2004 we have rules about carrying a gun in class.


As I have already alluded to, I find the level of  firearm availability in the US to be astonishing, so a rule for carrying a gun in class (if it indeed exists) is just a reflection of that. Control the availability of firearms and you don't have as big a problem. Pity is, you have a society that has been allowed to become saturated with guns and ammunition- its going to take time and effort to get rid of those. I am also surprised that you are so offended by the G-strings in the childrens clothing department, yet don't mention the wall full of guns and weapons it was possible to view at Walmart, a family grocery store.

Oh yes.... all sorts of new laws are a result of humanistic influence on our society.  Why?  Because we didn't use to NEED these laws.  People did what was right on their own.  They had a moral compass at that time.  Whenever abuse of a liberty goes to far, we make a new law.  Isn't that the way it always goes?


No, I don't buy that one. People still have a sense of morality today- some are good, some are bad. Maybe society is more "permissive", which you can take as being lax or as being a redressing of an overly restrictive way in the past. A matter of perspective.

(Edited by OccamsRazor 6/10/2004 at 12:04 AM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 10:48 PM on June 9, 2004 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.