BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 02:03 PM

I would normally completely agree, but we've BEEN doing the compassionate, polite thing, and look where it's gotten us, here in the Southern US. That is why so many of us think the time for "respect" is past for those who insist on denying demonstrated reality - not for *all* believers of *all* myths. My kids are in public school here in the Old Dominion... I can hardly wait to see what nonsense will happen when they take high school biology.

And the people I talk to about this are not, usually, those whose knee-jerk reflex defenses will just harden, but really thinking, intellegent people who would, one would think, allow their assumptions to be challenged, and answer those challenges thoughtfully. And most of the conversations within these threads have been like that. As I've said before, those who resent having their beliefs challenged may want to think about not posting them in a discussion forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 03:22 PM

yep...it is a problem in the hardest cases to show 'respect'...except in a very formal way.

It really depends on what you are struggling with, however. If you are trying to keep your kid's textbooks from being filled with barely disguised creationist propaganda, almost anything goes! The school needs to teach what science is doing and has clear evidence for, and leave biblical interpretation to their church.
   Here...in a forum, we need to carefully discriminate between 'debates' over evidence and logic and reason...(debates which I have often entered to clarify MY position) and simply emotional, non-compromising 'statements' of absolute certainty.
Slag has made it clear that he has all the answers he cares to, and couches it as if it is revealed truth. He believes he "knows Jesus"..etc., and all discussion proceeds from that stance....therefore, it is of little use to try to carry on a 'debate' in a thread started IN ORDER to announce his strength of belief.

Sure...it is true...anyone who starts a thread with a controversial theme 'ought' to know he will get responses. I TRIED to tell Slag that just preaching was out of place...but I can hardly stop him, so I limit myself to the basics....and I hope we can drop the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 03:34 PM

(Well, he DID invite comment...) (OK, I'm done now.)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 07:16 PM

Well, I have finally caught up with reading this thread(these threads) in its entirety. It's been interesting, to say the least. I would guess that my views will fall harmlessly into the void but I want to express them anyway. I don't get any Brownie points for all this reading so surely I deserve my say? *g*

A coupld of thoughts, first: Rig, as well as others, talks about a Christian feeling that s/he can do anything because after all, the act is forgiven. I suspect that any Christian theologian would say that only the forgiveness is without stint. The consequences of said sin may be inexorable.

As to whether a zygote or embryo is already human, as NickHere contends, let me note that we announce "I'm going to be a father!" or "You're going to be a grandmother!" Until the baby is born, we don't say, "I'm a mother" or "You are a grandfather."

Mrrzy asks, "Did you ever read Lord of the Flies", thereby plucking the strings of one of my pet peeves. I would respond: It is fiction. No one knows the end result in reality of such a situation.

To go on:

I expect that any person over the age of 5, say, is familiar with the feeling of love, whether for their SO, their child, their home or community, or whatever. I, personally, don't believe that it partakes more than tangentially of the fierce motherhood or even the need(s) of reproduction that we accept are in all nature. If it were more than that, I think we would be content with achieving the safety and full belly of our offspring. So from what does this love stem?

I suppose that the spiritual can exist without a god. The concept, however, gives me the feeling of floundering. Just can't quite get my head around it, mostly because if there is a spiritual aspect to life, one is agreeing to the existence of spirit and where does that lead one to but back to the transcendant, to a god forsooth.

And if there is a god or gods, it doesn't seem that far a leap to believing that there is a supreme being.

That said, I don't have a clue as to whether there is a personal god. I find it difficult to believe that a god cares whether it rains on me or if I am able to catch my bus. (I do know that I believe that if there is a God, that entity does not endorse or even recognize the borders of neighboring countries {Which is why I have a problem with jingoism}.

Speaking of God as an entity reminds me that I do NOT believe that God is a HE nor a SHE; I see no reason to believe that God has either a penis or ovaries. If God is anything, it is a spirit. Unless there isa a dimension of being that we don't yet know.

There. Now this thread can die. Or live on into infinity... :)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 07:20 PM

Well, I guess you could call me one of "the faithful." I'd agree that what I believe is not primarily rational, otherwise it wouldn't be faith. But yeah, if you call me irrational, I might be insulted. It might be the truth - but it's because of other things, not because of my religious beliefs. "Irrational" is different from "not rational."

But generally, I think it's safe to say that the premises of religious faith are not fundamentally rational. The doctrines that are drawn from those beliefs may be rational, however.

Still, I think that I think that most of us operate on rational systems that are based on fundamental premises that are not essentially rational.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 07:28 PM

Well definitions may vary, and you could certainly say that faith of the kind you describe, Joe, is not empirical. But I don't preclude it from being rational, because the measure of rationality is how one acquires data and how one processes it once one ha sit. You have some intuitive data which you sense is valid even though there is no obvious way to render it empirical, and you have the strength to keep your own counsel built on your own sens eof truth. There is nothing irrational about that UNLESS you admit some sort of rule that says everyone must cleave ONLY to what is demonstrable, but that is a bit reminiscent of the early Bolshies or something. I don't think faith is irrational, but I think trying to induce it in others by talking about it usually is, because the best you usually get is a poor second-hand copy.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 03:56 AM

Stephen Jay Gould made a fundamental point about the science/ regigion debate. He pointed out that science is entirely about what is, and has nothing to say about what ought to be. For example, the scientific fact of evolution by natural selection says nothing whatsoever about how we should treat the mentally handicapped. He supported the idea of "non- overlapping magisteria" (NOMA)- the idea that science says nothing about morals, and religion has nothing to say about the physical systems that constitute the Universe of nmatter.

Which I broadly agree with. Except that I disagree that the NOMA of moral and social behaviour is the exclusive magisterium of religion. Matters of how humans should relate to each other, how we should interact with the environment, what is "art", what constitutes 'good' and 'evil'- all these are the magisterium of novels, plays, music, plastic arts- and to my mind religious belief is (just) one more expression of these spiritual (with a small s) considerations. Read the Bible (or Koran, or Upanishads) as a collection of stories, and you will learn much about the evolution of morality; read it as an infallible book of rules and prescriptions, and you are guilty of failing to learn the lessons of all that has happened since they were written.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 05:38 AM

Sorry that were me.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: bobad
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 08:43 AM

Religion simplified

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 01:21 PM

Thanks for your input, Ebbie, and as far as I'm concerned, you do too get brownie points!

Stephen Jay Gould really, really wished there were a god, especially while he was dying of that awful cancer, or interacting with his autistic son.

And science *can* speak to what ought to be - for instance, there are no clear-cut biological distinctions among the races, which supports the idea that there ought not to be racism. (But if there were such biological divisions, racism would still be wrong, so then again, maybe not. Maybe it's SCIENTISTS who can speak to the right/wrong thingie).

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 04:11 PM

Interesting about Gould wishing for a God. I can see why: faced with sad and tedious situations if life, it IS tempting to imagine some way to 'magically' solve your problems...whether with prayer or personal power..(I get letters 'suggesting' that God intervenes and sends $$$$$ my way...if I just send a few $$ back..after kissing the 'secret, sealed card' enclosed.)

But I have grave doubts that we could psychologically handle it if seemingly random intervention by a Supreme Being were a demonstrable, everyday fact. (by this, I mean 'announced' it's decision, and perhaps explained why).If a god clearly and openly 'cured' some cancers and saved some people from terrible things like tornadoes and plane crashes...and didn't save others.... we'd be in a continued state of whining, pleading and complaining to and about such a deity.
As it is, some people 'get well' from bad diseases ...some walk away from bad accidents while those beside them perish...and IF a god has anything to do with it, we get no explanation. We just see results and some give 'thanks', though no one ever say "you're welcome". (...you know...kinda like Max & the clones deleting posts and threads..*wry grin*).

I think that IF I were to design a universe, and put some OverLord being in charge of it, I'd warn him/her/it NOT to discuss changes or start doing favors for the denizens, as there'd be no rest and endless complaints about service!....oh..like we have now.

   If I were to actually encounter a genuine, obvious, miracle-working god, I'd probably ruin my eternity by insisting on some answers to some pretty heavy questions. I simply do not LIKE the common explanation of the 'rules' I hear from various supposed earthly spokesmen for this 'god'...even if he IS as powerful and concerned with my behavior as I'm told. I don't like being told that I have free will & intelligence and then that if I use it to question some pretty strange rules, that I will suffer forever for daring to doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 05:08 PM

Bee, what you say makes for me a good attractive reason to move to Canada.

What is it about the First Amendment to the Constitution Americans don't understand?
(And why does it take a Canadian to explain it to them?)

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 05:09 PM

Bill D - we'd be in a continued state of whining, pleading and complaining to and about such a deity. - isn't that the description of being prayerful, asked with tongue only slightly in cheek? Oh, never mind, now that I've read farther, you say so yourself.

Here is something I've asked this on the "other" thread, but would like to repeat here: Suppose you have 2 people, both of whom are anti-(pick a group, my example was homosexuals), one for religious reasons, one for other, secular reasons. Is the first one's (what I would call bigotry) to be respected because it's part of their religion? Is the second one just bigoted? Would your REASON for your prejudice matter, depending on whether it fell under what is called "freedom of religion" or not? Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 06:16 PM

Mrrzy....as a Christian I am anti the sin of a man lying with another man as man does a woman but we are COMMANDED by Jesus/God/Holy Spirit...to love everyone in spite of their sin.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 07:39 PM

Aw, Jeeze, GS!! Is that right?? Dammit, who let W and Huckabee out of catechism school that day? Does Karl Rove and Dick Cheny know Jesus commanded that? DANG! This could change everything.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 04:44 AM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:42 PM

Georgiansilver, why can you not answer the question that is actually *asked*? Which is:

If A hypothetical Person A - NOT you or anybody you know personally - uses theirreligion - NOT yours - to justify any bigotry, do we have to respect that bigotry?

I believe your answer, to be consistent with what you have posted so far, will have to be Yes. I also believe you realize that such a position is actually undefendable, and that, therefore, you are refusing to address the actual question.

Please disabuse me of this notion if I'm wrong. And please explain how that makes sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 02:34 PM

Hehehe... I was wondering who was going to do the ominous post no.666! ;-))

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 06:59 PM

Sorry for the lateness of reply but have a life outside the 'Cat' Mrrzy.....I believe that bigotry in any form should not be justified by Christians..I cannot answer for other religions. Sad to say that religion is used in that way both historically and present day.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:53 PM

Oh, I didn't mean to rush you (*BG*)! It's just that you weren't, and still are not, answering the actual question.

I didn't ask if bigotry could be justified by Christians. Nor did I ask if any other religions justify bigotry. Nor did I accuse any religions of justifying bigotry (at least not in this hypothetical!).

I asked whether, if a person's bigotry is faith-based, I have to respect it (assuming you agree that if their bigotry is NOT faith-based, I don't). I explained this very clearly in my previous clarification. However, once again you've instead repeated something you'd already said and which had already been noted as irrelevent - sp?) about christianity and other particular religions.

I therefore conclude (again) that you would say Yes, faith-based beliefs are protected and must be respected, even if they are bigoted.

I also continue to see you as not wanting to say so. This is why instead you say something else that isn't what is asked but defends your faith, which isn't under question in this hypothetical.

I also, therefore, conclude (again) that you know quite well that your position that faith-based beliefs should be respected simply because they are faith-based, is untenable in this hypothetical.

I therefore also conclude (again, again) that you actually agree that respecting faith-based beliefs is wrong when those beliefs are wrong.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 03:42 AM

By suggesting that bigotry should not be justified by Christians..am I not also suggesting that bigotry in any form IMPO should not be respected? Does that then also suggest to you that I would also not expect you to respect it. I am sorry if I am not spelling it out exactly as you wish but please do not try to put words into my mouth.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 03:51 AM

By the way Mrrzy..are you a Barister at Law or similar....Your little speech before the court with all its drawn conclusions smacks of the courtroom battle which you feel you have to win. What you fail to recognise is that I am not on trial here...I am here because I choose to be...that does not give you the right to try to prove my guilt! LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 12:51 PM

No, dear, I am not trying to prove guilt. I am trying to explain what I mean when I say that I can no longer respect faith-based beliefs just because they are based on faith. Many people, both of faith and of none, seem to be telling me that it is wrong of me to consider faith as being protected from disrespect simply becuase of the freedom of religion guaranteed by our constitution (in theory, at least!).

Thus I used this hypothetical, to see if I could explain something that is faith-based and *still* not worthy of respect. I have apparently finally managed to make that clear, I think...

Thus, if it's OK to disrespect *some* ideas that are based on faith but nonetheless WRONG, then I'm fine not respecting religious belefs that are in direct contradiction with reality. Which is where I came in. And apparently, you agree with me, which I thought you would, since you seem so (otherwise) rational.

Hope I'm not putting words in your mouth! My little conclusions, as you say, smack of my recent accusations (that is, the recent times I've been accused, not hte times that I've made accusations) that *my* conclusions aren't rational, and that therefore they are just as much faith-based as the ideas I don't respect. By spelling out my logic step by step, I am trying to avoid that specious argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 04:28 PM

The idea that non-believers are somehow a kind of believer doesn't hold up to logical
scrutiny. How can you be one thing and not that thing at the same time?

I have some friends whose beliefs I do not respect. But I respect them as people.

Ah Georgian Silver you say "Mrrzy....as a Christian I am anti the sin of a man lying with another man as man does a woman but we are COMMANDED by Jesus/God/Holy Spirit...to love everyone in spite of their sin."

The fact that you assume a sin against someone else means that you must take the position of somehow being superior to that person. This is not love. This is based on opinion. It is your cherrypicked interpretation of what is known as the "Scripture".

A true love would be based on the understanding of biology. There are certain homosexual males who are wired differently and for any god to condemn them
speaks very poorly of this kind of tyrant. There is the added ill-logic that if this
god made them, then he is very cruel to condemn what he made.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 04:45 PM

Stringsinger, sorry Frank.....>>>>>There is the added ill-logic that if this
god made them, then he is very cruel to condemn what he made.<<<<<< is what you suggest. God made man...man is given free-will by God, man(and woman) procreate to make man and instill him with his education, starting with the family......you are suggesting that God made homosexuals the way they are...I disagree..I suggest that parents made the child and parents/environment made him/her what he/she is.
You also state >>>>>>
The fact that you assume a sin against someone else means that you must take the position of somehow being superior to that person. This is not love. This is based on opinion. It is your cherrypicked interpretation of what is known as the "Scripture".<<<<<<<<< I don't assume sins...I am also not superior to anyone...I also love my neighbour as best I can.....What is known as scripture has been around for thousands of years and it is not my cherrypicked interpretation. Because you lack the knowledge needed to understand a Christian stance you believe that you can join those who choose to try to disprove the existence of God...no-one has succeeded yet..I gravely doubt that you will either.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 06:05 PM

Georgiansilver, sorry, but science has already shown the effects of prenatal hormones on masculinity/femininity, including external genitalia and internal sexual preference. Environment *after* birth, as in rearing, has nothing to do with it. This is not, in human biology circles, a matter of opinion any more.

And the pregnant woman doesn't have complete conscious control over her uterine environment - if there are twins, if there are stressors, if there are other genetic factors that lead to changes in sensitivity to or production of various proteins, there will be changes in the degree to which the embryo will be masculinized (if you leave it alone, as in no masculinizing hormones, it grows into something that looks like a girl no matter what the chromosomes say). It doesn't take the addition of feminizing hormones to make a female. And the womb may be completely normal and the embryo itself have a greater or lesser than usual hormonal receptivity or production.

And if what is a sin is homosexual behavior, then either the gay kids have to behave counter to their nature, or they will sin. That's not very fair to the poor gay kids. And being unfair to gays sounds awfully like bigotry, to me.

Gay is going to turn into the same thing as left-handed - Most people prefer to sleep with the other, some will do either but have a preference either way (mostly other), and some really only like the same. Remember, there has to be variation so that nature has something to select from. And you don't have a gene for "being gay" - you have that preference for women is part of being male, and some women are a little over-masculinized in utero, and are formed with a few male characteristics. One of these might be being turned on by women. Likewise, some men may be under-masculinized during formation, and retain the default preference for desiring men. Believing that being at the tail of the distribution is somehow "evil" (sin is evil, isn't it? I wasn't raised in any religion so my book-learning may be off) was exactly what superstition used to hold about left-handed people.

Before she got to be a Holocaust survivor, Mom got to spend several school years with her left hand tied behind her back.... I am reminded of a song:

But these are more enlightened days
No room for all these savage ways
Leave them, let them go...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 06:50 PM

Well said, Mrrz.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 08:54 AM

Thanks, A.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:09 AM

GS--For a coherent accounting of the theories that Mrzzy is trying to explain, check this:

Prenatal Hormones and Sexual Orientation

A lot of Christians accept gays and lesbians into their congregations, and even as clergy.
Christ doesn't seem to have said anything against homosexuality, and if he had a problem with something, he wasn't one to keep quiet about it--

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 12:06 PM

Hi Georgian Silver,

You state:

"God made man...man is given free-will by God, man(and woman) procreate to make man and instill him with his education, starting with the family"

You will be hard put to prove this assertion.

Man made your god, and the problem with free-will is this....can your god be benevolent and omnipotent at the same time? If he gives man free will to deviate from his commandments then he is not omnipotent to change his/her behavior. If he condemns them for not following his commandments the way he likes and punishes them, he is just mean. If he can not change their behavior, then he is not omnipotent.

You state:

"......you are suggesting that God made homosexuals the way they are...I disagree..I suggest that parents made the child and parents/environment made him/her what he/she is."

You would also be hard put to prove this assertion as well. Clinical studies have shown
that sometimes the parental environment has no effect on a child's behavior. Many nice parents have brought up not-nice kids, for example. Parents do not always influence a child's behavior in the way that they would like it.

" I don't assume sins...I am also not superior to anyone...I also love my neighbour as best I can.....What is known as scripture has been around for thousands of years and it is not my cherrypicked interpretation."

What is known of the "scripture" has been edited, rewritten, and radically changed through thousands of years, first taken down by illiterate scribes and then revamped by political church figures who changed the text to fit their own personal agendas. Constantine and King James come to mind.

" Because you lack the knowledge needed to understand a Christian stance you believe that you can join those who choose to try to disprove the existence of God...no-one has succeeded yet..I gravely doubt that you will either."

There is a logical fallacy that states, "you can't prove a negative". A "Christian stance"
is certainly not monolithic and there are many Christians who say contradictory things.
Christianity is a new religion comparitively that borrows many of its parables and teachings from older religions and deities. Much of what happens in the bible can be
traced back to other myths and legends historically. The bible is also a mass of contradictions, statements that are conflicted and were not written by the Apostles
who put their names on the New Testament. These mythic apostles would have been
long gone by the time that the treatises that bear their name were written. They were undoubtably written by other people, official clergy or scribes who were unclear as to what they were copying.

I was oddly enough once a Christian until I realized that this was an untenable position
to take in a rational scientific world. I studied the bible a little and also studied the Torah and became interested in comparitive religions. I have read the Ghita and some of the Koran. I delved a little into Buddhism as well. I see similarities in many of these tenets. I think that there is no evidence for any of the information of these respective texts to be any more than myths, stories and hearsay.

I think that it's ok for people to believe whatever they want as long as their beliefs are not forced upon the general public.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 01:29 PM

Re pre-natal hormones and sexual orientation...I believe if you look into this you will find that all these suggestions are based on theory and not definitive proof....different scientists have differing theories as you may find if you follow the link provided by M.Ted.
Frank, you claim that you were once a Christian.....how did you become one and how did you depart from being one please? I am truly interested.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 02:16 PM

Georgiansilver, you cite the Wikipedia link that M.Ted posted. Have you read it yourself?

From the link:

Male homosexuality as hyper-masculine

"There is evidence of a correlation between sexual orientation and traits that are determined in utero. Williams et al. (2000) found that finger length ratio, a characteristic controlled by prenatal hormones, is different in people of distinct sexual orientations.[1] Another study by McFadden in 1998 found that auditory systems in the brain, another physical trait influenced by prenatal hormones is different in those of differing orientations, likewise the suprachiasmatic nucleus of homosexual men was found by Swaab and Hopffman to be larger in homosexual men than in heterosexual men, [2], the suprachiasmatic nucleus is also known to be larger in men than in women [3]. Gay men have also been shown to have higher levels of circulating androgens [1] and larger penises [2], on average, than straight men.

"Gay men have more older brothers on average, a phenomenon known as the fraternal birth order effect. It has been suggested that the greater the number of older male siblings the higher the level of androgen fetuses are exposed to."

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 05:19 PM

There is evidence of....is not definitive.......If you read through it aghain Ebbie you will find that most'evidence' is suggested...not proven. As I said before, there are many differing theories. Nothing has been proven.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 05:41 PM

What would you consider PROOF? There are those today who STILL claim that smoking as a cause of lung cancer is 'not proven' and just statistics.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 05:47 PM

GS:

Give it up -- you're hiding from hard evidence here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 06:46 PM

Georgiansilver, you're failing to see that the evidence all supports the theory, kind of like evolution is still a theory that is supported by, but not proven by, evidence.
NO piece of evidence will prove ANY theory. Plate tectonics, gravity, are all Theories supported by, but not proven by, all their evidence.
There are no data collected in biosociology that support any OTHER theory. There are no data collected in biosociology that are NOT explained by this theory.

Like it or not, the "theory" is the accepted model of today. There are no competing SCIENTIFIC theories. There may be competing religious "theories" (sic) like ID, but I wouldn't believe that of you, personally, so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:04 PM

I told Amos I was going to sit the rest of this one out, but it is really too irresistible.

The thing is, Georgiansilver, to scientists, this is may be theory, but gay men have been checking out your hands for a long, long, time. If you don't believe me, ask around.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:07 PM

The definition of "theory" in scientific parlance is much sturdier, it must be stated, than the loose sense in which it is used in common parlance. It is a hypothesis guided by factual data, not just a flight of possibility.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:15 PM

"Sturdiness", eh? Don't even go there, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 09:16 PM

LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 10:44 PM

From another board: I have permission to repost this response regarding various anti-homosexual Bible passages. I thought some might find this interesting.


(Direct reply to another poster removed by me - Bee)

A literal reading of the bible shows that there is no condemnation of homosexuality at all.

The various letters of Paul have historically been used to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, religious reformers, and the mentally ill. Currently the popular target of this discrimination are homosexuals

The phrase "shameful lusts is a modern invention and has no basis for translation. Just as the earlier "vile afflictions". In the original Greek, "vile affliction" translates as ecstatic or ecstasy, (the original meaning was not the modern meaning or the street drug name)…the word did not mean passion or lust but rather referred to ecstatic trance states described by anthropologists (Ref: Mircea Eliade). These ecstatic trances were part of every religion, such states were generally achieved by religious leaders but lay people could engage in them as well, the process was to connect to the spirit world for healing and blessing. The Hebrew version of ecstasy involved fasting and isolation in the desert usually. The Modern Christian analog would be "speaking in tongues" and the meditative state achieved in ritualistic prayer. Originally, the condemnation was against any religion but the one Paul was founding, (which was founded on the strange notion that the only way to connect with the spiritual or the Divine was through the church) but like so many other non-Christian traditions, ecstasy found its way into Christianity.

As for "natural." The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexuality be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural for Paul's audience would have been to force oneself to go against one's own nature, to pretend to be something one is not. Such relationships are referred to as being unnatural by many writers of the era.
The bible specifically used the Greek word paraphysi, contrary to popular belief paraphysi does not mean "to go against the law(s) of nature", as those promoting discrimination against homosexuals often claim, but rather it means to engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic for that person or more simply an individual denying his/her true nature. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals. And what Paul is condemning is the unnaturalness of going against one's nature. In the verse you cite God punishes individuals engaging in ecstatic trance work by forcing them to be something they are not.

The sin here is pretending to be something you are not.

Romans 1:26-27 is not a condemnation of homosexuality but a condemnation of trying to change or lying about ones sexual oriention. Thus it is a condemnation of ex-gay ministries.


Quote:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.         
At issue here is the translation of the Greek word arsenokoites to mean homosexual. It is only in recent history that this word has been translated to mean homosexual. Prior to the writing of the King James Bible it was translated as masturbation and that translation continued in some bibles until the late 1960's. There is no reason or evidence to believe that arsenokoites translates as homosexual at all.

Various attempts have been made to defend the interpretation of arsenokoites as a reference to male-male or homosexual sex in 1 Corinthians and the denial that there are translation issues with that word appears to be political rather than anything else. This defense is made by claiming that the meaning of this compound word is derived from the meaning of its two root words: arseno (man or men) and koitai (bed). This approach is linguistically invalid. Deconstructing compounds is generally a more sound strategy in Greek than English. It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the basic meanings of either "stand" or "under" has any direct bearing on the meaning of "understand." This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to have any necessary reference to a chair, even if it originally did. Thus, all definitions of arsenokoites that derive its meaning from its components are naive and indefensible. Using this method it would be equally valid to claim that when using the word arsenokoites Paul was condemning the lazy.

The most damming evidence that arsenokoites does not means homosexual is the fact that arsenokoites is a plural first declension noun. The word koitai, without the arseno- prefix, is feminine, just as most first declension nouns in Greek are. Thus referring to a man in a woman's bed, not in the bed of another man.

The only reliable way to define a word is to analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible. The word "means" according to its function, according to how particular people use the word in different situations. However writings contemporary to Paul that also use the word arsenokoites do not use it to mean homosexual, rather they use the word to refer to men who use women sexually in exchange for money…IE prostitutes.

Some have tried to claim that Paul was using words from the Hebrew to illustrate his point and that he really did mean homosexual. Given the audience Pual was writing to this is not likely. While loose analogies of the words koitai and arseno appear they are not combined into a compound word and always refer specifically to male/female intercourse. If you are going to use the appearance of the separate words arsen and koites in Leviticus as evidence that the compound word arsenokoites means homosexual then you have to ignore all the other appearances of the words in Leviticus.


Quote:

Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (Genesis 19:3-13)         
this of course says nothing about homosexuality.



"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did hateful things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
Ezekiel 16: 49-50

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 10:57 PM

lol, M.Ted

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 07:28 AM

Once upon a time....there was 'evidence of' the world being flat. I'm sorry folks but much of the science of sociology is and always has been based on theory. The Wikipedia clip is proof of that if read correctly. It implies that there are certain people who MAY fit into the particular mould but there is no definitive proof that all do!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 08:10 AM

All science is based on theory, GS. Theory, and facts (data) compared iteratively. It's when the data stops matching the theory that it gets interesting. Faith based reasoning lacks that advantage -- the paradigm is unchanging by first definition and postulate. This eliminates growth, and progress, and fundamental change.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:07 AM

I find it interesting, Georgiansilver, that when Bee has given you evidence that the Bible doesn't really say what you think it does about homosexuality, you question the validity of the scientific evidence.

Whatever the validity of the science is, it doesn't change the fact that the Bible doesn't really say that homosexuality is a sin.

Thanks for coming back, Bee.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:32 AM

It is important to understand that the various versions of 'the' Bible were assembled from many sources, passed thru several translations by 'scholars' of different degrees of skill...and with various personal agendas.

Much of the New Testament, in particular, was circulated in Rome after being translated into what my college history prof. called "dockyards Greek": a simplistic format dumbed down for the mostly uneducated working classes. This linguistic jumble was redone and tinkered with many times...with the King James bible being the most 'accepted' version for many years. Many, many important terms and concepts were only vaguely understood and were carelessly treated over the years.

I suppose it's just fortunate that Jesus didn't have anything specific to say about the defination of 'folk'.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 10:06 AM

"I suppose it's just fortunate that Jesus didn't have anything specific to say about the defination of 'folk'."


                How do we know he didn't, and it just got edited out.

          "It is important to understand that the various versions of 'the' Bible were assembled from many sources..."


                True, and it's very possible that some of that material is over 6,000 years old. I wonder how Mike Huckabee will explain where it came from?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 10:32 AM

easy...he'll say carbon dating in merely an 'aid' and not accurate.

It must be time for my repost regarding one of my favorite cartoons of all time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a cartoon strip called "Hagar the Horrible", about a silly Viking type with very modern problems. One Sunday saw him visiting the local wizard, Dr. Zook, who had a huge stone ring leaning against the wall, like that 'money' on Yap Island.

"What's this?", asks Hagar.
"That's my new scientific measuring device." replys Dr. Zook, "Step in!"
....so Hagar squirms into the center of the stone ring....

"More...hunch down...squeeze tighter..." Zook says, as Hagar tries to cram himself into the tight space. Finally, he is in, awkwardly peering out at the pleased wizard.

"There!", says Dr. Zook with authority, "You are exactly 5 feet tall!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
......if you already HAVE the answer, it is important to make all data conform to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 10:50 AM

"easy...he'll say carbon dating in merely an 'aid' and not accurate."


                   With written text there is a lot more than just carbon dating to work with. I really think Huckabee has a lot of 'splainin' to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 11:32 AM

"...Huckabee has a lot of 'splainin' to do."

He won't even try. *IF* he were the nominee, it might come up, but right now, he will mostly avoid the topic and just appeal those others who also do not question biblical truth.