Why do people turn a blind eye to adultery and premarital sex?
Easy - it's fun to criticize and condemn *your* sin (metaphorically speaking, of course) but when you start saying that I need to control *my* thoughts, or restrain my libido, that's an entirely different story.
We all want to stand in judgment of others and have no one stand in judgment of us.
Look at Genesis chapter 3. When God called Adam and Eve on their disobedience, Eve tried to blame the serpent, and then Adam tried to blame *both* Eve and God! It's the nature of man to avoid accountability.
That it certainly appeared to me that you were painting all people who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle as "homophobes" and I think that is an unreasonable characterization. I do not fear homosexuals, and object to being called a homophobe when I philosophically tolerate but disagree with their choices.
With respect to biblical interpretation, it is possible to find proponents of just about *any* interpretation of the Bible. I have done some reading in this area and it seems to me that those who argue that the Bible is ambiguous on this matter must torture the rules of biblical interpretation to come up with those explanations.
As a 'case in point' Jesus did not say that I as a heterosexual must not insert my penis into a woman's vagina to commit sexual sin. (This assumes that the woman in question is not my wife. It's no sin for me to have sex with my wife! It's a great thing!)
Jesus said "I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." This is a much higher bar than where I put my body parts.
It seems clear that the Bible teaches that sexual thoughts and activity belong only in the context of heterosexual marriage. I don't get the impression that you are interested in documentation of this assertion, so I won't trouble you with it.
You are entitled to your opinion. I wonder, though, have you considered whether the Bible teaches absolute truth? If it does, and we can discern that truth, then it's more than mere opinion about how to interpret the Bible that matters.
According to this article, the specific risks are listed as: Mechanical damage to the rectum Interruption of the columnar epithelium makes "the rectum inherently more susceptible to infections...that may lead to anal cancer"
According to this a recent study conducted by a homosexual group, the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA), confirms what past studies have already shown: The homosexual lifestyle carries serious health risks. Health risks cited in the study include HIV and AIDS, substance abuse, depression and anxiety, cancer, and sexually transmitted diseases.
An article here refers to a study that shows that the life expectancy of homosexual males is substantially shorter than that of heterosexuals.
For you to suggest that there's 'no deonstrable harm' you have to deny the medical evidence otherwise.
Why believe that I'm hiding something? My point is that God's description of acceptable behavior does not single out homosexual acts for the purpose of condemning homosexuals.
For what it's worth, I was quoting the NIV as hosted here: and that translation does not include effeminate. The NASB (another fine translation) does include it, but that word does not appear in the NIV, NKJV or the KJV.
As I'm not a Latin scholar, I can't comment on the translation. As you point out, the Latin is a translation from the Greek. I think it would be best to 'go to the Greek.' I'd have to pull out my interlinear translation to do that effectively, and since I'm at work, I don't have that handy.
I have to say that I object to homosexual behavior because the Bible provides an instruction manual for a successful life, and clearly teaches that this behavior is inconsistent with God's definition of a successful life.
It is important to note that God's guidelines have a lot to say about what will make me successful - and they address many many more issues than sexual expression. See more info in this post.
By way of an analogy: If you suggested that hitting your thumb with a hammer was a great plan for happiness, should I support your right to do it? I suppose. I don't object to what adults choose to do with their thumbs and hammers - or in private with each other. That's their business.
In my opinion, since the Bible says that sexual expression outside of heterosexual marriage is a bad idea, I'm inclined to agree.
I *do* object to essentially providing educational curriculum that indicates that hitting one's thumb with a hammer is an equal choice to not doing the same, and then making it hate speech to indicate that hammering thumbs is a bad idea.
Think I'm being alarmist? That this is a red herring? I think not! See what has already happened in Sweden
Do what you want in your bedroom with other adults. That's your business, and you have the right to engage in activities that are not healthy if you choose. I won't stand in the way of that viewpoint. This is the classical essence of tolerance. I don't have to agree with you, but I do have to respect your right to your point of view.
In the "new tolerance" the only tolerable viewpoint is pro-individual rights. Anything else is intolerable and must be labeled with a pejorative which indicates a character flaw.
I won't let *activists* intolerance of opposing viewpoints interfere with my civil rights. Does that mean that someone should issue a personal atack against me because of my viewpoint? How tolerant is that?
"It's not natural" and "It's not what God intended"
I can take no issue with the fact that many animals tend to display homosexual behaviors. The facts are the facts. That it appears in animal communities makes it as 'natural' as anything else in nature. For what it's worth, while examples do exist, it is quite far from the norm in animal communities.
With respect to "It's not what God intended" I'd have to say that is exactly right.
Let me be clear. What passes for socially acceptable behavior in the human community in areas other than homosexual expression are FAR from God's plan. For example: in 1 Cor 6, the Bible says: Do not be deceived:Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers......thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
This is a harsh condemnation of 'natural' behaviors. Who among us is truly unselfish? There's a stark description of unacceptable behavior without a reference to homosexual acts.
It also says (between the ellipses) "nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor "
Finally, it says in I Cor 6: "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God....Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."
God's plan was for man to behave in distinctively unnatural ways. In Philippians 2 it says: "Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others."
In fact, Jesus said in Luke 9:
Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me."
It stretches credulity to try to interpret the meaning of passages that explicitly condemn homosexual behavior in any way other than what they say. The fact is that the New Testament writings convey a radical lifestyle. Jesus himself, when talking about the marriage relationship said in Matthew 19: Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriagebecause of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Even his disciples were unnerved by Christ's bold, counter-cultural and authoritative teaching about God's perspective on marriage.
Jesus' teachings are radical, and quite distinctly unnatural. I find no contradiction between suggesting that a behavior is natural and yet condemned by Christ.
One example is here But essentially the study (commissioned by a group in favor of G rated movies) found that over a 10 year period, Hollywood G rated fare tended to be far more profitable than R rated fare.
Make of it what you will, but it tells me that families want family-friendly movies.
Right. There's no evidence, just the fanatical ravings of the lunatic who claim to follow Christ.
Simon Greenleaf the Royall professor of law at Harvard, wrote Treatise on the Law of Evidence which was the standard in US legal education for a VERY long time.
He began an investigation of the evidence that backs up the story of the resurrection and concluded that any cross-examination of the eyewitness testimonies recorded in Scripture would result in "an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth." The essence of his verdict after studying the evidence was that any unbiased jury openly examining the evidence would inevitably come to the conclusion that Christ had risen from the dead.
Is there any evidence that you would consider sufficient to cause you to believe that Jesus Christ did come back from the dead?
And my God came back from the dead, after being nailed to the cross. This is the reason behind the hope of Christianity. Can your God come back from the dead?
I find it fascinating that rather than address the substance of my posting, you choose instead to speculate on my character and mental condition - about which you know little. Should I consider this to be representative of how scientists think and act?
Do you have any interest in addressing the content of my thoughts rather than presume about my mental state?
I'm curious to know how Mr. Gribbin defines a religious nut.
While there are a large number of people who reject facts and reason due to their a priori commitment to a religious beliefs, there are a great number who do the same whose religion is science itself.
That is to say, preconceived notions and personal bias prevent many so-called scientists from acknowledging facts and realizing that their pet theories are baseless.
As an example, I offer Carl Sagan. Here was a man who made a nice living talking about extraterrestrial life. Is there ANY evidence of extraterrestrial life? Is there ANY science that supports it? After all, the best that the SETI institute has is Drake's equation which at best merely multiplies speculation upon speculation.
Is SETI science? Perhaps, but Sagan's beliefs and public discussions were based on fantasy and hope rather than fact.
My point is this: Bias appears in religion and in the name of science. Science has dirty hands, too.
Remember, power tends to corrupt, regardless of world view. I'd be willing to bet that a similar book could be written demonstrating horrible abuses of human rights where science was allowed to 'progress' unchecked by morality.
Finally, it is important to note that much of science has been advanced by people with strong religious convictions. Pascal, Pasteur, Lister, Knuth, Kelvin, Joule, Carver, Bacon, Boyle, and many many others. Strong religious conviction is NOT the antithesis of scientific advancement, as demonstrated by the legacy of those I listed above and I could list many more.
Anybody who is willing to accept that he or she may be wrong about God is not fundamentalist.
I am willing to admit that I may be wrong, but it seems extremely unlikely. For example, how convinced are you that you have hands? Is it possible to disabuse you of the notion that you *do* have hands? It seems to me that there are several things that convince me: 1. The existence and complexity of the universe 2. The accuracy of the biblical record 3. The evidence of the changed lives of the people who knew Jesus personally 4. The evidence of the way that my relationship with Jesus Christ has changed my life.
Is it possible that I'm wrong? Perhaps, but someone would have to provide me with a more palusible explanation of the things that I have studied and experienced.
ignore contrarian evidence,
Naturalists and creationists share the same evidence, and we each have things that we cannot fully explain. This is not a reason to bury one's head in the sand - rather it's an opportunity for further study.
Not any different from letting the embryo die any other way.
I agree with you, and I think that IUDs and birth control pills are not morally acceptable because they are abortifacients.
You mean like how the first folks who figured out that the sun didn't revolve around the earth were accused of heresy?
Based on our current knowledge of science, all that is needed for that fertilized egg to grow up like you or me is to have food and shelter.
Is it ok to kill them for the furthering of scientific goals?
This is really not comparable to the heliocentric issue.
You said:Fundamental Christians deny the vast level of supporting evidence for an ancient naturalistically formed Universe where life developed under the control of natural selection
I would certainly be described as one of those "Fundamental" Christians, and I must respectfully take issue with your point.
People who believe as I do do not deny the evidence. We collect evidence and draw inferences from it to see how that fits into our view of how the universe works. To be fair, this is precisely what naturalists do. We all share the same evidence. We differ in the meaning of the evidence and the explanations that accompany the evidence. Only a fool would reject solid evidence.
You also said:Christianity seem to win the contest as 'religion most likely to stifle scientific advancement'
I'll take issue with that as well. While it is true that many who claimed the name and power of the Christian church have abused that power and have done despicable things, that is not consistent with Christian beliefs. The list of Christians who have offered up significant scientific advances includes: Johann Kepler, Francis Bacon, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Charles Babbage, Samuel F. B. Morse, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Henri Fabre, Lord William Thompson Kelvin, Joseph Lister, George Washington Carver, Wernher von Braun, and many others.
To suggest that scientific advancement is inherently incompatible with Christianity is simply not inclusive of the facts.
Look at the lobby groups now most opposed to stem cell research...
Embryonic stem cell research is definitely opposed on moral grounds.
Adult stem cell research - the area that shows therapeutic benefit TODAY is not morally out of bounds and is helping people to live a more healthy life. This is GOOD science, and should be promoted.
Embryonic stem cell research is different. We believe that all human life is sacred and that no human should be killed to make life easier or healthier for someone else. The science shows that these zygotes are inherently human - that all that is required for a person to grow from a fertilized egg is food and shelter.
Science's technological reach has exceeded its moral grasp in this area. Science has long existed in a realm where there were moral guidelines on appropriate research. e.g. People must know that they are part of an experiment, and what the risks are, etc. I feel strongly that one day, the conventional scientific wisdom will look on this and say 'oops' we messed that one up.
FWIW - While I've not seen it written this way elsewhere, I rather like the idea of a "Fundamental Christian" over the moniker "fundamentalist" As a Fundamental Christian, I hold fast to the tenets of the historic Christian faith, which is somewhat different from the connotation of a fundie as described on/.
There's a difference between a victim mentality and choosing to honor those who have a harder time because they are doing something that benefits society.
I agree that we should mandate that provision be made for those with physical ailments or maladies not of their choosing that make movement more difficult. I don't ask that laws be passed to 'protect' expectant mothers.
I do think that as members of a civilized society we can show some compassion, deference, and honor to those who are doing what is self-sacrificial and difficult.
It seems incredibly selfish to complain that a young, unencumbered person is inconvenienced because they must walk an additional 20 feet to get the next parking space over. What's the big deal? Exercise is good for your physique, and honoring others is good for building humility and compassion - things that our 'scientifically enlightened society' is rather short on these days.
Respectfully, Anomaly
BTW - I notice that you weren't willing to defend your.sig. Perhaps that's an indication that you think it's clever or witty, but can't really bring yourself to live that way.
I think you might have an opportunity to be thankful for the fact that your mother chose to bear one more whelp in your case.
Should she have 'kept her legs shut' or was your conception the result of a drunken night? Even if it was drunkenness or accidental, I believe she still deserves some respect and thanks - as do all mothers who sacrifice for their kids, and indirectly for the good of society.
Of course, for someone who believes as your.sig indicates, perhaps truth is irrelevant. But let me ask you this - if you REALLY believe your.sig, why do the handicapped deserve any accomodation at all? If there's no such thing as truth, why is compassion necessary?
FWIW, I do tend to park a fair bit from the door. I am relatively young and relatively healthy. You are right. Exercise is good for me, too - even if carrying that infant seat is hard on my back.
My perspective is that having kids is my choice, and it's my privilege to invest my life in building young men rather than merely indulging my selfish desires. We all live out the result of our choices.
I hope that you find your indulgences satisfying. If you ever choose to consider a differing world view, I'd be happy to offer some insights on why I believe the way I do.
Let's try this: Get one of those 'infant front-packs' and drop a bowling ball into it. You can use a kids' ball - they weigh enough. Then drive to the store with that on, and try - just try to get out of the car. See how far you have to open the door - how far you have to put the seat back.
Be sure to wear the front-pack for 24 hours in a row. See how hard sleeping is, walking, getting out of chairs, etc. I'm not even going to mention details about pressure on a woman's bladder or morning sickness.....
You might consider cutting those ladies a break for a few months. You're young and healthy. Walking is good for you....
And after the kids is born, think about just running to the store for 'one thing' and you need to take your infant with you. You must park, pull the removable seat out - which means you need to open the door wide to get the seat out, then lug the weight of the seat and the kid until you get to a cart or to the stroller.
I've got four kids, and lots of experience carrying those things. They are NOT light!
It's up to you. You may decide to keep kicking dents into others' cars if you like. Depending on the amount of damage you do, that may be a jailable offense.
It's java - and it really runs on Win 98, Mandrake, CentOS, WinXP and Mac OS.
It's easy to use, the passwords are encrypted, and because I can run it on all of the OS' that I use, I can carry the app on my USB drive with n encrypted copy of my password DB and I can always use it.
It's open source, and I've found the developer to be receptive to helping.
He's a great kid. My sister says he's about as hard as two kids, because of his 'special needs' but she also tells me that it's at least twice as rewarding to see the results. He was 2.5 Yrs old when he learned to walk. They REALLY celebrated when he crossed that milestone. It was a big deal because it was the culmination of months of physical therapy, long labors and battles of will with him. Was it worth the work? She says, undoubtedly!
Today he's a sixth-grader working at grade level in all subjects. He can do what other kids do, it simply requires harder work. He's a joy to be around, and he's a very thoughtful and compassionate kid.
I'm quite glad that he was not killed prenatally. I commend you for your choice, and while the road ahead may be difficult, it's a good road to be on.
Respectfully, Anomaly
Unless something has changed, I doubt it
on
SEC Investigating SCO?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Some time last year I got fed up with the irritation that is SCO. I got interested to see if the SEC was digging into what seems to be false claims on their part. It seems that the SEC does not offer any information publicly about ongoing investigations.
Since I didn't know what, if anything, was happening, I reported them to the SEC. I was shocked to get a call the NEXT DAY from a man who identifdied himself as an attorney with the SEC. We spoke for about 45 minutes. At the conclusion of the conversation, he indicated that he thought he understood my issues with them - their apparent lies, their seeming stock manipulation, etc but doubted that he could proceed without more specific information about how they knowingly lied to the public.
If sufficient evidence was produced, he seemed interested in protecting the public from abusive corporate officers. He was not satisfied with what I offered him.
Unless someone has subsequently provided more and better evidence than what I knew about as an interested observer, it is doubtful that the SEC proceeded.
I was displeased that I was unable to move them to action.
science only deals with materialism and is therefore flawed
I did not say that. My position is that science is constrained by the scientific method. It can posit, test, examine, and conclude the "what" but not whether there is ultimate meaning, or what that meaning might be, if it exists. It is unable to verify or reject the untestable.
You then try to verify if these predictions are true
How? How can you verify a theory about the origins of the universe without either observing or creating a universe?
On an aside here I could note that I believe that the US school system would benefit greatly from being taugh religion in school. Just not in science class and all major religions should be covered.
I agree. Our society is definitely deficient in well-rounded education. I think that an overview of each major world religion's beliefs should be taught so that we are more culturally aware.
It can only deal with things that are testable and thus possible to prove. That's not necessarily the same thing as as only the physical world.
Agreed. I was careless in my terminology.
it doesn't claim to be THE TRUTH, but mearly the best available explaination.
In terms of definition, you are correct. In terms of societal behavior, I disagree. People believe that science is the arbiter of truth. Some scientists errantly believe that, too. "A new study released today shows that..." why does this make news? Because it's sensational, but also because it's the only thing that is accepted as Truth. For example, if I said "The Bible says..." What's your response?
it doesn't make me want to become one
Fair enough. I'm not a hunter/gatherer looking to club people over the head with Faith. I'm curious, though. What if Christianity is true? Would you want to know? Would you consider changing your mind about wanting to follow Christ?
Let us be clear. My religious beliefs are not science. I never have claimed that they are.
I believe that you are mistaken when you say that the tests I apply to my faith cannot be proven false. What if archeological evidence directly contradicted what is recorded in the Bible? What if the Bible was directly contradictory about substantive points of teaching?
(Some may be quick to suggest that'the Bible is full of contradictions' but that is an uninformed position. Those supposed contradictions are apparent contradictions, and further study shows them to make sense in context.)
If you discard the written accounts of Christ as unreliable, you must disregard those about EVERY other figure of antiquity. There are orders of magnitude better evidence for the Bible than any other work of antiquity. Do you believe in George Washington? Why would you suggest that the accounts about his existence are more reliable than those about Christ?
there has never been a global flood that covered the whole Earth in water From a logical perspective, in order for you to say authoritatively that there 'has never been' something, you must have all knowledge about that thing simultanously. What records from the beginning of the earth are you using to assert that point? Also, let me ask you this. What causes fossil formation? Is it not a process where recently deceased creatures are covered with dirt/mud? Is it possible that the fossil record available in the cambrian explosion is a result of a generalized event which a) destroyed a large number of creatures, and b) covered them with watery mud?
Slashdot Mirror
Why do people turn a blind eye to adultery and premarital sex?
Easy - it's fun to criticize and condemn *your* sin (metaphorically speaking, of course) but when you start saying that I need to control *my* thoughts, or restrain my libido, that's an entirely different story.
We all want to stand in judgment of others and have no one stand in judgment of us.
Look at Genesis chapter 3. When God called Adam and Eve on their disobedience, Eve tried to blame the serpent, and then Adam tried to blame *both* Eve and God! It's the nature of man to avoid accountability.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
That it certainly appeared to me that you were painting all people who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle as "homophobes" and I think that is an unreasonable characterization. I do not fear homosexuals, and object to being called a homophobe when I philosophically tolerate but disagree with their choices.
With respect to biblical interpretation, it is possible to find proponents of just about *any* interpretation of the Bible. I have done some reading in this area and it seems to me that those who argue that the Bible is ambiguous on this matter must torture the rules of biblical interpretation to come up with those explanations.
As a 'case in point' Jesus did not say that I as a heterosexual must not insert my penis into a woman's vagina to commit sexual sin. (This assumes that the woman in question is not my wife. It's no sin for me to have sex with my wife! It's a great thing!)
Jesus said "I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." This is a much higher bar than where I put my body parts.
It seems clear that the Bible teaches that sexual thoughts and activity belong only in the context of heterosexual marriage. I don't get the impression that you are interested in documentation of this assertion, so I won't trouble you with it.
You are entitled to your opinion. I wonder, though, have you considered whether the Bible teaches absolute truth? If it does, and we can discern that truth, then it's more than mere opinion about how to interpret the Bible that matters.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Are you serious?
According to this article, the specific risks are listed as:
Mechanical damage to the rectum
Interruption of the columnar epithelium makes "the rectum inherently more susceptible to infections...that may lead to anal cancer"
According to this
a recent study conducted by a homosexual group, the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA), confirms what past studies have already shown: The homosexual lifestyle carries serious health risks. Health risks cited in the study include HIV and AIDS, substance abuse, depression and anxiety, cancer, and sexually transmitted diseases.
An article here refers to a study that shows that the life expectancy of homosexual males is substantially shorter than that of heterosexuals.
For you to suggest that there's 'no deonstrable harm' you have to deny the medical evidence otherwise.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Why believe that I'm hiding something? My point is that God's description of acceptable behavior does not single out homosexual acts for the purpose of condemning homosexuals.
For what it's worth, I was quoting the NIV as hosted here: and that translation does not include effeminate. The NASB (another fine translation) does include it, but that word does not appear in the NIV, NKJV or the KJV.
As I'm not a Latin scholar, I can't comment on the translation. As you point out, the Latin is a translation from the Greek. I think it would be best to 'go to the Greek.' I'd have to pull out my interlinear translation to do that effectively, and since I'm at work, I don't have that handy.
Thanks for the comments.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I have to say that I object to homosexual behavior because the Bible provides an instruction manual for a successful life, and clearly teaches that this behavior is inconsistent with God's definition of a successful life.
It is important to note that God's guidelines have a lot to say about what will make me successful - and they address many many more issues than sexual expression. See more info in this post.
By way of an analogy: If you suggested that hitting your thumb with a hammer was a great plan for happiness, should I support your right to do it? I suppose. I don't object to what adults choose to do with their thumbs and hammers - or in private with each other. That's their business.
In my opinion, since the Bible says that sexual expression outside of heterosexual marriage is a bad idea, I'm inclined to agree.
I *do* object to essentially providing educational curriculum that indicates that hitting one's thumb with a hammer is an equal choice to not doing the same, and then making it hate speech to indicate that hammering thumbs is a bad idea.
Think I'm being alarmist? That this is a red herring? I think not!
See what has already happened in Sweden
See what has already happened in Canada
Do what you want in your bedroom with other adults. That's your business, and you have the right to engage in activities that are not healthy if you choose. I won't stand in the way of that viewpoint. This is the classical essence of tolerance. I don't have to agree with you, but I do have to respect your right to your point of view.
In the "new tolerance" the only tolerable viewpoint is pro-individual rights. Anything else is intolerable and must be labeled with a pejorative which indicates a character flaw.
I won't let *activists* intolerance of opposing viewpoints interfere with my civil rights. Does that mean that someone should issue a personal atack against me because of my viewpoint? How tolerant is that?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
"It's not natural" and "It's not what God intended"
...thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
I can take no issue with the fact that many animals tend to display homosexual behaviors. The facts are the facts. That it appears in animal communities makes it as 'natural' as anything else in nature. For what it's worth, while examples do exist, it is quite far from the norm in animal communities.
With respect to "It's not what God intended" I'd have to say that is exactly right.
Let me be clear. What passes for socially acceptable behavior in the human community in areas other than homosexual expression are FAR from God's plan. For example: in 1 Cor 6, the Bible says:
Do not be deceived:Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers...
This is a harsh condemnation of 'natural' behaviors. Who among us is truly unselfish? There's a stark description of unacceptable behavior without a reference to homosexual acts.
It also says (between the ellipses) "nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor "
Finally, it says in I Cor 6:
"And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God....Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."
God's plan was for man to behave in distinctively unnatural ways. In Philippians 2 it says: "Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others."
In fact, Jesus said in Luke 9:
Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me."
It stretches credulity to try to interpret the meaning of passages that explicitly condemn homosexual behavior in any way other than what they say. The fact is that the New Testament writings convey a radical lifestyle. Jesus himself, when talking about the marriage relationship said in Matthew 19:
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriagebecause of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Even his disciples were unnerved by Christ's bold, counter-cultural and authoritative teaching about God's perspective on marriage.
Jesus' teachings are radical, and quite distinctly unnatural. I find no contradiction between suggesting that a behavior is natural and yet condemned by Christ.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
One example is here
But essentially the study (commissioned by a group in favor of G rated movies) found that over a 10 year period, Hollywood G rated fare tended to be far more profitable than R rated fare.
Make of it what you will, but it tells me that families want family-friendly movies.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Right. There's no evidence, just the fanatical ravings of the lunatic who claim to follow Christ.
Simon Greenleaf the Royall professor of law at Harvard, wrote Treatise on the Law of Evidence which was the standard in US legal education for a VERY long time.
He began an investigation of the evidence that backs up the story of the resurrection and concluded that any cross-examination of the eyewitness testimonies recorded in Scripture would result in "an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth." The essence of his verdict after studying the evidence was that any unbiased jury openly examining the evidence would inevitably come to the conclusion that Christ had risen from the dead.
Is there any evidence that you would consider sufficient to cause you to believe that Jesus Christ did come back from the dead?
And my God came back from the dead, after being nailed to the cross. This is the reason behind the hope of Christianity. Can your God come back from the dead?
I find it fascinating that rather than address the substance of my posting, you choose instead to speculate on my character and mental condition - about which you know little. Should I consider this to be representative of how scientists think and act?
Do you have any interest in addressing the content of my thoughts rather than presume about my mental state?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I'm curious to know how Mr. Gribbin defines a religious nut.
While there are a large number of people who reject facts and reason due to their a priori commitment to a religious beliefs, there are a great number who do the same whose religion is science itself.
That is to say, preconceived notions and personal bias prevent many so-called scientists from acknowledging facts and realizing that their pet theories are baseless.
As an example, I offer Carl Sagan. Here was a man who made a nice living talking about extraterrestrial life. Is there ANY evidence of extraterrestrial life? Is there ANY science that supports it? After all, the best that the SETI institute has is Drake's equation which at best merely multiplies speculation upon speculation.
Is SETI science? Perhaps, but Sagan's beliefs and public discussions were based on fantasy and hope rather than fact.
My point is this: Bias appears in religion and in the name of science. Science has dirty hands, too.
Remember, power tends to corrupt, regardless of world view. I'd be willing to bet that a similar book could be written demonstrating horrible abuses of human rights where science was allowed to 'progress' unchecked by morality.
Finally, it is important to note that much of science has been advanced by people with strong religious convictions. Pascal, Pasteur, Lister, Knuth, Kelvin, Joule, Carver, Bacon, Boyle, and many many others. Strong religious conviction is NOT the antithesis of scientific advancement, as demonstrated by the legacy of those I listed above and I could list many more.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Anybody who is willing to accept that he or she may be wrong about God is not fundamentalist.
I am willing to admit that I may be wrong, but it seems extremely unlikely. For example, how convinced are you that you have hands? Is it possible to disabuse you of the notion that you *do* have hands? It seems to me that there are several things that convince me:
1. The existence and complexity of the universe
2. The accuracy of the biblical record
3. The evidence of the changed lives of the people who knew Jesus personally
4. The evidence of the way that my relationship with Jesus Christ has changed my life.
Is it possible that I'm wrong? Perhaps, but someone would have to provide me with a more palusible explanation of the things that I have studied and experienced.
ignore contrarian evidence,
Naturalists and creationists share the same evidence, and we each have things that we cannot fully explain. This is not a reason to bury one's head in the sand - rather it's an opportunity for further study.
Not any different from letting the embryo die any other way.
I agree with you, and I think that IUDs and birth control pills are not morally acceptable because they are abortifacients.
You mean like how the first folks who figured out that the sun didn't revolve around the earth were accused of heresy?
Based on our current knowledge of science, all that is needed for that fertilized egg to grow up like you or me is to have food and shelter.
Is it ok to kill them for the furthering of scientific goals?
This is really not comparable to the heliocentric issue.
You said:Fundamental Christians deny the vast level of supporting evidence for an ancient naturalistically formed Universe where life developed under the control of natural selection
/.
I would certainly be described as one of those "Fundamental" Christians, and I must respectfully take issue with your point.
People who believe as I do do not deny the evidence. We collect evidence and draw inferences from it to see how that fits into our view of how the universe works. To be fair, this is precisely what naturalists do. We all share the same evidence. We differ in the meaning of the evidence and the explanations that accompany the evidence. Only a fool would reject solid evidence.
You also said:Christianity seem to win the contest as 'religion most likely to stifle scientific advancement'
I'll take issue with that as well. While it is true that many who claimed the name and power of the Christian church have abused that power and have done despicable things, that is not consistent with Christian beliefs. The list of Christians who have offered up significant scientific advances includes:
Johann Kepler, Francis Bacon, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Charles Babbage, Samuel F. B. Morse, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Henri Fabre, Lord William Thompson Kelvin, Joseph Lister, George Washington Carver, Wernher von Braun, and many others.
To suggest that scientific advancement is inherently incompatible with Christianity is simply not inclusive of the facts.
Look at the lobby groups now most opposed to stem cell research...
Embryonic stem cell research is definitely opposed on moral grounds.
Adult stem cell research - the area that shows therapeutic benefit TODAY is not morally out of bounds and is helping people to live a more healthy life. This is GOOD science, and should be promoted.
Embryonic stem cell research is different. We believe that all human life is sacred and that no human should be killed to make life easier or healthier for someone else. The science shows that these zygotes are inherently human - that all that is required for a person to grow from a fertilized egg is food and shelter.
Science's technological reach has exceeded its moral grasp in this area. Science has long existed in a realm where there were moral guidelines on appropriate research. e.g. People must know that they are part of an experiment, and what the risks are, etc. I feel strongly that one day, the conventional scientific wisdom will look on this and say 'oops' we messed that one up.
FWIW - While I've not seen it written this way elsewhere, I rather like the idea of a "Fundamental Christian" over the moniker "fundamentalist" As a Fundamental Christian, I hold fast to the tenets of the historic Christian faith, which is somewhat different from the connotation of a fundie as described on
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Who, pray tell, should not fear hell?
jEdit has an ftp/sftp plugin.
.02. YMMV
I've had pretty good success with it. A couple of annoying behaviors that I've ben too lazy to report, but in general it's a good thing.
Just my
I'm interested in doing something similar.
Do tell!
Regards,
Anomaly
There's a difference between a victim mentality and choosing to honor those who have a harder time because they are doing something that benefits society.
.sig. Perhaps that's an indication that you think it's clever or witty, but can't really bring yourself to live that way.
I agree that we should mandate that provision be made for those with physical ailments or maladies not of their choosing that make movement more difficult. I don't ask that laws be passed to 'protect' expectant mothers.
I do think that as members of a civilized society we can show some compassion, deference, and honor to those who are doing what is self-sacrificial and difficult.
It seems incredibly selfish to complain that a young, unencumbered person is inconvenienced because they must walk an additional 20 feet to get the next parking space over. What's the big deal? Exercise is good for your physique, and honoring others is good for building humility and compassion - things that our 'scientifically enlightened society' is rather short on these days.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
BTW - I notice that you weren't willing to defend your
I think you might have an opportunity to be thankful for the fact that your mother chose to bear one more whelp in your case.
.sig indicates, perhaps truth is irrelevant. But let me ask you this - if you REALLY believe your .sig, why do the handicapped deserve any accomodation at all? If there's no such thing as truth, why is compassion necessary?
Should she have 'kept her legs shut' or was your conception the result of a drunken night? Even if it was drunkenness or accidental, I believe she still deserves some respect and thanks - as do all mothers who sacrifice for their kids, and indirectly for the good of society.
Of course, for someone who believes as your
FWIW, I do tend to park a fair bit from the door. I am relatively young and relatively healthy. You are right. Exercise is good for me, too - even if carrying that infant seat is hard on my back.
My perspective is that having kids is my choice, and it's my privilege to invest my life in building young men rather than merely indulging my selfish desires. We all live out the result of our choices.
I hope that you find your indulgences satisfying. If you ever choose to consider a differing world view, I'd be happy to offer some insights on why I believe the way I do.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Let's try this:
Get one of those 'infant front-packs' and drop a bowling ball into it. You can use a kids' ball - they weigh enough. Then drive to the store with that on, and try - just try to get out of the car. See how far you have to open the door - how far you have to put the seat back.
Be sure to wear the front-pack for 24 hours in a row. See how hard sleeping is, walking, getting out of chairs, etc. I'm not even going to mention details about pressure on a woman's bladder or morning sickness.....
You might consider cutting those ladies a break for a few months. You're young and healthy. Walking is good for you....
And after the kids is born, think about just running to the store for 'one thing' and you need to take your infant with you. You must park, pull the removable seat out - which means you need to open the door wide to get the seat out, then lug the weight of the seat and the kid until you get to a cart or to the stroller.
I've got four kids, and lots of experience carrying those things. They are NOT light!
It's up to you. You may decide to keep kicking dents into others' cars if you like. Depending on the amount of damage you do, that may be a jailable offense.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
And your answer has nothing to do with the question.
http://kiskis.sourceforge.net/
It's java - and it really runs on Win 98, Mandrake, CentOS, WinXP and Mac OS.
It's easy to use, the passwords are encrypted, and because I can run it on all of the OS' that I use, I can carry the app on my USB drive with n encrypted copy of my password DB and I can always use it.
It's open source, and I've found the developer to be receptive to helping.
YMMV, but I'm pleased.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
He's a great kid. My sister says he's about as hard as two kids, because of his 'special needs' but she also tells me that it's at least twice as rewarding to see the results. He was 2.5 Yrs old when he learned to walk. They REALLY celebrated when he crossed that milestone. It was a big deal because it was the culmination of months of physical therapy, long labors and battles of will with him. Was it worth the work? She says, undoubtedly!
Today he's a sixth-grader working at grade level in all subjects. He can do what other kids do, it simply requires harder work. He's a joy to be around, and he's a very thoughtful and compassionate kid.
I'm quite glad that he was not killed prenatally. I commend you for your choice, and while the road ahead may be difficult, it's a good road to be on.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Some time last year I got fed up with the irritation that is SCO. I got interested to see if the SEC was digging into what seems to be false claims on their part. It seems that the SEC does not offer any information publicly about ongoing investigations.
Since I didn't know what, if anything, was happening, I reported them to the SEC. I was shocked to get a call the NEXT DAY from a man who identifdied himself as an attorney with the SEC. We spoke for about 45 minutes. At the conclusion of the conversation, he indicated that he thought he understood my issues with them - their apparent lies, their seeming stock manipulation, etc but doubted that he could proceed without more specific information about how they knowingly lied to the public.
If sufficient evidence was produced, he seemed interested in protecting the public from abusive corporate officers. He was not satisfied with what I offered him.
Unless someone has subsequently provided more and better evidence than what I knew about as an interested observer, it is doubtful that the SEC proceeded.
I was displeased that I was unable to move them to action.
Regards,
Anomaly
science only deals with materialism and is therefore flawed
I did not say that. My position is that science is constrained by the scientific method. It can posit, test, examine, and conclude the "what" but not whether there is ultimate meaning, or what that meaning might be, if it exists. It is unable to verify or reject the untestable.
You then try to verify if these predictions are true
How? How can you verify a theory about the origins of the universe without either observing or creating a universe?
On an aside here I could note that I believe that the US school system would benefit greatly from being taugh religion in school. Just not in science class and all major religions should be covered.
I agree. Our society is definitely deficient in well-rounded education. I think that an overview of each major world religion's beliefs should be taught so that we are more culturally aware.
It can only deal with things that are testable and thus possible to prove. That's not necessarily the same thing as as only the physical world.
Agreed. I was careless in my terminology.
it doesn't claim to be THE TRUTH, but mearly the best available explaination.
In terms of definition, you are correct. In terms of societal behavior, I disagree. People believe that science is the arbiter of truth. Some scientists errantly believe that, too. "A new study released today shows that..." why does this make news? Because it's sensational, but also because it's the only thing that is accepted as Truth. For example, if I said "The Bible says..." What's your response?
it doesn't make me want to become one
Fair enough. I'm not a hunter/gatherer looking to club people over the head with Faith. I'm curious, though. What if Christianity is true? Would you want to know? Would you consider changing your mind about wanting to follow Christ?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Let us be clear. My religious beliefs are not science. I never have claimed that they are.
I believe that you are mistaken when you say that the tests I apply to my faith cannot be proven false. What if archeological evidence directly contradicted what is recorded in the Bible? What if the Bible was directly contradictory about substantive points of teaching?
(Some may be quick to suggest that'the Bible is full of contradictions' but that is an uninformed position. Those supposed contradictions are apparent contradictions, and further study shows them to make sense in context.)
If you discard the written accounts of Christ as unreliable, you must disregard those about EVERY other figure of antiquity. There are orders of magnitude better evidence for the Bible than any other work of antiquity. Do you believe in George Washington? Why would you suggest that the accounts about his existence are more reliable than those about Christ?
there has never been a global flood that covered the whole Earth in water
From a logical perspective, in order for you to say authoritatively that there 'has never been' something, you must have all knowledge about that thing simultanously. What records from the beginning of the earth are you using to assert that point? Also, let me ask you this. What causes fossil formation? Is it not a process where recently deceased creatures are covered with dirt/mud? Is it possible that the fossil record available in the cambrian explosion is a result of a generalized event which a) destroyed a large number of creatures, and b) covered them with watery mud?