|
| Thread: Does Religion fall apart once you decide to pick and choose? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted December 31, 2002 12:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
First of all, I find it somewhat shocking that you would put Ghandi and Jesus in the same category as Hitler and Khomeni.
Uhm, Dargon tried to make a point by listing a few religious people who have done extraordinarily good deeds.
So I listed a few religious people with extraordinarily bad deeds. That is quite the opposite of putting them in the same category. Ghandi is a person whose life I very much respect, personally.
Jesus and Mother Theresa are another matter ...
According to the bible, the concept of eternal torture after death goes directly back to Jesus. Also the idea of Jews (those who did not decide to follow the guru Jesus) being the children of the devil. Please look up John 8:33-44 if you don´t believe me.
Quote:
Right. First of all, in my opinion, Bin Laden and Khomeni were/are simply murderers using relegion as an excuse to get their rocks off.
They are/were deeply religious fundamentalists. They both gathered their followers with and justified their deeds on their belief. With the same right I could say "In my opinion, Ghandi was simply a good person and his religion had nothing to do with it."
Quote:
Hitler and Mussolini weren't religious at all
They were both catholics. Don´t you know that the vatican was the first state who gave Hitler an audience? That in the beginning, Italy´s fascist party was largely financed by the vatican´s money? The catholic and protestant churches both quickly and willingly aligned themselves with the fascists.
Quote:
In any case, anyone who's even read the bible can understand the big bold letters "THOU SHALT NOT KILL."
Ever read the bible, Bizud? It also says:"
Deuteronomy 3:2
And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon.
3:3
So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining.
3:4
And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan.
3:5
All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many.
3:6
And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city."
Quote:
You don't know what you're talking about. Did you know her personally? Please explain where you get this insight into her personality and motives.
Do you know her personally? I´ve read different things about her that ranged from "woman who dedicated all her life into humanitarian aid" to "leader of a totalitarian sect". Do you know the truth about her, her personality and her motives? I don´t. Do you why she didn´t use any of the estimated 50 million $ on her organisation´s bank account for better medical health care? I don´t.
The only thing I can say without much doubt is that she was really good at publicity.
Quote:
Now you're just being pedantic. He knows, because his God told him. You cannot in any way dispute this, as you are not him, and neither can I.
How do you know that his god told him:"Dargon, I want a relationship with you." ??? I´ve never seen him mention it on this forum.
Besides, if he knew, he wouldn´t be able to faithfully believe anymore.
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2002 05:39 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 31 Dec 2002
|
Quote
“Anyway, Dargon, Zune, and whoever else, you do a good job of explaining your opinions, and thanks again for putting up with me.”
Same back at ya
Quote
“I meant the founder of your church, Martin Luther.”
Hmmm he is not the founder of my church. I am not a Lutheran…my church is non denominational.
Furthermore though Luther’s actions had a big spiritual impact they were a social/political reformation more than anything else. His courageous deeds unlocked the stern grip the Catholic church had upon society at that time. In many ways Luther is foundational to the freedoms we all now enjoy. Because of his activities…books, education, science, reading, literature, writing, etc. flourished thereafter.
Quote
“the historic facts on the major role of the churches in oppressing Jewish rights and creating an atmosphere towards Jews that made the holocaust possible.”
There were some who used religion to oppress anyone different from them…largely after the fourth century. But on the whole what I quoted above is misleading at best.
Quote
“Why would a being that is not totally moronic and egotistic want lower creatures grovel before it and sing worship songs?”
One you will have to ask God…I don’t presume to know His thoughts as I have about as much chance discerning them as a dog has for figuring out half the things humans do.
Also worship songs are basically love songs to God….your girlfriend might really enjoy if you sang to her….or wrote a poem about her, etc. I don’t understand how this is an hard thing to grasp. Lastly, worshiping God is only one of a myriad of things that he wants his children to do.
Quote
“I told you before, an all-knowing god and free human will together create a logical fallacy. All-knowingness implies determinism, and determinism precules free will.”
And I told you there is a big difference between foreknowledge and determinism. For someone who is ALL powerful to know the future choices you are FREELY going to make is not a difficult concept to understand.
God stands outside of our frail time continuum….time has no hold on him….he sees today and 1000 years ago at the same time. Your mind is too stuck in its finite capacities to see that you are limited in your scope of vision….all that exists for humans is NOW…the past is a memory, the future is a dream….we are trapped in our human-centric perspective. God does not have this limiation of time.
Quote
“How do you know what your almighty god desires?”
We can’t discern his desires…that is the point…thus we have been given divine revelation (AKA the Bible).
Quote
“this is certainly not the archaic and anthropocentric biblic god.”
Yeah that is a real danger we have to be on guard about…we basically are idolatrous people who try to make God in our own image…thus we need divine revelation.
Quote
“Regarding Mother Theresa, yeah, she was really great at getting publicity.”
You take the cake man…I can’t believe you are insulting Mother Theresa. Well I guess that point says it all about your mindset.
Quote
“They were dictators who used religion as a means of procuring public support”
Excellent point Bizud
Blitzhund Thoughtful post. Oral tradition was definitely a big aspect of the OT though I do know at a certain point in OT history things were written and copied with extraordinary care. Nonetheless cordial and pertinent thoughts.
Quote
“The catholic and protestant churches both quickly and willingly aligned themselves with the fascists.”
Do you even begin to comprehend what a wide brush you use when you paint these prejudice statements. It is that same sort of thinking that gave Hitler his pulse and movement. Your hatred of Christianity and distorted picture is quite reminiscent of Hitler’s hatred for Judaism…and any other religion that Hitler thought stood in his way. I know you to be an intelligent and friendly person…but your extreme misrepresentation of Christianity is really something you might want to look into a mirror about. Your statements are so outlandish they in the end say less about Christianity and instead say a lot about you.
Quote
"Ever read the bible, Bizud? It also says:"
Lews it is intriguing that you quote from the same Old Testament that is the religious text for Judaism but you only tear down Christianity and Catholicism. Very curious indeed!
|
|
bizud
Known Hero
Mighty Donkey
|
|
posted December 31, 2002 09:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Do you know her personally?
Not much, but you're the one making the accusations, and last time I checked, it was innocent until proven guilty.
|
|
deth8
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2002 10:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Religion for the weak, for the people that `need' to believe in fairytales.and stories written by MAN not some false GOD.
Simple.
Simple and cliche' saying for a frustrated person who is afraid they might lose hold on some "freedom" they actually think they have. "But I wanna kill people for a living like they do on TV mommy. Why why why can't I? But, I don't wanna belive in some fairytale mommy.....that way I can kill at will and feel I am somehow justified."
Do thoughts actually exist? I believe so, but if you do belive this, then please tell me how and then compare it to the logic with which you so easily proclaim a god does not exist. Once you accomplish that with good logic then maybe you can earn some respect for such a cliche' and hollow phrase as "there is no god."
|
|
deth8
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2002 10:28 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The very very very small difference is that the bible has been used to oppress people for 2000 years.
Yes, rampant murder of little children is something we all should enjoy if we so choose to indulge ourselves. Don't suppress me damnit.
|
|
Mad_Unicorn
Famous Hero
I am a mean person shame on me
|
|
posted December 31, 2002 11:00 AM |
|
|
There is "no" God(i am good with cliches)
GOD is personified which "IT" shouldn't be. This is the very reason why religion fails... it gets personified.. written by the people for the people... which is all well and good for some but what about those others who disagree?
I still have trouble believing thats some of you still dont think haneous acts were commited using the "name" of god as a pretense to do whatever. (rape, pillage, murder you know the "fun" stuff)
People have been killed, raped and all sorts things in the name of one religion or another. Those things are very rarely done for no good reason. Most mass killers believe they are doing "good" in the name of GOD or whatever.
Take the current crap happening(i do so hate lingering on this but a point is a point i suppose...) America vrs Iraq both leaders believe in the same GOD. They both think they are doin right by that same "GOD". How can this be?? GOD wants us to kill each other? probably.
Now I ask all "GOD" fearing people to do a bit of research into this whole thing(specially you deth as you are kinda new to the game) Yes GOD does exist for you thats nice and wonderful you have something to hold on to for ballance. So do other people but why must people so similar be so "ignorant" of each others views... being it is the same thing...
....btw deth your right my "nick" says it all I am mad...
|
|
Bizud
Known Hero
Mighty Donkey
|
|
posted December 31, 2002 03:00 PM |
|
|
Okay, Deth, first of all, I don't understand where you're coming from. You're drawing parallels between atheism and psychosis that don't necessarily exist. No one said they should be allowed to hurt people. Hurting people is wrong, because it removes freedom from the victim (their right to safety). On the other hand, homosexuality is not wrong, because it doesn't hurt anyone.
It's like this (these are just my beliefs): Freedom is paramount. Everyone should have the right to control their own life, AS LONG AS (and here's the kicker) in doing so, they don't remove someone else's control over their life.
A few examples, then, of christianity-as-oppressor:
-I don't know about everywhere else, but until 1967, male homosexuality was a crime in Canada. (on a side note, lesbians? Shunned, but not imprisonned, reinforcing the sexist idea that women and men are fundamentally different.)
-The salem witch trials. People were executed for "practicing witchcraft." If some idiot tried that today, they'd be laughed out of town.
-Much of our legal system, both the good and the bad, is derived from religion. Consider: Polygamy is illegal in canada and the US. Should not any relationship between consenting adults be their own business?
And, anyway, for most of the past two thousand years, individuals were not allowed to practice the religion of their choice. For much of the middle ages, for example, the various christian churches controlled everything. "Pagans" were not particularly well tolerated in seventh-century france.
Again, there are good laws and bad laws. No one will disagree with you that mass murder of children, to use your example, is fundamentally wrong, but homosexuality doesn't quite incur the same unanimity.
AND, there are plenty of actions that ARE morally wrong, but shouldn't necessarily be illegal. Adultery, for example, is obviously "wrong," but I doubt many would agree that it should be considered a criminal act. Lying, too, is generally "wrong," but only a fool would make it illegal.
|
|
dEth8
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2002 10:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There is "no" God(i am good with cliches)
GOD is personified which "IT" shouldn't be. This is the very reason why religion fails... it gets personified.. written by the people for the people... which is all well and good for some but what about those others who disagree?
I still have trouble believing thats some of you still dont think haneous acts were commited using the "name" of god as a pretense to do whatever. (rape, pillage, murder you know the "fun" stuff)
People have been killed, raped and all sorts things in the name of one religion or another. Those things are very rarely done for no good reason. Most mass killers believe they are doing "good" in the name of GOD or whatever.
Take the current crap happening(i do so hate lingering on this but a point is a point i suppose...) America vrs Iraq both leaders believe in the same GOD. They both think they are doin right by that same "GOD". How can this be?? GOD wants us to kill each other? probably.
Now I ask all "GOD" fearing people to do a bit of research into this whole thing(specially you deth as you are kinda new to the game) Yes GOD does exist for you thats nice and wonderful you have something to hold on to for ballance. So do other people but why must people so similar be so "ignorant" of each others views... being it is the same thing...
....btw deth your right my "nick" says it all I am mad...
Mad, the two leaders you mention don't believe in the same GOD if you take time to examine their beliefs. I consider it pure politics when people do say eccumenical things of that fashion in public.
You speak with way too many braod generalizations so it is hard to take you seriously with such braod statements that are easily found fault with as being incorrect for many situations.
I'm not proclaiming there is or is not "no" god. I am proclaiming I would like to see more wellput legitimate argumentation rather then a smattering of emotionalism on the subject.
.....and what is the center of all this "mad"ness anyhow? ....that answer would be interesting to hear.
|
|
dEth8
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2002 11:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Okay, Deth, first of all, I don't understand where you're coming from. You're drawing parallels between atheism and psychosis that don't necessarily exist. No one said they should be allowed to hurt people. Hurting people is wrong, because it removes freedom from the victim (their right to safety). On the other hand, homosexuality is not wrong, because it doesn't hurt anyone.
Oh, so you make the rules then? Shall we call you god?
Where do you base this idea of "hurting people is wrong" from? I would argue that it is RIGHT to kill cause I feel like it is. Who are you to tell me what is right and wrong? There are/have been some cultures/sets of people who do place their babies on burning hot altars to roast in the arms of Molech. They consider it the RIGHT thing to do.
Also, homosexuals, hmm... they do have a higher then average suicide rate I think i remember reading, and they do have a lower then average life span from what I have read, and they do need to wear "Depends" on occasion in addition to plenty of emergency room trips for sexually inflicted complications.....but hey, nobody is getting hurt eh? Not to mention social implications upon children who become gender confused by homosexual argumentation about the nature of homosexuality.
I know a kid personally who now calls himself bisexual. He knows he likes girls, he had a situation in which he considered some homosexual thoughts in bed on morning and got excited, he became unsure of his sexuality and went to reading on the internet. He found no option for being heterosexual and still having homosexual thoughts. He is now tormented with depression and suicidal ideation. Is he being hurt because the homosexual community in most instances (not all most certainly) will not allow for this person to be a heterosexual who simple has different thoughts at different times? This really is a common thing to happen to kids in puberty, just males are usually too insecure to talk about it.
Quote:
It's like this (these are just my beliefs): Freedom is paramount. Everyone should have the right to control their own life, AS LONG AS (and here's the kicker) in doing so, they don't remove someone else's control over their life.
Good that you state these are your ideas. If you proclaim them as truth then you have much to prove to give credence to these ideas as being something the world should accept or that others should actually follow.
Quote:
A few examples, then, of christianity-as-oppressor:
-I don't know about everywhere else, but until 1967, male homosexuality was a crime in Canada. (on a side note, lesbians? Shunned, but not imprisonned, reinforcing the sexist idea that women and men are fundamentally different.)
Oh, and you lay blame on Christianity for this? How about blaming whoever made the law? How about blaming whoever undid the law when it effects my personal choice as well? You have mentioned something in this, it sure does seem things are not always equitable in the world...shame shame.
Anyhow, I'm still waiting for the laws to set me free to murder without repercussions since you have no reason other then your oppessive ideas and laws based upon them to stop me with. Please stop your promulgation of oppressive ideas and let me be free to murder.
Say here's a kicker....abortion. Is it the women's choice to terminate her baby? You know...kill (ie: stop it's life) the baby while in the womb. How about if the baby is a male? How about if it's a female? Fun one there for extrapolating your morays on since it is pretty much socially acceptable as current thought that it is "okay" to terminate life as long as it is in the womb I would predict. I personally say she has the choice to kill whenver she desires, but sometimes I would support the idea and other times disagree based on the circumstances about the pregnancy......for fun could be a circumstance that I should consider too.
Quote:
-The salem witch trials. People were executed for "practicing witchcraft." If some idiot tried that today, they'd be laughed out of town.
I don't care if they are laughed out of town actually(was that supposed to be an argument?). Who gives a rip? Anyhow, what was your point? This is supposed to show Chistianity as oppressive? Sounds like some jackass(s') who proclaimed some religious idea publically had a thing for burning people heshe was afraid of or considered to be witches.
Quote:
-Much of our legal system, both the good and the bad, is derived from religion. Consider: Polygamy is illegal in canada and the US. Should not any relationship between consenting adults be their own business?
I dunno if it should be actually. I would think there are some situations in which....no...people should not be allowed to do whatever consenting adults decide to do in a relationship within a home or outside. Apparently you do seem to think so correct?
Quote:
And, anyway, for most of the past two thousand years, individuals were not allowed to practice the religion of their choice. For much of the middle ages, for example, the various christian churches controlled everything. "Pagans" were not particularly well tolerated in seventh-century france.
Wow, that chuch sure had alot of power.....funny all these practices are still around though. Ever try being a christian in a Pagan land or a Islam dominated land? Not openly for very long eh? Does historicity of how people in different religions have done "wrong" or "right" control your decisions about what you will believe for yourself as to the existence of god or how you might interact with the universe? I sure hope not.
Quote:
Again, there are good laws and bad laws. No one will disagree with you that mass murder of children, to use your example, is fundamentally wrong, but homosexuality doesn't quite incur the same unanimity.
Again who are you to proclaim good and bad.....where do you coming off as having that right since you have no standard by which to decree these things? You forgot to mention lying....people seem not to treat that as harshly as homosexuality or murder either. Guess that is okay to do as well eh?
Quote:
AND, there are plenty of actions that ARE morally wrong, but shouldn't necessarily be illegal. Adultery, for example, is obviously "wrong," but I doubt many would agree that it should be considered a criminal act. Lying, too, is generally "wrong," but only a fool would make it illegal.
Tough to figure all that out eh? What should be considered "right" and what should be considered "wrong." .....especially when you have no standard but ramblings and public sentiment to guide you.
Lastly, why would only a "fool" make lying illegal? Because it is impossible to inforce?....Or because it is not wrong?
|
|
bizud
Known Hero
Mighty Donkey
|
|
posted January 01, 2003 08:20 AM |
|
|
Man, I sincerely hope you're being sarcastic about wanting to kill people.
The fact is, my opinions are based on science. Humans have an innate conscience. That sick feeling in your stomach when you see something bad happen to someone? That's biological, not societal.
If you derive pleasure from another being's suffering, then you have a medical illness that needs to be treated. This is not opinion, this is scientific fact.
Quote:
Also, homosexuals, hmm... they do have a higher then average suicide rate I think i remember reading, and they do have a lower then average life span from what I have read, and they do need to wear "Depends" on occasion in addition to plenty of emergency room trips for sexually inflicted complications.....but hey, nobody is getting hurt eh? Not to mention social implications upon children who become gender confused by homosexual argumentation about the nature of homosexuality.
Even if I did believe this stuff, it wouldn't change the fact that it's an individual's right to control their own life. This means that they have the right to do things that are bad for them, if they so choose.
Quote:
I know a kid personally who now calls himself bisexual. He knows he likes girls, he had a situation in which he considered some homosexual thoughts in bed on morning and got excited, he became unsure of his sexuality and went to reading on the internet. He found no option for being heterosexual and still having homosexual thoughts. He is now tormented with depression and suicidal ideation. Is he being hurt because the homosexual community in most instances (not all most certainly) will not allow for this person to be a heterosexual who simple has different thoughts at different times? This really is a common thing to happen to kids in puberty, just males are usually too insecure to talk about it.
Genetics. Simple genetics. Being gay OR being bisexual (those two aren't the same thing) OR being straight or whatever is genetically determined.
Quote:
Oh, and you lay blame on Christianity for this? How about blaming whoever made the law?
The law had been around for many centuries. When the british criminal code was drawn up, the church was still a large influence, and christianity was viewed as the "good" and "right" religion to practice.
Quote:
How about blaming whoever undid the law when it effects my personal choice as well?
Mind telling me how it does?
Quote:
You have mentioned something in this, it sure does seem things are not always equitable in the world...shame shame.
You got it. My political beliefs are geared to creating a perfect society. One in which every person is happy and self-fulfilled, and knows that they are in control of their life (Note: THEIR life, not others' lives), and that no one will take that away from them.
I think, maybe, people have a problem with this. I shouldn't try to create utopia on earth, because it goes against god's plan (he wants to do it himself). I've heard this before. It's bonkers to me, of course. Over the course of history, the world has been in a more or less constant state of improvement. We've been slowly getting better. The strive toward perfection isn't going to wait for snow-disturbers like you.
Quote:
Say here's a kicker....abortion. Is it the women's choice to terminate her baby? You know...kill (ie: stop it's life) the baby while in the womb. How about if the baby is a male? How about if it's a female? Fun one there for extrapolating your morays on since it is pretty much socially acceptable as current thought that it is "okay" to terminate life as long as it is in the womb I would predict. I personally say she has the choice to kill whenver she desires, but sometimes I would support the idea and other times disagree based on the circumstances about the pregnancy......for fun could be a circumstance that I should consider too.
Yup. I'm pro-choice. Y'know why? Because it's a FETUS. It doesn't even have a BRAIN. It has no thoughts, it's not sentient, and therefore, it doesn't have rights.
Consider this: In order for an action to be "wrong," there must be a victim. How, then, can a lump of tissues and cells with no sentient thoughts be considered a victim?
Quote:
I dunno if it should be actually. I would think there are some situations in which....no...people should not be allowed to do whatever consenting adults decide to do in a relationship within a home or outside. Apparently you do seem to think so correct?
Obviously not. If, say, me and two hot girls (heh heh, fun example) all love each other very much, and want to publicly declare our love, what's it to you? How does it hurt you? It doesn't even impact anyone except US! And, maybe, any children that might result from the union, but that's a WHOLE 'nother argument.
Quote:
Wow, that chuch sure had alot of power.....funny all these practices are still around though. Ever try being a christian in a Pagan land or a Islam dominated land? Not openly for very long eh? Does historicity of how people in different religions have done "wrong" or "right" control your decisions about what you will believe for yourself as to the existence of god or how you might interact with the universe? I sure hope not.
Please rephrase that. I don't get what you're trying to say at all.
You know what, you know DAMN RIGHT that hurting people is wrong, because it's not your place to do stuff to others. But what do you care if two guys want to go at it next door?* What do I care? I don't! Not my cup of tea, but I don't give a snow, because it's their choice. You're nothing but a snow-disturber who does a piss-poor job of playing devil's advocate.
*Of course, it goes without saying that if it was two girls instead of two guys, you'd be jerking off with the rest of them.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 05, 2003 02:01 AM |
|
|
Quote
“Over the course of history, the world has been in a more or less constant state of improvement.”
My friend….this happened to be a very popular belief in the early part of the 1900’s…but if you read the prominent writers at the time WWI and WWII shattered that belief. Just look at all the genocide, murders, rape, child molestation, etc. that has occurred in just the last century. Stalin killed about 30 million, Hitler about 16 million, Mao about 70 million…that doesn’t sound like progress to me. The only two big things that have improved in the last century in my opinion are the virtual obliviation of an imperialistic mindset and the large anti-slavery/civil rights movement. But also this century has made mass genocide/child sacrifice (AKA abortion) almost a national pastime.
Quote
“Because it's a FETUS. It doesn't even have a BRAIN. It has no thoughts, it's not sentient, and therefore, it doesn't have rights.”
That is very incorrect. Abortion is legal in the USA up to 6 months (even further for partial birth abortions)…at that time the baby has all of what you mentioned above (has brain waves, recoils from pain, moves, etc). Moreover the ONLY thing ADDED to a human at the time of conception is FOOD and TIME….EVERYTHING is already laid down…genetic structure (height, color of hair, color of skin, etc)
Quote
“Consider this: In order for an action to be "wrong," there must be a victim.”
According to that logic Necrophilia is right. There is no victim as the person is dead. Bestiality is right as there is no human victim. Incest is right as both parties agree on sexual intercourse. ETC ETC Are these things you support?
Quote
“hurting people is wrong”
Why? On what moral grounds? On what authority do you state that? If there is no God all things are permissible.
|
|
Blue_Camel
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 05, 2003 02:17 AM |
|
|
aquinas is a genius 
____________
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted January 05, 2003 03:15 AM |
|
|
This is technically a re-post. I wrote it on January 1, posted it, removed it, then stashed it (rationale complicated). However, there are some things that I feel need to be said, and my discomfort in posting this is less than my discomfort in letting these things slide. So, here goes the slightly edited version:
=========
Quote:
Also, homosexuals, hmm... they do have a higher then average suicide rate I think i remember reading, and they do have a lower then average life span from what I have read, and they do need to wear "Depends" on occasion in addition to plenty of emergency room trips for sexually inflicted complications.....but hey, nobody is getting hurt eh?
Are you implying that the above-average suicide rate is an inherant characteristic of homosexuality? Might it not have something to do with society's treatment of homosexuals? Things have improved over the past years, certainly, but people of alternate sexualities are still an oppressed group. Example: Same-gender couples can organize commitment ceremonies, but there is still no legal (read: main-society sanctioned) union to encourage monogamy for gays and lesbians, while heterosexuals ARE encouraged to commit. Why do committed opposite-gender partners get tax benefits, insurance coverage, inheritances, etc. while committed same-gender partners don't? This society is still homophobic, that's why. You can't blame the higher suicide rate on homosexuality itself until that HUGE confounding factor is gone.
By the way, plenty of people are still in the closet, even in 21st century America. This is quite obvious to those who frequent "safe places" and anonymous forums. By definition, closeted individuals are invisible to the rest of the world, so guesstimating their numbers is very difficult. But the statement that there are "rarely any more closet homosexuals" directly contradicts what I've seen and heard. A good portion of my experience is with a very liberal college with a very visible LGBT community. If there are a lot of closeted people here -- and there are! -- why am I to believe that there are very few in the more hostile outside world?
A higher suicide rate would account for a lower life expectancy of homosexuals, just as a higher accident rate would account for the lower life expectancy of left-handed people. Unless you have numbers that show otherwise? (I've never seen any.) If some researcher has bothered to study the statistics of "sexually inflicted complications," that source would be nice, too. STDs, needless to say, do not discriminate on orientation.
Quote:
Not to mention social implications upon children who become gender confused by homosexual argumentation about the nature of homosexuality.
I know a kid personally who now calls himself bisexual. He knows he likes girls, he had a situation in which he considered some homosexual thoughts in bed on morning and got excited, he became unsure of his sexuality and went to reading on the internet. He found no option for being heterosexual and still having homosexual thoughts.
Just because the Internet offers no such "option" doesn't mean that there is no such thing as a heterosexual man who has homosexual thoughts. Gay, lesbian, bi, straight -- they're merely labels. Real people don't fit into boxes so neatly. If he likes girls way more than he likes boys, he's perfectly justified in calling himself straight (especially if some guy is coming on to him and he's not interested  ). I'm surprised he didn't find anything saying so online. A lot of people feel they don't fit any of the "options." Some just make up labels for themselves.
Quote:
He is now tormented with depression and suicidal ideation. Is he being hurt because the homosexual community in most instances (not all most certainly) will not allow for this person to be a heterosexual who simple has different thoughts at different times?
That is an acknowledged problem with some communities, true. As far as I can tell, it's mostly politics and people who can only think in black-and-white. As I said above, these catagories are only functions of the language. They're limited in their capacity to reflect reality. Real people's emotions don't stay in the lines, people go through phases, people change, and so on. Communities should accomodate that. Unfortunatly, not all do.  But that's a problem with the current climate of some homosexual communities. It has nothing to do with the fundamental nature of alternate sexualities.
====================
Finally, a more recent comment:
Quote:
“hurting people is wrong”
Why? On what moral grounds? On what authority do you state that? If there is no God all things are permissible.
I strongly disagree. If you are all by your lonesome in the wilderness, then sure -- if there is no God, all things are permissible. Most people, however, live in communities, since humans are social creatures. For the community to thrive, everyone's got to get along with their neighbors. Therefore, hurting one another is NOT permissible, God or no God.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 05, 2003 04:34 AM |
|
|
Who defines right and wrong? Who is the arbitrator of morals?
The individual (aka you)?
Then Hitler was a moral man as he defined his own morality. Mao and Stalin then were good men as they determined what was appropriate vs. inappropriate for themselves. The rapist, murderer, child molester are all honorable people as they determined their own realm of goodness. ETC If you believe this then you can NEVER tell someone they are right or wrong…you can’t critique anyone else as they determine their own morality.
The group/society/nation?
Then Nazi Germany was moral as it determined Germany was correct in their actions and followed Hitler. Communist USSR and China were right in killing millions for their own principled ends of exterminating others since the “community” decided murder of noncommunists was right. ETC. If you believe this then you can never dispute any groups actions as they determine their own standards.
The world?
Then the world was right in the past in allowing and promoting slavery. The world was ethical in treating women and children in the past as property. Then the world was upright in declaring imperialism or “might makes right” in the past. ETC.
If you subscribe to this belief then you can never learn from the past or critique history as each historical era is right in and of itself. If you believe this then you can never act morally unless the world reaches consensus on the morality of a particular action. Morality then becomes nothing more than mass consensus…and as history has shown us over and over…mass consensus can lead to some very abhorrent behavior.
Without God EVERYTHING is PERMISSABLE
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted January 05, 2003 05:58 AM |
|
|
*Walks in, sees dead horse. Can't restrain self, runs in, begins kicking dead horse*
The religion that really bugs me is Buddhism. I mean, come on -- what's with this acceptance of other faiths crap? Proper religions try to convert/riducule/kill me if I don't follow whatever they say. Freakin' Buddhists just assume I'll get it right somewhere along the line, maybe in 6 or 7 lifetimes or so. Why aren't saffron wearing bald men accosting me in public locations telling me that unless I lead a life of austerity and meditation, I'll be reincarnated as a hell being rather than escaping the cycle of suffering and achieve enlightenment?
And what the hell is up with all this pacifism? Ain't a real faith unless somebody is being blown up (and, if possible, tortured) in its name. Restraint? Come on! I don't feel properly close to a higher power unless I'm either whipping myself or a nonbeliever.
Don't get me started on meditation! The very thought that anyone could gain any sort of insight from their own self reflection and thought is absolutely absurd. Everyone knows that true insight only comes from either ancient texts or a bigoted old man (or woman in some of the more progressive religions) screaming at me from a pulpit.
Goddamn Buddhists. Somebody needs to get religious on their asses.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 05, 2003 06:15 AM |
|
|
Funny Bort...I enjoy your sarcasm ;P
Actually Buddhism is kinda scary...really throws all sense of humanness out the door... the whole concept of the obliteration of all material goods, all physical reality, and all human desire. It always sounds like a pretty philosophy till you understand what the goal of Buddhism is….nothingness.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted January 05, 2003 06:18 AM |
|
|
*Sees other dead horse of abortion, decides not to make same "kicking dead horse" analogy as that would create a really disturbing mental picture*
The thing I don't understand about the "right to life" that is often invoked is that what is actually being invoked is "right to be given everything needed to continue life." Accepting for the sake of argument the claim that life begins at conception, it needs to be pointed out that, until at least month 7 or so, the fetus is absolutely dependent upon the mother for survival.
Now, if we accept that all human life has the "right to life" in the context of being given everthing necessary to continue life, that means that welfare and universal health care are not just nice things to do or tools to keep society stable but are, in fact absolute moral necessities. After all, if a fetus has the right to everything necessary to keep it alive than surely a 1 year old, 30 year old and 90 year old have all the same rights. It would be morally reprehensible for the government not to pay for every single possible treatment that a 90 year old on their last legs could possibly use. What's more, every single person everywhere in the entire world needs to be fed. If there's not enough food, then we just have to work harder to make sure that there is enough food. Every single person everywhere in the world needs to be provided with medical care. Not just adequate medical care, with the absolute best that is available. After all, they have the right to life.
Does the "right to life" supercede all other rights? If I need a bone marrow tranplant and the only match in the world is some 4 year old boy who's never met me (in fact, I was once his landlord and evicted his parents) does that mean that he is absolutely required to undergo the procedure to (potentially) save my life? What if it's Saddam Hussein who needs the transplant?
Of course that's assuming just for the sake of argument that human life begins at conception which, personally, I do not agree with.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted January 05, 2003 06:25 AM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 5 Jan 2003
|
God? Whose god? There are a lot of them out there. How can a person tell which one(s?) owns the copyright to Morality? This is especially difficult if God entirely defines Morality, leaving no independant standards for the person to determine the "true" Moral God. What if God is Queztacoatal? Are we in big trouble now for neglecting the human sacrifices? After all, he spilt his blood to give humans life; it would be immoral to ignore our debt!
To make a long story short, the arguments in this thread have thus far centered around Christianity vs. Atheism. That doesn't work with me (with my faith in deity, but not the Christian deity), and I'd appreciate being left out of the theological mudsling..er, debates.  If you cannot keep the Christian god out of the morality debate, for ideological reasons or whatever, we have a fundamental disconnect and this will be my last post on the topic. Please assume any silence on my part to be "agree to disagree" (or possibly "my internet-time is limited" ); thank you.
My stance? Morality can't be absolutely defined. Harm and benefits to the individual, to other individuals, to the group as a whole, to the world as a whole all have to come into play, and they often contradict one another. Some decisions are clearer than others, but most are neutral or murky. In life, how often do you just get two choices, one right and one wrong? How does "right" and "wrong" help one decide between multiple actions that all have pros and cons? In those cases, things are left to the individual's discretion.
A "moral" individual makes decisions with consideration to everyone affected. Harming one's neighbor may provide immediate benefit to oneself, but such behavior on a mass scale will weaken the group, which will in turn seriously endanger all the individuals relying on the group for protection, including the ones who recieved the immediate benefits. So, ultimately, a "moral" person will avoid harming their neighbor for immediate benefit to themselves. Obviously, real life is more complicated than this example, but that should illustrate the general principle.
Edit: Aw, dang it, while I was taking my usual hour or so to write this post, someone went and brought in other religions! Please disregard out-of-date comments.
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted January 05, 2003 06:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Funny Bort...I enjoy your sarcasm ;P
Actually Buddhism is kinda scary...really throws all sense of humanness out the door... the whole concept of the obliteration of all material goods, all physical reality, and all human desire. It always sounds like a pretty philosophy till you understand what the goal of Buddhism is?.nothingness.
Nothingness is sort of a misconception. It has to do with there not really being equivalent words across languages. Buddhism isn't nihilism. You're not ceasing to exist when you achieve enlightenment, but you are escaping cyclic existence (which is suffering). You actually gain the ability to incarnate to help others where it is needed. (This is all Tibetan Buddhism. Indian Buddhism has several key differences as I understand it).
Though the Dalai Lama would probably whack me in the nutsack if he saw me so ignorantly getting his faith wrong, as I understand it, it's not so much nothingness as awareness.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 05, 2003 06:40 AM |
|
|
Quote
“until at least month 7 or so, the fetus is absolutely dependent upon the mother for survival.”
Actually till about the age of 7-8 years a child is “absolutely dependent” upon others.
Quote
”Now, if we accept that all human life has the "right to life" in the context of being given everything necessary to continue life, that means that welfare and universal health care are not just nice things to do or tools to keep society stable but are, in fact absolute moral necessities.”
Interesting…and nice try…your argument fails upon a definition of what is a right….It isn’t “everything necessary to continue life”….right to life is just that a right to live…to breath, to have their heart pumping, etc. A right is something that can’t be taken away…not something that has to be provided for. We also have a right to pursue happiness…that doesn’t mean the government should provide candy, Xbox, sexual satisfaction, etc. for everyone.
Though of course there are moral reasons for providing to care for others. Medical care is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the USA. It would be ridiculous if medical care were a right….we would be bone broke providing for every 90 year old person that needs the latest treatment to extend their life one more month..then we would have to spend more money to provide for the next treatment after that month had past. Are you willing to forgo education funds, police funds, military defense funds, scientific research funds, road funds, etc to back up your premise? Moreover what is the point of your interesting albeit misguided premise…are you saying that humans don’t have a right to life?
Quote
“Of course that's assuming just for the sake of argument that human life begins at conception which, personally, I do not agree with.”
Then when does it begin? when it can survive on its own? Then we need to kill everyone on life support. Where is the magical line? What is added to a child in the womb? What DNA is added? What is a more fundamental definition of a human than their very own genetic code?
|
| |
|
|
