Perhaps "those who believe in God" also ascribe a high value to life due to certain Biblical passages. They are thus much more concerned about the "when are embryos humans" question. Is it just not a valid question or not pertinent to the conversation, or do you disagree with the question itself because of where[/why] the question originated - in this case, a belief in God?
According to whom? (of course, personal opinion is ok, too... at least you actually state it, which is more than most are willing to do nowadays; it seems that as a society, we like the lack of guilt that comes from not having decided this question)
And... with that, I suppose we had better hope we never go into a temporary coma... because we'd be unconscious. Brain activity, sure, but we're unconscious., and thus, we are not alive?
Which is why abortion is wrong, but fertility drugs and IVF are perfectly fine. Even though a single instance of IVF kills more embryos that just about any single person's life time of abortions does.
I'd say that's due to ignorance more than anything. It's not exactly well advertised that IVF does that, is it?
Much of the objection is due to religion, religious types thinking we shouldn't be messing with stem cells and everything to do with life.
I thought it was because they thought embryonic stem cells came from human embryos which they believe to be humans, because they have decided at what point a human embryo is a human... whereas it seems the rest of the society refuses to answer that question, apparently putting it "somewhere" before birth... because nobody seems to think killing a baby post-birth is ok.
Yes, there are some who say that we shouldn't be "messing with [...] everything to do with life." There are people who say all medicine is bad. There are people who say that we came from aliens and that they have been trying to contact us but the government is blocking it. But I would raise a definite [citation needed] on your assertion that MUCH of the objection is due to should-not-be-messing-with-life ideas.
The question is not whether or not this interferes with God.
The question is whether or not this interferes with human life; that is, who decides when an embryo is a human being, and when.
Frankly, until a society has decided on that, that society is making some very... interesting... ethical choices when it comes to embryonic stem cell research.
"We don't know if they are humans or not, we haven't decided that; but until we decide, we are going to continue testing on them."
I can't exactly tell what you are trying to say by pointing out the underlying philosophy... but I'd like to mention that I think you have correctly identified it, and that many people's worldviews seem to include believing that the end does not justify the means.
Of course, people then justify all kinds of actions by the end result, but most people seem to be willing to SAY that the end doesn't justify the means.
I'm a bit confused what you're responding to. You seem to be coming from an already pre-conceived notion of what I mean when I say I'm a "small government" sort of guy.
Either that or you support such a large government idea that any sort of small government automatically triggers a "what, don't you care about the poor?" response?
You are not talking about small vs. big government; you are talking about fair government. I heartily support fair government. I even support some socialist things... because, frankly, we can get people to pay taxes better than we can get them to be charitable and help their neighbor.
I'm all for a fair government, and I think we should try to get one (not that we ever will get an non-corrupt or completely fair government, since it is, after all, run by humans). But you seem to be only arguing against a current system based on it being unfair. Is it fair to give lazy people money that I worked for, just because they are poor? Who determines what "poor" is? Who determines what someone is "entitled" to? If I endured schooling and training and now have a higher paying job than a high school dropout that did drugs and works in an auto-body shop... is that unfair or fair?
Those are... huge... gaping holes in the base socialist idea of spreading wealth. Yes, I do think there are holes that should be plugged. There are things that seem to favor a rich vs. poor distinction/gap. But the solution to that is not to simply take away a rich person's money and give it to a poor person... or at the very least, not based simply on financial status. We have welfare programs and we can't even get all the people on those welfare programs to work or go to school as best they are able, how do you think we're going to do it for everyone?
Furthermore, there's an even bigger hole in socialistic spread-the-wealth ideas: the people in charge of spreading the wealth are just as corrupt as any other human being. This has had real-life experiments in real countries, typically communist. Russia: a land of immense natural resources and an amazing people. They are hard working. They love music. They're talented. And they are remarkably poor, and were remarkably poor (and non-free) during the communist years, correct? Of course, the people "running" the communist country were pretty well off and quite rich... that is, those that were supposed to be in charge of spreading the wealth...
If a governmental system does not assume greed and corruption on the part of all humans, including those IN the government, it's going to fail... because humans ARE prone to corruption and ARE greedy.
As for your stated disparity between perceived upward mobility and actual upward mobility... I'm going to say that's definitely a problem. I'm also going to say that the problem isn't necessarily the lack of "upward mobility." The problem is the perception. For what, half a century? We've had an ego-centered/self-esteem-centered schooling system that has pushed the idea that you deserve to succeed and that you can do anything you want. We teach kids that. We teach kids that if they don't succeed, it's someone else's fault. We teach them that they are a failure if they aren't rich.
No wonder so many parents care more about money than their children.
I'm going to say this is a social problem first. Unfortunately, when it comes down to it... due to pride, everyone likes this idea. It's massages my pride to think that I can do anything I want and if I can't, it's not my fault, it's someone else's fault. I'm not saying we should flip it and say that everything is my fault, either. I'm saying we need to have a clear perception of reality, not this ridiculous two year old mentality.
his is how the rich fool the middle class into defending the rich from the poor,
I was not defending the rich, nor the poor. I'm trying to encourage thinking and clear perceptions of reality. Knee-jerk reactions and automatic motive assignment blind people to reality and to rational thinking.
There is the problem. I know a lot of people reject propositions with a boring and overly-simple argument of "government is too big," but that doesn't mean that all people who are in favor of a small [federal] government take that route, and it doesn't mean that they think that all government intervention is bad. You're unecessarily reducing a viewpoint to a ridiculous. Claiming that those who are against "government expansion" are in favor of anarchy (if government intervention is always bad, then anarchy would be good, because it would be no government intervention).
Of course, you are probably just exaggerating to make your point, which is probably what the people you're arguing against are doing, too... meaning we're all arguing against exaggerated opinions of the other side, which means we're not even really arguing about something real;)
I'm a "small government" sort of guy. Didn't Romney do the health care thing in MA? Isn't that "government intervention?" Doesn't he still claim it was a good idea? Of course, that was at the state level, not the federal level... but still.
I suppose I'm nit-picking. But the exaggerations on both sides make any sort of meaningful political discussion impossible. Democrats, according to some Republicans, quite literally want to drive America into the ground and give our land over to Muslim countries. Republicans, according to some Democrats, want to literally milk the people's money out of them through corporations and wouldn't mind if [insert large corporation] actually ran the country. Usually, these are supported by huge jumps from a given action to a motive. Actions are easy to see. Motives are pretty difficult.
As an example, from my own ideological POV's typical party member, "Obamacare" is clearly an attempt to set up a completely socialist government in America. It's also, clearly, an attempt to ruin America and give it to Iran. It's also clearly an attempt for Democrats to gain more federal power. Of course, some of those clear motives are rather mutually exclusive, but we'll ignore that. The action that caused all this was a health care bill, but we clearly know the motive behind it.
The same goes for Democrats. They clearly know the motives behind Repuplicans blocking a given bill (it is undoubtedly an evil and nefarious motive, like wanting to get more money from corporate lobbyists, or wanting to ensure they get re-elected, etc). My whole point? We are so caught up in ascribing motives that we can't even argue about the real substance - the legislation itself.
And, to wrap up, exaggerations about POV's - including "small government" folks being against any government intervention at all, which then boils any discussion down to "well what about [something the government does that is necessary]???!?! you insensitive clod!" and including "all 'socialists' want to control ever single area of your life just like Russian communism!" - is a part of the can't-have-rational-discussion problems...
How the instructions were prevented. Did they know they were doing this because they should be able to think this way in order to prevent it?
Thinking "like the enemy" is nothing new at all. But most people, when thinking "like the enemy," know they are doing that. As long as what was right (prevention) and wrong (the attack) is clear, and as long as they are clear WHY they should pretend to plan this way (to think like the enemy), fine. If that was not clear, then... there's a really unclear picture being presented...
That doesn't mean an individual citizen can decide something for the rest of the citizens. We can vote collectively and give/take power from the police, correct? But an individual cannot decide what the police should be allowed to do.
Police equipment is protected. So is fire dept. equipment (ever tried tampering with a fire hydrant? I don't suggest doing it... or parking in the red-curb section?... or...). But I'm pretty sure the people have bestowed that protection. Having one random person decide that protection shouldn't be that way because otherwise, the X have more power than he does isn't valid.
Now, voting that way is different, and if it turns out a majority of persons think that way, then change some laws...
has found no evidence the association or related organizations mishandled the $40 million in federal money they received in recent years.
That's a very specific exoneration; that is, mishandling of funds.
In no ACORN office did employees file any paperwork or do anything illegal on the duo's behalf.
Also extremely specific.
They refer to "edited" and "misleading"... and "deceptive" and "phony" - in that order - tapes. There is no citation for those claims, and the progression from edited->misleading->deceptive->phony is... interesting. They're claims about the tapes progressively get worse while no actual information is cited; i.e., they appear to be building their case on their own previously presumed fact.
And the piece ends with this:
One of the activists, James O'Keefe recently pleaded guilty to charges of entering federal property under false pretenses when he attempted to embarrass Senator Mary Landrieu because of her support for national health care legislation.
An unrelated ad-hom attack on the activist; "he was guilty later, so why should we trust him in this one?.
Lastly, your link is old. It's from June. The case is still going on, and there is much more recent news, such as a Federal court ruling against ACORN (your link mentions the decision that has now been overturned, a former ACORN worker pleading guilty of voter fraud ("Maria Miles, 37, of Milwaukee, admitted to submitting multiple voter registration applications for some people and to scheming with other Association of Community Organization for Reform workers to sign people up several times in an effort to meet the organization's voter registration quotas."), etc.
Bicycles, when on the road, are two-wheeled vehicles, right? So, that means that they are to yield to pedestrians. That means they're supposed to stop...
You'd be surprised how stupid people are around horses. They forget their car makes noise. Passing slowly and then gunning it as soon as you're horizontally past the horse/rider still spooks the horse, you just probably aren't looking at them anymore.
Not blogging, but: how about bribing senators in actual legislation (e.g., healthcare bill)?
Referring to blogging itself, this is probably going to be a "biased" blog, I'm sure, but, hotair has a piece on it. He doesn't mention "payola blogging" and Democrats specifically... but how about, ohhh... ACORN?
And to cap it off, this "news" lists a few "supposed examples" according to this guy, which does not even show any sort of rampant "GOP pays friendly bloggers!!!!!!!!11!!11" thing. Gasp, there are corrupt people who are Republicans? Shocking. And here I thought the Republican party were all saints.
I may have misunderstood your post then regarding which sentiment you were talking about. My mistake in that case, and sorry about that. And re-reading, I was harsher than I should have been, so sorry about that as well.
Heh, actually, I agree with you, and in other posts I have talked about the Old Cov. vs. New Cov. I'm not arguing for following the Old Covenant. What in my post made you think I was? Christ talked quite a bit about lust and sexual immorality, that's not just an Old Covenant thing.
I just re-read my post. Where did I reference a law from the Law that is not in the New Covenant? (Christ gave many commands, it's not like Christians - in the New Covenant - no longer have any commands to obey).
All I said was that I am a Christian and that my beliefs/views about sex are pretty strict. Since when is strictness about sexual purity only in the Old Covenant? I am pretty sure that Jesus was... pretty adamant about it. Like equating lust for a woman who is not you wife with adultery? Or various NT authors slamming sexual immorality, including adultery and incest?
I guess I'm confused about what made you assume I was one that adhered to the OC and ignore the NC. I don't eat shellfish actually, but that's because I really dislike seafood.;) I wear mixed fibers. I eat unclean animals. I don't make animal sacrifices, keep the Sabbath, and many, many other things.
But there are many, many writings in the New Testament, under the New Covenant, that speak very specifically about sexual relationships, to the extent of just looking (with lust) at a woman. "Even" that - a "mental" sexual relationship, if you will - is for marriage...
Your implication/presumption is that masturbation is necessary after puberty?
Also, it seems to "find" masturbation in the Bible. I think it might fit into some of the generic immorality terms; however, lust is definitely in there. All over the place. I haven't had anyone tell me they masturbated without lusting, yet.
What a great way to argue. Bring up facts that are false, pretend they are true; when challenged, say that maybe the facts aren't really true, but I know that's what they are *really* thinking.
??
I am a Christian. My beliefs are pretty strict regarding sex (it is for marriage. actually pretty simple).
Humans are a LOT of things by nature. Biblical Christianity is very clear that things that come naturally to humanity are not necessarily right... I would say they probably usually aren't right.
A lot of bad things come naturally, to. Like... responses to adversity. Violence, even self-inflicted. I guess we shouldn't tell children that they shouldn't cut themselves. Afterall, it came naturally to them. Humans are by NATURE violent beings.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is a problem, how?
Perhaps "those who believe in God" also ascribe a high value to life due to certain Biblical passages. They are thus much more concerned about the "when are embryos humans" question. Is it just not a valid question or not pertinent to the conversation, or do you disagree with the question itself because of where[/why] the question originated - in this case, a belief in God?
Life begins when consciousness begins.
According to whom? (of course, personal opinion is ok, too... at least you actually state it, which is more than most are willing to do nowadays; it seems that as a society, we like the lack of guilt that comes from not having decided this question)
And... with that, I suppose we had better hope we never go into a temporary coma... because we'd be unconscious. Brain activity, sure, but we're unconscious., and thus, we are not alive?
Which is why abortion is wrong, but fertility drugs and IVF are perfectly fine. Even though a single instance of IVF kills more embryos that just about any single person's life time of abortions does.
I'd say that's due to ignorance more than anything. It's not exactly well advertised that IVF does that, is it?
Much of the objection is due to religion, religious types thinking we shouldn't be messing with stem cells and everything to do with life.
I thought it was because they thought embryonic stem cells came from human embryos which they believe to be humans, because they have decided at what point a human embryo is a human... whereas it seems the rest of the society refuses to answer that question, apparently putting it "somewhere" before birth... because nobody seems to think killing a baby post-birth is ok.
Yes, there are some who say that we shouldn't be "messing with [...] everything to do with life." There are people who say all medicine is bad. There are people who say that we came from aliens and that they have been trying to contact us but the government is blocking it. But I would raise a definite [citation needed] on your assertion that MUCH of the objection is due to should-not-be-messing-with-life ideas.
if you're a creationist, then refuse any treatment based on modern biology at all;
Is "modern biology" is premised on evolution? If evolution isn't the way things came about, all of modern biology falls apart?
The question is not whether or not this interferes with God.
The question is whether or not this interferes with human life; that is, who decides when an embryo is a human being, and when.
Frankly, until a society has decided on that, that society is making some very ... interesting ... ethical choices when it comes to embryonic stem cell research.
"We don't know if they are humans or not, we haven't decided that; but until we decide, we are going to continue testing on them."
The end justifies the means.
I can't exactly tell what you are trying to say by pointing out the underlying philosophy... but I'd like to mention that I think you have correctly identified it, and that many people's worldviews seem to include believing that the end does not justify the means.
Of course, people then justify all kinds of actions by the end result, but most people seem to be willing to SAY that the end doesn't justify the means.
I commend your conciseness and excellent points.
Wow, that sounded ... exceedingly flowery...
They get bailouts, even if the companies they own employ only minimum wage Indians and Asians and no actual Americans whatsoever.
Well, it sounds like we both disagree with some recent governmental actions, at any rate, hehe.
I'm a bit confused what you're responding to. You seem to be coming from an already pre-conceived notion of what I mean when I say I'm a "small government" sort of guy.
Either that or you support such a large government idea that any sort of small government automatically triggers a "what, don't you care about the poor?" response?
You are not talking about small vs. big government; you are talking about fair government. I heartily support fair government. I even support some socialist things... because, frankly, we can get people to pay taxes better than we can get them to be charitable and help their neighbor.
I'm all for a fair government, and I think we should try to get one (not that we ever will get an non-corrupt or completely fair government, since it is, after all, run by humans). But you seem to be only arguing against a current system based on it being unfair. Is it fair to give lazy people money that I worked for, just because they are poor? Who determines what "poor" is? Who determines what someone is "entitled" to? If I endured schooling and training and now have a higher paying job than a high school dropout that did drugs and works in an auto-body shop... is that unfair or fair?
Those are ... huge ... gaping holes in the base socialist idea of spreading wealth. Yes, I do think there are holes that should be plugged. There are things that seem to favor a rich vs. poor distinction/gap. But the solution to that is not to simply take away a rich person's money and give it to a poor person ... or at the very least, not based simply on financial status. We have welfare programs and we can't even get all the people on those welfare programs to work or go to school as best they are able, how do you think we're going to do it for everyone?
Furthermore, there's an even bigger hole in socialistic spread-the-wealth ideas: the people in charge of spreading the wealth are just as corrupt as any other human being. This has had real-life experiments in real countries, typically communist. Russia: a land of immense natural resources and an amazing people. They are hard working. They love music. They're talented. And they are remarkably poor, and were remarkably poor (and non-free) during the communist years, correct? Of course, the people "running" the communist country were pretty well off and quite rich... that is, those that were supposed to be in charge of spreading the wealth...
If a governmental system does not assume greed and corruption on the part of all humans, including those IN the government, it's going to fail... because humans ARE prone to corruption and ARE greedy.
As for your stated disparity between perceived upward mobility and actual upward mobility ... I'm going to say that's definitely a problem. I'm also going to say that the problem isn't necessarily the lack of "upward mobility." The problem is the perception. For what, half a century? We've had an ego-centered/self-esteem-centered schooling system that has pushed the idea that you deserve to succeed and that you can do anything you want. We teach kids that. We teach kids that if they don't succeed, it's someone else's fault. We teach them that they are a failure if they aren't rich.
No wonder so many parents care more about money than their children.
I'm going to say this is a social problem first. Unfortunately, when it comes down to it... due to pride, everyone likes this idea. It's massages my pride to think that I can do anything I want and if I can't, it's not my fault, it's someone else's fault. I'm not saying we should flip it and say that everything is my fault, either. I'm saying we need to have a clear perception of reality, not this ridiculous two year old mentality.
his is how the rich fool the middle class into defending the rich from the poor,
I was not defending the rich, nor the poor. I'm trying to encourage thinking and clear perceptions of reality. Knee-jerk reactions and automatic motive assignment blind people to reality and to rational thinking.
Government intervention is always bad.
There is the problem. I know a lot of people reject propositions with a boring and overly-simple argument of "government is too big," but that doesn't mean that all people who are in favor of a small [federal] government take that route, and it doesn't mean that they think that all government intervention is bad. You're unecessarily reducing a viewpoint to a ridiculous. Claiming that those who are against "government expansion" are in favor of anarchy (if government intervention is always bad, then anarchy would be good, because it would be no government intervention).
Of course, you are probably just exaggerating to make your point, which is probably what the people you're arguing against are doing, too... meaning we're all arguing against exaggerated opinions of the other side, which means we're not even really arguing about something real ;)
I'm a "small government" sort of guy. Didn't Romney do the health care thing in MA? Isn't that "government intervention?" Doesn't he still claim it was a good idea? Of course, that was at the state level, not the federal level... but still.
I suppose I'm nit-picking. But the exaggerations on both sides make any sort of meaningful political discussion impossible. Democrats, according to some Republicans, quite literally want to drive America into the ground and give our land over to Muslim countries. Republicans, according to some Democrats, want to literally milk the people's money out of them through corporations and wouldn't mind if [insert large corporation] actually ran the country. Usually, these are supported by huge jumps from a given action to a motive. Actions are easy to see. Motives are pretty difficult.
As an example, from my own ideological POV's typical party member, "Obamacare" is clearly an attempt to set up a completely socialist government in America. It's also, clearly, an attempt to ruin America and give it to Iran. It's also clearly an attempt for Democrats to gain more federal power. Of course, some of those clear motives are rather mutually exclusive, but we'll ignore that. The action that caused all this was a health care bill, but we clearly know the motive behind it.
The same goes for Democrats. They clearly know the motives behind Repuplicans blocking a given bill (it is undoubtedly an evil and nefarious motive, like wanting to get more money from corporate lobbyists, or wanting to ensure they get re-elected, etc). My whole point? We are so caught up in ascribing motives that we can't even argue about the real substance - the legislation itself.
And, to wrap up, exaggerations about POV's - including "small government" folks being against any government intervention at all, which then boils any discussion down to "well what about [something the government does that is necessary]???!?! you insensitive clod!" and including "all 'socialists' want to control ever single area of your life just like Russian communism!" - is a part of the can't-have-rational-discussion problems...
IMO, of course. ;)
Doh. That's presented.
How the instructions were prevented. Did they know they were doing this because they should be able to think this way in order to prevent it?
Thinking "like the enemy" is nothing new at all. But most people, when thinking "like the enemy," know they are doing that. As long as what was right (prevention) and wrong (the attack) is clear, and as long as they are clear WHY they should pretend to plan this way (to think like the enemy), fine. If that was not clear, then ... there's a really unclear picture being presented...
That doesn't mean an individual citizen can decide something for the rest of the citizens. We can vote collectively and give/take power from the police, correct? But an individual cannot decide what the police should be allowed to do.
Police equipment is protected. So is fire dept. equipment (ever tried tampering with a fire hydrant? I don't suggest doing it... or parking in the red-curb section? ... or ...). But I'm pretty sure the people have bestowed that protection. Having one random person decide that protection shouldn't be that way because otherwise, the X have more power than he does isn't valid.
Now, voting that way is different, and if it turns out a majority of persons think that way, then change some laws...
has found no evidence the association or related organizations mishandled the $40 million in federal money they received in recent years.
That's a very specific exoneration; that is, mishandling of funds.
In no ACORN office did employees file any paperwork or do anything illegal on the duo's behalf.
Also extremely specific.
They refer to "edited" and "misleading" ... and "deceptive" and "phony" - in that order - tapes. There is no citation for those claims, and the progression from edited->misleading->deceptive->phony is ... interesting. They're claims about the tapes progressively get worse while no actual information is cited; i.e., they appear to be building their case on their own previously presumed fact.
And the piece ends with this:
One of the activists, James O'Keefe recently pleaded guilty to charges of entering federal property under false pretenses when he attempted to embarrass Senator Mary Landrieu because of her support for national health care legislation.
An unrelated ad-hom attack on the activist; "he was guilty later, so why should we trust him in this one?.
Lastly, your link is old. It's from June. The case is still going on, and there is much more recent news, such as a Federal court ruling against ACORN (your link mentions the decision that has now been overturned, a former ACORN worker pleading guilty of voter fraud ("Maria Miles, 37, of Milwaukee, admitted to submitting multiple voter registration applications for some people and to scheming with other Association of Community Organization for Reform workers to sign people up several times in an effort to meet the organization's voter registration quotas."), etc.
Isn't it Japan that has the onlooker-sensitive billboards, not the US?
Bicycles, when on the road, are two-wheeled vehicles, right? So, that means that they are to yield to pedestrians. That means they're supposed to stop...
You'd be surprised how stupid people are around horses. They forget their car makes noise. Passing slowly and then gunning it as soon as you're horizontally past the horse/rider still spooks the horse, you just probably aren't looking at them anymore.
Motorcycle riders are even worse... hehe
Not blogging, but: how about bribing senators in actual legislation (e.g., healthcare bill)?
Referring to blogging itself, this is probably going to be a "biased" blog, I'm sure, but, hotair has a piece on it. He doesn't mention "payola blogging" and Democrats specifically... but how about, ohhh... ACORN?
And to cap it off, this "news" lists a few "supposed examples" according to this guy, which does not even show any sort of rampant "GOP pays friendly bloggers!!!!!!!!11!!11" thing. Gasp, there are corrupt people who are Republicans? Shocking. And here I thought the Republican party were all saints.
The real news flash is that only Republicans are mentioned. Clearly, Democrats are lily-white citizens of the political world. ;)
I may have misunderstood your post then regarding which sentiment you were talking about. My mistake in that case, and sorry about that. And re-reading, I was harsher than I should have been, so sorry about that as well.
Heh, actually, I agree with you, and in other posts I have talked about the Old Cov. vs. New Cov. I'm not arguing for following the Old Covenant. What in my post made you think I was? Christ talked quite a bit about lust and sexual immorality, that's not just an Old Covenant thing.
I just re-read my post. Where did I reference a law from the Law that is not in the New Covenant? (Christ gave many commands, it's not like Christians - in the New Covenant - no longer have any commands to obey).
All I said was that I am a Christian and that my beliefs/views about sex are pretty strict. Since when is strictness about sexual purity only in the Old Covenant? I am pretty sure that Jesus was ... pretty adamant about it. Like equating lust for a woman who is not you wife with adultery? Or various NT authors slamming sexual immorality, including adultery and incest?
I guess I'm confused about what made you assume I was one that adhered to the OC and ignore the NC. I don't eat shellfish actually, but that's because I really dislike seafood. ;) I wear mixed fibers. I eat unclean animals. I don't make animal sacrifices, keep the Sabbath, and many, many other things.
But there are many, many writings in the New Testament, under the New Covenant, that speak very specifically about sexual relationships, to the extent of just looking (with lust) at a woman. "Even" that - a "mental" sexual relationship, if you will - is for marriage...
Your implication/presumption is that masturbation is necessary after puberty?
Also, it seems to "find" masturbation in the Bible. I think it might fit into some of the generic immorality terms; however, lust is definitely in there. All over the place. I haven't had anyone tell me they masturbated without lusting, yet.
the sentiment is entirely true.
What a great way to argue. Bring up facts that are false, pretend they are true; when challenged, say that maybe the facts aren't really true, but I know that's what they are *really* thinking.
??
I am a Christian. My beliefs are pretty strict regarding sex (it is for marriage. actually pretty simple).
Humans are a LOT of things by nature. Biblical Christianity is very clear that things that come naturally to humanity are not necessarily right... I would say they probably usually aren't right.
A lot of bad things come naturally, to. Like ... responses to adversity. Violence, even self-inflicted. I guess we shouldn't tell children that they shouldn't cut themselves. Afterall, it came naturally to them. Humans are by NATURE violent beings.
Art is but an excuse to buy into Apple's marketing.
That's a good way to put it.