Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 99
  1. #41  
    Truth <> morality.

    Surur
  2. #42  
    <<That is one reason for mutilating the genitals of a child. Another would be to make sure your daughter is unable to enjoy sexual stimulation. Another would be to prove that your son is brave.>>

    Well the debate about circumcision is on-going. There may be health reasons why it should or should not be done. Except for the Jewish religion, I know no religious reason to do it (and I am not getting on an anti-jewish thing at all). Christians see it as replaced by Baptism...

    I have a real problem with the other two reasons you gave...

    Making sure your daughter won't enjoy sex may be a bad way of keeping her pure for a while- but then you deprive her future husband of the pleasure of ... well... pleasuring her! What kind of a father-in-law is that? Now you cheated him of being loved, longed-for, and intensely desired by his bride. So she just puts up with his advances and doesn't really want him? Wouldn't it stoke a man's ego more to know his woman has the hots for him- and isn't merely giving in to him because it is expected?

    As for proving your son is brave.... poppycock! Kids don't have a choice in it, brave or not, and they may cry out in pain- is it brave to take a knife to a child? Maybe those who think so should have had their mulilator slip and cut a bit more off. Let the child grow up and "prove" they are brave on their own, by doing truly heroic things- if they want to. Maybe they will grow up secure in their own (intact) manhood and not feel they have to "prove " anything! That would be a real man!
    "Everybody Palm!"

    Palm III/IIIC, Palm Vx, Verizon: Treo 650, Centro, Pre+.
    Leo killed my future Pre 3 & Opal, dagnabitt!
    Should I buy a Handspring Visor instead?
    Got a Pre2! "It eats iPhones for Breakfast"!
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by duanedude1
    <<That is one reason for mutilating the genitals of a child. Another would be to make sure your daughter is unable to enjoy sexual stimulation. Another would be to prove that your son is brave.>>

    Well the debate about circumcision is on-going. There may be health reasons why it should or should not be done. Except for the Jewish religion, I know no religious reason to do it (and I am not getting on an anti-jewish thing at all). Christians see it as replaced by Baptism...

    I have a real problem with the other two reasons you gave...

    Making sure your daughter won't enjoy sex may be a bad way of keeping her pure for a while- but then you deprive her future husband of the pleasure of ... well... pleasuring her! What kind of a father-in-law is that? Now you cheated him of being loved, longed-for, and intensely desired by his bride. So she just puts up with his advances and doesn't really want him? Wouldn't it stoke a man's ego more to know his woman has the hots for him- and isn't merely giving in to him because it is expected?

    As for proving your son is brave.... poppycock! Kids don't have a choice in it, brave or not, and they may cry out in pain- is it brave to take a knife to a child? Maybe those who think so should have had their mulilator slip and cut a bit more off. Let the child grow up and "prove" they are brave on their own, by doing truly heroic things- if they want to. Maybe they will grow up secure in their own (intact) manhood and not feel they have to "prove " anything! That would be a real man!
    You act as though I am the inventor of those procedures.
  4. #44  
    The Constitution did not "grant" rights.... things granted can be taken away.

    It said to "Secure" these (already existing/universal) rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers (not their unjust ones) from the consent of the governed" (not from the top-down like a king or dictator). They are indeed endowed by their creator...with these rights.
    "Everybody Palm!"

    Palm III/IIIC, Palm Vx, Verizon: Treo 650, Centro, Pre+.
    Leo killed my future Pre 3 & Opal, dagnabitt!
    Should I buy a Handspring Visor instead?
    Got a Pre2! "It eats iPhones for Breakfast"!
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    How's personal outcome relevant? You obviously believe one should believe what is most beneficial, vs whats most accurate. Do you also believe in Santa Clause, because it makes you happy around Christmas?

    The universe is large and uncaring, and some day you will be dead. Thats the long and short of it.

    Surur
    Surur, you suggest that I believe in an ultimate reality because it is benificial and makes me happy. I would suggest the opposite. Your believe system allows you to do what you want. My belief system has very consequences, yours has none. I would be happier believing that anything I wanted to do was ok. If I hurt someone else to benifit my self, it is ok because their feellings are not real. The pain we feel inside; that's not real either so therefore I have no responsibility even to myself.
    My exeperience suggests to me that you are trying to convince yourself that the 'awareness of ultimate reality' that you were born with, does not actually exist. That would be nice. Good luck with that. But again, I predict that you will not hold this view for a lifetime. The passion which which you argue your point betrays the fact that you are searching for the "truth" that you deny the existance of. Otherwise, why waste the bandwidth? I have been through this, and so have countless others before you. You are obviously a deep thinker. Keep at it.

    I will be sure to ask Santa to leave a little wisdom under the tree for you
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by duanedude1
    Well the debate about circumcision is on-going. There may be health reasons why it should or should not be done. Except for the Jewish religion, I know no religious reason to do it (and I am not getting on an anti-jewish thing at all). Christians see it as replaced by Baptism...
    Yeah, and if you cut my leg off, it will be easier for me to clean my ***.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by outofstyle
    Surur, you suggest that I believe in an ultimate reality because it is benificial and makes me happy. I would suggest the opposite. Your believe system allows you to do what you want. My belief system has very consequences, yours has none. I would be happier believing that anything I wanted to do was ok. If I hurt someone else to benifit my self, it is ok because their feellings are not real. The pain we feel inside; that's not real either so therefore I have no responsibility even to myself.
    My exeperience suggests to me that you are trying to convince yourself that the 'awareness of ultimate reality' that you were born with, does not actually exist. That would be nice. Good luck with that. But again, I predict that you will not hold this view for a lifetime. The passion which which you argue your point betrays the fact that you are searching for the "truth" that you deny the existance of. Otherwise, why waste the bandwidth? I have been through this, and so have countless others before you. You are obviously a deep thinker. Keep at it.

    I will be sure to ask Santa to leave a little wisdom under the tree for you
    possibly the second dumbest philosopical point ever made
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by outofstyle
    Surur, you suggest that I believe in an ultimate reality because it is benificial and makes me happy.
    Actually I did not. I suggest believing the most accurate thing will make it easier to understand the universe, and may make you more tolerant of others.

    Surur
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by duanedude1
    The Constitution did not "grant" rights.... things granted can be taken away.

    It said to "Secure" these (already existing/universal) rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers (not their unjust ones) from the consent of the governed" (not from the top-down like a king or dictator). They are indeed endowed by their creator...with these rights.
    Again, dont confuse universally agreed upon rights, with those handed down directly from God.

    Our forefathers did not found a theocracy.
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    The universe is large and uncaring, and some day you will be dead. Thats the long and short of it.

    Surur
    You hope.
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    This could be the dumbest philosophical question ever posed.
    No, it's a distant second to your response.
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Actually I did not. I suggest believing the most accurate thing will make it easier to understand the universe, and may make you more tolerant of others.

    Surur
    I don't have a problem with that. Why is it necessarily mutually exclusive from religion.
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I don't have a problem with that. Why is it necessarily mutually exclusive from religion.
    Its not inconsistent with modern Christianity which is very wishy-washy and watered down. 500 years ago you could probably be burned for suggesting people were related to apes, yet today Anglican bishops say Genesis is just a metaphor, and most of the bible is open to interpretation. 400 years ago the church could have you imprisoned for teaching the earth goes round the sun, now they have hardly any power at all.

    The question is, if strong religion is not consistent with the truth, why even tolerate weak religion, which promote similar inaccurate and frankly delusional views.

    Surur
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Its not inconsistent with modern Christianity which is very wishy-washy and watered down. 500 years ago you could probably be burned for suggesting people were related to apes, yet today Anglican bishops say Genesis is just a metaphor, and most of the bible is open to interpretation. 400 years ago the church could have you imprisoned for teaching the earth goes round the sun, now they have hardly any power at all.

    The question is, if strong religion is not consistent with the truth, why even tolerate weak religion, which promote similar inaccurate and frankly delusional views.
    Which begs the question. Wonder if God changed his mind.
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Its not inconsistent with modern Christianity which is very wishy-washy and watered down. 500 years ago you could probably be burned for suggesting people were related to apes, yet today Anglican bishops say Genesis is just a metaphor, and most of the bible is open to interpretation. 400 years ago the church could have you imprisoned for teaching the earth goes round the sun, now they have hardly any power at all.

    The question is, if strong religion is not consistent with the truth, why even tolerate weak religion, which promote similar inaccurate and frankly delusional views.

    Surur
    You're right about modern versions of Christianity being watered down. But I tend to believe strong religion (more accurately, a strong belief in historical Christianity) is consistent with the truth. What the "Church" has taught in years past may not have been but the church consists of people and people are often wrong. The same could be said of academia in years past, no?
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    That is one reason for mutilating the genitals of a child. Another would be to make sure your daughter is unable to enjoy sexual stimulation. Another would be to prove that your son is brave.
    and yet another could be...Yer just plain nuts!

    Thread Crapper
    ~ August 16,2005 Poll-Master ~
    August 17, 2005 Century Club Member ~ August 29, 2005

    I have a fondness for intelligence.
    I often black out when doing something really stupid. I supose that's why I'm such a danger to my self
    .



  17. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Which begs the question. Wonder if God changed his mind.
    hoovs pretty much beat me to it, but I would say that it is man (people) who changed their mind and decided to pick and choose what to follow depending on what they wanted to feel good about that particular day.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Actually I did not. I suggest believing the most accurate thing will make it easier to understand the universe, and may make you more tolerant of others.

    Surur
    An "objective" reading of this thread reveals something of your tolorance for an opposing point of view. (Hint:condescesion does not suggest tolorance.) Tolorance has in fact become a new religion, albeit a discredited one. Tolorance of the "evil" (*value judgement alert*) of Nazism in the 1930's had consequences in the real world; "bad" (*VJA*) consequences. This is true in spite of what some undergaduate philosophy professor has told you. You argue because you believe what can neither be proven or disproven. Most imortantly you believe. You are searching and you will find. Good.
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    You're right about modern versions of Christianity being watered down. But I tend to believe strong religion (more accurately, a strong belief in historical Christianity) is consistent with the truth. What the "Church" has taught in years past may not have been but the church consists of people and people are often wrong. The same could be said of academia in years past, no?
    Probably the main difference is that academia expect to be overturned in the future, and built their reputation on overturning others. A scientist may say "In a hundred years they may prove Einstein wrong" and still sleep easy at night whereas it would be really strange for a clergyman to say "In a hundred years priests may no longer believe that Christ was the son of God".

    Science is about the process, whereas religion is all about old beliefs.

    Surur
  20.    #60  
    Quite a philosophical discussion so far.

    See I was thinking of this when I read something in the paper.

    Homosexuality is not tolerated here. It is concidered a crime.
    on the other hand, alot of people in the west concider it freedom.

    similarly, we concider muslim women wearing Hijab (a head scarf) or sikh tying thier hair in the famous knot as freedom while some countries deem it in violation to local laws to display signs of certain religions.

    note here I am not going to discuss that (seriously, do you wanna go there? we woun't finish!). I wanna discuss a letter sent by US congress reps to the UAE concerning thier anti-homosexuality stance, telling the UAE ambassador to the US that they should stop such activities.
    Can a country demand of another to follow similar laws to them?
    While I do understand that the reps are concerned by equal rights, but the UAE do not deem this as discremination (like age, race religion) which is what a person is, they deem this as an "ACT", much like theft for example, and therefore punishable.

    Before Homosexuality supporters rise to defend, I am not debating this, I am debating if others can demand you to live by thier view. Imagine if Germany asked all the US states to make prostetution legal and concider it oppression otherwise. Or states that do not require front liscence plates on cars think that people living in states that do require front plates "oppressed".

    I think that is a far harder question.

    what do you think?
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions