Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 249
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    BTW, did anybody ever note how god transmits his latest moral values to the different societies? And if he/she does, why is the message so different all the time?
    www.moralupdates.com off course.. complete with email and SMS broadcast
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  2. #62  
    about outdated morals:


    Dear President Bush,

    Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.

    I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose
    and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you
    said, "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man and a woman." I
    try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries
    to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
    Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

    I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of
    God's Laws and how to follow them.

    1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
    female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of
    mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
    Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

    2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
    Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price
    for her? She is 6 years old, healthy, and very smart. She doesn't want to be
    a slave, so that might be a problem.

    3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
    her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I
    tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it
    creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my
    neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite
    them?

    5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
    35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to
    kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

    6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
    abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
    don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

    7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
    have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear contact lenses. Does
    my
    vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

    8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
    around their temples, even though Lev. 19 expressly forbids this: How should
    they die?

    9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
    me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? What should we
    do with the NFL?

    10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
    different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments
    made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also
    tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all
    the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.
    Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do
    with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have
    studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in
    such matters, so I am confident you can help.

    Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
    unchanging.

    Very Truly Yours,

    (Source: Ballaton Group)
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Moral values are not given by god, but depend on the society and at a the time you live in. Not too long ago, it was considred perfectly alright by the Christian society you live in to have slaves. Very few people considered it immoral. In the middle age, it was considered morally correct in Christian societies to burn a woman alive if it seemed likely that this woman was a which. If moral values are given by god, why is it that they change all the time, even among the followers of the same god?

    It IS society who defines moral values (and, based upon that, the laws that govern the members of that society, and the different forms of punishments for not following those laws, like cutting off hands, whipping, etc.). No need for a god or gods... BTW, did anybody ever note how god transmits his latest moral values to the different societies? And if he/she does, why is the message so different all the time?
    Great, thats my point. Do you believe things are wrong regardless of soceity. In other words was burning women alive wrong/immoral even when the soceity deemed it to be right.

    Notice the end of my last post, would the Holocaust be wrong if Germany won and all of society deemed it a good thing?
    Last edited by carter437; 12/02/2004 at 09:12 AM.
  4.    #64  
    great point, carter437.
  5.    #65  
    skilllz, your post hasn't fallen on deaf ears. I will simply agree to disagree.

    I understand your point, but I don't agree with it altogether. maybe we should simply disagree courteously.

    when you say "here in reality, not everyone celebrates holidays in the same manner"

    that's perfectly fine. there's absolutely no problem whatsoever with that.

    but while we are in reality we must remember that this country was founded under christian traditions - while we make it fair for all other religions to be recognized equally, we must REMEMBER the founding fathers' religions. if we don't do that, and you fail to see the importance in that, then you are contradicting yourself as an american there as well.

    remember and honor our founding traditions while allowing other religions or holidays to be recognized as well.

    we don't have to make such a big deal as to create wars over religion in this matter - these are .merely SONGS! not calls to convert! big difference.

    this is america. we honor & respect EVERY culture - but we must also preserve, respect and honor OUR OWN as well.

    I hope THAT hasn't fallen upon deaf ears.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Safe sex is not a philosophy, it is a means of preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. There are other means (like not having sex for instance). I agree with you that adolescents should learn different ways of preventing infections, not only safer sex. I doubt though that there is any school that claims safer sex is the only way.
    It is one thing to educate. It is another to distribute products. It is the distribution of products that derives from the "philosophy", rather than the use of products which is a "practice" in limiting the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Further, the distribution of the products is a de facto vote of support to the practice.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Evolution is not a philosophy either. It is what we see with our eyes when we look at nature and study life. There are millions of observations and well documented facts that show how it works and why. I am sure, if you would take some time and study these things, look at them in an unbiased way, you would come to the same conclusion.
    Evolution in terms of variation within a species is quite evident. Evolution in terms of across a species is in question. Evolution as a basis for the genesis and existence of life as we know it is not supported by the fossil record. And, as not (yet?) emprically proven, it is a hypothesis; a belief system; a philosophy.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Children in school should learn to rate the arguments and the evidence speaking in favour of evolution, and the arguments and evidence others claim to have.
    Evidence is evidence. One need not claim to have it.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Sadly, this doesn't always happen. But I can take comfort in the fact that after centuries of resistance e.g. from churches, it is now widely accepted that earth is round and circles aournd the sun.
    LOL

    As you probably know, scientists throughout history have been church-members. It is relatively new for there to be a dichotomy between science and religion. There has always been a distinction. But never a chasm such as some require today.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Don't be misguided by the term "theory" used in the scientific terminology. You will hear scientists speaking about "the theory of gravity". That doesn't mean there is doubt about the existence of gravity.
    I am familiar with the term 'theory'. I recognize that it refers to the body of information rather than the state of proof of that information.
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by carter437
    Great, thats my point. Do you believe things are wrong regardless of soceity. In other words was burning women alive wrong/immoral even when the soceity deemed it to be right.

    Notice the end of my last post, would the Holocaust be wrong if Germany won and all of society deemed it a good thing?
    I do think there are things that are wrong regardless of society/time. Burning women because they supposedly are whiches and the holocaust are certainly examples of that kind.

    Still, that has nothing to do with god. You can come to that conclusion simply by asking "what are the consequences of my actions, do they lead to a society in which people are more happy or less happy? What would I think/feel if I were at the "receiving" end of my actions?".
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    It is one thing to educate. It is another to distribute products. It is the distribution of products that derives from the "philosophy", rather than the use of products which is a "practice" in limiting the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Further, the distribution of the products is a de facto vote of support to the practice.
    I am sorry, but I fail to understand what you mean. When you say products, do you mean condomes?
    As you probably know, scientists throughout history have been church-members. It is relatively new for there to be a dichotomy between science and religion. There has always been a distinction. But never a chasm such as some require today.
    I am not sure Giordano Bruno would have agreed with you when he was burned at the stake 404 years ago for claiming (among other things) that earth circles around the sun. But hey, it's ok, 400 years later the pope expressed his "profound sorrow" about the incident and acknowledged that killing Bruno had been an error. It didn't really take long to realize, did it?
    I am familiar with the term 'theory'. I recognize that it refers to the body of information rather than the state of proof of that information.
    Actually, it takes a really, really big body of evidence before science calls something "the theory of ....". That's what I like about science, it is not just a single book.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by skillllllz
    There are plenty private schools that cater to specific religions. If you believe religion during school time is essential to shaping your child then you have the option to send him/her off to one. If you're sending your child off to public school then you must respect the fact that not everyone there is going to have the same traditions, culture, beliefs, etc. If you preach from one angle then you must preach from all other angles out of fairness and respect to all other faiths. If you don't care for or respect other faiths, then congratulations... you are a bigot.
    bing bing bing we have a winnar
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    "congratulations, you're a bigot!"

    what a revelation! you know, what makes someone a bigot when all they want is to be able to freely express his or her faith. all the other religions are free to express themselves - no one is claiming damage from seeing a muslim expression of faith in schools, hindu expression of faith, jewish, etc.

    I thought we were about tolerance of ALL religions. now christianity is the biggest offender of all? wow. and WE are the bigots?
    "One nation under vishnu and justice for all" I'm sure that'd go over big...
  11.    #71  
    joebar, let's just say this... Its a relief to know your view is in the minority.

    bing bing... WE have the winners!
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    what you mean. When you say products, do you mean condomes?
    Yes, condoms
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I am not sure Giordano Bruno would have agreed with you when he was burned at the stake 404 years ago for claiming (among other things) that earth circles around the sun. But hey, it's ok, 400 years later the pope expressed his "profound sorrow" about the incident and acknowledged that killing Bruno had been an error. It didn't really take long to realize, did it?
    I think it is your wit that causes me to continually engage in these discussions.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Actually, it takes a really, really big body of evidence before science calls something "the theory of ....". That's what I like about science, it is not just a single book.
    I'm pretty partial to the 66 discrete texts compiled from authors over several centuries and various geographic locations whose collective body of work is cohesive and profoundly life-changing.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Yes, condoms
    Actually, this is quite an interesting case... if I understand you correctly, you oppose advocating the use of condoms in schools and favour abstinence as a means of preventing sexually transmitted diseases or teenage pregnancies.

    Interestingly, in the comparatively highly religious USA, teenage pregnancies are by far the highest in when compared to other developed countries (in most developed countries there are about 10 to 40 pregnancies in 1000 women below 20 years of age, in the US more than 80). Not only that, also the abortion rate in teenage pregnancies is highest in the US. (See this review for sources)

    In their summary:
    "Countries with low levels of adolescent pregnancy, childbearing and Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) are characterized by societal acceptance of adolescent sexual relationships, combined with comprehensive and balanced information about sexuality and clear expectations about commitment and prevention of pregnancy and STDs within these relationships."

    "Easy access to contraceptives and other reproductive health services contributes to better contraceptive use and, in turn, low teenage pregnancy rates."



    So it seems that the way you suggest (no condomes, abstinence) does not work, at least not as good as good as acceptance of adolescent sexual relationships and access to contraceptives. Also the strong influence of religion/churches (when compared to the influence and importance religion e.g. Europe has) does not help preventing teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases - to the contrary, one is tempted to say...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Actually, this is quite an interesting case... if I understand you correctly, you oppose advocating the use of condoms in schools and favour abstinence as a means of preventing sexually transmitted diseases or teenage pregnancies.

    Interestingly, in the comparatively highly religious USA, teenage pregnancies are by far the highest in when compared to other developed countries (in most developed countries there are about 10 to 40 pregnancies in 1000 women below 20 years of age, in the US more than 80). Not only that, also the abortion rate in teenage pregnancies is highest in the US. (See this review for sources)

    In their summary:
    "Countries with low levels of adolescent pregnancy, childbearing and Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) are characterized by societal acceptance of adolescent sexual relationships, combined with comprehensive and balanced information about sexuality and clear expectations about commitment and prevention of pregnancy and STDs within these relationships."

    "Easy access to contraceptives and other reproductive health services contributes to better contraceptive use and, in turn, low teenage pregnancy rates."



    So it seems that the way you suggest (no condomes, abstinence) does not work, at least not as good as good as acceptance of adolescent sexual relationships and access to contraceptives. Also the strong influence of religion/churches (when compared to the influence and importance religion e.g. Europe has) does not help preventing teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases - to the contrary, one is tempted to say...
    I'm surprised at this post, clulup. In other threads, such leaps from anecdotal data to claims of cause and effect have not been tolerated.

    Let's be clear. Abstinence results in:
    * NO pregnancy
    * NO child-bearing
    * NO transmission of sexually transmitted disease
    * NO abortion

    So while it may be true that "Countries with low levels of adolescent pregnancy, childbearing and STDs are characterized by societal acceptance of adolescent sexual relationships, combined with comprehensive and balanced information about sexuality and clear expectations about commitment and prevention of pregnancy and STDs within these relationships," abstinence drives those levels down to ZERO.

    The real cause of the levels of these conditions is found in this assertion which the article makes:

    "In most of the developed world, the majority of young women become sexually active during their teenage years—the proportion who have had intercourse reaches at least three-quarters by age 20"

    It is the behavior that contributes to conditions.

    And, here is a prime example of how the Biblical worldview demonstrates the HEALTHIEST lifestyle. (Does one have to subscribe to the Bible, or to God, to live helathy? NO! But, one could at least acknolwedge that a Biblically-informed lifestyle tends toward much of what society deems beneficial)
    Last edited by shopharim; 12/03/2004 at 07:57 AM. Reason: too personal
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I do think there are things that are wrong regardless of society/time. Burning women because they supposedly are whiches and the holocaust are certainly examples of that kind.

    Still, that has nothing to do with god. You can come to that conclusion simply by asking "what are the consequences of my actions, do they lead to a society in which people are more happy or less happy? What would I think/feel if I were at the "receiving" end of my actions?".
    The point is not how do you determine what course of action you deem correct but is anything wrong or right (situational ethics vs meta ethics). Your first answer relies on society but the question was is anything right or wrong, regardless of society. Secondly you answer is wholly subjective and based on your opinion. I can easily counter with my own opinion, I do what ever makes me happy regardless of others. So if I were to torture people because it makes me happy, all you could say is you disagree because you don't like it.

    There are major questions in life and some big ones are origin, morality, destiny and meaning. Its important people have a point of view on each of these but its also imporant that their answers make sense individually and collectively.

    In other words a purely naturalistic explaination for origins is fine but then the moment one starts invoking morality and meaning, contradictions will ultimately arise. Even if a naturalist believes in a chance,meaningless beginning but is convinced there is a morality, there is still the problem of compelling someone to live morally. Without ultimate accountablity (destiny) (or even inherent worth of a human(origin)) why does it matter (meaning) whether one lives a Hitler or a saint?

    A supernatural worldview provides a coherent answer for all questions mentioned above.
    A naturalistic explaination , chance origin, no morality, no destiny and no meaning also anwsers the above questions and is inherently coherent.

    This worldview is contradictory:
    chance origin, morality, meaning, no destiny.







    "I found that the very people
    who said that mankind was one church from Plato to Emerson were
    the very people who said that morality had changed altogether,
    and that what was right in one age was wrong in another. If I asked,
    say, for an altar, I was told that we needed none, for men our brothers
    gave us clear oracles and one creed in their universal customs and ideals.
    But if I mildly pointed out that one of men's universal customs
    was to have an altar, then my agnostic teachers turned clean round
    and told me that men had always been in darkness and the superstitions
    of savages. "

    -- G.K. Chesterton "Orthodoxy"
    Last edited by carter437; 12/03/2004 at 08:02 AM.
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I'm surprised at this post, clulup. In other threads, such leaps from anecdotal data to claims of cause and effect have not been tolerated.

    Let's be clear. Abstinence results in:
    * NO pregnancy
    * NO child-bearing
    * NO transmission of sexually transmitted disease
    * NO abortion

    So while it may be true that "Countries with low levels of adolescent pregnancy, childbearing and STDs are characterized by societal acceptance of adolescent sexual relationships, combined with comprehensive and balanced information about sexuality and clear expectations about commitment and prevention of pregnancy and STDs within these relationships," abstinence drives those levels down to ZERO.

    The real cause of the levels of these conditions is found in this assertion which the article makes:

    "In most of the developed world, the majority of young women become sexually active during their teenage years—the proportion who have had intercourse reaches at least three-quarters by age 20"

    It is the behavior that contributes to conditions.

    And, here is a prime example of how the Biblical worldview demonstrates the HEALTHIEST lifestyle. (Does one have to subscribe to the Bible, or to God, to live helathy? NO! But, one could at least acknolwedge that a Biblically-informed lifestyle tends toward much of what society deems beneficial)
    I think you missed the point. Your theory works nice on paper, but in the real world it simply doesnt work.
    Your sollution for spam is not to use email at all?
    Same kind of logic...People will have sex it is simply normal natural healthy human behaviour.
    You are fighting a loosing battle I'm afraid. So it may be more usefull to accept reality and find a practical sollution..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I'm surprised at this post, clulup. In other threads, such leaps from anecdotal data to claims of cause and effect have not been tolerated.

    Let's be clear. Abstinence results in:
    * NO pregnancy
    * NO child-bearing
    * NO transmission of sexually transmitted disease
    * NO abortion
    True. So do condoms.

    So while it may be true that "Countries with low levels of adolescent pregnancy, childbearing and STDs are characterized by societal acceptance of adolescent sexual relationships, combined with comprehensive and balanced information about sexuality and clear expectations about commitment and prevention of pregnancy and STDs within these relationships," abstinence drives those levels down to ZERO.
    True. So do condoms.

    The real cause of the levels of these conditions is found in this assertion which the article makes:

    "In most of the developed world, the majority of young women become sexually active during their teenage years—the proportion who have had intercourse reaches at least three-quarters by age 20"

    It is the behavior that contributes to conditions.

    And, here is a prime example of how the Biblical worldview demonstrates the HEALTHIEST lifestyle. (Does one have to subscribe to the Bible, or to God, to live helathy? NO! But, one could at least acknolwedge that a Biblically-informed lifestyle tends toward much of what society deems beneficial)
    Say, where in the bible does it say people should not have sex if younger than 20?

    You have to understand the origins of the rules trying to delay sex. In the old days, for almost every society, overpopulation was a problem (it still is outside developed countries, btw). The carrying capacity of the natural environment was reached, more people meant starvation... the later adolescents had sex, the lower the population growth.

    This doesn't apply to us any more. Sex does not have to mean pregnancy any more. Tell me, why exactely is it bad if two 18 year olds who are in love have sex, given it is consensual and they use adequate protection?

    And, in addition: In your view, why is it that teenage pregnancies are more than twice as high in the US when compared to other developed countries?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  18. #78  
    clulup, I think he empasized ZERO because with condoms there is a small chance they tear and hence are uneffective..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    I think you missed the point. Your theory works nice on paper, but in the real world it simply doesnt work.
    Your sollution for spam is not to use email at all?
    Same kind of logic...People will have sex it is simply normal natural healthy human behaviour.
    You are fighting a loosing battle I'm afraid. So it may be more usefull to accept reality and find a practical sollution..
    I think I made the point -- The real world is fraught with adolescent child-bearing, unwanted pregnancy, epidemic/pandemic spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and abortion because people have turned the natural, healthy, human behavior of sex into a pleasure-driven, self-serving act.

    And, while condoms may cover the anatomy, it provides no real protection from the physical and emotional wounds of this sexual revolution. And the safe sex "philosophy" does not provide any real relief. At best, it simply slows the progression.
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    clulup, I think he empasized ZERO because with condoms there is a small chance they tear and hence are uneffective..
    Or are defective
    Or are used improperly
    Or...
Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions