-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
And The World gets less unified? I'd say the opposite, the world gets more and more polarized, within the old groups. The result is strangely enouph the same, fewer people within distinct borders.
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
I think we should all come together as a global community to decide how long he Defiant really is.
(nuclear war ensues)
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote: And The World gets less unified? I'd say the opposite, the world gets more and more polarized, within the old groups.
I don't understand what you're getting at.
What I was suggesting is that, today, there are more and more varied political conflicts than there were, say, fifty years ago. States that used to be held together by Cold War necessities have since collapsed. I'm not really making a moral observation about this, at the moment. (I don't think "unification" is inherently good or bad, in this context.)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think Unification was a fairly terrible episode.
I think that, while economic unification(s) are becoming more apparant and the exchange of money and the motivations that go with it are far more common today, the political scene is more disorganized than at any time in our lives.
There's so many new governments with diverse needs and grudges, that keeping track of them and their disputes with one another must be a royal headache for any state department.
Also add that since the fracturing of the old Soviet Union, there are several new people with their fingers on nuclear weapons.
I dont see a true unification within our lifetimes.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Sol: It seems we feel the same thing, for some reason I read your initial statement as "getting more unified", not less. Of course, I've had a fever for a couple of days.
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The "no matter what they may have done" part sure screams "holier than thou".
Again with connotations. I mean exactly what I said, and I'll worry about phrasing it better if I ever have speechwriters. If you want to read condesention into it you go right ahead. Tell me when you have an objection to my belief that such an approach by families and communities in general would reduce abortions.
I'm intrested to hear what your position is on Stem Cell research.
I'd need to look into it more, but my limited understanding is that there is no longer any reason to create an embryo specifically to be killed for stem cell research, which would render the question moot. Am I misremembering or misunderstanding what I've seen on the subject?
They care about marriage because it's society's ultimate acceptance of their union.
Well, then they're silly, 'cause it's not. "Woo-hoo, I have a piece of paper that says we're married, that means you have to accept our lifestyle as being just as good as yours!" It does no such thing. If anyone thinks that gays getting legally married is gonna change Christians' minds about the morality of homosexuality, they have minimal grasp of reality.
As to religion, I know several devout Christians that also happen to be gay: nothing a man-made church decrees will sway them in their feelings or their faith.
Good thing the Christian church isn't man-made, then. If they believe it is, then I fail to see how they're devout Christians. I'd love to hear how they work around scripture so that they can keep two contradictory lifestyles, it'd be interesting.
I think to end abortion naturally and completely, society must end its fear of sex (esp. before marriage) and make teen pregancy a thing that requires no forgiveness.
While that would end abortion for the most part, you'd have what many people (including me, obviously) view as the negative consequence of people having promiscuous sex, not to mention that such a society would have thrown out Christianity entirely and all the good it does. This will never occur, thank goodness. Before we try throwing out Christian morality entirely, how about we try applying it in its entirity, including love and forgiveness?
I find it very hypocritical to say somebody can't move to this country for its opportunities just because they can't find/don't have the money for a legal way in.
That's a somewhat complex sentence, but I think what you're effectively saying is that it's hypocritical to have laws at all. Which is probably not what you MEANT to say. Like I said, we can make a place for people, I'm all for that, but they have to do it legally. Especially given the international terrorist situation. We NEED to know who is in our territory, as part of the government's job to keep the country and it's people safe.
Also, I think boundaries are very arbitrary.
I'd probably agree with that. But they do exist, and we have to deal with them as such.
Mexico used to own California; their ancestors owned the land for generations (and before as Indians). Then the U.S. comes and kicks them out, and if they wanted to come back without following our rules, they're "illegal immigrants" on the land their ancestors lived.
Ancestory is pretty well irrelevant in determining possession of land. If it wasn't we'd be going back and forth forever. I prefer to deal with what is.
If we want to stop illegal immigration, we need to help improve their country and therefore make them want to stay in it.
Agreed. Not quite sure the best way to go about that, but the principle is sound. That still doesen't mean we should allow illegal immigration, though.
Also add that since the fracturing of the old Soviet Union, there are several new people with their fingers on nuclear weapons.
Are you thinking of anyone specific? I was under the impression that all the former Soviet republics had returned their nuclear weapons to Russia. I'm not sure if India and Pakistan's nuclear programs are derrived from Russia, or even how long they've had nukes. Or is this just the general "Someone somewhere could have old Russina nukes" thing?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"I'd need to look into it more, but my limited understanding is that there is no longer any reason to create an embryo specifically to be killed for stem cell research, which would render the question moot."
I've never heard that. I believe all the research currently being done is on cells collected prior to the ban.
"If anyone thinks that gays getting legally married is gonna change Christians' minds about the morality of homosexuality, they have minimal grasp of reality."
It wouldn't, no. But at least they'd only be oppressed by private citizens, then, and not their own government which is supposed to represent them.
"Good thing the Christian church isn't man-made, then."
Sure it is. Or are you saying Jesus intended for it to have so many rival sects, and practice so much death and destruction and such?
"I'd love to hear how they work around scripture so that they can keep two contradictory lifestyles, it'd be interesting."
I'd love to hear the quote from Jesus that says "gays are bad". It's mentioned very few times in your "scripture". Once or twice in the Mosaic Law (which you yourself have repeatedly stated is no longer applicable) and once or twice by Paul (who never even met Jesus, and who didn't really seem to care much for anyone who wasn't just like him anyway). So someone could easily be a Christian (defined as someone who believes that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah) and still be as gay as they like.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote: Good thing the Christian church isn't man-made, then. If they believe it is, then I fail to see how they're devout Christians. I'd love to hear how they work around scripture so that they can keep two contradictory lifestyles, it'd be interesting.
Clearly, not all Christians find religion and tolerance mutually exclusive.
quote: Ancestory is pretty well irrelevant in determining possession of land. If it wasn't we'd be going back and forth forever. I prefer to deal with what is.
In terms of policy, I would agree with you. But from a practical point of view, the numerous Native American land claim settlements going on would tend to disagree with the grand declaration that ancestry is irrelevant.
quote: I've never heard that. I believe all the research currently being done is on cells collected prior to the ban.
That fits my recollection as well. I also recall some research being done on some way to cause adult cells to revert to stem cells, but I do not think that anything useful came out of it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: [QB] The "no matter what they may have done" part sure screams "holier than thou". If you want to read condesention into it you go right ahead. Tell me when you have an objection to my belief that such an approach by families and communities in general would reduce abortions.
You approach wont work as long as church leaders insist on calling women that legally terminate their pregnantcy "murderers": no one's going to come forward for that "forgivness". No one that follows their rights under the law would want to be considered a "forgiven murderer". If you really want to reduce the number of abortions- embrace sex education, contraception and open discussion between young people and their parents/teachers about sex.
None of which the chruch is for.
Moral or not, pre-marital sex is a choice and turning a woman's right to choose into some social taboo only makes it harder for pregnant woman to seek alternatives.
quote: I'm intrested to hear what your position is on Stem Cell research.
I'd need to look into it more, but my limited understanding is that there is no longer any reason to create an embryo specifically to be killed for stem cell research, which would render the question moot. Am I misremembering or misunderstanding what I've seen on the subject?
So far the "farming" of Stem Cells has had limited results. :Why not use the tissue from aborted fetuses that will just be incinerated anyway? Even if you consider them to have been viable little humans, it's no more disresectful t harvest some tissue than to burn it. Besides, think of all the living children that could benifit from the research those cells culd provide.
quote: They care about marriage because it's society's ultimate acceptance of their union.
Well, then they're silly, 'cause it's not. "Woo-hoo, I have a piece of paper that says we're married, that means you have to accept our lifestyle as being just as good as yours!" It does no such thing. If anyone thinks that gays getting legally married is gonna change Christians' minds about the morality of homosexuality, they have minimal grasp of reality.
No you really are being condecending: only your belief in your religous system says that gay lifestyles is "wrong". Seperation of Church and state should eliminate debate and reduce it to a simple human rights issue. Gays dont have a "minimal grasp of reality" in wanting equal rights any more than blacks had when they wanted to drink from a "white" water fountain or to ride at the front of the bus. It takes time as well as tolerance.
quote: As to religion, I know several devout Christians that also happen to be gay: nothing a man-made church decrees will sway them in their feelings or their faith.
Good thing the Christian church isn't man-made, then. If they believe it is, then I fail to see how they're devout Christians. I'd love to hear how they work around scripture so that they can keep two contradictory lifestyles, it'd be teresting.
So, in your scripture, Jesus and God built all those cathedreals, taxed generations of peasents into the ground to pay for them, cast wrought gold crowns, meiters and ruby sceptres for the Pope to wear....man, they sure were busy! Was it Jesus that covered for those pedophile priests? Did God conviene the Inquisitions? Did angels inprison Galielo? Of COURSE it's a "man-made" organization, despite whatever motivations or origins to ascribe to it.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:I think that, while economic unification(s) are becoming more apparant and the exchange of money and the motivations that go with it are far more common today, the political scene is more disorganized than at any time in our lives.
Don't you think that the political scene is becoming more chaotic because it cannot keep up with the speed of economics and is scrambling to retain disappearing boundaries? At least that's what I'm seeing.
quote:not to mention that such a society would have thrown out Christianity entirely and all the good it does. This will never occur, thank goodness.
I didn't know the entirety of Christian morality revolved around sex.
I understand what you're saying of course, but you were the one hypothetically throwing the baby out with the bath water, not me. If you think throwing out fear of sex means throwing out Christianity, then fine, but personally I think the more lasting teachings of Jesus will outlive some of the pettiness in Christianity. I'm not going to bother convincing you out of your fear of sex, but only say that abortion is usually a direct consequence of it. Whether or not you would trade promiscuous sex for abortion is up to you.
quote: Before we try throwing out Christian morality entirely, how about we try applying it in its entirity, including love and forgiveness?
(from dictionary.com) forgiveness: n 1: compassionate feelings that support a willingness to forgive 2: the act of excusing a mistake or offense
By definition, unconditional (you didn't use this word, but why go halfway?) love means there is no condition which a person must fulfill to receive your love. If unconditional love were applied in its entirety, no forgiveness would be required under any circumstance.
quote: That's a somewhat complex sentence, but I think what you're effectively saying is that it's hypocritical to have laws at all.
Let me rephrase it for you: I find it very hypocritical to say somebody can't move to this country for its opportunities just because they're not as privileged as I am.
quote:Like I said, we can make a place for people, I'm all for that, but they have to do it legally. Especially given the international terrorist situation. We NEED to know who is in our territory, as part of the government's job to keep the country and it's people safe.
Sure, we'd love immigrants if they would all just come here legally. But obviously it isn't possible for some (I'm mostly thinking of Latin Americans), whether it's because they can't find a sponsor or don't have the money or whatever. In California people think there's a problem with illegal immigration, but they're more worried about these people not paying taxes than anything else (terrorism certainly isn't on their minds). To that I say, make the illegals legals and collect taxes. Then they'll see our government for the bloodsucker it is and spread the word back home, thereby decreasing illegal immigration .
This is kind of a long article, but it talks about the negative effects of border patrol on the police and citizens.
Space travel -- Yeah, space travel is kinda cool, but I'm more of the opinion that we still have plenty of things to learn right here, so let's get that done first. There are frontiers in cultures, relationships, and the human mind, not just physical frontiers (although we haven't exhausted the ocean yet). If private citizens want to fund space travel, they can go right ahead, but I don't see it as a national concern.
Drugs -- I really, really can't stand our current policy on drugs, especially when marijuana is not much more damaging than tobacco. I think part of the appeal IS that they are forbidden, and lack of trade regulations over drugs means dealers and growers end up with fat wallets. We NEED to admit that the war on drugs is not working, and learn from the mistakes made during Prohibition.
The other thing is, there are many, many legal substances/activities you can get addicted to. Addiction is as much (if not more) a psychological problem as it is a physiological problem. People who get addicted to things find the real world to difficult to cope with, so they sedate themselves or create their own little world. It is that which must be dealt with, and it's not something you can legislate.
Gun control -- pretty much agree on this one. People can have guns, but regulations should be tighter.
Affirmative action -- agreed. Although I might go a step further and not only make certain minorities aware of opportunities, but help them make plans to get there (if they're not qualified). I think one of the reasons why people living in ghettos can't get out is because they don't believe they can do it, so they settle for what everyone around themis doing.
Official language of the US -- Agree
Minimum wage -- You have a good idea there with the experimentation. I waver back and forth on this topic, but right now I think minimum wage should stay low to force people to find/create a better living and not get stuck in a minimum wage job because they can survive on it.
Free trade -- I like free trade. It's what brought Taiwan and Hong Kong from backwards to prosperity in half a century while China lagged behind. While I understand people's frustration with outsourcing, I'm not sympathetic. Free market moves, adapts, and evolves, and changes in the job market means we need to change, too. If people follow the tide into IT, they shouldn't be surprised when the tide leaves. It's the nature of things.
But you know what kinds of jobs are least likely to get outsourced? Those that deal directly with people, which you can't do holed up in a cave somewhere. I see it as god's way of saying, you're here to deal with people. Get over it.
Debt -- agreed. Let's start by cutting some salaries and spending. Government employees are overpaid.
Tax code -- agreed again. I like the 10% flat tax myself.
Pollution -- agreed.
Patent system -- agreed.
Double jeopardy -- agreed.
Seventh amendment -- Haven't thought much about this, but that makes sense.
Jury duty -- while we're on the subject of court cases, I think jurors should be paid decent wages (it's, what, $5 a day here?). It will increase the quality of the jury instead of getting a dozen people who are either good citizens or too stupid to get out of it, and probably more of the latter.
Elections -- agree about the popular vote. And the modified election terms is a very good idea.
Congressional processes -- agreed.
Social Security -- This is a topic I've been reading about lately (I work in financial service now, particularly with retirement planning). Not social security directly, but the general problem of what to do with old people once they can no longer work. There is no easy solution, but the most effective solution will come from financial independence, which means a person has enough passive income to pay for their expenses without depending on the government, family, an employer, or even themselves. That involves saving, investing, and most importantly, practical financial literacy. Again, this is a problem with our education, which is stuck in the Industral Age when doing well in school means getting a good job, which means lifetime security. Did any of your high schools teach you about finances and investments? Mine didn't. College didn't either, but that's because of my major. I think they should include finance classes as part of the general requirements instead of just humanities and sciences.
Working past retirement age might be an option, but take a look at some numbers: disability statistics. They told us at work that one out of four seniors over 65 is disabled. I figured you guys need some proof, so I looked this up. Check out the numbers at the bottom for people 65 and over. 41.9% has some sort of disability. That's like, way more than a quarter. But sometimes people with a small disability can still work, so the number for those that need care would a more conservative figure -- and that comes out to 29.9% (self-care plus institutional care). They might live another decade or two, but they definitely can't work.
That's it for today. It's good thinking about this stuff. I might type up a list of my own opinions and put them on my blog. Thanks for the ideas, Stephen.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd love to hear the quote from Jesus that says "gays are bad". It's mentioned very few times in your "scripture". Once or twice in the Mosaic Law (which you yourself have repeatedly stated is no longer applicable) and once or twice by Paul (who never even met Jesus, and who didn't really seem to care much for anyone who wasn't just like him anyway). So someone could easily be a Christian (defined as someone who believes that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah) and still be as gay as they like.
Jewish law isn't applicable to Christians, that doesn't mean that it's valueless. Jewish law says to kill all the witches. The law not being applicable to Christians means we're not supposed to kill witches. But the fact that the law was there in the first place still tells us that God isn't a fan of sourcery and such. Without the law, Christ is meaningless.
Clearly, not all Christians find religion and tolerance mutually exclusive.
Clearly this odd misdefinition of "tolerance" is still prevelant.
You approach wont work as long as church leaders insist on calling women that legally terminate their pregnantcy "murderers": no one's going to come forward for that "forgivness". No one that follows their rights under the law would want to be considered a "forgiven murderer".
What I'm saying with a lot of this is that the law does not define morality, the law is the law and nothing beyond that. Changing the law will not change peoples' opinions on the morality or lack thereof of a particular action. What you're saying seems to be that no one will come forward to ask for forgiveness for one mistake if their made to feel that their other option is also wrong. That makes no sense.
If you really want to reduce the number of abortions- embrace sex education, contraception and open discussion between young people and their parents/teachers about sex.
None of which the chruch is for.
If by "for" you mean "has as part of its purpose", sure it is. The church is here to do good. When raising children, all that in your list is part of it. If by "for" you mean "in favor of", then you're mistakenly thinking of the church as a monolithic entity. My particular congregation has an in-depth sex education class for every kid that comes through the youth group, including contraception. The church I went to prior to this one did too. You'll further note it's part of my list. I'd also say that it will reduce teen pregnancy. What I've proposed regarding forgiveness would result in reducing the number of teen pregnancies that end in abortions. Different question.
Moral or not, pre-marital sex is a choice and turning a woman's right to choose into some social taboo only makes it harder for pregnant woman to seek alternatives.
Pre-marital sex is a sin. As such, many families are concerned with their reputations. What you're saying is that we should change it so that nobody considers pre-marital sex a sin. That will not happen, and I guarentee you wouldn't like the results if it did. And since it won't happen, do you have a better proposal than mine?
Why not use the tissue from aborted fetuses that will just be incinerated anyway?
I'm fine with that. I won't support the creation of human fetuses specifically to be destroyed, but those that died by other means whatever they may be, I agree, use the tissue however is most useful.
Seperation of Church and state should eliminate debate and reduce it to a simple human rights issue.
Okay, so you're going for option 1 and 2 in my list, expand marriage until it's anything you want it to be? Fine, we can get rid of the legal concept entirely, I have little problem with that.
Gays dont have a "minimal grasp of reality" in wanting equal rights
Well, then it's a good thing I didn't say that.
I think the more lasting teachings of Jesus will outlive some of the pettiness in Christianity.
Applying the teachings of Jesus requires wisdom: knowing what actions produce good results and what actions don't, and applying that knowledge. All the love and good intentions in the universe don't do squat if you don't know what will help people.
If unconditional love were applied in its entirety, no forgiveness would be required under any circumstance.
That does not derrive naturally from your definition of "forgiveness". The only case in whcih forgiveness is not required is if not wrong has been done. Thus the only way no forgiveness would be required is if nothing is ever considered wrong. If love is doing what's best for someone else and placing their well-being above your own, which I would argue it is, then your argument would require that there being no right and wrong is what's best for everyone.
I find it very hypocritical to say somebody can't move to this country for its opportunities just because they're not as privileged as I am.
Well, then it's a good thing I didn't say that.
we'd love immigrants if they would all just come here legally. But obviously it isn't possible for some (I'm mostly thinking of Latin Americans), whether it's because they can't find a sponsor or don't have the money or whatever
If they don't have the money to physically travel here they have bigger problems. In that case they'd pretty well have to commit a crime just to GET here, no? Rule of law == good thing.
Government employees are overpaid.
Depends on the government employee. Elected officials may be in a lot of cases, but people like police officers and teachers certainly aren't.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Police officers are ridiculously overpaid, especially considering they are abusive, intolerant and corrupt, the whole lot of them, and if anyone argues with me, you're wrong and I hate you.
Note: I am serious, and I hate them.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: [qb] I'd love to hear the quote from Jesus that says "gays are bad". It's mentioned very few times in your "scripture". Once or twice in the Mosaic Law (which you yourself have repeatedly stated is no longer applicable) and once or twice by Paul (who never even met Jesus, and who didn't really seem to care much for anyone who wasn't just like him anyway). So someone could easily be a Christian (defined as someone who believes that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah) and still be as gay as they like.
Jewish law isn't applicable to Christians, that doesn't mean that it's valueless. Jewish law says to kill all the witches. The law not being applicable to Christians means we're not supposed to kill witches. But the fact that the law was there in the first place still tells us that God isn't a fan of sourcery and such. Without the law, Christ is meaningless.
So you pick and choose what Old testament laws are still applicable and what is outdated. Is there some scripture that describes how this is accomplished? On what criteria is some part of what was considered God's Law now outdated? I cant recall Jesus coimg out with Bible: Version 2.0
That's where your church (the one not built by man) comes in: they've decided what you should believe and what you should ignore and although you're not catholic, most of your doctrines follow theirs. Many Christians prefer to follow Jesus' actual teachings and decide for themselves what is truly moral in His eyes: thus you can be both Christian nad gay and have no problems being both.
In time the stigma of being gay will be as ignored by mainstream Christianity as the rest of the book of Leviticus. As inconcievable as that may be (to you) at the moment.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Like I said, we can make a place for people, I'm all for that, but they have to do it legally. Especially given the international terrorist situation. We NEED to know who is in our territory, as part of the government's job to keep the country and it's people safe.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic
