+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 27

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,753

    Why science will shame religion!

    Islam, Christianity, Judaism.

    All very diverse religions it would seem.

    All united by their thinly disguised hatred of same sex relations.

    Try being a Muslim and gay, in a nation such as Iran, and see how the community treats you, it is like the bigotry that we saw here, once upon a time, but worst. That hatred is faith inspired.

    The same applies to the other two, they both have an aversion for gays, although some of the more liberal types will attempt to deny it.

    See, in their eyes, it is seen as a 'sin'. It is an action that is an 'affront to god'. Or words to the affect.

    But religion is in a sweat, as more and more respected scientists come to the thinking that your sexual orientation is not a concious choice, like electing to enjoy a type of music, it is determined by your genetic coding.

    Some will say that if this is true, then how come a gay man is born to straight parents, but even a thin grasp of genetics will tell you that genetics can skip several generations, someplace down that line, this man would have had a gay relative. Whether he or she was able to come out, at that time, is another matter...

    Therefore, once science fully embraces the 'gay gene', then religion will be left with a red face, as to be gay would not be a concious choice, and therefore, it is absurd to suggest that it is either a perversion or a 'sin'.

    To label it as sinful, would be as daft as to label a man 'sinful' for having blue eyes, it will all be 'in the blood', the genetic code..

    You watch..
    "Ethics" is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and
    orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism,
    through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and
    new technologies.
    There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history,
    it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,548

    Re: Why science will shame religion!

    Kinky Barber from texas will again be on the presidential ballot in 08. He's trying to appeal to the gay vote and the extreme left wing. He says, "I'm all for gay marriage. They have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us.":)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,753

    Re: Why science will shame religion!

    Quote Originally Posted by bogie
    Kinky Barber from texas will again be on the presidential ballot in 08. He's trying to appeal to the gay vote and the extreme left wing. He says, "I'm all for gay marriage. They have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us.":)
    Kinky Barber?

    Not a real first name.

    Is it?

    Anyway, do you think that being gay, or straight is in your genetic code, mate?

    I also read a piece recently that mooted the idea of a Gay State, kinda along the lines of Israel, except, well, with gay people, and not Jews.

    What are your thoughts on that?
    "Ethics" is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and
    orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism,
    through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and
    new technologies.
    There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history,
    it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,548

    Re: Why science will shame religion!

    Quote Originally Posted by enlightenment
    Kinky Barber?

    Not a real first name.

    Is it?

    Anyway, do you think that being gay, or straight is in your genetic code, mate?

    I also read a piece recently that mooted the idea of a Gay State, kinda along the lines of Israel, except, well, with gay people, and not Jews.

    What are your thoughts on that?
    Indeed it's Kinky. He's a combination comedian/country western singer and he runs for president every four years as a joke. He actually gets a few votes.
    I don't really get into the gay discussion because it's not a subject that I know much about. Having said that, my wife has some gay friends and although I like to live and let live, I must admit that I'm uncomfortable when I'm around them, both the men and the women. But I chalk it up to my problem not theirs. :)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,549

    Re: Why science will shame religion!

    The final premise in the initial post
    ...Therefore, once science fully embraces the 'gay gene', then religion will be left with a red face, as to be gay would not be a concious choice, and therefore, it is absurd to suggest that it is either a perversion or a 'sin'.

    To label it as sinful, would be as daft as to label a man 'sinful' for having blue eyes, it will all be 'in the blood', the genetic code..

    You watch..
    is completely irrelevant.
    This has already happened in the study of archeology, paleontology (sp?), human development (evolution). "Religion" hasn't even blinked... instead they are resisting all the harder.
    Adding something else... like a genetic connection to homosexuality... will not matter. "Religion" will not concede the point.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,753

    Re: Why science will shame religion!

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulM
    The final premise in the initial post

    is completely irrelevant.
    This has already happened in the study of archeology, paleontology (sp?), human development (evolution). "Religion" hasn't even blinked... instead they are resisting all the harder.
    Adding something else... like a genetic connection to homosexuality... will not matter. "Religion" will not concede the point.
    Perhaps some will.

    Then of course, there are always the wilfully ignorant....
    "Ethics" is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and
    orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism,
    through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and
    new technologies.
    There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history,
    it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,753

    Re: Why science will shame religion!

    Quote Originally Posted by bogie
    Indeed it's Kinky. He's a combination comedian/country western singer and he runs for president every four years as a joke. He actually gets a few votes.
    I don't really get into the gay discussion because it's not a subject that I know much about. Having said that, my wife has some gay friends and although I like to live and let live, I must admit that I'm uncomfortable when I'm around them, both the men and the women. But I chalk it up to my problem not theirs. :)
    Fair enough.
    "Ethics" is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and
    orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism,
    through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and
    new technologies.
    There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history,
    it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    94

    Re: Why science will shame religion!

    I think that your assertions do not prove the point.

    You assert that homsexual sex cannot be morally wrong if there is a genetic pre-disposition toward that act. You hold this up as proof that the tenets of several major religions labeling this as a sin is incorrect. You yourself are trying to prove a theological point with science. Using this logic you must also justify Rape and incest as it is a well established fact that the vast majority of humans born are attracted to members of the opposite sex. We cannot possibly expect them to restrain these powerful primal urges and actually exert their will to keep their pants on.

    For that matter, how many things that humans do (that are labeled sin) are driven from primarily genetic urges. Anger, lying, overeating, stealing...how many of these are derived from things that make us more likley to do them in our genes. And why stop there, if a young man is beaten as a child and now finds himself beating his wife. It was not his fault he was beaten. Why should he have to exert self control and withhold his anger. It is well established that the drivers for sexual urges are in our genes. It should not therefore be unusual to find that some folks are more likely to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. But we do not exist in a vacuum. Our personhood is formed from our own choices and our environment and not just our genes. Even identical twins can be very different people and they share the same environment and the same genes. By using genetics as a crutch you eliminate the power of personal choice and try to put forth the notion that Gays are slaves to their genes. They cannot possibly make any concious choice other than what they are born with. That is not a very empowering thing to say. That is quite insulting actually...almost like saying that they don't have will power or a mind but simply copulate out of unconcious genetic compulsion.

    You see the problem with your logic? The same religions that require temporary celibacy (before marriage) or permanent celibacy (priests or those who never marry) also require that if someone has homosexual urges, they restrain those urges regardless of the source. It would not be beyond the realm of possiblity to find that even child molesters have some sort of genetic marker that makes them more prone to victimize children (don't get me wrong, I in no way equivicate gays with child molesters, there is no comparison - I use absurdity to make a point). The basic drive that is twisted into their sick lust is certainly a part of our genetic makeup. So should we legitimize their desire to hurt kids...because they cannot help themselves? Far from it.

    Now logically looking at the compassionate God that these religions espouse, you should not expect that God to give his creations urges that they can never righteously consummate. I agree with that view. But I also agree with those that feel that homosexual activites are a result of a combination of factors. I believe that there are those that are certainly genetically pre-disposed to feelings like this. If they give rein to it, they can certainly find themselves feeling they are Gay. Especially if environmental factors in their upbringing reinforce this. I don't discount these feelings, they are there, but I reject the notion that they are purely genetic.

    Having said all that, I have a hard time with those who get all wrapped around the axle about homosexuality. Certainly I believe it is a sin, but so is selfishness, and hate, and pre-marital sex. And as far as hurting people, an armed robber or a bully does much more harm than the sin of any gay man or woman. In the eyes of God, they are the same as anyone else. Sure God hates homosexuality, but guess what...he hates every other sin just as much. If it was possible I would think that God hates Pride most of all...that was orignal sin after all. Who is demonstrating Pride by the condemnation of gays? Why do we see such a vilification of the gays from religious people who themselves sin just as much, albeit in slightly different sins? The reason I think is that we (every one of us) want to be able to point to someone else and say: "well, at least I am not as bad as that sicko". Christians, Muslims, Jews are all still people and imperfect. They are just as likely as any others to sin. The only real difference is that they actually know better. They have full knowledge of how they fall short of the standards they hold up. We are all hypocrites, every one of us. Every human on the planet has held up some standard or custom or law, and yet failed to follow it.

    This whole gay/genetics issue is irrelevant in that light. It matters not whence the drive comes from. What matters is what you choose to do about it. The texts of the major religions are clear on this. It is a sin. You either believe it and obey it or not. Your argument is with God on that not men. Also that argument is an entirely different animal and will delve deeply into metaphysics and philosophy. It will leave genetics far behind.
    Last edited by Reap_rxp; 12-27-2006 at 10:24 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,753

    Re: Why science will shame religion!

    Quote Originally Posted by Reap_rxp
    I think that your assertions do not prove the point.

    You assert that homsexual sex cannot be morally wrong if there is a genetic pre-disposition toward that act. You hold this up as proof that the tenets of several major religions labeling this as a sin is incorrect. You yourself are trying to prove a theological point with science. Using this logic you must also justify Rape and incest as it is a well established fact that the vast majority of humans born are attracted to members of the opposite sex. We cannot possibly expect them to restrain these powerful primal urges and actually exert their will to keep their pants on. .
    I got about as far as this with your hate filled post, and had to stop.

    Just glad that I do not live in your mind.

    I "must" justify rape and paedophilia, you say?

    Huh?

    Can you not see the difference?

    Gay sex between two adults is consential, what has it got to do with you what people do, in their sex lives?

    For the record, I am hetro, but in my experience, those most hate fillled against gays, are suppressing an inner desire. ;)

    Rapists and those who molest children, well how can you compare? Neither of those are consenting, are they?

    I am am an atheist, thus, I have no fear of your impalpable, hate filled 'god', but if there is a creator, then my guess is that he would be shaking his head at your ignorant assertions.

    Besides, if there was a creator, then he created gay people too, did he not?

    Or was that Walmart... :D

    Rapists and paedophiles are indeed suffering from a mental illness, that much is true, like sociopaths, they have no empathy with their victims, but those that engage in gay sex, or pre marital sex, they are not criminals, nor are they forcing themselves on their partners.

    Do people like you really still exist?

    Dear oh dear.....
    "Ethics" is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and
    orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism,
    through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and
    new technologies.
    There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history,
    it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,753

    Re: Why science will shame religion!

    Having said all that, I have a hard time with those who get all wrapped around the axle about homosexuality. Certainly I believe it is a sin, but so is selfishness, and hate, and pre-marital sex. And as far as hurting people, an armed robber or a bully does much more harm than the sin of any gay man or woman. In the eyes of God, they are the same as anyone else. Sure God hates homosexuality, but guess what...he hates every other sin just as much. If it was possible I would think that God hates Pride most of all...that was orignal sin after all. Who is demonstrating Pride by the condemnation of gays? Why do we see such a vilification of the gays from religious people who themselves sin just as much, albeit in slightly different sins? The reason I think is that we (every one of us) want to be able to point to someone else and say: "well, at least I am not as bad as that sicko". Christians, Muslims, Jews are all still people and imperfect. They are just as likely as any others to sin. The only real difference is that they actually know better. They have full knowledge of how they fall short of the standards they hold up. We are all hypocrites, every one of us. Every human on the planet has held up some standard or custom or law, and yet failed to follow it.

    So.

    Let me understand this then.

    "god" hates hate.

    Hate is a sin.

    Therefore, god must hate himself.....
    "Ethics" is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and
    orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism,
    through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and
    new technologies.
    There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history,
    it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    94

    Re: Why science will shame religion!

    I can see that you don't desire to have a reasonable conversation about this. I re-read my post and can understand that if you only read the first paragraph you would think I am a hater. I am certainly not and should have tempered my words in order to demonstrate more compassion. In logic you make statements such as if:then. I have 2 separate references in my post and you mixed them up in order to hear hate where none was given. You can't possibly be able to read and understand english and yet fail to discern the fact that I did not label or namecall. I pointed out 2 sets of actions, one which you think is acceptable and one which I hoped you would think was unacceptable (child molesters). I linked these by pointing out that the urges that drive both of them are genetic in origin (as is heterosexual sex drive) however one of them you think is uncontrollable and the other you think must be controlled. I even used the word sick lust to describe how the child molester is unwell and not to be compared with a healthy person but you did not get the sublety.

    And certainly the image of God hating hate must be a difficult one. I should have used a different term than the word hate so you did not misunderstand me. I meant that God hates the expression of hate. Hateful actions....

    Now for the rest, you seem to deliberately misconstrue my words so as to be able to refute the points that I did not make.

    I made a point of specifying that I did not wish to compare child molesters to gays other than in an absurd way. I was trying to find some sexual sin that you did think was wrong. It seems that your criteria for whether an action is right or wrong stems from whether someone else is hurt by it. I am curious to know if you can explain why such an act would be wrong. Why is it wrong to harm a child?

    The point I was making, and that you did not care to actually address is that we expect those in our society who have urges like that (child molesters) to not act on those urges. I agree with this.

    But you then say that others who have different urges cannot possibly be expected to suppress them or control them with their will because they are supposedly genetic in origin (homosexuals). I also pointed out that this idea is very insulting, and even bigoted.

    What you really mean to say is that homosexuals should not be expected to control their urges because they are harming no one and therefore their conduct is not wrong because you do not believe in God. Why then did you bring genetics into the conversation? Genetics has little to do with the discussion over whether there really is sin. If there is sin and homosexual acts are such sins, it makes little difference where origin for the urges is. It is an accepted fact that heterosexual urges are genetic in origin and yet sex out of wedlock is a sin. Therefore we already have a situation where God says that acting on certain natural urges is a sin. How is it hating to point out that an action is wrong, but at the same time point out that all are equally culpable of wrong? It is also pointed out quite often by those in several religions that God loves all equally regardless of their actions. This sound like hate to you? I think that you hate God, but that is tough because you don't believe in him. I think that your anger should be directed at the message and not the messenger.

    You may do better to take some time to understand better your own preconceptions and philosophy. You seem to feel that hateful acts are wrong and hurting others is wrong but an athiest has little philosophical ground to stand on when it comes to defining an act as abolutely right or wrong. If you can answer my question above about why it is wrong to hurt a child I will uderstand more about where you are coming from. While you are there, why is hatred or intolerance wrong and compassion good? If there is no arbitrary standards outside ourselves then why can I not define this for myself? Perhaps you have borrowed the concepts of right and wrong from religion yet conveniently left that pesky God out of it.

    Stop mixing science and theology it does not add to your point.
    Last edited by Reap_rxp; 12-27-2006 at 11:37 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,753

    Re: Why science will shame religion!

    Quote Originally Posted by Reap_rxp
    I can see that you don't desire to have a reasonable conversation about this. I re-read my post and can understand that if you only read the first paragraph you would think I am a hater. I am certainly not and should have tempered my words in order to demonstrate more compassion. In logic you make statements such as if:then. I have 2 separate references in my post and you mixed them up in order to hear hate where none was given. You can't possibly be able to read and understand english and yet fail to discern the fact that I did not label or namecall. I pointed out 2 sets of actions, one which you think is acceptable and one which I hoped you would think was unacceptable (child molesters). I linked these by pointing out that the urges that drive both of them are genetic in origin (as is heterosexual sex drive) however one of them you think is uncontrollable and the other you think must be controlled. I even used the word sick lust to describe how the child molester is unwell and not to be compared with a healthy person but you did not get the sublety.

    okay, I am sorry, as I was reading and trying to respond to your message, I was also trying to cook my dinner, the dogs dinner, and feed my tarantula as well! Bizarre, yet true. I am reading it more carefully now.

    And certainly the image of God hating hate must be a difficult one. I should have used a different term than the word hate so you did not misunderstand me. I meant that God hates the expression of hate. Hateful actions....

    Would it be a hateful action, in your view, to deny someone equal rights based only on their race or sexual pref?

    Now for the rest, you seem to deliberately misconstrue my words so as to be able to refute the points that I did not make.

    Like I say, I am reading this again, only I have more time now

    I made a point of specifying that I did not wish to compare child molesters to gays other than in an absurd way. I was trying to find some sexual sin that you did think was wrong. It seems that your criteria for whether an action is right or wrong stems from whether someone else is hurt by it. I am curious to know if you can explain why such an act would be wrong. Why is it wrong to harm a child?

    It would be wrong to hurt a child, esp in a sexual way, since this is what we are discussing, since it would be taking advantage and a violation. However, it is not good or bad to be gay, it is just something determined by your genetic coding.

    The point I was making, and that you did not care to actually address is that we expect those in our society who have urges like that (child molesters) to not act on those urges. I agree with this.

    Yup, so does the law. And it always should. Because they are children, and do not know any better, but a consenting adult gay, well, that is a different matter.

    But you then say that others who have different urges cannot possibly be expected to suppress them or control them with their will because they are supposedly genetic in origin (homosexuals). I also pointed out that this idea is very insulting, and even bigoted.

    How do you mean it is bigoted, sorry, I really don't get that part.

    What you really mean to say is that homosexuals should not be expected to control their urges because they are harming no one and therefore their conduct is not wrong because you do not believe in God. Why then did you bring genetics into the conversation? Genetics has little to do with the discussion over whether there really is sin.

    Because, when it is determined that genes drive sexual urge with consenting adults, then the idea of sin would be rather dated, at least as far as gay sex is concerned. I cannot feasibly see why an adult gay person should need or want to 'control their urges'.


    If there is sin and homosexual acts are such sins, it makes little difference where origin for the urges is. It is an accepted fact that heterosexual urges are genetic in origin and yet sex out of wedlock is a sin.

    Who says sex out of marriage is sinful? What about if you don't want to get married, or if you are not fortunate enough to meet someone that you love enough to want to marry? God (sic) made sex a pleasure, it is man that invented marriage.


    Therefore we already have a situation where God says that acting on certain natural urges is a sin. How is it hating to point out that an action is wrong, but at the same time point out that all are equally culpable of wrong? It is also pointed out quite often by those in several religions that God loves all equally regardless of their actions. This sound like hate to you? I think that you hate God, but that is tough because you don't believe in him. I think that your anger should be directed at the message and not the messenger.

    How can I hate something, that I have told you I do not think exists, at least not in the Christian understanding of 'god'? That is impossible.

    You may do better to take some time to understand better your own preconceptions and philosophy. You seem to feel that hateful acts are wrong and hurting others is wrong but an athiest has little philosophical ground to stand on when it comes to defining an act as abolutely right or wrong. If you can answer my question above about why it is wrong to hurt a child I will uderstand more about where you are coming from. While you are there, why is hatred or intolerance wrong and compassion good? If there is no arbitrary standards outside ourselves then why can I not define this for myself? Perhaps you have borrowed the concepts of right and wrong from religion yet conveniently left that pesky God out of it.

    OKay, well, anything built on the foundations of hate or cruelty is doomed to fail, it is like building a house on sinking sand. Anything based on intolerance and hatred will turn on itself, in the end. Take all those white supremcy groups, as an example. They want all the blacks and the Jews, etc, etc, to leave 'their' nation. I think that if they were granted their wish, that eventually they would turn on one another. Co-operation on the other hand, and compassion, well, that encourages happy things to occur.

    Stop mixing science and theology it does not add to your point.
    Imho, it is through science that we will demystify the myth of god, and all the obscurities that go with it, that is why I am 'mixing; them.
    "Ethics" is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and
    orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism,
    through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and
    new technologies.
    There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history,
    it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,313

    Re: Why science will shame religion!

    i'm sure god would approve of his de-mythification!?gotta be a good thing all-round!?as to de-mystification!?that's gotta be a "your eyes only" event!?hehe!!.....just askin..

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    9,583

    Re: Why science will shame religion!

    Why do you always do that wee bit at the end, Lexx?

    Just 'askin..? :confused:

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    94

    Re: Why science will shame religion!

    Thank you for being civil and discussing this respectfully.

    Quote Originally Posted by enlightenment
    Would it be a hateful action, in your view, to deny someone equal rights based only on their race or sexual pref?
    Yes it would, but we are certainly not talking about rights. Those of religious faith believe it is wrong for unmarried people to have sex, but those that choose to do so are not denied any rights, they are simply committing a sin, not a crime, there are no civil or criminal sanctions for this, the only penalties for this are meted out by God if he so chooses. If you don't believe in God, then I don't see any obligation on your part to play along. If you do believe in God, then why argue with men? Men did not make those rules.

    If you wish to discuss homosexual marriage in the context of human rights you are again not doing yourself a service by including genetics in the discussion. That really is another topic and has little to with human rights, but rather an unjust tax system and too much government control of our lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by enlightenment
    It would be wrong to hurt a child, esp in a sexual way, since ...
    You missed the importan point of my question. I know why it is wrong, but that is in the context of my worldview which includes absolute right and wrong. An athiests worldview typically does not included these concepts because it requires some arbitrary standards set by a superhuman deity type figure. I wonder why you think it is wrong, so I will follow your partial answer with a follow up question. Why is it wrong to take advantage of a child in a sexual way, why is wrong to violate them? Don't mistake me, I don't mean anything to do with the law, laws can be changed at will, why is it absolutely wrong to brutalize a chlld sexually?

    And yes there is a major difference in being gay. Being gay is not a sin. Feeling attracted to members of the opposite sex is not wrong in any religion. The wrong comes from acting upon it. Just as it is wrong to have sex outside marriage or to take the Lord's name in vain, but not to feel strong urges to do those things. Now you notice that I have carefully avoided labeling or condemning someone because of the way they were born (if indeed there is such a thing as a gay gene). I feel that all are born equal and have an equal capacity for good or evil regardless of the direction their gate swings.

    My point is that the urges that homosexuals feel are no less controllable than any other urges humans get, why are they exempted from a specific moral law if the origin of those feelings is genetic?

    Quote Originally Posted by enlightenment
    How do you mean it is bigoted, sorry, I really don't get that part.
    It is bigoted because it perpetuates a vicious falsehood attributed to gays for generations. You assert that gays cannot help but act on their attraction to the same sex, they are slaves to their passion and have no free will because it is genetic.
    You even mentioned that they have no conscious control. This is dead wrong. Every human gay or straight has the ability to control their thoughts, their emotions, and their actions. Many choose not to do so. I don't mean to say that changing from gay to straight would be a simple conscious choice. I know that there is much more to it than that. I don't now that any gay would want to, or wanting to, even could without some supernatural intervention. That would get into areas that I am not equipped to intelligently discuss...I am not a phsychologist, I just know that there is a difference between having feelings and acting on them.

    Even the military retains some vestiges of this pre-judice by assuming that any gay will disrupt their the armed services with some hormone driven orgy of gay sex and so discharges them and denies them the opportunity to serve their country. We are getting closer to justice with the newest policies that say you can be gay, just don't act on it. Of course, adultry is also against the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice), but that rule is not enforced, just the one about Gays. So I can understand why this injustice would be keenly felt by the Gay community. It smacks of hatred and prejudice...I hate it as well. They should enforce it equally or get rid of both rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by enlightenment
    Because, when it is determined that genes drive sexual urge with consenting adults, then the idea of sin would be rather dated, at least ...
    Many have felt that the idea of sin or God is dated. This has no bearing on the discussion of what drives our urges. It has been shown that many, many things wich are labeled as sins have genetic origins for the urges which drive us to do them. All sexual urges are genetic, so what? We are still required by most major religions to control our bodies and act on those urges only in the context of a marriage (again, if you want to discuss gay marriage, we should use another thread).

    If you wish to discuss the notion of sin in general and whether it exists, I recommend you leave genetics and even homosexuality out of the discussion, it is such a small part of the topic and not worthy of all the attention and passion surrounding it.

    I would even go so far as to say that this issue has been inflamed by homophobia on the part of many reliigious people. Making it a much bigger issue than it should be and crossing over the line from criticizing an action (which is permitted) to hating and attacking other people (which is certainly a sin). This is tragic and has done the opposite of what should have been done. There will be much to answer for when many of these religious people face their God. They have treated other human beings, which God made and he loves more than we can understand in a shameful and deplorable way simply because they were not perfect..as no one is. Remember, all the religions of the world have their share of nuts.

    Quote Originally Posted by enlightenment
    Who says sex out of marriage is sinful? What about if you don't want to get married, or if you are not fortunate enough ...
    You are getting off topic here and the major religions are clear on fornication and adultry being a sin. Your assertion that God made sex a pleasure and therefore there should be no controlls on it is flawed. God made eating a pleasure but if you eat anything you want with no regard for health you will die. Since God made you and holds you in high regard, he requires you to abstain from gluttony.

    In fact God did invent marriage, if you read in most major religions, the religious texts for them note how God set in place marriage and the marriage convenant. There are some religions that permit multiple spouses and I really don't want to go there in this thread but all the same, marriage is a covenant ordained by God. It is the oldest covenant there is.

    Quote Originally Posted by enlightenment
    How can I hate something, that I have told you I do not think exists, at least not in the Christian understanding of 'god'? That is impossible.
    Too true, that is why I qualified my statment by noting that you don't believe in him. I said what I said because you rail against sin and against moral law, which are put in place by God, but if you don't believe in God then why are you even having this discussion. It would be like me discussing which alien race can conquer the earth from space while all the time not believing they exist.

    I think what you are are upset with is the unjust condemnation and hatred of gays from people of faith. That has no justification in any religion (not sure about Islam, I am a bit ignorant there). There was never any call to persecute sinners (who would persecute them, we are all sinners), yet they do it all the same. There are weak and smallminded people in any walk of life, some of them are religious. It is those specific ones you should attack, and not them, but their actions, lest you become that which you abhor.
    Quote Originally Posted by enlightenment
    OKay, well, anything built on the foundations of hate or cruelty is doomed to fail, it is like building a house on sinking sand. Anything based on intolerance and hatred will turn on itself, in the end. Take all those white supremcy groups...
    You are so correct here. I need not even add to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by enlightenment
    Imho, it is through science that we will demystify the myth of god, and all the obscurities that go with it, that is why I am 'mixing; them.
    Science will not de-mystify God. Science is very limited and can only observe. The scientific method observes experimental data and measures it. How would you go about measuring God? Also, you cannot prove a negative, how would you disprove it? There are so many things we do not understand and so many explanations for the mysteries we have. It comes down to what do you want to believe? Many cannot even abide the concept of a God because it would then put upon them an arbitrary standard for behavior that they did not control. It would mean that they were not the masters of their destiny...well are you now. Those that cannot even abide a God existing will reject any evidence placed before them. Any miracle or sign or experience can be faked you would claim. I feel that this is irrational. I once was an Athiest and now am not. I have seen both sides of this argument and even were I wrong I would not do anything different. You could be hit by a bus tomorrow. Would it really be so much more meaningful that it was simply an accident and you no longer existed. Sorry to get off topic here.
    Last edited by Reap_rxp; 12-28-2006 at 05:37 PM.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    94

    Re: Why science will shame religion!

    Another thought I left out (hard to believe with the novel that I just typed) is that I did not make clear enough how i personally feel about the issue.

    I feel that we are each responsible for our own actions. We each have to face our creator and account for what we have done. So I actually am not concerned with getting homosexuals to stop what they are doing. Of course I feel it is a sin and I would hope that they would not do it, but so are many other things, and even some things that I do. It is not my responsibility to correct others actions even if I think they are doing wrong. I am only responsible for myself. So, while i may point out that God says it is wrong, I do not feel the slightest urge to try to modify their behavior on account of that. God says a lot of things are wrong and I think it of little benefit to spend a bunch of energy trying to stop wrong behavior. Especially if the reason for it is lost. So many of the religious people have lost sight of the purpose of religion. The purpose of religion is to bring us into right relationship with our creator. This may include doing some things we don't currently do, or not doing some things we would like to. These actions are but symptoms of the problem and not the goal. Many of the things which are labeled sins are for our own good and happiness (studies have show that those with the most satisfying sex lives are monogamous married christians - well, there is a reason for that).

    We each one of us have within us a knowledge of right and wrong. Some call it conscience, others moral law, others natural law. Regardless of what you call it we each know that some things are right and others are wrong. That to me has always been a pretty strong indication that someone had to put it there.

    As Enlightenment so correctly pointed out, gays are hurting no one with their actions. There are nuts out there that would make it illegal for them to consummate their love. I am against freaks like that. They would also make it illegal to stay out of church on sunday if they could. Where is the virtue in right behavior if it is forced. God did not desire slaves, he desired sentient beings with whom he may have a relationship. The difficulty is that he is perfect and will not abide sin. The religions of the world are mostly about how that gap may be overcome, not about any set of actions and words.
    Last edited by Reap_rxp; 12-28-2006 at 06:09 PM. Reason: spelling

Similar Threads

  1. Is Science a religion?
    By Strykstar in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-12-2014, 02:36 AM
  2. When Science, Medicine And Religion Agree
    By Almost Wayno in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-13-2014, 11:48 AM
  3. We were all warned about Barry...Shame, Shame.
    By oneway in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 06-10-2010, 04:23 PM
  4. Science Fraud Hall of Shame
    By aguest in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-22-2009, 10:23 AM
  5. Are Science and Religion Enemies of Morality?
    By coberst in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-14-2009, 07:12 PM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
account, action, acts, add, address, admit, adult, alert, animal, another, attack, attempts, attention, based, basic, beating, bit, blood, blue, borrowed, building, bunch, care, carefully, cer, choice, chris, church, code, coming, community, comparison, conveniently, criminals, cruel, custom, day, dead, dear, deplorable, development, difficult, dinner, discount, disease, disrupt, don, doomed, dying, eme, enter, environment, expand, experience, extreme, extremely, fail, fall, fine, folks, gay, gays, generation, give, god, gotta, ground, group, guess, harder, hasn, hates, hats, head, held, hey, high, history, holds, homosexual, hormone, house, huma, human, humans, hypocrites, hypocritical, ial, ian, idea, ignorant, illness, image, important, include, inform, involved, islamic, jews, joke, justify, kevin, kids, law, lexx, liberal, line, longer, los, loves, lying, mea, meet, members, mental, method, mind, myth, nation, newest, operation, opportunity, opposite, part, partners, people, persecute, person, personal, piece, plane, policies, pos, post, prepared, presiden, problem, qualified, question, questions, race, rape, rea, real, reason, reasonable, red, religion, respond, responsible, robber, rolls, roo, roy, science, sen, serve, service, services, sex, ship, short, sick, sign, simply, singer, sinking, small, source, stealing, stop, study, suggest, suppressed, suppressing, sweat, taken, talking, tara, teach, thread, told, tolerance, treats, twins, types, uncontrollable, united, upset, vic, vicious, view, votes, walmart, watch, weak, western, wins, won, words, world, young

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •