j/k.
Then again, religion is a special interest group. Like the NRA, and many others here in the U.S. And money talks.
I can't read the article, for some odd reason, but if it's about people not being allowed to have prayer meetings in their homes, as I've read a bit about recently, that's blatantly unconstitutional. The traffic thing I can understand, but that can't be extended to banning practice of religion on private property. These people need to try carpooling or taxis.
Did I guess right?
Church cannot define public policy
Arthur Schafer
Special to The Star
The Church is going to lose the battle over human embryonic stem cell research, as it should.
The Vatican has taken a leading role in the campaign to ban stem cell research because it considers embryos to be the moral equivalent of a person and the extraction of stem cells causes the embryos to expire. Although Christian scriptures nowhere mention extracorporeal embryos, the destruction of human embryos is claimed to violate the divinely ordained sanctity of human life.
The brouhaha ultimately reduces to this: Does organized religion still have the power to veto scientific progress? It does not. The Church has lost its veto power because ours is a pluralistic secular civilization. Each religion has its own scriptural authority and its own authoritative interpretation of holy texts. But whatever one's private religious convictions, appeal to divine authority is no longer acceptable as the basis for public policy.
Proponents of embryonic stem cell research point out that stem cells are extracted at a point when the zygote (newly fertilized egg) is nothing more than a microscopic blob, possessing neither a brain nor a nervous system. The early-stage human embryo is not a person, since personhood requires a functioning brain and nervous system. Indeed, since the zygote could still divide into twins or triplets, it cannot even be said to be an individual being.
Keep in mind, also, that nature is profligate with embryos. Every time a woman menstruates, there is a good chance that a newly fertilized egg is being flushed away with her menses. Billions of fertilized eggs never implant in the lining of the womb and billions more spontaneously abort after implantation. Indeed, one commonly accepted form of birth control, the intrauterine device (IUD), operates precisely by preventing implantation of the zygote. Demanding that the government ban stem cell research based on the sanctity of the zygote is, therefore, no different than arguing for a ban on the use of IUDs.
The proper role of government is not to enforce on all of society one particular view of divine revelation; rather its role and its greatest challenge is to obtain for humanity the maximum benefit from new medical technologies while minimizing the risks of serious harm. Governments should also ensure that benefits and harms are distributed equitably.
Both advocates and opponents of stem cell research concede that it has enormous potentiality for human benefit. The scientific goal is first to isolate stem cells and then to tweak them in such a way that they re-grow parts of our own bodies, thereby enabling us to treat and perhaps to cure such dread diseases as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Stem cell research could also hold the key to the discovery of effective treatments for cancer and heart disease. The possibilities are almost endless. Since millions of people worldwide suffer terribly from these diseases, the prospect of discovering effective treatment has generated huge and justifiable excitement.
Of course, it may be the case that with further research these hoped-for benefits will prove illusory. No one who follows the news on the high-tech sector can fail to realize how often this week's medical miracle fizzles into next week's damp firecracker.
The isolation and growth of stem cells is a recent development, so no one can yet be confident of its therapeutic utility. Early experimental results are promising, but potential problems lie ahead: For example, once cell growth is turned on, it may be difficult to turn it off. Cells that cannot be turned off could destroy the health or life of the patient into whose body they've been introduced.
One may concede to the opponents of stem cell research that the human zygote has some degree of moral value (it is, after all, a living biological entity and not on the same moral level as an inanimate object, such as a mineral) but nevertheless insist that it does not have the high moral value that we attach to personhood.
The terror and suffering experienced by a patient with Alzheimer's disease, not to mention the suffering of the patient's family, has a claim on our moral concern that should outweigh our concern for the zygote. When scientific research offers possible relief to millions of suffering people, to proceed with such research is not, pace Pope John Paul II, "a coarsening of consciences." It is morally obligatory.
The British government has sensibly passed regulations that permit embryonic research to proceed, while ensuring that the research is done ethically. For example, embryos are not to be used for research without the informed consent of the couple that have contributed, respectively, their egg and sperm.
The Canadian government recently published draft legislation. Perhaps Health Minister Allan Rock will soon cease dithering and follow the British lead.
Religious dogma should not be allowed to perpetuate avoidable human suffering, nor should a stalemate be allowed to prevent the adoption of reasonable regulations to govern stem cell research.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Arthur Schafer is director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba.
Discuss.
But I think the larger issue here is that, like it or not, a lot of people are religious, and so of course their religious beliefs are going to inform their politics.
Now, I don't have objections to the exploitation (call it what you will, it's beneficial for all of us in the end) of zygotes. The line has to be drawn somewhere; humps of cells may be alive by our definition, but they do not constitute a human being.
[ August 01, 2001: Message edited by: The_Evil_Lord ]
Life begins the moment the standing criteria we have of it are met.
They are in no way taken as a means to change United States policy any more than a statement by Tony Blair on any issue would be. In other words any state or plolitical power still allied with the United States hope what they say is taken into consideration. With an eye to future relations with the Vatican, the Pope sends out his message, someone translates that for Dubya.
Dubya wants the Catholic vote for his election and might therefore put more weight on the Pope's comment than you or I would.
[ August 02, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
That said, however, I do think that the fact that issues like this are being discussed is not a bad thing.
They should just be ignored.
j/k.
Life begins at viability. 
Why do you think its illegal to murder(Thou shalt not murder), lie under oath(Thou shalt not bear false witness), stealing(thou shalt not steal) etc etc?
It is, of course, why our nation(the US) was built upon the 10 Commandments. Morality is absolute, not relative.
Imagine, for a minute, that the world is the exact same as it is now, except for a specific difference. Christianity has been replaced by a belief in Santa Claus, with "Catholics" believing rigidly in Santa Claus, and his wife Mrs. Claus. However, the "Protestants" believe in Father Christmas, and contest the fact that there is a Mrs. Claus. The "Muslims" have their own word for Santa Claus, and believe strongly in Rudolph the Red-nosed reindeer, gathering at midday to kneel in the direction of the north pole and write their letters to Santa Claus. The "Hindus" believe in no Santa Claus, but instead believe in various elves who do the same job as Santa Claus. There is no proof of Santa Claus, but people put out presents for their children every Christmas in a re-enactment of an ancient ritual, when it is said that Santa Claus himself used to bring presents.
Now, you are among the section of the population that doesn't believe in Santa Claus at all, it seems painfully obvious to you that there is no such thing. The very concept is ludicrous, in your eyes. The fact that so much of the world's population believes in what is patently a children's story astonishes you.
This however, doesn't stop all these factions fighting each other, even killing each other, in an attempt to make all see that their vision of Santa Claus is the true one. You are apalled when you think of the resources wasted by this ridiculous belief, by people travelling to their weekly ceremonies, where toys are offered at the foot of the chapel chimney, and believed to symbolize toys made by Santa Claus himself.
It doesn't stop there. Not only do these Santa Claus believers come to your door and preach that you should also believe, but they want to change government policy, they disapprove of contraception, saying that Santa Claus needs to have lots of children to deliver toys to when He returns. You disagree with this. You think it's a bad thing that these people, who oppose your view, are allowed to say what they think. Some guy notices this and says, "Why don't you just let these people say what they think, they're not harming anyone?". You reply, "Since when does ignorance not harm anyone?".
All flames are welcome.
[ August 03, 2001: Message edited by: Jernau Morat Gurgeh ]
quote:
It is, of course, why our nation(the US) was built upon the 10 Commandments.
Well, JeffR, if this is true, then it just goes to showing what hipocrites the Founding Fathers were ... not only did they own slaves while at the same time proclaiming all men equal; but they also apparently only meant 'Christian' religions when they spoke about the freedom of religion. Now, maybe you don't really know what you were talking about when you wrote that, so essentially: either you're a moron, or you just proved another point about the falibility of the F.F.
JeffR: important lesson for you to learn. Freedom of religion means ANY religion.
Many countries in the world have the same sort of laws, and very few of them believe in the Ten Commandments. The Bible is not the sole source of "morality" (not to even start with all the internal conflicts), and to pretend otherwise is simply ignorant.
Or just really stupid.
[ August 03, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]
[ August 03, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --Thomas Jefferson
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." --Thomas Paine
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." --Thomas Jefferson
"The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." --Abraham Lincoln
Worrisome concept.
"Why do you think its illegal to murder(Thou shalt not murder), lie under oath(Thou shalt not bear false witness), stealing(thou shalt not steal) etc etc?"
Could it just be that those are very good ideas which are highly beneficial to society in general, and therefore they tend to be common among most sets of laws, be they governmental or rligious laws...?
No. Wrong. INCORRECT.
This is FALSE, on the grounds that it cannot be proven. Go ahead and try.
If anyone tells you what your morals should be, ignore them, because they are lying.
quote:
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
George Washington.
Just goes to show that the U.S. was founded by (gasp!) human beings just like you and me, who were sometimes right and sometimes wrong.
quote:
Something on which JeffK and I agree.
The Devil just knocked on my door, informed me he was moving in, and asked I turn the heater up ... apparently, Hell just froze over ... 
"Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the governance of any other." - John Adams
"Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indespensable supports." - George Washington
"We have staked the whole future of the American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future... upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison
My point still stands- Religion can influence and define public policy.
I did not say to deport all Christians- though I'm sure Sol was just trying to be humorous..
I did not say anything about the Founding Fathers credibility, so why are you bringing that in?
quote:
"Could it just be that those are very good ideas which are highly beneficial to society in general, and therefore they tend to be common among most sets of laws, be they governmental or religious laws...?"
quote:
"Morality is absolute, not relative."
No. Wrong. INCORRECT.
This is FALSE, on the grounds that it cannot be proven. Go ahead and try.
If anyone tells you what your morals should be, ignore them, because they are lying.
Sol- interesting quote.
[ August 03, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff Raven ]
Move Along now.
[ August 04, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
I know I disagree on that. I think Rob would too.
Damn, we're agreeing again.
[ August 03, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]
"Furthermore, if morality is relative, then I suppose I can kill you and your family, because according to my morality its OK to do so. If anyone else says otherwise, I should ignore them then."
You certainly have the right to believe that. However, if you carry through w/ it, you have to keep in mind that the majority disagrees w/ you, and they'll punish you. However, if you believe that killing someone is okay and worth the punishment you'll receive, then of course you can do it.
[ August 04, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Folks tried living together and realized, "Hey, if there's no rules against killing each other, stealing, or messing with each other's cavewomen, this community won't last a moon!"
So they agreed to follow certain rules, because they made life easier.
Most of these rules wouldn't apply if humans lived in solitary family groups, and were not interdependent, much as they don't apply to the other animals.
Then I will go as far as to say I can disprove it (feel free to ask). Regarding your example, Tim summed it up well. If you think killing is okay, you're free to try, because my morality says its okay to kill you in self-defense, etc.
"It is more often than not defined by cultural norms than any ideal absolute."
Exactly.
I would be facinated. Please, continue.
Or:
"I'm right because I say so."
quote:
Atheism indeed, reveals it is a crutch for the wicked and weak, as it says it needs proof for the apparent existence of it's adherents' Maker. According to atheists' statements, they show they are some of the most ignorant people on earth in things pertaining to spiritual aspects. They don't realize angels and demons exist. They are even dazzled enough to say that the One who made them doesn't exist. Just like almost every manufacturer stamps it's name or code onto it's product, God has placed the knowledge of Himself in EVERY human. Thus deep down, ALL atheists know God exist. Sitting down trying to provide a formal proof of God's existence to atheists (it can be done) is beneath the knowledge they have of God's existence. Thus atheism is not about proof but about deliberate denial of One they hate.
Found this guy during a search on Google ... a tad unrelated, but boy-oh-boy ... look here for some great gems ...
Now, I did go looking for The Ten Commandments. Now, here's where it gets interesting. There are three different Ten Commandments -- the Jewish, Protestants, and Catholics all have slightly different ones. So ... well, first, feel free to look here for more detailed information regarding said Commandments.
Anyway, here's the list I found:
1. I am the LORD your God, you shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not take the Name of the LORD your God in vain.
3. Keep holy the Sabbath day.
4. Honor your father and your mother.
5. You shall not kill.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not bear false witness.
9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods.
Plenty of people worship a different god or several gods.
"You shall not take the Name of the LORD your God in vain."
Despite common expressions of "Oh my God!" etc.
"Keep holy the Sabbath day."
Few people do.
"Honor your father and your mother."
Those with unreasonable parents will disagree.
"You shall not kill."
Enemy soldiers are coming over the hill! Shoot them before they shoot you.
"You shall not commit adultery."
It seems that many of our nations leaders don't think so.
"You shall not steal."
Many people have no problem taking home reams of paper or pens and pencils from their workplaces.
"You shall not bear false witness."
If someone is wearing an ugly shirt and asks you how it looks, what do you say?
"You shall not covet your neighbor's wife."
Even if she's up for it?
"You shall not covet your neighbor's goods."
He's not around, and I really need to borrow his lawnmower.
As for the last two... "Covet" means "envy" or "want". Actually acting on those feelings would already fall under the "steal" and "adultery" ones. But, according to this, you're not even allowed to want other people's stuff. Kind of impossible to help, if you ask me...
I imagine a lot of people control their impulses when they meet you, unless you get punched a whole lot.
Joke.
But that's not the point anyway. We all control our impulses, everyday. That's why, when I see shiny new Buffy DVD's that I can't afford, I don't steal them. It doesn't stop me from wanting them though. I'm still breaking one of the ten commandments though for even wantingthe thing. Are you honestly saying, Omega, that you do not want anything? And that you don't envy anyone?
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Good thing I don't follow the "big-g" god
And this would be a good thing... why, exactly?
[ August 06, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]
Those "commandments" are pretty specific & done to stop the shit going on back then that was so rampant & easy to get away with. My inherent beliefs, though, basically say, "Sure, go ahead & do it....but don't be surprised when it comes around & smacks you on the ass later on." The universe is funny that way in balacing itself out.
"I am Yahweh your god, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me."
Well, I don't believe the first bit. But since I hold all gods in the same regard, I don't put any before Yahweh, so I guess I'm alright here.
"You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I, Yahweh, your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."
I've made images before and likenesses of things, so I've broken that bit. But I don't worship them, so I've only broken half this one.
Incidentally, the bit about punishing people for the misdeeds of their great-great-grandparents was the thing that first made me realize something was a bit awry, and put me on the road to atheo-agnosticism. :-)
"You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain; for Yaheweh will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."
Well, I've said things like "Oh my god!" and "Jesus Christ!" before. Interestingly, I've only stopped breaking this commandmaent since I stopped believing in it... *L*
But, I've never actually used the name "Yahweh" in vain, so I should be good.
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to Yahweh your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore Yahweh blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it."
I go to church on Sundays, but only 'cause I still live w/ my parents and they force me to. But I've feigned illness to get out of it before, so I'm out on this one, too. Not to mention that I've never observed the "no work" bit. I'd guess even Omega's screwed on this count, unless he's managed to be totally lazy once a week every week of his life...
"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which Yahweh your God gives you."
Ha!
"You shall not kill."
Assuming we're talking about people here, I'm okay.
"You shall not commit adultery."
According to the current definition of "adultery", I'm good. But if it includes fornication, I'm screwed (pun only half-intended).
"You shall not steal."
I prefer not to, but I probably have in the past.
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."
If "bearing witness" only applies to court-like situations, I'm okay. But, if it applies to any situation in which you lie about someone, I've done that.
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's."
Of course I covet. As I've pointed out, everyone does. It can't be helped.
So, looks like I've broken from 4.5 to 6.5 of them. Fascinating...
A co-worker once told me "Star Trek is your God." Mind you, he was a fundamentalist Muslim. After Princess Diana died we started calling him Dodi.
2. You shall not take the Name of the LORD your God in vain.
Jesus motherfucking Christ, why not?
3. Keep holy the Sabbath day.
Not quite sure what they mean here. I assume it means sticking to the things that make the Sabbath holy, like doing no work, in which case, tough - I needed the overtime. What's the position (hem hem) on having sex on the Sabbath?
4. Honor your father and your mother.
Again, tricky. Do I honour them now? Yes. Although I could go visit more often. Did I honour them when I was a teenager who they'd sent away to boarding school? No.
5. You shall not kill.
Or even murder, apparently. Let's not go there again. Regardless, I haven't killed anyone. I've wanted to. I've even tried in one or two fights I've been in.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
I haven't, believe it or not. Quite proud of it.
7. You shall not steal.
Oops.
8. You shall not bear false witness.
Everyone lies. No-one is ever completely honest.
9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.
Even when she's in their garden sunbathing naked? That's just inhuman. So when some President (I think it was Carter) said he'd only ever committed adultery in his heart, he was breakiung the 9th Commandment, but not the 6th.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods.
Oh well. Although I'd like to go on record that Frank's "he's not around, and I really need to borrow his lawnmower" gag is one of the funniest things I've ever read.
The original intent was to dedicate one entire day to God. In the Christian covenant, this doesn't apply because our entire LIVES are dedicated to God. And I don't think sex was allowed.
Everyone lies. No-one is ever completely honest.
How... Clintonequse. I seem to recall people saying that exact thing during impeachment. "It's OK that he commited perjury, and thus broke the law. EVERYONE lies." I still fail to follow the logic.
Even when she's in their garden sunbathing naked? That's just inhuman.
That which is against your base nature is inhuman? What an odd POV. Try actively WANTING to not lust. It works.
Although I'd like to go on record that Frank's "he's not around, and I really need to borrow his lawnmower" gag is one of the funniest things I've ever read.
Hardly lusting after his goods, if you don't think he'd mind, and have every intention of giving it back.
I could've sworn you've taken the opposite stance, oooh, in every death penalty thread.
Omega, are you honestly saying that you have never coveted/wanted anything that doesn't belong to you? Ever?
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
I would also point out that these are Jewish laws. They don't apply to me.
Good. Then you agree that since I & many others here don't practice Christianity, ITS laws don't apply to US.
Or I COULD go into how Kaja & Renae are rubbing their hands & licking their lips at your eventual downfall & cosmic spanking....
That's so rambling as to almost be a better .sig...
Omega, are you honestly saying that you have never coveted/wanted anything that doesn't belong to you? Ever?
I don't believe I said that. But as a general rule, I don't. I'm happy with what I have. There are things I might LIKE, occasionally, (say, the bass clarinet), but I hardly get angry or sad or what have you if I don't get them.
Good. Then you agree that since I & many others here don't practice Christianity, ITS laws don't apply to US.
OK, Christian "law" doesn't apply to you? Fine. The alternative would be the law of sin, and the payment for sin is death. You like that better? 'Course, there's always that grace thing, but then you're not interested in that, are you?
woooo....
Hugo the Divine Eternal Wombat wants me to tell you that only HIS laws apply, and that all other paths leads to doom and destruction and eternal baking in a giant pudding stuck between Joey Buttafuoco and Danny Bonnaducci, especially that path of Omega's particular brand of Christianity.
quote:
The original intent was to dedicate one entire day to God. In the Christian covenant, this doesn't apply because our entire LIVES are dedicated to God. And I don't think sex was allowed.
I'm still thinking about this one. Big Brother will get back to you.
quote:
How... Clintonequse. I seem to recall people saying that exact thing during impeachment. "It's OK that he commited perjury, and thus broke the law. EVERYONE lies." I still fail to follow the logic.
AGAIN with the Clinton. We could get bogged down here in definitions of honesty and bearing false witness, but what I'm trying to establish is, no-one is ever completely honest. We never reveal everything of ourselves. I could go further into this, but it'd be violating a confidence. You know what I mean.
quote:
That which is against your base nature is inhuman? What an odd POV. Try actively WANTING to not lust. It works.
That first sentence makes little sense to me. Are you saying it's my base nature not to lust? Hardly. And I think most people in the world are able to control their lusts. There are women out there I find attractive, but I love my partner so it remains little more than an intellectual thing, I'm not going to indulge or perpetuate that lust, but I'm not going to completely deny it either, any more than I'd expect my girlfriend to, say, not watch Stephen Baldwin movies without going "phwoar!" You're a teenage boy. You can't expect anyone to believe you've never had a lustful thought.
As for "inhuman," it's a figure of speech. Bear in mind I was making a joke. My neighbour's wife doesn't sunbathe naked. If only. 8)
Really? I thought Christians held the Ten Commandments in highest regard, too. Afterall, all these Christians want them posted in our schools, courts, and government buildings. I also know many Christian friends of mine post these "Jewish" laws in their own homes.
Speaking of this I'll let you live your life, and you let me live mine (but you'll go to Hell anyway) discussion, why is it some Christians feel the need to put things like "In God We Trust" in our schools? I know it's on our money, but what does that do to help our public schools, especially if the students are not all Christian, Jewish, or Muslim?
[ August 08, 2001: Message edited by: Ace ]
I thought Christians held the Ten Commandments in highest regard, too. Afterall, all these Christians want them posted in our schools, courts, and government buildings.
No, we (any "we") don't want them posted because of their religious significance. People want them posted because of their HISTORICAL significance. Tell me: if we post the code of Hammurabi, aren't we tacitly endorsing the worship of Messopotamian gods, by your logic? I've not heard ANYONE advocate posting the ten commandments because of their religious nature.
So the intent behind the idea becomes clear.
Me, I think putting "In God We Trust" on a symbol of Mammon (money) would probably be pretty dicey. Idolatry, maybe?
And then there's all these crucifixs and paintings and such of JC... 'graven images?"
Because they're the only ones under attack. If someone attacked posting the Magna Carta for an equally-stupid reason, I'd defend that, too.
The Old Testament is called that for a reason: it no longer applies.
Of course, as we've seen here today, there are sects on either side of this particular bell curve.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
OK, Christian "law" doesn't apply to you? Fine. The alternative would be the law of sin, and the payment for sin is death. You like that better? 'Course, there's always that grace thing, but then you're not interested in that, are you?
I've been dead far many more times than you'd think or could count. As for "sin"...that's a typically controlling concept. And "grace" seems to me to be something steeped in being really needy.
Unless, of course, you mean "Grace," which is a great song & album by Jeff Buckley. I'm listening to "Eternal Life" right now. Funny that, seeing as how he's haunting my friend Kim & now me. Wish he'd go away.
So I decide to abide by Buddhist law. So does that mean that I am a sinner? I'd better hit myself with a painstik about 200 times to ask for forgiveness for my sins. Oh the horror, oh the humanity.
Omega is devoutly & almost fanatically Christian. Marvelous. Bully for him.That's what works for him, then power to him. But it doesn't work for me, or for others. Most Christians I know adopt a laissez-faire policy: be tolerant & discuss, but don't push or judge.
Omega...you're pushing. And you're judging. Please stop. I happen to think--no, I KNOW--that you're a mundane in the eyes of the universe. Do I lord it over you? No. It's not my job or my place. I do not place any faith in Christian dogma. This does not make me a bad person nor does it mean I'm going to be one of the fallen or whatever the term is. It simply means I feel differently. You want to work with sturct & rigid laws & rule interpretations? Spec-fuckin'-TACular. Don't apply those standards to us.
They follow that which is in the NT. That just happens to overlap some of the OT. I like the analogy of spiritual maturity. The Israelites were two-year-olds. "Don't go near the oven, or Daddy'll spank you!" The NT is more like full-grown adults. "Well, you can go near the oven. You know what you're doing. Use your good judgement."
The OT was a list of do's and don't's. Under the NT, you DECIDE the do's and don't's, based upon the basic philosophy. There ARE a lot of similarities, obviously, because they both come from the same God, but that's a major difference.
As for "sin"...that's a typically controlling concept. And "grace" seems to me to be something steeped in being really needy.
You ARE needy. You need salvation.
So I decide to abide by Buddhist law. So does that mean that I am a sinner?
Have you sinned EVER in your ENTIRE life? Then you're a sinner.
I'd better hit myself with a painstik about 200 times to ask for forgiveness for my sins.
The asking would do just fine.
Omega...you're pushing. And you're judging.
I tell you what I believe. I answer questions. Tell me where I've judged someone.
You want to work with sturct & rigid laws & rule interpretations?
No, I'm NEW Testament, remember?
Hasn't Omega said on multiple occasions that someone or another is going to go to hell for doing something?
I don't believe so, no.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:Tell me where I've judged someone.
quote:
You ARE needy. You need salvation.
quote:
Hasn't Omega said on multiple occasions that someone or another is going to go to hell for doing something?I don't believe so, no.
quote:
OK, Christian "law" doesn't apply to you? Fine. The alternative would be the law of sin, and the payment for sin is death.
That not explicitly "you're gonna go to hell" for you? Off the top of my head, how about the time you said that Jubes and her eeeevil Wiccan ways would not be saved unless she "followed you."
[ August 08, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
quote:
The Old Testament is called that for a reason: it no longer applies.
"You need salvation."
No I don't.
Also, Shik, I'm curious as to exactly what your beliefs are. I know it's something to do with reincarnation, along with some kind of zodiac element, I'm guessing?
Omega: I don't need salvation, I need SALVE. It's fucking HOT here.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Have you sinned EVER in your ENTIRE life? Then you're a sinner.
Define "sin." What's bad to YOU is not necessarily bad to me.
I'm in a miserabvle fucking mood now. And I will be for the whole weekend. Yeah.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
The Old Testament is called that for a reason: it no longer applies.
quote:
Originally posted by Tom:
Good to hear that you've dropped your nonsensical belief in Adam and Eve and seven-day Creation.
Yes. That puts him on par with the Catholic Church, the least modern mainstream church in the country.
Soon, we'll drag him kicking and screaming in to the 1900s.
But -- wait! -- I think he'll find a way to explain Creationism. I mean, he still thinks the universe is 6,000 years old or so.
quote:
A man driving down a deserted stretch of highway notices a sign out of the corner of his eye:SISTERS OF ST.FRANCIS
HOUSE OF PROSTITUTION
10 MILESThinking it was just a figment of his imagination he drives on without a second thought. Soon, he sees another sign:
SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS
HOUSE OF PROSTITUTION
5 MILESHe begins to realize that these signs are real. He then drives past a third sign:
SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS
HOUSE OF PROSTITUTION
NEXT RIGHTHis curiosity gets the best of him and he pulls into the drive. On the far side of the parking lot is a somber stone building with a small sign next to the door:
SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS
He climbs the steps and rings the bell. The door is answered by a nun in a long black habit who asks. "What may we do for you, my son?"
He answers, " I saw your signs along the highway, and was interested in possibly doing business."
"Very well, my son. Please follow me."
He is led through many winding passages and is soon quite disoriented.
The nun stops at a closed door, and tells the man. "Please knock on this door. " He does as he is told and this door is answered by another nun in a long habit, holding a plate. This nun instructs, "Please place $50 in the plate, then go through the large wooden door at the end of this hallway."
He gets $50 out of his wallet, places it in the plate, trots eagerly down the hall, and slips through the door pulling it shut behind him.
As the door locks behind him, he finds himself back in the parking lot, facing another small sign:
GO IN PEACE
YOU HAVE JUST BEEN SCREWED
BY THE SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS
[ August 09, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]
Of course, on 8/1/01 at 11:45pm, Omega said "That's dumb" regarding this statement:
As for the tax rates, they should be cut for lower income residents and raised for higher income.
That's a judgement.
Then, on 8/8/01 at 1:34am, Omega, referring to a rant in this thread, said "Oh, the one on page four rocks. Total irrationality."
That would be a judgement as well, would it not?
Of course, this whole discussion is pointless. Also on 8/8/01, at 2:07am, Omega admits that "I didn't say I had evidence of that, did I? You're changing the subject again." in response to my point: "Okay: what's your evidence of in the belief of the Christian God?"
HAH! He admitted it! NO EVIDENCE! Excellent. I rock.
Omega, you can check all this in the "History" of ICQ. It's all there.
Rob: are you agnostic or athiest?
Other than that, I can judge all I want. For example, I judge you to be a total idiot. I base this on evidence that I have gathered over the past year.
HAH! He admitted it! NO EVIDENCE! Excellent. I rock.
I never claimed that I had incontravertable evidence as to the nature of God. I can prove the EXISTENCE of a god, but I can't prove its nature. I mean, for all I really KNOW, God's a total sadist, and is just messing with my head. But believing that won't get me anywhere, now will it?
Shik:
Define "sin."
That which is not in accordance with the will of God.
What's bad to YOU is not necessarily bad to me.
Again with the relative morality...
Gurgeh:
Just makes me realize that one of the reasons I'd hate to be a religious fundamentalist is that religions must be so bloody hard to defend.
Quite easy, actually. It's just that a lot of people don't actually listen to your defense, so it doesn't help all that much to make one.
Tim:
No I don't.
In your opinion.
Tom:
Good to hear that you've dropped your nonsensical belief in Adam and Eve and seven-day Creation.
And how do you derrive that from what I said?
Off the top of my head, how about the time you said that Jubes and her eeeevil Wiccan ways would not be saved unless she "followed you."
That applies to everyone else, too, and it's straight out of the Bible. Hardly my judging someone. "You don't do this. According to the Bible, this is the consequence." Simple enough.
Which is a judgement, genius. You're really startin to piss me off, Omega.
You can be violently assraped for eating beef in India. Think about that.
What?! 
I thought the point of a belief in God, gods, or a god was based on faith, meaning no proof needed. However, this is just what I have been waiting for! Please, prove that a god exists. I assume you mean god as in "a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions" as defined by dictionary.com and not a force like time or something like that, correct?
quote:In an earlier post you said this, Omega:
Good to hear that you've dropped your nonsensical belief in Adam and Eve and seven-day Creation.And how do you derrive that from what I said?
quote:
The Old Testament is called that for a reason: it no longer applies.
You also implied that I/we don't listen to your defense. This isn't true. As a rational person I'll listen to any defense. You're mistaking that fact that I contradict your defense with not listening to your defense.
In other words, a non-statement.
quote:
And how do you derrive that from what I said?The Old Testament is called that for a reason: it no longer applies.
Well, now, Omega's going to do some backtracking and come up with a reasonable explanation for it ...
That is, if he ever responds to this thread at all. He's got a habit of ignoring threads.
Not on my part.
All "morality" is relative.
Which you can't prove, and thus can't expect me to accept as part of this debate.
I assume you mean god as in "a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions"
Not quite. I can prove the existence of a supernatural being that created the universe, but that's about it. As I say, the nature of this deity is up for debate.
See, the deal is that the law of increasing entropy requires that there be a beginning to the universe. The law of mass-energy conservation does not allow for such a beginning. The laws of physics contradict each other. The only explaination is a supernatural being that created the universe.
Gurgeh:
I said the OT no longer applies. That means that I'm not a party to the contract. How does that have anything to do with historical references?
BTW Omega, when you say God created the world in 7 days, a few thousand years ago, do you believe that the whole universe was created then, or just Earth?
The stars were included in the creation, so I'd have to say the entire universe.
quote:
I can prove the existence of a supernatural being that created the universe, but that's about it.
Actually, you can't.
Someone needs to teach you the difference between proving something and making a hypothesis.
Morality most certainly is relative. Why is it okay to kill someone under one set of circumstances but not another?
"See, the deal is that the law of increasing entropy requires that there be a beginning to the universe. The law of mass-energy conservation does not allow for such a beginning. The laws of physics contradict each other. The only explaination is a supernatural being that created the universe."
The laws of Omega contradict the laws of me. The only explanation is that Omega is a dumbfuck.
How about, before inventing stories, we postulate that maybe the laws of physics on which you're basing your theory simply aren't complete. After all, Newton's "laws" regarding gravity caused a few contradictions. If this were the eighteenth or nineteenth century, you would have said that that was proof of a god. But, wait... What was the real explanation? Newton was wrong. His theories were incomplete.
The same could easily end up being true of any physiacl "laws" you think you can use to prove your god-theory right now.
Perhaps part of the Universe we know, or perhaps, a Universe we DON'T know, that happens to have different physical laws, just spawns entropy-laden universes like ours as cosmic burps.
I'd like to believe in the idea of a Creator, I really would, but until He sits me down and asks me what I thought of the coelecanth, I'm not going to be able to leave the doubt behind.
quote:
We should certainly look into this before blindly accepting supernatural juju.
Well, then, Omega's got some explaining to do.
While debating the creation of the universe, using the same arguement he's making here, on ICQ 8/8/01, 2:15am EST he said, "Even ROB agrees with me on this one, Jeff."
He also said, at 2:16am, in reference to Rob again: "He's not an athiest, he's agnostic. He knows that a god exists. He hates him/her/it."
Explain, Omega, because Rob clearly doesn't agree with you ...
a) He doesn't agree with your concept of the creation of the universe.
b) He just said (the previous post) that he doesn't believe in a "Creator."
Not that Omega's ever going to respond to this thread ... (which is what usually happens)
[ August 11, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]
1. I am a Deist-leaning Agnostic.
I have no idea whether there is or is not any sort of Creative Being responsible for the universe. However, I doubt it, mostly because the Universe is far too disorderly and wasteful to have been designed intelligently. However, IF such a being exists, I suspect it to be distant and uninvolved, and not remotely like a 'Father Figure' God. (Except for those of us who had absentee fathers.) If it is at all interested in us, it is for the potential we possess to evolve into a form capable of communicating with/understanding it. (Or, to put it another way, I suspect that the answer to the question "Why are we here?" is "God was lonely, bored, and friendless.")
2. I do not 'hate' any Creative Being.
However, I find that any being passing itself off as the God of the Old and New Testaments has a LOT to answer for, and many many reasons for me to dislike it. Most of these I have discussed at length.
Gut instinct on this one. I suppose it's POSSIBLE that we're not, but it seems far more likely that we're dealing with an intelligent being.
Morality most certainly is relative. Why is it okay to kill someone under one set of circumstances but not another?
Because it's murder, which is wrong, under certain circumstances, but not under others.
How about, before inventing stories, we postulate that maybe the laws of physics on which you're basing your theory simply aren't complete.
OK, so you're proposing that there are circumstances under which the amount of entropy in the universe can decrease, or under which matter can be created is mass quantities? OK, fair enough. Perhaps I should have said that physics AS WE UNDERSTAND IT requires a god.
After all, Newton's "laws" regarding gravity caused a few contradictions.
Contradiction with observation, not contradiction with other universal law.
Perhaps part of the Universe we know, or perhaps, a Universe we DON'T know, that happens to have different physical laws, just spawns entropy-laden universes like ours as cosmic burps.
Proposing existence outside our universe doesn't solve the problem. Where'd THAT universe come from?
I do not 'hate' any Creative Being.
I stand corrected. Sorry for the confusion.
quote:
Because it's murder, which is wrong, under certain circumstances, but not under others.
Thou shall not kill.
According to your own book of fairytales, killing is wrong under ANY circumstance.
You claim that you can prove the existance of God. So, what are you standing around for? Go ahead and prove it to the rest of the world! Show us the error of our ways! Enlighten us with your wisdom!
[ August 11, 2001: Message edited by: My Publically Displayed Name ]
quote:
Because it's murder, which is wrong, under certain circumstances, but not under others.
So ... sometimes murder is wrong, and sometimes it's not? Either you were smoking crack when you typed that, or you've dropped the distinction between a "murder" and a "killing." Have you changed the definition, like you do with so much? Frankly, your statement (like you) makes no sense.
quote:
Proposing existence outside our universe doesn't solve the problem.
See? Here's the big problem with your hypothesis. You postulize (forgive my spelling) a supernatural being -- whether it be God, Allah, Mr. T or Q -- who created the universe.
Well, where'd it come from? The thing you're not understanding (as far as I can tell), is that God/Allah/Mr. T/Q/What The Fuck Ever is, to quote you, "existance outside our universe."
So, where'd this existance outside our universe come from, eh?
Oh, don't tell me. "It's timeless." Which, to quote (or at least, paraphrase) Rob is "a non-answer."
[ August 11, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]
Likewise, he'll probably say something to the effect of "It ain't murder if God tells ya to do it."
quote:
Proposing existence outside our universe doesn't solve the problem. Where'd THAT universe come from?
Same place your Creative Being came from. Gotcha.
[ August 11, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]
(And later on the sixth day, The_Tom said that He is but a minor deity below the great Capps, who doth command that no posts be deleted under any cicrumstance lest the sheep and the sloths and the pastries lie down with the lamb and repeatedly assfuck it. So this post, despite it's general absence of content, shall remain timeless. It is the Alpha but hopefully not the Omega.)
[ August 11, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
According to your own book of fairytales, killing is wrong under ANY circumstance.
Thou shalt not MURDER. You're dealing with a very old mistranslation.
So ... sometimes murder is wrong, and sometimes it's not?
No, I said that killing is murder- which is wrong- sometimes, but not at other times. I thought it was quite clear.
So, where'd this existance outside our universe come from, eh?
I'm postulating existence that's eternal by nature. No assembly required.
He's going to claim that "Thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation of a phrase which actually said "Thou shalt not murder,"
Very good, Rob. At least SOMEONE's been paying attention.
[ August 11, 2001: Message edited by: My Publically Displayed Name ]
Gut instinct implies original and independent thought on your part, Omega. And I have a gut instinct that there is nothing of the sort there.
And if you think otherwise, please stick your beliefs somewhere where the sun doesn't shine very often.
There are those here that would define that statement as intolerance. They would be wrong.
Hey that was original, Omega! You come up with that one all by yourself? I have a gut instinct that you didn't.
quote:
Perhaps I should have said that physics AS WE UNDERSTAND IT requires a god.
Huh.
quote:
No, I said that killing is murder- which is wrong- sometimes, but not at other times. I thought it was quite clear.
So all killings are murders? Therefore, anyone who takes a life, be it in the process of a death sentence or self defense, should be smited by God? Yeeesh, looks like if you succeed in your theocracy, 2nd Ammendment is the first thing to go ... (not that I'd complain)
As I understand it (and as you've argued it), "murder" is an illegal killing, while "killing" is a legal killing. If suddenly you don't see that distinction, you can no longer use the defense, "God didn't say 'thou shalt not kill', he said 'thou shalt not murder.'"
Anyway, you're making less and less sense the more you talk. And you're being even less original then usual, copying whole posts from Stingray just about verbatim. Honestly, if you can't come up with anything new, don't bother.
No, that is the diametric opposite of what I said. Perhaps you don't understand the punctuation used. I will therefore bring it down another level.
Murder is wrong. Killing is murder under some circumstances, but not others. Therefore, killing is wrong under some circumstances, but not necessarily under others.
Clear?
quote:
No, I said that killing is murder- which is wrong- sometimes, but not at other times. I thought it was quite clear.
Punctuation my ass. You clearly were smoking crack. First, you said that killing was murder. See? I've quoted it like twice now. Then you said murder was wrong, sometimes, which can't be true because in countless gun threads you've said that the Commandment was "thou shalt not murder", therefore murders can never by "sometimes" not-wrong. Be more precise the first time you type, because I think The_Tom's reaction to the above was the same as mine: "Then it was most certainly insane." Clearly, you made a boo-boo writing the above, and now, instead of admitting it, you're frothing like a rabid mouse.
Now, stop beating around the bush and respond to the other points. You know, like as Rob said so well, "Same place your Creative Being came from. Gotcha." Because you haven't responded to it at all, which makes one think you can't respond to it. And if you won't respond to it, it makes one wonder why. Like, you realize you can't defend it so you hope if you can avoid answering it, you can still pretend to "win" this thread like you pretend with so much.
[ August 12, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]
I said nothing of the kind. This is where a working knowledge of punctuation comes in handy. Rob, you're the English major. You want to explain it to him?
Because you haven't responded to it at all
I did, as a matter of fact. You're just not paying attention. As usual.
quote:
I'm postulating existence that's eternal by nature.
Non-answer. To everything there must be a beginning. Where was it's beginning? Where did it come from? And you're still postulating existance outside of the universe.
Okay, Rob, this --
quote:
Because it's murder, which is wrong, under certain circumstances, but not under others.
-- was Omega's original, confusing, non-sensical statement. Tell me, does it or does it not say that sometimes murder is wrong and sometimes its correct?
I mean, me, myself, and I, think that if Omega had typed "killing under some circumstances is wrong, but not under others," he would be making sense (or at least, as much sense as he ever makes). Since murder by definition means the wrongful taking of life, there is no way by which it can be not-wrong. Yes? Or no?
quote:
This is where a working knowledge of punctuation comes in handy.
This coming from a guy who spells "prove" with two o's.
[ August 12, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]
quote:
[Beer]Why is it okay to kill someone under one set of circumstances but not another?[/Beer]
quote:
[Omega]Because it's murder, which is wrong, under certain circumstances, but not under others.[/Omega]
Murder = Wrong ucc;
quote:
[Beer]So ... sometimes murder is wrong, and sometimes it's not?[/Beer]
quote:
[Me]According to your own book of fairytales, killing is wrong under ANY circumstance.[/Me]
quote:
[Omega]Thou shalt not MURDER. I said that killing is murder -which is wrong- sometimes, but not at other times.[/Omega]
Killing = Murder = Wrong ucc;
quote:
[Omega]There are those here that would define that statement as intolerance. They would be wrong.[/Omega]
First, it's "intolerant". Second, that's exactly how it was meant. I don't tolerate hypocritical religious d*mbf*cks who condone murder (or KILLING, or whatever YOU want to call it).
Back to the summary...
quote:
[Beer]So all killings are murders?[/Beer]
quote:
[Omega]No, that is the diametric opposite of what I said. Murder is wrong. Killing is murder under some circumstances, but not others. Therefore, killing is wrong under some circumstances, but not necessarily under others.
[/Omega]
Murder = Wrong;
Killing = Murder ucc; [Murder = Killing ucc;]
Killing = Wrong ucc;
quote:
[Beer]First, you said that killing was murder. Then you said murder was wrong, sometimes, which can't be true because in countless gun threads you've said that the Commandment was "thou shalt not murder", therefore murders can never by "sometimes" not-wrong.[/Beer]
quote:
[Omega]I said nothing of the kind.[/Omega]
Killing != Murder; [contradiction in Omega's statement;]
*Somebody* has definitely been smoking too much crack.
[ August 12, 2001: Message edited by: My Publically Displayed Name ]
quote:
Don't argue any points, quote anybody, or make any counterpoints.
Good luck with that. We've been trying to get him to do that forever.
Killing = Murder = Wrong ucc
This is not what I said. I said (killing = murder ucc && murder = wrong).
Good luck with that. We've been trying to get him to do that forever.
Exactly as I've been trying to get you to make points forever, and to string them together into a coherant argument.
Killing a person is the physical act of terminating a person, where no ethical connotations are intended. Murder is a subset of Killing, where ethical connotations are intended. Murder is always wrong, as per Omega's version of the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not murder", and by definition as the wrongful taking of another's life. Killing, being a superset of Murder, therefore, need not always be wrong, just when the Killing is classified as a Murder.
So what it boils down to is this: Killing is not always wrong. Murder is always wrong.
This is just what Omega's beliefs appear, to me , to be. I'll just point out that the whole issue of distinguishing between Killing and Murder is, unfortunately, rather subjective.
And I notice Rob never came to your defense on this one.
Murder is unnecessary killing. The problem then becomes defining what is 'necessary' and what is not.
The death of a human being is not in and of itself an 'evil' act... or have we now declared sharks and tigers (and hurricanes and fires and other natural disasters) to be thinking beings capable of evil?
Killing in self-defense or defense of others' lives is generally considered justifiable, in more or less extreme circumstances depending upon the viewpoint of the person asked.
Killing in defense of property is sometimes considered justifiable, depending upon local politics. Some see it as an extension of the defense of self. Some would just see it as weeding. I find it so, but others may not.
Killing for a political or religious purpose is generally not considered justifiable, except by those doing the killing. War is an enrirely different matter.
And there are other circumstances. Remember that episode where the only way for Troi to pass the final bridge command test was to order holoGeordi to his probable death? That's because to save more lives, something like that might be necessary.
*wipes hands*
Yes, I understand all of that. That's not what Omega wants your ruling on.
quote:
Because it's murder, which is wrong, under certain circumstances, but not under others.
Does that paragraph make any sense? As I see it, Omega is saying that murder is wrong unless it's not. If he'd said, "killing is wrong, under certain circumstances, but not under others", he'd be okay. However, since murder is by definition illegal, how can it be okay?
I'd have to say that the sentence is totally fragged. (Yo, dude! Your participle's dangling out!)
*removes B.A. Hat*
The rest stands.
"Because it's murder (which is wrong) under certain circumstances, but not under others."
Now does everyone get it?
The point, the one that Omega is fighting nail and tooth against, is that his original sentence's grammar made no sense. Omega, apparently, has nothing better to do but spend his precious time defending comma placement.