but I certainly haven't seen all that much benefit, so far, to what we have played with to "help out" nature.
Are you kidding me? Dispite massive population growth, from 3 billion to 6 billion in the last 50 years, the global malnutrition rate has decreased from 38% to 18% over that same period. Farmer producitivity has doubled multiple times in the last 100 years because of superior agricultural technology. If it wasnt for the "Green Revolution", millions upon millions of acres of additional wilderness would have been destroyed to create more arable farmland.
We only have 2 choices on what to do as a civilization:
1) Continue to increase farmer productivity. 2) Let BILLIONS of people die due to malnutrition.
There is a good argument that there are simply too many people alive for the world to support, but to make that argument you have to be willing to just let people die. It is easy to do when you are sitting 5000 miles away in front of your computer. But it would be alot harder if a 5 year old child was dying of starvation right in front of you.
Because we evolved (or were created) to be a moral species, our only real choice for saving the planet and ourselves at the same time is to increase farmer productivity. So far we have been doing a pretty good job, since the current benefits are staggering. --
[I'd prefer labeling for] meat products treated with x, y, or z hormone/antibiotic/preservative. If I bought a damn pop tart, I'd know more about what was in it than in a steak which costs 10 times as much.
When you get a pop tart, you know what the ingredients are (Strawberry Filling, Corn Syrup, Dextrose, etc). When you get a steak, you know what the ingredients are too (Beef). There is no difference in the packaging and labeling standards.
If they told you what type of pesticide was used on the corn that was turned into the corn syrup used in the Pop Tarts, then it would be the same as telling you what hormones were given to the cattle that your steak came from. Both are equally rediculous because the work involved in verifying that data would be astronomical. I like my select grade steaks to cost less than $25/lb.
Did anyone else see any data in any of those links? All I saw was Monsanto saying that there are no health risks, and GreenPeace saying that there are. Both are just as biased, so it is a little hard to know who to believe.
They talk about "statistical significance" and "normal variation", but dont say what the actual data shows. What are the standards for natural maise? Are they much different than the genetically engineered products? I am definetly in favor of quality control, but are they just holding genetically engineered foods to higher standards than natural food?
While it is usually better to be on the side of caution, I generally dont like to take a political activist's word for it on important matters like this.
it is unlikely that the I.T. industry will be producing jobs gains out of line with its size. Instead, the report contends, job gains will more and more come from industries that use information technology intelligently
This study does not claim that just spending money on IT will increase productivity. It quite plainly says that using IT intelligently will increase productivity. I find it very hard to find a problem in this logic. In fact, I find it so obvious that I am suprised someone needed to do a study to verify it.
Isnt it fairly obvious that technology is primarily responsible for our increase in productivity? I mean, where else would it come from? It isnt like our generation became more hard working than our parents.
Computer technology was basically the one thing that changed in the 90s to increase worker productivity. I cannot even think of a number 2 contender. Doing work on computers instead of on paper leads to vast increases in productivity. And we are constantly getting better, even with side tracks such as Vista.;-)
I wonder if I could get money to do obvious studies. I am going to try to find out if having an active sex life makes people happier, or if eating more helps solve hunger.
Stop thinking that getting married applies to every sin. It applies to gays because they would be in homosexual relationships. The same problems with marriage do not necessarily apply to drunkards and adulterers.
That is the problem. There is research that shows alcoholism does hinder raising a child. Having marital problems (i.e. adultery) also hinders raising a child. But there is no research showing that homosexual parents have trouble raising children.
There was alot of conventional wisdom that believed living in a homosexual home would affect a child's self esteem. But that has been studied for decades and various studies show that the conventional wisdom is wrong. Studies also show that homosexual couples have just as much chance of staying together long term as heterosexual parents. I quoted 7 of these studies in one of my above quotes.
We've spent several posts discussing this, yet you still don't understand my points beyond understanding that we disagree.
You are right, I still do not understand why you think that alcoholics and parents of broken homes (adulterers) would make better parents than homosexuals. You have never said why you have the opinion that a homosexual parent cannot raise a child properly. You have said what your opinion is, but not why you have that opinion. You have said it is against God's laws, but not why it is different/worse (as far as parenting goes) than other of God's laws: such as alchoholism and adultery.
Those are the important questions. WHAT MAKES A HOMOSEXUAL PARENT WORSE THAN A HETEROSEXUAL PARENT? Quotes from the Bible are a side track from the original issue (and I will respond to them later but I am heading to bed soon).
Are you kidding me? The gym I went to in college makes that picture look conservative. Made going to the gym just a little bit more enjoyable. Many women wear more clothes on the beach than they do in the gym. Thank god for that.
Regardless of whether or not the Bible is a good source of issues regarding morality, it doesnt change the fact that homosexual relationships do no documented damage to anyone. Even the Bible is fairly shaky on whether God is okay with it.
1 Corithians 6:9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
"Abusers of themselvs" is generally believed to mean masturbators. Regardless of whether it is okay to be gay, according to the Bible it looks like parents who also masturbate would be no better/worse than homosexual parents.
The term "effeminate" is what most theologians believe means homosexuality. The original Greek word: "malakoi" has been translated as: effeminate, homosexuals, male prostitutes, catamites, pederasts, perverts, sodomites; amongst others.
If the word was used in a more "Jewish" interpretation, then homosexual is probably a pretty good translation. But the word in its actual Greek meaning then it would simply mean unmanly. Homosexual behavior was not considered unmanly in Greek culture, so there is a valid argument that Corinthians does not necessarily condemn homosexual behavior.
But even if it does condemn this behavior, it condemns it along with fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, drunkards, etc. Does that mean that alcoholics should not be allowed to marry? Should people who have sex before marriage not be allowed to marry? Each of these would be just as bad in the eyes of the Bible.
And quite simply, the only thing that should happen to these people is that they will not "inherit the kingdom of God." It does not mean that they should not be able to marry, just that they might not go to heaven according to the New Testament.
I still do not see why homosexuals should not be able to get married.
The passage you quoted from Romans is actually a very good example of the difference between the various authors of the New Testament. I use quotes from the Bible because it is useful when discussing religion with a Christian person. But quoting scripture begins to break down when various verses start to directly dispute eachother.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law" (Matthew 5:17-18)
"So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ..." (Romans 7:4)
Here is Saul/Paul directly refuting the words of Jesus. Paul does this frequently in his writings, as he was trying to build a new religion instead of just expanding on the Jewish faith.
Paul claimed to have training as a Pharisee before he was "converted". But Romans 7 is a clear example where you see a logical confusion, something that was against the very core of Pharisee training. Paul is unable to keep clear who it is that corresponds to the wife and who to the husband (or even who is supposed to have died, the husband or wife).
Romans 7:1 and Romans 7:2 are very muddled. First off he states that "the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives". That would mean that someone is bound by the law until he dies. But then it says that if a man died, his wife is released from the law. Who is released, the man who dies or the people left behind? Paul seams to leave this intentionally ambiguious just so that no one could try to refute his analogies.
It also allows him to "try" to make an argument that the death of Jesus releases Christians from the law. But this goes directly against what is said in Romans 7:1.
This form of writing and logical shortcomings goes a long way to showing Paul's lack of Pharisee training. Another is Paul's lack of "qal va-homer" argument validity. Pharisee's used the argument that if someone broke a law in a major way, their punishment would be the same if they broke it in a minor way. An example of this is Numbers 12:14. If offending a father (a relatively light act) is punishable with banishment for 7 days, offending God (a relatively heavy act) would give the same punishment (banishment for 7 days).
4 attempts of "qal va-homer" are in Romans 5:10, Romans 5:17, Romans 11:15, Romans 11:24. Only the last one succeeds. In a qal va-homer argument the conclusion cannot validly go beyond what is contained in the premise (the principle of dayo). Paul's arguments are closer to saying that if offending a father deserves seven days' banishment, then offending God deserves fourteen days' banishment. This goes against the principle of dayo. Paul's arguments use "a fortiori" reasoning, which is very close but still logically different. It shows Paul trying to sound like a Pharisee but coming up short.
Just as Paul is trying to give a logical argument for why Christians are no longer bound to Jewish law but comes up short. Luckily for Paul he was writing to the Romans and not to the Pharisees. A fortiori arguments are most commonly used in analogies, since even today most people (including me most of the time) are unable to understand the correct level of precision needed to follow the principles of qal va-homer reasoning.
Getting back to Romans 7, his analogy continues to break down. First off it seams that the wife is the Church, the former husband is the Torah, and the new husband is Christ. Paul tells us that a wife is released by the death of her husband to marry a new husband. This should read, therefore, in the comparison that the Church was freed, by the death of the Torah, to marry Christ. Instead, it is the wife-Church that dies ('So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ') and there is even some play with the idea that the n
Actually, the article does a good job of showing what the Bible says about the Old and New Testament and how they are related. It shows that you really do need to heed all of the laws within the Old Testament that are not overthrown in the New Testament.
So that then leaves a Christian to wonder how they could possibly follow God's laws while remaining a moral person. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 shows that parents should deal with a stubborn and rebellious son by allowing the men of their town to stone him to death. Deuteronomy 22:20-21 shows that a woman who looses her virginity before marriage should also be stoned to death. Deuteronomy 25:11-12 shows that a woman who tries to save her husband from an assailant by attacking the assailant's private parts, she should have her hand cut off (and be shown no pity).
If you caught your 17 year old daughter having sex with her boyfriend, would you actually kill her? If your son repeatedly refused to obey your rules, would you let him be killed for even severe disobedience? If your wife/girlfriend helped save your life by striking another man in the balls, would you cut off her hands?
I doubt that you answered Yes to any of these questions. If you did then I am sorry, I actually think you are an immoral monster. But this is exactly what your God would have you do. But if you do not do these things, here is what God has in store for you:
>>However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: >>You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country. >>Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed. >>The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks. (Deuteronomy 31:15-18, more horrific punishments continue through verse 68)
These are hopefully real problems for any Christian. While chapters such as Matthew 5 do show areas of the Old Testament that have been altered by the teachings of the New Testament, it is clear that the laws of the Old Testament. Laws such as God's command and decrees from within Deuteronomy.
What is a good Christain to do? Well in my opinion they should start to realize that the Bible is not in fact the word of any divine being, but instead the mythology of relatively immoral civilizations that no longer exist.
But I suppose that it is incorrect to say that the New Testament completely supersedes the Old, because it doesn't (example: sin in the old testament is still sin in the new). I shall have to think about that.
That last little bit is the best response yet. I really hope that you do think about that, because there is a real problem amongst Christians where they decide to pick and choose what parts of the Bible they agree with and which they dont.
You say that sin in the Old Testament is still sin in the New Testament. Well in that case, it is still a sin for a man to not marry his sister in law if his brother dies. God killed Onan because he refused to sire a son on his brother's behalf with his sister in law because he had sinned. (Genesis 38:10)
However, some of the less important aspects of the law are made useless when Christ brings faith, mercy, and grace into the equation.
What declares which aspects are of the law are less important? The Bible doesnt. It does declare a few specific examples, but what about the rest? Where does it say that the above sin is no longer a sin?
The only thing I can think of is that you think it is immoral to be forced to marry your brother's wife. You are deciding what is a sin and what isnt based on your own moral guidelines. In today's society, no one would ever consider having a child with their sister in law. But in the time of the Old Testament, it was a common practice. Looks like society has changed, and apparently God's opinions on sin have changed with it if you are indeed correct in your opinions.
There may be no studies to support it, but I doubt that it's too good for a kid to have 8 dads and 7 moms living under the same roof
Why do you doubt it would be good? Parenting is very hard, and people do make mistakes. With 8 dads and 7 moms, they could all have their specialties. One dad is good at baseball, one at soccer, one at chemistry, one at math, etc. One wife is a good cook, one is a lawyer, one a decorator, etc. I would actually think that a more communal way of raising our children would be better for our society.
Again, I have no research to back that up. But I do not see why it would be harmful to the children. Even if it does mean that they are less likely to have a nuclear family of their own, how is that harmful if the alternative is just as good if not better?
Wow... you must know some pretty morally upright men. I know a lot of guys who would absolutely love polygamy
I never said men wouldnt want to have sex with multiple partners. But I hold to my contention that not many would want to marry multiple wives. Many men dont want to get married to their first wife because of that fear of commitment.
See my other post (which it appears you've already replied to) where it talks about God and polygamy.
Actually, I didnt see anything about God and polygamy. Did I just miss it, or did you forget to add it to your post? (happens to me from time to time)
All of your examples came from the Old Testament. The New Testament supersedes the Old, and teaches that the things you mentioned are wrong.
Where in the Bible does it state that the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament? Where does it say that ALL of the teachings in the Old Testament are invalid? I know it is a common claim amongst Christians, but it does not come from any of the Bible's teachings. It only comes from those who are ashamed at the contents of the Old Testament.
In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, the Bible states that "...and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." This was written before the New Testament was put together, so the only holy scriptures that the Bible is referring to is within the Old Testament.
In Luke 24, Jesus opens his disciples minds so that they can understand the scripture. And he does define it as all scripture. "He said to them, 'This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.'" (Luke 24:44)
How could you possibly follow the New Testament and not the Old Testament? Is it a different God? Did God change his mind? What leads you to believe that the New Testament is God inspired, but the Old Testament is not? Just because you like the New Testament more? Are you more wise than God, because you can decern which of his teachings are valid and which ones arent?
But there are legitimate arguments for how homosexual marriage is detrimental to society in the long run.
Well I guess this is the only problem that exists in your opinions on homosexuality. I just finished a post a few minutes ago (in response to your earlier post) that shows a wealth of research on the topic of homosexual families. Children raised in homosexual families have no disadvantages over those raised in heterosexual families. Virtually all research shows this. Actually I, and the American Psychological Association, have never even heard of a single unbaised study that shows a problem with homosexual families. The only real problem a child might have is with bullying by other children, but that is a problem with anti-homosexuality not the homosexual parents.
Not all forms of tolerance should be practiced. We should not tolerate murderers, or thieves, or pedophiles. But these acts do a harm to others. Homosexuality does no harm to anyone. Any beliefs to the contrary are no different than a man 100 years ago saying that "Black men arent as smart as white men, and they would destroy our country if we let them vote."
You can argue against it all you want, but the fact is that this is a horrible environment in which to raise children.
Actually, that is not a fact. It may be true, but most research shows that it is not.
has shown that the healthiest environment for a child to be raised in is a family with one father and one mother.
Where are these studies? Virtually all studies I have ever read show that children raised in homosexual families are just as emotionally healthy as those raised in heterosexual families:
>>The American Psychological Association, representing more than 155,000 psychologists, states that children of gay and lesbian parents are at no disadvantage psychologically or socially compared to children of heterosexual parents.
>>The American Academy of Pediatrics, the nation's leading pediatric authority with 57,000 members, says that children who grow up with gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as children with straight parents.
>>The National Association of Social Workers, with nearly 150,000 members, agrees that research on gay and lesbian parenting shows a total absence of pathological findings in their children.
>>"Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth." -- Charles J. Patterson, researcher at the University of Virginia, 2004
Research repeatedly shows that homosexual parents possess the same abilities to nurture and provide stable homes:
>>David K. Flaks et al, "Lesbians Choosing Motherhood: A Comparative Study of Lesbian and Homosexual Parents and Their Children", 1995.
>>Charlotte J. Patterson & Raymond W. Chan, "Gay Fathers and Their Children", 1996.
>>Judith Stacey & Timothy Biblarz, "Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter", 2001.
Children in gay and lesbian homes experience no differences in quality of peer relationships, or have problems with self-esteem:
>>Susan Golombok et al., "Children in Lesbian & Single-Parent Households Psychosexual & Psychiatric Appraisal, 1983; Fiona Tasker & Susan Golombok, Growing up in a Lesbian Family", 1997.
>>Sharon L. Huggins, "A Comparative Study of Self Esteem of Adolescent Children of Divorced Lesbian Mothers and Divorced Heterosexual Mothers", 1989.
>>Mary E. Hotvedt & Jane B. Mandel, "Children of Lesbian Mothers", 1982.
Gay and Lesbian couples also enjoy the same level of relationship health and satisfaction (and stay together long term at the same rate) as heterosexual couples:
>>Charlotte J. Patterson, "Family Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men", 2000.
>>Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz, "American Couples", 1983.
>>L.A. Peplau and Susan D. Cochran, "A Relationship Perspective on Homosexuality", 1990.
>>Lawrence A. Kurdek, "Lesbian and Gay Couples, in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Identities Over the Lifespan: Psychological Perspectives, 1995; Relationship Stability and Relationship Satisfaction in Cohabitating Gay and Lesbian Couples: A Prospective Longitudinal Test of the Contextual and Interdependence Models, 1992; and Relationship Quality of Partners in Heterosexual Married, Heterosexual Cohabitating, and Gay and Lesbian Relationships", 1986.
This is not an exhaustive list of sources. It is simply what I could come up with at work. I have only ever known one child from a homosexual family, and he grew up to be just as heterosexual as I am. He is a very well adjusted man, and a good Christian also. He is married with one kid, and while I no longer have any
Oh BTW, while I have ABSOLUTELY NO interest in changing your spiritual beliefs (just as I do not try to "convert" my family members), I do however wish (and "pray") that your viewpoints on alternative lifestyles will some day be changed.
One of my favorite uncles is a psychologist, and when I was younger he would talk to me about important issues. He never tried to change my opinions, he used to call it "planting a seed". By planting these ideas into my head (and he was Jewish, not an atheist) he hoped that I would come to my own decisions. While he hoped that I would some day change my ways (I did), he left it up to me to grow as a person instead of trying to force it. I guess it was his way of leaving my free will intact while also trying to help me improve myself.
I guess I feel the same way about you. While I have not and probably never will meet you (you dont live in Dekalb, IL do you?;-), you seam to be an intelligent person who honestly does try to search for answers instead of blindly following the flock. I believe that you are mostly trying to rationalize your own beliefs, and are clinging to anything that makes those beliefs more plausible, but that is only my opinion. I have disagreed with many people in my life, and probably with many who are smarter than me.
But I do find it hard to believe how someone like yourself can hold such viewpoints about alternative lifestyles. Just as you have a hard time believing that anyone could actually think owning slaves was not a bad thing, I have a hard time believing how any "good" person could categorically reject the rights of such a large group of people. They are not pedophiles, or murderers. They are a simply another minority group in the world that are just a little different in one minor way.
While the Old Testament seams to preach the merits of intolerance, the New Testament (with a few exceptions) teaches Christians the opposite. Jusus' second commandment says to "Love your neigbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39) Would you want your neighbors to reject your rights because they disagree with your viewpoints?
Was it okay for the Romans to persecute early Christians because they had a world view that was deemed dangerous to the social order? (just as you view homosexual marraige as dangerous)
Tolerance of other people is abundant in the New Testament. Mark 9:38-40, Luke 9:52-56, John 4:7-27 all show Jesus giving respect and tolerence to non-believers and other types of "Christianity". Romans 2:14-16 actually states that even non-believers can be admitted into heaven based on their actions in life.
The Bible also tells followers to "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" (Matthew 22:21). This passage has a special relevence to the question of gay marriage.
Legal marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage has always been a matter of the states up until a few hundred years ago. While God may not recognize the marriage of a homosexual couple, there is no reason that the law should not. The secular world (i.e. psychologists, etc.) views homosexuals not as a disorder (i.e. pedophelia) but as an alternative lifestyle. For this reason it is absurd to deny homosexuals the same rights as everyone else. Just as it is absurd to deny rights based on race, sex, or religious views.
The Bible is not a very good text to use when deciding how to define marriage anyway. In the Bible, when a woman is raped her rapist is then forced to marry her, and therefore she will be forced into that marriage against her will (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). God also condones taking women as prisoners of wars for the purpose of marriage (Numbers 31:1-18 & Deuteronomy 21:11-14). God also required men and women to practice "Levirate Marriage". This is when a woman is forced to marry her brother-in-law if her husband dies before they have had a son. Onan is killed by God for not honoring levirate marriage (Genesis 38:6-10).
Yes, I know you weren't trying to change my mind. I was simply stating my final position on the matter. Similarly, my posts are not meant to change your mind
I was pretty sure that we both understood this, but I wanted to make sure. Similar to what you said earlier, I have been accused of not respecting other people's beliefs before, and I wanted to make sure you knew I wasnt attacking all of your beliefs.
So you think anti-homsexuality is horrific and immoral, eh? Well, I'm STRONGLY anti-homosexuality but I'm not an immoral person, though apparently by your standard I must be.
Well, I do not find you to be any more immoral than a slave owner in the mid-1850s. That is why anti-homosexuality/racism/sexism are such great examples of how the moral standards of a society can evolve and improve over time. Some one does not choose to be homosexual any more than they choose to be black or a woman. To keep homosexuals from obtaining any rights given to others (i.e. marriage) would be just as bad as keeping african americans from obtaining the same rights. A slave owner in 1850 would have been just as STRONGLY against giving rights to their slaves as you are against giving rights to homosexuals. It is the same bigotry, but towards a different group of people.
Bigotry: A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.
Basically by definition, anyone who is against gay marriage is a bigot. It is a lifestyle other than their own, that they refuse to tolerate and give equal rights to. Being a bigot does not necessarily make someone a bad person, as it can be caused by ignorance. (note that ignorance is not the same as stupidity, for example I am ignorant about how to fix cars)
All of a sudden marriages will mean absolutely nothing. And people will realize this and just stop getting married. They'll just live with whoever (and however many people) they want, however they want all the time. The family structure will have been completely eliminated.
How will homosexuality or polygamy destroy the family structure? There are many cultures today and throughout history that have heterosexual, homosexual, monogamous, and polygamous relationships. And they still had children, loved them, raised them, and continued our civilization. The Greeks are largely responsible for creating the Western Civilization as we know it, and they were very excepting of homosexual relationships.
Are you married? (for the rest of this discussion I will assume you are, if not then every question is hypothetically speaking) I am only engaged (getting married in July), so I cannot speak of marriage from experience. But if homosexuals were allowed to get married (along with polygamists), would you still have married your wife? If so, then apparently homosexual marriages would not have destroyed your family.
Tolerance of homo-sexual activities (which many people are calling for) reaches its ultimate goal when gay marriage is legalized. I am appalled at the prospect of gay marriage. I feel that it cheapens real marriage (marriage between a man and a woman).
What defines a "real marriage"? You? Your religion? The same society that outlaws gay marriage also outlawed women from voting. It also enslaved a race of people for hundreds of years. The recent acceptance of homosexual rights has just been the next logical step of a moral and tolerant society.
As far as what makes a "real marriage", the original institute of marriage was simply a way for families to transfer property. The woman was no longer the property of her father, but instead was the property of her husband. While the word "adultery" has gained a different meaning in modern times, the word used in the New Testament (untranslated) was the Greek word moicheia. It referred only to a married woman having relations with any man other than her husband. Men had no such restrictions until later in the Medie
Yes, I see your point. However, I still believe that there is a universal moral compass which comes from God. I am a Christian and I believe that the Bible is the Word of God which lays out His plan of salvation for the human race.
I understand that, my posts were not meant to change your mind but instead to answer your original question: "So where does morality come from if not from God?" I was giving an alternative to God, thats all.
There isnt really much more to say because it seams that we really do understand eachother. I only want to comment on one statement:
That's what I know to be true, anyway.
While it is a very slight difference, it would be better to say "That's what I believe to be true". My family is fairly religious; both my brothers and my parents go to church just about every Sunday. I am not anti-religious, even though I am an atheist (technically an agnostic, but atheist generally is closer to what my beliefs are). But statements like these are the one of the two truly bad things about religion in my opinion. (The other danger is a tendency to put too much faith in figures of authority)
While not nearly all religious people are bigots, absolutism tends to lead to bigotry. And religion is the primary source of absolutism in our society.
No one truly "knows" that there is a God, just as no one "knows" that there is not a God. Even if you have had a personal revelation, you could never really know if it was simply a case of Schizophrenia.
Over 1 in 100 people suffer from Schizophrenia, it is twice as common as Alzheimer's. That means about 3 million Americans. Do you know anyone with Insulin-dependent Diabetes? There are more than 6 times as many people with Schizophrenia than Insulin-dependent Diabetes. I wonder how many people have actually seen God or heard his voice? I doubt more than 3 million in America today.
Many people feel God's presense when they are having hardships in their life. But it is very easy for people under stress to fabricate false memories, expecially the kind of vague memories involved in a "religious experience". Stress is also the number one trigger for disorders in someone's perception of reality.
Perhaps God has actually came and talked to you in your livingroom. If Thor or Zeus had come to your living room, would you immediatly convert? No, you would be skeptical. Perhaps it was a dream, or you were tired and hallucinating. But because of the society that we live in, people tend to not be skeptical of "religious experiences" that have happened to them.
I do not mean to insult religious people, only those who do not admit the possibility that they are wrong. No gut feeling or personal revelation should ever remove all doubt. Everyone is guilty of not doubting enough from time to time, but religion actually trains people to remove doubt. Religion is the number one personality based indicator that someone is a good candidate for a con artist. (being elderly or a minority isnt a personality trait)
By saying that you "know" it to be true, you are removing all doubt. That is a bad thing. Religion is not a horrible thing. Great acts of charity are done in the name of religion. But horrific and immoral acts and ideas are fostered by religion as well (RE: anti-homosexuality).
To be a rational and intelligent religious individual, you need to rid yourself of absolutist thought.
A god making the universe can build in morals as right. If you disagree with those morals in that universe, then you are wrong by the definition of that universe.
Why does creating a universe by definiton mean that you have created a moral code? Perhaps their are axioms within our universe that were not designed by God. Can God make 1 + 1 = 3? You may believe that he can, but is not definete. Who is to say that there is no limit to God's omnipotence. Maybe the very idea of being all-powerful is an exaggeration created by the more primitive societies that existed 2000 years ago. Maybe he has control of all matter and all energy, but not over the axioms that define our universe.
For God to have been created from nothing, then there would have to be a universal "law" that allows for a supreme all powerful being to be created from nothing (or that he has always existed). God could not have created that rule, since without the rule he couldnt exist in the first place. So even allowing for an omnipotent God there are obviously universal axioms that he did not create. He may still have control over them, or he may not. Maybe 1 + 1 = 3 is another universal axiom that even God has no control over.
Can god make a triangle on a 2D plane whose 3 internal angles do not add up to 180? Can he make a right triangle on a 2D plane that does not follow a^2 + b^2 = c^2? You can try to rationalize that these are terms that humans came up with, but a triangle by any other name would still have the same properties.
If God cannot do these things, then perhaps he cannot define what is moral.
The particular argument of the OP was a moral argument against belief in precisely this type of god. That is, one which builds a certain morality into the universe.
He never said that, because he never said he believed that such a God built a certain morality into the universe. Being the creator of the universe does not necessarily mean he is the creator of morality. Morality may just be what God hopes we will follow, not a set of universal laws. Perhaps he created a world where humans could follow other moral pathways to enhance our free will.
Hell is often described as simply an eternity without the presence of God in your life. It was only warped into a place of damnation by the Catholic church. Perhaps God left morality up to us, but lets those who share his views live with him for the rest of eternity. I for one agree with the original poster: I would not want to spend eternity with an individual as petty as the Christian God.
But despite accepting new ideas of right and wrong later in life, everyone (if they're completely honest with themselves) still has this blueprint of morality imprinted on their hearts. That's one reason why true Christianity resonates so well with so many people. It matches up with this in-born sense of right and wrong. It feels right . I hope I'm making sense here. But search your soul: you know you've got this universal sense of morality, whether you care to admit it or not.
It is very possible that there really is a genetic blueprint for morality. I personally do not think there is, but there is a strong argument for the possibility. I dont want to come off like I know the true answer, I am just giving my opinion based on the thought and research I have put into the matter.
Animals do not seam to have a moral compass. Now there are basically two possibilities regarding how humans developed morals. We either developed them genetically (as our brain also developed), or the morals are a byproduct of the enhanced ability to communicate and socialize that we have over animals. It is possible that morals and emotions are little more than evolutionary accidents. This would be similar to watching bugs fly into open flames and burn because their genetic wirings have caused them to use lumination (usually the sun/moon/stars) to navigate themselves.
Children have to be taught how to socialize in society. Being a social creature is not hard-wired into our species. The way that a child is raised has an impact on their neurodevelopment, which could cause their "moral compass" (if there is such a thing) to be created/changed. A young child has to be taught to share, to play with other children without hitting, etc.
We have very few cases of humans raised in a way that society has not touched them. They are often called "feral children". From FeralChildren.com:
Quite simply, feral children are usually entirely unaware of the needs and desires and others. The concepts of morals, property and possessions are alien to them, and they can't show empathy with other people.
There has been alot of research into how to help feral children enter society, but there has so far been no success. It seams that once there has been a disruption to the "normal" neurodevelopment of a human being, the concepts of society/morality/empathy are forever lost to them.
Not really lost, however, since they never had such feelings to begin with. Humans do not seam to be born as social creatures, we are made into social creatures by our society. Over tens of thousands of years we slowly developed these societies, and they made us into the species we are today. And the moralities of those societies seam to shape the moralities of each person.
Take for example a society that feels killing animals is immoral. They have no more information than we do, and are no more or less "ignorant" than we are. But they would find us to be an immoral and repugnant society. What makes them right? Or us right? The answer is nothing does, because each society's definition of "right" and "wrong" can be different. It does not always have to do with ignorance, just a difference in opinion.
Again, I am not saying that I know I am right. I am just saying that to be truly honest with yourself, you need to open up to the possibility that there is no such thing as a universal moral compass.
I hope I'm making sense here. But search your soul: you know you've got this universal sense of morality, whether you care to admit it or not.
You are making perfect sense. I see exactly where you are coming from. I happen to disagree, but I submit that you may very well be correct on the matter. I was simply giving other rational possibilities.
There may be no such thing as a soul. It could be a fabrication by man in an arrogant attempt to make mankind more significant than it is. And if the soul does not exist, then searching your soul for a universal sense of morality would only lead to more delusions. I really hope that there is a soul, and that we have life after death, but any rational person has to at least admit the possibility that it does not exist.
No, it is not extra. It is money that he seams to be worth (since the company is willing to pay it). He just doesnt realize what he is worth. If the company is willing to pay him $60k/yr, then he must be worth that to them. But if he thinks he is worth $55k/yr, and accepts a salary of $57k/yr, then he is missing out on $3k/yr. With constant 3% raises over 10 years that is $34k he is missing out on just because he spoke first. He lost out on a new Mustang GT Convertible just because he opened his mouth before the employer offered $60k/yr.
Slashdot Mirror
but I certainly haven't seen all that much benefit, so far, to what we have played with to "help out" nature.
Are you kidding me? Dispite massive population growth, from 3 billion to 6 billion in the last 50 years, the global malnutrition rate has decreased from 38% to 18% over that same period. Farmer producitivity has doubled multiple times in the last 100 years because of superior agricultural technology. If it wasnt for the "Green Revolution", millions upon millions of acres of additional wilderness would have been destroyed to create more arable farmland.
We only have 2 choices on what to do as a civilization:
1) Continue to increase farmer productivity.
2) Let BILLIONS of people die due to malnutrition.
There is a good argument that there are simply too many people alive for the world to support, but to make that argument you have to be willing to just let people die. It is easy to do when you are sitting 5000 miles away in front of your computer. But it would be alot harder if a 5 year old child was dying of starvation right in front of you.
Because we evolved (or were created) to be a moral species, our only real choice for saving the planet and ourselves at the same time is to increase farmer productivity. So far we have been doing a pretty good job, since the current benefits are staggering.
--
[I'd prefer labeling for] meat products treated with x, y, or z hormone/antibiotic/preservative.
If I bought a damn pop tart, I'd know more about what was in it than in a steak which costs 10 times as much.
When you get a pop tart, you know what the ingredients are (Strawberry Filling, Corn Syrup, Dextrose, etc). When you get a steak, you know what the ingredients are too (Beef). There is no difference in the packaging and labeling standards.
If they told you what type of pesticide was used on the corn that was turned into the corn syrup used in the Pop Tarts, then it would be the same as telling you what hormones were given to the cattle that your steak came from. Both are equally rediculous because the work involved in verifying that data would be astronomical. I like my select grade steaks to cost less than $25/lb.
--
Did anyone else see any data in any of those links? All I saw was Monsanto saying that there are no health risks, and GreenPeace saying that there are. Both are just as biased, so it is a little hard to know who to believe.
They talk about "statistical significance" and "normal variation", but dont say what the actual data shows. What are the standards for natural maise? Are they much different than the genetically engineered products? I am definetly in favor of quality control, but are they just holding genetically engineered foods to higher standards than natural food?
While it is usually better to be on the side of caution, I generally dont like to take a political activist's word for it on important matters like this.
--
FTA:
it is unlikely that the I.T. industry will be producing jobs gains out of line with its size.
Instead, the report contends, job gains will more and more come from industries that use information technology intelligently
This study does not claim that just spending money on IT will increase productivity. It quite plainly says that using IT intelligently will increase productivity. I find it very hard to find a problem in this logic. In fact, I find it so obvious that I am suprised someone needed to do a study to verify it.
--
Isnt it fairly obvious that technology is primarily responsible for our increase in productivity? I mean, where else would it come from? It isnt like our generation became more hard working than our parents.
;-)
Computer technology was basically the one thing that changed in the 90s to increase worker productivity. I cannot even think of a number 2 contender. Doing work on computers instead of on paper leads to vast increases in productivity. And we are constantly getting better, even with side tracks such as Vista.
I wonder if I could get money to do obvious studies. I am going to try to find out if having an active sex life makes people happier, or if eating more helps solve hunger.
--
Stop thinking that getting married applies to every sin. It applies to gays because they would be in homosexual relationships. The same problems with marriage do not necessarily apply to drunkards and adulterers.
That is the problem. There is research that shows alcoholism does hinder raising a child. Having marital problems (i.e. adultery) also hinders raising a child. But there is no research showing that homosexual parents have trouble raising children.
There was alot of conventional wisdom that believed living in a homosexual home would affect a child's self esteem. But that has been studied for decades and various studies show that the conventional wisdom is wrong. Studies also show that homosexual couples have just as much chance of staying together long term as heterosexual parents. I quoted 7 of these studies in one of my above quotes.
We've spent several posts discussing this, yet you still don't understand my points beyond understanding that we disagree.
You are right, I still do not understand why you think that alcoholics and parents of broken homes (adulterers) would make better parents than homosexuals. You have never said why you have the opinion that a homosexual parent cannot raise a child properly. You have said what your opinion is, but not why you have that opinion. You have said it is against God's laws, but not why it is different/worse (as far as parenting goes) than other of God's laws: such as alchoholism and adultery.
Those are the important questions. WHAT MAKES A HOMOSEXUAL PARENT WORSE THAN A HETEROSEXUAL PARENT? Quotes from the Bible are a side track from the original issue (and I will respond to them later but I am heading to bed soon).
--
Hmm, looks like I need more time on the treadmill because my spelling in that post was just horrible.
--
Are you kidding me? The gym I went to in college makes that picture look conservative. Made going to the gym just a little bit more enjoyable. Many women wear more clothes on the beach than they do in the gym. Thank god for that.
--
Wow, who would have thought that exersize actually improves your body in some way?
Regardless of whether or not the Bible is a good source of issues regarding morality, it doesnt change the fact that homosexual relationships do no documented damage to anyone. Even the Bible is fairly shaky on whether God is okay with it.
1 Corithians 6:9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
"Abusers of themselvs" is generally believed to mean masturbators. Regardless of whether it is okay to be gay, according to the Bible it looks like parents who also masturbate would be no better/worse than homosexual parents.
The term "effeminate" is what most theologians believe means homosexuality. The original Greek word: "malakoi" has been translated as: effeminate, homosexuals, male prostitutes, catamites, pederasts, perverts, sodomites; amongst others.
If the word was used in a more "Jewish" interpretation, then homosexual is probably a pretty good translation. But the word in its actual Greek meaning then it would simply mean unmanly. Homosexual behavior was not considered unmanly in Greek culture, so there is a valid argument that Corinthians does not necessarily condemn homosexual behavior.
But even if it does condemn this behavior, it condemns it along with fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, drunkards, etc. Does that mean that alcoholics should not be allowed to marry? Should people who have sex before marriage not be allowed to marry? Each of these would be just as bad in the eyes of the Bible.
And quite simply, the only thing that should happen to these people is that they will not "inherit the kingdom of God." It does not mean that they should not be able to marry, just that they might not go to heaven according to the New Testament.
I still do not see why homosexuals should not be able to get married.
--
The passage you quoted from Romans is actually a very good example of the difference between the various authors of the New Testament. I use quotes from the Bible because it is useful when discussing religion with a Christian person. But quoting scripture begins to break down when various verses start to directly dispute eachother.
..." (Romans 7:4)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law" (Matthew 5:17-18)
"So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ
Here is Saul/Paul directly refuting the words of Jesus. Paul does this frequently in his writings, as he was trying to build a new religion instead of just expanding on the Jewish faith.
Paul claimed to have training as a Pharisee before he was "converted". But Romans 7 is a clear example where you see a logical confusion, something that was against the very core of Pharisee training. Paul is unable to keep clear who it is that corresponds to the wife and who to the husband (or even who is supposed to have died, the husband or wife).
Romans 7:1 and Romans 7:2 are very muddled. First off he states that "the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives". That would mean that someone is bound by the law until he dies. But then it says that if a man died, his wife is released from the law. Who is released, the man who dies or the people left behind? Paul seams to leave this intentionally ambiguious just so that no one could try to refute his analogies.
It also allows him to "try" to make an argument that the death of Jesus releases Christians from the law. But this goes directly against what is said in Romans 7:1.
This form of writing and logical shortcomings goes a long way to showing Paul's lack of Pharisee training. Another is Paul's lack of "qal va-homer" argument validity. Pharisee's used the argument that if someone broke a law in a major way, their punishment would be the same if they broke it in a minor way. An example of this is Numbers 12:14. If offending a father (a relatively light act) is punishable with banishment for 7 days, offending God (a relatively heavy act) would give the same punishment (banishment for 7 days).
4 attempts of "qal va-homer" are in Romans 5:10, Romans 5:17, Romans 11:15, Romans 11:24. Only the last one succeeds. In a qal va-homer argument the conclusion cannot validly go beyond what is contained in the premise (the principle of dayo). Paul's arguments are closer to saying that if offending a father deserves seven days' banishment, then offending God deserves fourteen days' banishment. This goes against the principle of dayo. Paul's arguments use "a fortiori" reasoning, which is very close but still logically different. It shows Paul trying to sound like a Pharisee but coming up short.
Just as Paul is trying to give a logical argument for why Christians are no longer bound to Jewish law but comes up short. Luckily for Paul he was writing to the Romans and not to the Pharisees. A fortiori arguments are most commonly used in analogies, since even today most people (including me most of the time) are unable to understand the correct level of precision needed to follow the principles of qal va-homer reasoning.
Getting back to Romans 7, his analogy continues to break down. First off it seams that the wife is the Church, the former husband is the Torah, and the new husband is Christ. Paul tells us that a wife is released by the death of her husband to marry a new husband. This should read, therefore, in the comparison that the Church was freed, by the death of the Torah, to marry Christ. Instead, it is the wife-Church that dies ('So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ') and there is even some play with the idea that the n
Actually, the article does a good job of showing what the Bible says about the Old and New Testament and how they are related. It shows that you really do need to heed all of the laws within the Old Testament that are not overthrown in the New Testament.
So that then leaves a Christian to wonder how they could possibly follow God's laws while remaining a moral person. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 shows that parents should deal with a stubborn and rebellious son by allowing the men of their town to stone him to death. Deuteronomy 22:20-21 shows that a woman who looses her virginity before marriage should also be stoned to death. Deuteronomy 25:11-12 shows that a woman who tries to save her husband from an assailant by attacking the assailant's private parts, she should have her hand cut off (and be shown no pity).
If you caught your 17 year old daughter having sex with her boyfriend, would you actually kill her? If your son repeatedly refused to obey your rules, would you let him be killed for even severe disobedience? If your wife/girlfriend helped save your life by striking another man in the balls, would you cut off her hands?
I doubt that you answered Yes to any of these questions. If you did then I am sorry, I actually think you are an immoral monster. But this is exactly what your God would have you do. But if you do not do these things, here is what God has in store for you:
>>However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:
>>You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country.
>>Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed.
>>The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.
(Deuteronomy 31:15-18, more horrific punishments continue through verse 68)
These are hopefully real problems for any Christian. While chapters such as Matthew 5 do show areas of the Old Testament that have been altered by the teachings of the New Testament, it is clear that the laws of the Old Testament. Laws such as God's command and decrees from within Deuteronomy.
What is a good Christain to do? Well in my opinion they should start to realize that the Bible is not in fact the word of any divine being, but instead the mythology of relatively immoral civilizations that no longer exist.
--
But I suppose that it is incorrect to say that the New Testament completely supersedes the Old, because it doesn't (example: sin in the old testament is still sin in the new). I shall have to think about that.
That last little bit is the best response yet. I really hope that you do think about that, because there is a real problem amongst Christians where they decide to pick and choose what parts of the Bible they agree with and which they dont.
You say that sin in the Old Testament is still sin in the New Testament. Well in that case, it is still a sin for a man to not marry his sister in law if his brother dies. God killed Onan because he refused to sire a son on his brother's behalf with his sister in law because he had sinned. (Genesis 38:10)
However, some of the less important aspects of the law are made useless when Christ brings faith, mercy, and grace into the equation.
What declares which aspects are of the law are less important? The Bible doesnt. It does declare a few specific examples, but what about the rest? Where does it say that the above sin is no longer a sin?
The only thing I can think of is that you think it is immoral to be forced to marry your brother's wife. You are deciding what is a sin and what isnt based on your own moral guidelines. In today's society, no one would ever consider having a child with their sister in law. But in the time of the Old Testament, it was a common practice. Looks like society has changed, and apparently God's opinions on sin have changed with it if you are indeed correct in your opinions.
--
There may be no studies to support it, but I doubt that it's too good for a kid to have 8 dads and 7 moms living under the same roof
Why do you doubt it would be good? Parenting is very hard, and people do make mistakes. With 8 dads and 7 moms, they could all have their specialties. One dad is good at baseball, one at soccer, one at chemistry, one at math, etc. One wife is a good cook, one is a lawyer, one a decorator, etc. I would actually think that a more communal way of raising our children would be better for our society.
Again, I have no research to back that up. But I do not see why it would be harmful to the children. Even if it does mean that they are less likely to have a nuclear family of their own, how is that harmful if the alternative is just as good if not better?
--
Wow... you must know some pretty morally upright men. I know a lot of guys who would absolutely love polygamy
I never said men wouldnt want to have sex with multiple partners. But I hold to my contention that not many would want to marry multiple wives. Many men dont want to get married to their first wife because of that fear of commitment.
See my other post (which it appears you've already replied to) where it talks about God and polygamy.
Actually, I didnt see anything about God and polygamy. Did I just miss it, or did you forget to add it to your post? (happens to me from time to time)
--
All of your examples came from the Old Testament. The New Testament supersedes the Old, and teaches that the things you mentioned are wrong.
Where in the Bible does it state that the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament? Where does it say that ALL of the teachings in the Old Testament are invalid? I know it is a common claim amongst Christians, but it does not come from any of the Bible's teachings. It only comes from those who are ashamed at the contents of the Old Testament.
In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, the Bible states that "...and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." This was written before the New Testament was put together, so the only holy scriptures that the Bible is referring to is within the Old Testament.
In Luke 24, Jesus opens his disciples minds so that they can understand the scripture. And he does define it as all scripture. "He said to them, 'This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.'" (Luke 24:44)
How could you possibly follow the New Testament and not the Old Testament? Is it a different God? Did God change his mind? What leads you to believe that the New Testament is God inspired, but the Old Testament is not? Just because you like the New Testament more? Are you more wise than God, because you can decern which of his teachings are valid and which ones arent?
--
But there are legitimate arguments for how homosexual marriage is detrimental to society in the long run.
Well I guess this is the only problem that exists in your opinions on homosexuality. I just finished a post a few minutes ago (in response to your earlier post) that shows a wealth of research on the topic of homosexual families. Children raised in homosexual families have no disadvantages over those raised in heterosexual families. Virtually all research shows this. Actually I, and the American Psychological Association, have never even heard of a single unbaised study that shows a problem with homosexual families. The only real problem a child might have is with bullying by other children, but that is a problem with anti-homosexuality not the homosexual parents.
Not all forms of tolerance should be practiced. We should not tolerate murderers, or thieves, or pedophiles. But these acts do a harm to others. Homosexuality does no harm to anyone. Any beliefs to the contrary are no different than a man 100 years ago saying that "Black men arent as smart as white men, and they would destroy our country if we let them vote."
--
You can argue against it all you want, but the fact is that this is a horrible environment in which to raise children.
Actually, that is not a fact. It may be true, but most research shows that it is not.
has shown that the healthiest environment for a child to be raised in is a family with one father and one mother.
Where are these studies? Virtually all studies I have ever read show that children raised in homosexual families are just as emotionally healthy as those raised in heterosexual families:
>>The American Psychological Association, representing more than 155,000 psychologists, states that children of gay and lesbian parents are at no disadvantage psychologically or socially compared to children of heterosexual parents.
>>The American Academy of Pediatrics, the nation's leading pediatric authority with 57,000 members, says that children who grow up with gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as children with straight parents.
>>The National Association of Social Workers, with nearly 150,000 members, agrees that research on gay and lesbian parenting shows a total absence of pathological findings in their children.
>>"Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth." -- Charles J. Patterson, researcher at the University of Virginia, 2004
Research repeatedly shows that homosexual parents possess the same abilities to nurture and provide stable homes:
>>David K. Flaks et al, "Lesbians Choosing Motherhood: A Comparative Study of Lesbian and Homosexual Parents and Their Children", 1995.
>>Charlotte J. Patterson & Raymond W. Chan, "Gay Fathers and Their Children", 1996.
>>Judith Stacey & Timothy Biblarz, "Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter", 2001.
Children in gay and lesbian homes experience no differences in quality of peer relationships, or have problems with self-esteem:
>>Susan Golombok et al., "Children in Lesbian & Single-Parent Households Psychosexual & Psychiatric Appraisal, 1983; Fiona Tasker & Susan Golombok, Growing up in a Lesbian Family", 1997.
>>Sharon L. Huggins, "A Comparative Study of Self Esteem of Adolescent Children of Divorced Lesbian Mothers and Divorced Heterosexual Mothers", 1989.
>>Mary E. Hotvedt & Jane B. Mandel, "Children of Lesbian Mothers", 1982.
Gay and Lesbian couples also enjoy the same level of relationship health and satisfaction (and stay together long term at the same rate) as heterosexual couples:
>>Charlotte J. Patterson, "Family Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men", 2000.
>>Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz, "American Couples", 1983.
>>L.A. Peplau and Susan D. Cochran, "A Relationship Perspective on Homosexuality", 1990.
>>Lawrence A. Kurdek, "Lesbian and Gay Couples, in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Identities Over the Lifespan: Psychological Perspectives, 1995; Relationship Stability and Relationship Satisfaction in Cohabitating Gay and Lesbian Couples: A Prospective Longitudinal Test of the Contextual and Interdependence Models, 1992; and Relationship Quality of Partners in Heterosexual Married, Heterosexual Cohabitating, and Gay and Lesbian Relationships", 1986.
This is not an exhaustive list of sources. It is simply what I could come up with at work. I have only ever known one child from a homosexual family, and he grew up to be just as heterosexual as I am. He is a very well adjusted man, and a good Christian also. He is married with one kid, and while I no longer have any
Oh BTW, while I have ABSOLUTELY NO interest in changing your spiritual beliefs (just as I do not try to "convert" my family members), I do however wish (and "pray") that your viewpoints on alternative lifestyles will some day be changed.
;-), you seam to be an intelligent person who honestly does try to search for answers instead of blindly following the flock. I believe that you are mostly trying to rationalize your own beliefs, and are clinging to anything that makes those beliefs more plausible, but that is only my opinion. I have disagreed with many people in my life, and probably with many who are smarter than me.
One of my favorite uncles is a psychologist, and when I was younger he would talk to me about important issues. He never tried to change my opinions, he used to call it "planting a seed". By planting these ideas into my head (and he was Jewish, not an atheist) he hoped that I would come to my own decisions. While he hoped that I would some day change my ways (I did), he left it up to me to grow as a person instead of trying to force it. I guess it was his way of leaving my free will intact while also trying to help me improve myself.
I guess I feel the same way about you. While I have not and probably never will meet you (you dont live in Dekalb, IL do you?
But I do find it hard to believe how someone like yourself can hold such viewpoints about alternative lifestyles. Just as you have a hard time believing that anyone could actually think owning slaves was not a bad thing, I have a hard time believing how any "good" person could categorically reject the rights of such a large group of people. They are not pedophiles, or murderers. They are a simply another minority group in the world that are just a little different in one minor way.
While the Old Testament seams to preach the merits of intolerance, the New Testament (with a few exceptions) teaches Christians the opposite. Jusus' second commandment says to "Love your neigbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39) Would you want your neighbors to reject your rights because they disagree with your viewpoints?
Was it okay for the Romans to persecute early Christians because they had a world view that was deemed dangerous to the social order? (just as you view homosexual marraige as dangerous)
Tolerance of other people is abundant in the New Testament. Mark 9:38-40, Luke 9:52-56, John 4:7-27 all show Jesus giving respect and tolerence to non-believers and other types of "Christianity". Romans 2:14-16 actually states that even non-believers can be admitted into heaven based on their actions in life.
The Bible also tells followers to "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" (Matthew 22:21). This passage has a special relevence to the question of gay marriage.
Legal marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage has always been a matter of the states up until a few hundred years ago. While God may not recognize the marriage of a homosexual couple, there is no reason that the law should not. The secular world (i.e. psychologists, etc.) views homosexuals not as a disorder (i.e. pedophelia) but as an alternative lifestyle. For this reason it is absurd to deny homosexuals the same rights as everyone else. Just as it is absurd to deny rights based on race, sex, or religious views.
The Bible is not a very good text to use when deciding how to define marriage anyway. In the Bible, when a woman is raped her rapist is then forced to marry her, and therefore she will be forced into that marriage against her will (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). God also condones taking women as prisoners of wars for the purpose of marriage (Numbers 31:1-18 & Deuteronomy 21:11-14). God also required men and women to practice "Levirate Marriage". This is when a woman is forced to marry her brother-in-law if her husband dies before they have had a son. Onan is killed by God for not honoring levirate marriage (Genesis 38:6-10).
I doubt anything I have said will
Yes, I know you weren't trying to change my mind. I was simply stating my final position on the matter. Similarly, my posts are not meant to change your mind
I was pretty sure that we both understood this, but I wanted to make sure. Similar to what you said earlier, I have been accused of not respecting other people's beliefs before, and I wanted to make sure you knew I wasnt attacking all of your beliefs.
So you think anti-homsexuality is horrific and immoral, eh? Well, I'm STRONGLY anti-homosexuality but I'm not an immoral person, though apparently by your standard I must be.
Well, I do not find you to be any more immoral than a slave owner in the mid-1850s. That is why anti-homosexuality/racism/sexism are such great examples of how the moral standards of a society can evolve and improve over time. Some one does not choose to be homosexual any more than they choose to be black or a woman. To keep homosexuals from obtaining any rights given to others (i.e. marriage) would be just as bad as keeping african americans from obtaining the same rights. A slave owner in 1850 would have been just as STRONGLY against giving rights to their slaves as you are against giving rights to homosexuals. It is the same bigotry, but towards a different group of people.
Bigotry: A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.
Basically by definition, anyone who is against gay marriage is a bigot. It is a lifestyle other than their own, that they refuse to tolerate and give equal rights to. Being a bigot does not necessarily make someone a bad person, as it can be caused by ignorance. (note that ignorance is not the same as stupidity, for example I am ignorant about how to fix cars)
All of a sudden marriages will mean absolutely nothing. And people will realize this and just stop getting married. They'll just live with whoever (and however many people) they want, however they want all the time. The family structure will have been completely eliminated.
How will homosexuality or polygamy destroy the family structure? There are many cultures today and throughout history that have heterosexual, homosexual, monogamous, and polygamous relationships. And they still had children, loved them, raised them, and continued our civilization. The Greeks are largely responsible for creating the Western Civilization as we know it, and they were very excepting of homosexual relationships.
Are you married? (for the rest of this discussion I will assume you are, if not then every question is hypothetically speaking) I am only engaged (getting married in July), so I cannot speak of marriage from experience. But if homosexuals were allowed to get married (along with polygamists), would you still have married your wife? If so, then apparently homosexual marriages would not have destroyed your family.
Tolerance of homo-sexual activities (which many people are calling for) reaches its ultimate goal when gay marriage is legalized. I am appalled at the prospect of gay marriage. I feel that it cheapens real marriage (marriage between a man and a woman).
What defines a "real marriage"? You? Your religion? The same society that outlaws gay marriage also outlawed women from voting. It also enslaved a race of people for hundreds of years. The recent acceptance of homosexual rights has just been the next logical step of a moral and tolerant society.
As far as what makes a "real marriage", the original institute of marriage was simply a way for families to transfer property. The woman was no longer the property of her father, but instead was the property of her husband. While the word "adultery" has gained a different meaning in modern times, the word used in the New Testament (untranslated) was the Greek word moicheia. It referred only to a married woman having relations with any man other than her husband. Men had no such restrictions until later in the Medie
Actually the true question is more direct:
Is the perception of equality more important? Or is the education of our children more important?
--
Yes, I see your point. However, I still believe that there is a universal moral compass which comes from God. I am a Christian and I believe that the Bible is the Word of God which lays out His plan of salvation for the human race.
I understand that, my posts were not meant to change your mind but instead to answer your original question: "So where does morality come from if not from God?" I was giving an alternative to God, thats all.
There isnt really much more to say because it seams that we really do understand eachother. I only want to comment on one statement:
That's what I know to be true, anyway.
While it is a very slight difference, it would be better to say "That's what I believe to be true". My family is fairly religious; both my brothers and my parents go to church just about every Sunday. I am not anti-religious, even though I am an atheist (technically an agnostic, but atheist generally is closer to what my beliefs are). But statements like these are the one of the two truly bad things about religion in my opinion. (The other danger is a tendency to put too much faith in figures of authority)
While not nearly all religious people are bigots, absolutism tends to lead to bigotry. And religion is the primary source of absolutism in our society.
No one truly "knows" that there is a God, just as no one "knows" that there is not a God. Even if you have had a personal revelation, you could never really know if it was simply a case of Schizophrenia.
Over 1 in 100 people suffer from Schizophrenia, it is twice as common as Alzheimer's. That means about 3 million Americans. Do you know anyone with Insulin-dependent Diabetes? There are more than 6 times as many people with Schizophrenia than Insulin-dependent Diabetes. I wonder how many people have actually seen God or heard his voice? I doubt more than 3 million in America today.
Many people feel God's presense when they are having hardships in their life. But it is very easy for people under stress to fabricate false memories, expecially the kind of vague memories involved in a "religious experience". Stress is also the number one trigger for disorders in someone's perception of reality.
Perhaps God has actually came and talked to you in your livingroom. If Thor or Zeus had come to your living room, would you immediatly convert? No, you would be skeptical. Perhaps it was a dream, or you were tired and hallucinating. But because of the society that we live in, people tend to not be skeptical of "religious experiences" that have happened to them.
I do not mean to insult religious people, only those who do not admit the possibility that they are wrong. No gut feeling or personal revelation should ever remove all doubt. Everyone is guilty of not doubting enough from time to time, but religion actually trains people to remove doubt. Religion is the number one personality based indicator that someone is a good candidate for a con artist. (being elderly or a minority isnt a personality trait)
By saying that you "know" it to be true, you are removing all doubt. That is a bad thing. Religion is not a horrible thing. Great acts of charity are done in the name of religion. But horrific and immoral acts and ideas are fostered by religion as well (RE: anti-homosexuality).
To be a rational and intelligent religious individual, you need to rid yourself of absolutist thought.
--
A god making the universe can build in morals as right. If you disagree with those morals in that universe, then you are wrong by the definition of that universe.
Why does creating a universe by definiton mean that you have created a moral code? Perhaps their are axioms within our universe that were not designed by God. Can God make 1 + 1 = 3? You may believe that he can, but is not definete. Who is to say that there is no limit to God's omnipotence. Maybe the very idea of being all-powerful is an exaggeration created by the more primitive societies that existed 2000 years ago. Maybe he has control of all matter and all energy, but not over the axioms that define our universe.
For God to have been created from nothing, then there would have to be a universal "law" that allows for a supreme all powerful being to be created from nothing (or that he has always existed). God could not have created that rule, since without the rule he couldnt exist in the first place. So even allowing for an omnipotent God there are obviously universal axioms that he did not create. He may still have control over them, or he may not. Maybe 1 + 1 = 3 is another universal axiom that even God has no control over.
Can god make a triangle on a 2D plane whose 3 internal angles do not add up to 180? Can he make a right triangle on a 2D plane that does not follow a^2 + b^2 = c^2? You can try to rationalize that these are terms that humans came up with, but a triangle by any other name would still have the same properties.
If God cannot do these things, then perhaps he cannot define what is moral.
The particular argument of the OP was a moral argument against belief in precisely this type of god. That is, one which builds a certain morality into the universe.
He never said that, because he never said he believed that such a God built a certain morality into the universe. Being the creator of the universe does not necessarily mean he is the creator of morality. Morality may just be what God hopes we will follow, not a set of universal laws. Perhaps he created a world where humans could follow other moral pathways to enhance our free will.
Hell is often described as simply an eternity without the presence of God in your life. It was only warped into a place of damnation by the Catholic church. Perhaps God left morality up to us, but lets those who share his views live with him for the rest of eternity. I for one agree with the original poster: I would not want to spend eternity with an individual as petty as the Christian God.
--
But despite accepting new ideas of right and wrong later in life, everyone (if they're completely honest with themselves) still has this blueprint of morality imprinted on their hearts. That's one reason why true Christianity resonates so well with so many people. It matches up with this in-born sense of right and wrong. It feels right . I hope I'm making sense here. But search your soul: you know you've got this universal sense of morality, whether you care to admit it or not.
It is very possible that there really is a genetic blueprint for morality. I personally do not think there is, but there is a strong argument for the possibility. I dont want to come off like I know the true answer, I am just giving my opinion based on the thought and research I have put into the matter.
Animals do not seam to have a moral compass. Now there are basically two possibilities regarding how humans developed morals. We either developed them genetically (as our brain also developed), or the morals are a byproduct of the enhanced ability to communicate and socialize that we have over animals. It is possible that morals and emotions are little more than evolutionary accidents. This would be similar to watching bugs fly into open flames and burn because their genetic wirings have caused them to use lumination (usually the sun/moon/stars) to navigate themselves.
Children have to be taught how to socialize in society. Being a social creature is not hard-wired into our species. The way that a child is raised has an impact on their neurodevelopment, which could cause their "moral compass" (if there is such a thing) to be created/changed. A young child has to be taught to share, to play with other children without hitting, etc.
We have very few cases of humans raised in a way that society has not touched them. They are often called "feral children". From FeralChildren.com:
Quite simply, feral children are usually entirely unaware of the needs and desires and others. The concepts of morals, property and possessions are alien to them, and they can't show empathy with other people.
There has been alot of research into how to help feral children enter society, but there has so far been no success. It seams that once there has been a disruption to the "normal" neurodevelopment of a human being, the concepts of society/morality/empathy are forever lost to them.
Not really lost, however, since they never had such feelings to begin with. Humans do not seam to be born as social creatures, we are made into social creatures by our society. Over tens of thousands of years we slowly developed these societies, and they made us into the species we are today. And the moralities of those societies seam to shape the moralities of each person.
Take for example a society that feels killing animals is immoral. They have no more information than we do, and are no more or less "ignorant" than we are. But they would find us to be an immoral and repugnant society. What makes them right? Or us right? The answer is nothing does, because each society's definition of "right" and "wrong" can be different. It does not always have to do with ignorance, just a difference in opinion.
Again, I am not saying that I know I am right. I am just saying that to be truly honest with yourself, you need to open up to the possibility that there is no such thing as a universal moral compass.
I hope I'm making sense here. But search your soul: you know you've got this universal sense of morality, whether you care to admit it or not.
You are making perfect sense. I see exactly where you are coming from. I happen to disagree, but I submit that you may very well be correct on the matter. I was simply giving other rational possibilities.
There may be no such thing as a soul. It could be a fabrication by man in an arrogant attempt to make mankind more significant than it is. And if the soul does not exist, then searching your soul for a universal sense of morality would only lead to more delusions. I really hope that there is a soul, and that we have life after death, but any rational person has to at least admit the possibility that it does not exist.
--
No, it is not extra. It is money that he seams to be worth (since the company is willing to pay it). He just doesnt realize what he is worth. If the company is willing to pay him $60k/yr, then he must be worth that to them. But if he thinks he is worth $55k/yr, and accepts a salary of $57k/yr, then he is missing out on $3k/yr. With constant 3% raises over 10 years that is $34k he is missing out on just because he spoke first. He lost out on a new Mustang GT Convertible just because he opened his mouth before the employer offered $60k/yr.
--