E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Gerald Herbert / AP file
Participants at the Southern Baptist Convention in New Orleans listen on Tuesday. A resolution adopted Wednesday differentiates gay rights from civil rights.
NEW ORLEANS -- A day after electing their first African-American president, Southern Baptists on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed a resolution opposing the idea that gay rights are the same as civil rights.
The resolution adopted at the denomination's annual meeting in New Orleans affirms Southern Baptists' beliefs that marriage is "the exclusive union of one man and one woman" and that "all sexual behavior outside of marriage is sinful."
It acknowledges that gays and lesbians sometimes experience "unique struggles" but declares that they lack the "distinguishing features of classes entitled to special protections."
"We deny that the effort to legalize 'same-sex marriage' qualifies as a civil rights issue since homosexuality does not qualify as a class meriting special protections, like race and gender," the resolution says.
NBC Mark Potter reports.
David W. Key Sr., director of Baptist Studies at Emory University's Candler School of Theology, told The Associated Press that as gays and lesbians become accepted in the larger American society, the Southern Baptist Convention is trying to separate itself from some of the more hateful rhetoric while still staying true to its beliefs.
The resolution on same-sex marriage and civil rights includes a statement that the SBC stands against "any form or gay-bashing, whether disrespectful attitudes, hateful rhetoric, or hate-incited actions."
But even with those disclaimers, statements such as this one could hurt evangelism efforts because they are likely to be objectionable to many people who are "not necessarily affirming, but also not rejecting" of gay rights issues, Key said.
Key said the Southern Baptists have continued to be outspoken on issues regarding gays and lesbians where other denominations with similar beliefs have not made the same type of public statements or taken the same types of actions, such as a boycott of The Walt Disney Co. for its gay-friendly policies.
The civil rights resolution comes at the same time the 16 million-strong Nashville-based denomination is taking stands in other areas that will help it reach out to new members and distance itself from its image as a denomination of Southern white conservatives.
The election of the Rev. Fred Luter Jr. on Tuesday as the first African American president of the nation's largest Protestant denomination was hailed as historic by denomination leaders who see it as a sign that Southern Baptists have truly moved beyond a divisive racial past.
Watch the Top Videos on msnbc.com
In a news conference after the vote, Luter said his appointment is more than a symbolic gesture.
"If we stop appointing African Americans or Asians or Hispanics to leadership roles in this convention after my term is over, we failed. We absolutely failed," Luter said. Instead, he said, "This was a genuine, authentic move by this convention that says our doors are open, and the only way they can see that is not just putting up an African American president, but seeing other ethnic groups in other areas of this convention. Time will tell and I'll be a cheerleader promoting that."
Delegates to the annual meeting also voted to let churches use an alternative name less connected to the South and the group's past ties to slavery.
The proposal to allow affiliated churches to refer to themselves as "Great Commission Baptists" won approval from 53 percent of the 4,800 ballots cast.
"If it helps us with our mission, I think it will be great," said Brad Howard, pastor of Barton Baptist Church in Lucedale, Miss., Reuters reported. "I'm hoping it will benefit some of our congregations."
Attempts to change the name date back to 1903, and outgoing Southern Baptist Convention President Bryant Wright appointed a task force in September to study the question again. The convention's executive committee opted against a wholesale name change earlier this year, but favored giving churches the option of using the alternative moniker.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Defense abruptly rests without calling Jerry Sandusky
- Chicago mayor: Tickets, not jail, for pot users
- No charge for man who killed daughter's molester
- Bridging the digital divide in America's rural schools
- 911 call on Rodney King: 'He's at the bottom of the swimming pool'
- Video: East Coast braces for heat wave
What else would we expect from the Baptists? It's like asking the KKK if racial discrimination laws are a good idea.
"I have fought too hard and for too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’ve heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred and intolerance I have known in racism." --Rep. John Lewis, ally and associate of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
"I believe all Americans who believe in freedom, tolerance and human rights have a responsibility to oppose bigotry and prejudice based on sexual orientation. Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group."--Coretta Scott King
"When someone asks me, 'Are gay rights civil rights?' My answer is always, 'Of course they are.' Civil rights are positive legal prerogatives. The right to equal treatment before the law. These are the rights shared by everyone. There is no one in the United States who does not or should not enjoy or share in enjoying these rights. Gay and lesbian rights are not special rights in any way. It isn't special to be free from discrimination." --Julian Bond, former chairman of the NAACP
"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights." --Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia interracial marriage case)
“You can’t believe in equal rights for some people and yet not believe in equal rights for everybody. That includes the right to marry the person of your choice." --Dr. Rev. Joseph Lowery, who was a part of King’s inner circle
Not to mention pioneers of the women's civil right movement such as Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, Jane Fonda, and Gloria Steinem who also support gay civil equality.
What gives the Baptist the right to opine on ANYTHING to do with rights or morality? Baptists represent the worst aspects of one of the most vile, evil religions on Earth!
Fuel you sound a lot like a Baptist.
This is more evidence that "religious institutions" need to pay taxes.
Just because the religious live in anachronistic, anti-Modern worlds, does not mean that they should receive the same services/benefits as the rest of us without paying taxes.
I am sick of subsidizing intolerance.
So, the underlying story is that a racist and homophobic group has elected as its president a black man, who are typically even MORE racist and homophobic. Then they patted themselves on the back. Nice job. <ugh.>
While I no longer attend the Baptist Church I grew up in, one of many reasons I am proud of my past (and on rare occasion present to support my father) association with it is because they left the Southern Baptist Convention a long time ago.
While I may not agree with the term marriage for the legal recognition of same-sex couples, I strongly support it, and strongly disagree with statements like this latest embarrassment from supposedly "loving" Christians.
The fact is, basic human and civil rights are something any democratic government MUST support, no matter the race, gender, national origin, religious or sexual preference of those affected.
SillyBilly--
You sound like your handle. I can back up my assertions with specific, historic, and biblical rhetoric. It is NOT inaccurate to describe Christianity as vile and evil. It is. I know that is a hard stretch for most Americans as they have been born and raised steeped in Xianty and endlessly indoctrinated that US is based on 'Christian/Judeo' ethics. (Sure to some extent--for example slavery, genocide of Native Americans, treating women as non-citizens. Those are all VERY WELL established in the bible.)
Woohoo! Go Christianity! The most tolerant and loving religion on the planet! YES!
I find it amusing that those who most strongly oppose Christianity and the Christian fundamentalists they detest share one major thing in common: they often attempt to use the intolerance of the Old Testament to validate their mutually intolerant viewpoints, ignoring the fact that the New Testament was meant to replace that intolerance based on the teachings of Jesus, who made such enlightened statements as "Judge Not, Lest You be Judged" and "Let He Who is Without Sin Cast the First Stone".
Sorry, while I believe the fundamentalist versions of religions are a problem, I also believe the vast majority of believers in ALL faiths are good people.
Who knew that Southern Baptists were such homophobic bigots?
Jesus weeps.
I find it amusing that those who most strongly oppose Christianity and the Christian fundamentalists they detest share one major thing in common: they often attempt to use the intolerance of the Old Testament to validate their mutually intolerant viewpoints, ignoring the fact that the New Testament was meant to replace that intolerance based on the teachings of Jesus, who made such enlightened statements as "Judge Not, Lest You be Judged" and "Let He Who is Without Sin Cast the First Stone".
I find it amusing that Jesus never says anywhere within the New Testament that homosexuality is wrong and it only within the Old Testament that passages decrying homosexuality can be found. So we are just referencing the same book as they are.
It may be their right to spew their hate. It is my right to state they are ignorant jackasses.
Anti-Christ humanists and lovers of sin couldn't be more wrong on this.
Your problem is with Jesus Christ. He defined marriage in Mark 19 and He fulfilled the law perfectly so that He would be the perfect sacrifice for our sin. The law clearly states that homosexuality is a sin; not a special interest group.
It is always about who is in charge and who exactly has all the power. Defy God Almighty and lose evry single time.
It is a civil rights issue. As an atheist, I had no problem acquiring a marriage license and having a judge perform our ceremony.
It's funny how religion ALWAYS seems to get in the way of progress.....
Satanick
Jesus does speak to marriage being specifically between a man & a woman. In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus says "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
Defy God Almighty and lose evry single time.
I haven't lost yet
The SBC should only comment on gay marriage within their own church, but not universally.
Yes, freedom of religion should be upheld, but so should the humane treatment of gays and their civil rights. I think that gay civil marriages are fine, so long as religions, such as the SBC, can define marriage within their own churches.
Gays should be treated like any other sinner (we are all sinners) and welcomed into churches in the hopes of obtaining conversion NOT discrimination.
Satanick: yes, going to hell is definitely a win-win.
My problem isn't with a person named Jesus. My issues would be with those who took something that could have been great and uniting and made it about power, secrecy, judgment, and a superiority complex. Those who think the topic is being anti-Christ are just plain wrong. Herald, your comments are so typical of those (of whatever faith) who claim to be the only right-thinking people. Who are you to judge or decide who is a "lover of sin" or that your god is the one that everyone in the world has to follow? This isn't about whether I am Christian or not...your post is why so many leave Christianity or have to defend their own person view of Christianity.
And xray, the problem also is when one group wants to make everyone else follow their personal religious beliefs, and the legal problem comes when they want to make that or keep that division and discrimination a law or against the law. I agree that most of most faiths are good people, but this is the convention, not a rogue bunch of isolated bigots. The problem isn't what part of a book Christians tend to believe or those who oppose Christianity don't believe. It's all groups' actions NOW that matter. The convention said that now and the followers of that group act on it now, not centuries ago in some books.
Herald9,
I defy God constantly via. exercising my 'God Given Mind', and that practice serves me VERY well. You should--say one day per week--try to drop the mindless rhetoric and experiment with THINKING for yourself. I know it's terrifying at first but, trust me, it is worth it.
Your really only kidding yourself anyway, no one wants or needs to hear the same old biblical/christian tripe anyway.
I just wonder who gave the Southern Baptist Convention the authority to determine what is and what is not civil rights. They can only speak for themselves, and no one but they and their own really cares what they think about anything.
Are these the SAME people (Christians) that led the Crusades against Anyone that wasn't Xian?? Hmmm I would certainly HATE to have that on my KARMA
There certainly are a lot of hateful, biased comments on both sides in response to this article. For the pro-gay group, try not to be heterophobic, And remember being gay just has to do with sexual orientation and does not vaccinate you against all the vices and malice that humans are subject to. For the anti-gay, remember that how others conduct their private sexual lives should not be a concern for you. And check out all the people who are gay who made major contributions to the society you live in. For the anti-religious, review your Sociology 101 books which say that religion is one of the major socializing forces in the formation of your society. If anti-Judeo-Christian, check out the non-religious parts of the Ten Commandments and to see if you want to live in a society that banishes its rules of behavior. Do you prefer ethical anarchy? So don't throw out the baby with the bath water. "Can't we all just live together?" Rodney King.
Geez, all you "I'm so tolerant, I support gay marriage" " pompous buffoons should stop being so hateful to people who have the RIGHT to believe what they want. You don't have to agree, but I think you know it may affect your precious Obama, so the hate filled posts abound. After all, you can't claim they are racists!
Satanick: yes, going to hell is definitely a win-win.
Going to heaven sounds boring anyway. Sitting around praising god isn't exactly my idea of paradise
This comment makes no sense. All it does is confirm the first one's point.. Stating facts about a religion is not professing "intolerance". I guess some people just can't tell the difference.. Worst of all, the New Testament isn't actually any better than the OT in regards to teaching intolerance... For petes sake, the religion is based explicitly around a war GOD. If people can't comprehend that very base aspect of abrahamic religion, there is a problem with their reading comprehension. :/ Fuel is not at all wrong in his statements. Those addressing him on it are projecting assumption that he's stating more than a fact.. And it doesn't matter how intolerant you think it is to state a fact, it's not going to change the fact stated.
This doesn't make all Christians magically evil either as he's addressing the religion itself and those who are extreme elements of it. Most Christians hardly ever actually read their bibles and actually take the time to comprehend it themselves.. :/
Satanick,
There is a good reason that the OT and NT come in one package. For one thing the division is arbitrary, 2nd the NT requires the OT. You have cherry picked some pleasant bits of what Jesus said, and that's good for YOU. But Jesus also reiterated that the OT is STILL VALID. The NT continues to condemn gays. Jesus also represents such infinite injustice as eternal reward/punishment for finite "attributes"/"sins". There for Jesus is both a good guy and a vile immoral POS...pick your verse.
Of course you can back it up with Biblical rhetoric. Unfortunately for your argument that rhetoric is entirely contained in the Old Testament. That is not Christian rhetoric but Jewish. Christ taught a message of peace and love for your fellow man. Christianity is not anymore evil than any other religion or for that matter any other secular state. I can cite to you multiple examples of secular governments doing just as many evil things as any religion has ever done. The religion is run by men and men are the evil not the religion. Men were committing atrocities on each other before Christ was ever on this earth and many have done it after, even in his name. However anyone who kills, tortures or enslaves in the name of Christ is not a Christian because Christ never treated anyone that way nor would ever want anyone treated that way in his name. Christ died because he refused to kill and refused to bow before Rome or the Pharisees. Both of whom were more concerned with Money and Power than they were with rights, just the same as any person who commits evil, whatever they may call themselves.
You go ahead and cite the verse(s) to back up the statements you just made.
I look forward to the day when they reveal that the newly elected black president Luter is gay. It seems that those that are the most intolerant of others are often times simply projecting the disgust that they feel about their own secret desires on others who don't feel the need to be ashamed of what they are.
Crystal - What part of free speech don't you get. You complain that people are "hateful" because they express disapproval of a bigoted organization. Yes, the Baptists, and the Klan have every right to express their bigoted views, and so do those that disagree with them.
Your statement that Jesus specifically says that is merely an extrapolation of the verses. It is implied but not specifically stated. With that said. Given the cultural traditions of all cultures in the world at the time, Marriage between two people of the same sex would have been considered unnatural and an abomination. Even the Greeks and the Romans who had no real issues with homosexuality still did not marry people of the same sex. However Marriage is an idea and ideas change.
SillyBilly,
You portray Jesus as a very noble person. You have cherry picked (typically regurgitated parts) of the bible to back that up. But you overlook some very troubling aspects that MANY others throughout history and today use to justify horrific acts. For starters (try'n to keep this short), Jesus reaffirms ALL of the OT explicitly. ALL OF IT!!!!
Also you overlook some clear objections in the NT including the gross immorality of sacrificing one individual for the deeds of another--that is EVIL. And infinite torture for finite (not to mention petty) transgressions. AND the immorality of the loophole that allows even A. Hitler to go to heaven!
You are better than your God/religion--own it!
And Southern Baptists vote that the Earth is flat, again.
Doesn't make it so.
Just hate filled tools hiding behind Jesus. Nothing new.
.SillyBilly-
Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely
inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken"
(John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew
15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was
indestructible: "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or
stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18).
He confirmed many of the accounts in the Old
Testament, such as the destruction of Sodom and the death of Lot's wife (Luke
17:29, 32), the murder of Abel by his brother Cain (Luke 11:51), the calling of
Moses (Mark 12:26), the manna given in the wilderness (John 6:31-51), the
judgment upon Tyre and Sidon (Matthew 1-1:21), and many others.
Do I really need to demonstrate to you the other horrors that I referred to? That it is evil to sacrifice one individual for the 'sins' of another? Or that even Hitler may go to heaven as long as he 'accepts Christ as his savior'. That the only unpardonable 'sin' is to FAIL to accept Christ?
Still waiting for you to cite that verse dude.
As to the Hitler comment. Forgiveness is one of the basic tenants of Christianity. All true Christians believe that anyone and yes that means Hitler can be saved. How can any true moralist say that anyone can be forgiven/saved but then make exceptions to people that we consider evil. Jesus forgave the people Crucifying him, he forgave his disciple that betrayed him. There is not a single person on this earth that is not without sin. Not you, not I, not anyone. As an American you have paid taxes. Your taxes dollars have in one way or another supported the deaths and torture of countless people. Whether through war, the death penalty or other various means. You have literally paid to kill and torture other people. So I find it ironic that anyone can somehow claim moral superiority, that any religion is evil or that any person is not worthy of forgiveness, when they have committed sins or evils themselves. You sir are a hypocrite.
Seriously where do people like you come from? The underlying story is that the group doesn't believe that gay rights are civil rights. The fact that a Black man was elected president of their organization was added by the writer and approved by the editor to try and show that they are tolerant of some things and not of others. That was just to spool people like you up. You obviously missed that, but added your little factless jab at Black people to show who you really are.
Blipvert23
You really have no idea what the Crusades were about, do you?
The 1st Crusade was a response to the Muslim invasion on the Byzantine empire. Alexios 1 requested the aid of Pope Urban 2 to help repel the invasion of his country.
At the time Christians went to the Holy land in pilgrimages, several hundred Christians were being held.
Pretty much the same thing most governments do today to protect their people and defend allies.
I am not supporting the SBC on their stand and I am in no way a Catholic, just thought it would be a good idea to get the facts right.
SillyBilly,
I don't volunteer to pay taxes nor do I condemn all killings. (I condemn torture yes, killing no) It is proper and moral to kill bin Laden, for example. IT IS NOT I whom condemns ALL killing--it is wrong NOT to kill the one whom is attempting to kill me in many instances. Otherwise I would be a silly pacifist (noble but foolish), and I'd advocate the complete dismantling of the US military, take guns away from cops...etc. The fact that our previous faith based Prez. practiced torture with MY tax money was well beyond my control, I can protest and I DID PROTEST. But my responsibility is very limited as I don't promote or agree with everything my gov. does. (I could move to another nation but the same issues would present themselves there too.)
Unfortunately that (one of about 600 commandments in the Bible), "Tho shall not kill"--while most of the time correct--it is so simplistic as to be useless, actually immoral in certain situations.
So--Now try again to tell me how I AM A HYPOCRITE? I don't mindlessly adhere to any ones rhetoric and YOU, SIR, don't have enough information to call me that name I think.
Go Baptist go !!!
The photo of said Southern Baptists says it all: The average age appears to be dinosaur.
SillyBilly,
Further---Forgiveness is wrong when it opposes justice. (think about it long and hard) Just another example of the immorality of Xianity and the Bible.
I am pleased that you confirmed (or admitted) that A. Hitler is, or could be in heaven. One more reason that I happy to not be OTW that institution.
For someone denigrating Christianity and all christians as vile and evil Fuel sure spews a lot of hate and intolerance doesn't he? Can you say HYPOCRITE?
Have the Southern Baptists EVER been on the right side of an issue historically?
They separated so they could defend slavery
Supported prohibition
Supported segragation
Why would anyone take what they say seriously? I am Christian. I believe in the teachings of Jesus-and think that Southern Baptists either need to re-read what Jesus said or take some reading comprehension classes.
They have the right to their opinions and to practice their religion-but they need to stay away from the legal system and from teaching our children creationism as fact.
Well I've got my Bible out right now and Matthew 15:3 says "He said to them in reply, 'And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" 15:6 need not honor his father.' You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition. So you're already not properly quoting the Bible. Also you're failing to describe the whole story, that is Jesus rebuking the Pharisees for claiming Jesus does not follow tradition, while the Pharisees are disobeying the commandments. The message is not meant to be conveyed for all to obey but as an example of hypocrisy. Who is cherry picking now?
As for the verses from Luke he is merely discussing them. Abel is used as a reference point not as a confirmation of the action. Your Mark quote is just fallacious in your assumption. Your John quote Jesus is talking about how the Jews ate manna in the desert, basically being about how God provided for them in times of hardship. That has nothing to do with Jewish law or morality and therefore is irrelevant to our current discussion. Your Final Matthew quote I just can't find anything resembling it so I'll just remove it from the discussion for the time being.
Honestly, I'm astounded at what you're quoting, how you are quoting it improperly and the conclusions you are drawing. You are looking at each verse individually and using it as a benchmark to confirm your own arguments rather than reading the whole story and trying to understand the overall message. In some instances it has nothing to do with what we are talking about and you simply assume because Jesus made reference to the Old Testament it somehow substantiates your claims even if it's not relevant. That is simply not the case. I hate to say this but you're just plain wrong. You might as well argue that because the sky is blue and you can see it's reflection in a pool it is why the pool water is blue. No where understanding along the way why either is actually blue.
Jesus uses the Old Testament because it's what the people around him know and understand. He is teaching in parables not confirming every aspect of the Old Testament.
Melissa-1175724-1762238
Watch it!
Some of us Dinosaurs think the SBC is not old, just whacked out.
Besides I have known quite a few Young Homophobes.
Wrong on so many levels that it's laughable... First of all, marriage was mostly a business deal and a means to unite tribes ect. The concept of marriage goes well beyond and long before Christianity ever even existed. This included gay marriages btw. You clearly haven't a clue what you are talking about when considering the "cultures of the world" at the time. Nor did you bother to look up the actual history of marriage. It's like talking to people that haven't read anything other than a few pages of their bible while refusing to educate themselves on the real world.
Here's an example:
http://www.randomhistory.com/photos/2011/egyptian-couple.jpg
And of course Yahwists who were extremists didn't like the idea of same sex marriage and they thought it was an abomination. Heck monotheism didn't even actually solidify until after the second Isaiah, and if it weren't for the second Isaiah, Christianity wouldn't even exist because the cult Yahweh nearly vanished.. It was at this time that they decided to adapt and consume every other religion in the region like the BORG assimilates other worlds in star trek.. Christianity is actually a mut religion stolen from every other religion in the region. Much of it taken directly from the Egyptians themselves. That includes the very concept of Jesus Christ himself. That's right, Jesus isn't real!.. And I can go over that entire thing here in detail if you need me to.
Does anyone else here find it even slightly ironic that an African American would condemn the push for equality of another group of persecuted and peaceful people ?
You gotta love that 'ole timey' religion !
"Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings"
"In many instances"? I wish you would be a little more descriptive about which instances you mean. Also we're trying to kill Iraqis and Afghans. Many of them have died who had nothing to do with bin Laden or Hussein. Since we either tried to kill them or did, to the count of over 100,000 shouldn't they all be trying to kill our soldiers and our government officials? Seems to me that you just gave a legitimate reason for all of them to take up Jihad.
As to you paying taxes, you can refuse to pay the tax. It's called civil disobedience. I don't know if you've ever read Thoreau. So you held up a sign somewhere. Big deal. You didn't refuse to buy things, like a computer. You could have lived off of odd jobs, getting paid under the table and only buying food which has no sales tax, but I bet you didn't do that. See you did have a choice. You just chose not to do those things because it would be too much of an inconvenience for you.
I know it's hard to look in the mirror but if anything you've said about yourself, what you've done and what you believe if true, then I have more than enough information to call you a hypocrite.
What one man calls justice another calls revenge.
What I want to know is.........WHO CARES WHAT THE BAPTIST THINK?
Oh.....sorry......I don't know if Baptist can "think" at all. They are indoctrinated into their hypocritical "religion" from birth.
When you come home from work and climb inside of a bottle of whatever.......then beat the mother of you children.......then go out and have sex with whomever will hold still........then steal from the company you work for.......then go to church on Sunday and "think" that makes it all right.......YOU ARE DOOMED TO ROT IN HELL!....if it really exists.
I know this......because my father emulated this way of being! F__k the Baptist and their poisonous way of thinking!!
I will acquiesce on the point of all and abomination may have been a too strong a word for some cultures. Weird might have been more accurate for how the Greeks and Romans would have seen Gay Marriage. However, I took a cultural anthropology class in college among others and marriage was specifically discussed besides being a History major with a focus on Greece and Rome. So I am quite certain I understand the subject and its origins. A contract is a business deal. If you actually read and quoted the rest of the paragraph you would have understood that we are more in agreement on this subject than you have stated.
SillyBilly,
Sure I'm cherry picking. I'm making a point. The bottom line is you can pick your lines and interpret them as you like but NEITHER of us is using the Bible to assess the morality of the Bible. Can't be done!
So why not bite the bullet and admit that the world is very complex and we must fret and figure out for ourselves exactly WHAT is moral and not, rather than simply take the lame easy way out and quote some self-contradictory old text that was assembled (by no one knows who) over centuries. Sure you can cherry pick some decent bits and rationalize the rest--the genocide, rape, pillage and explicit endorsement of slavery--but why even go there?
In fact, if you really want to know what the Christian religion is actually based on, feel free to read the following articles:
Yahweh: The worshiping of a Volcano / fire GOD of War.
Yahweh: The worshiping of a Volcano / fire GOD of War --- SUPORTING SCRIPTURE & EVIDENCE --
Heck, if you really want to know where you got the "White bearded Old man" from.. Well it has to do with common mountain GOD mythology that was common place in that region of the world to which included Midian. And it is as follows with scripture included:
This not included Yahweh, but these mountain GOD's as well:
And as describe by your bible itself regarding "Yahweh / El Shaddai" :
What one man calls justice another calls revenge.
That is why moral absolutism does not work. Justice and revenge are nothing more than just words that we could debate endlessly over their meanings. Socrates did it best when he would go around Athens proving no one really knew what they were talking about when they spoke of justice, piety, bravery, etc. They are all empty ideas which have no real meaning.
Gathering by your response, you didn't.. Changing it to say they thought it might have been weird isn't helping you either.. The fact remains that marriage has involved same sex couples for much longer than Christianity has ever existed.. And that is the point.... Saying marriage is of only man and woman as if that was magically what marriage was all about is a laughable joke giving that is so wrong that it's just plain intentional ignorance to say otherwise. You're not the only one who has spent time researching this stuff.. I spend a good amount of my time everyday researching these things.
OK I missed this the first time. I will listen all day to people arguing against Jesus being divine. That is fair but really? You're arguing the man never even existed? We have multiple accounts from varying time periods all within viable life spans of his disciples particularly the younger ones. Historians who are atheist even believe he lived. I mean really dude. I hope you're trolling. What's next? you're going to tell me Buddha is a lie too?
To add, yes I am sure many people in that era just like today found it taboo.. But that is missing the point isn't it? Especially about the history and function of marriage throughout history.
So there we have the bible speaking against divorce. Yet the Southern Baptists have no issues with THAT!
people fear what they don't under stand.if you are told something enough times you will start to believe it.people with a higher cortisol level are more likely to be very religious and republican,they have to be told how to think.if you deny some one happiness ,you deny them life.what if religion was outlawed,wouldn't that be denying some happiness ?
Sure find me contemporary records of Romans crucifying Jesus.. Hell, find me written works or literature written by Jesus to whom couldn't seem to write down his own philosophies to which magically require other people to do so long after his supposed death. In fact, the bulk of your evidence comes from invested interests. What's even worse, people like Jesus were a dime a dozen in that era and was common folk lore. In fact there were other healers and philosophers that were far more well known than the story of Jesus ever was in that era. It's even worse that many of the supposed great sayings from Jesus had preexisted..
BTW, supposed "Testimonials" are the worst evidence you could possibly provide. I'm willing to bet you can't even name the 500 supposed witnesses and give us details about their lives, or provide contemporary records on those as well... But that's not even half of it because the story of jesus is literally ripped from already existing common beliefs that stem all the way back their polytheistic roots.. Much of which came the Egyptians... Not entirely, but a very good chunk of it to which includes the base concept of heaven..
SillyBilly,
Thar ya go being SILLY again! hehehe And, again--presumptuous--you don't have any idea what my life depends on. It happens that I need a computer, I need roads and cops and military protection from other brands of religious hacks slightly divergent from yours. (as well as your fundy allies)
Yeeup! It's a complicated world out there like I said previously--and one can make a much better case for "Jihad" against the US then you mentioned--Vietnam, Panama in early 20th century and again in late 20th, endless examples of US of A using the Biblically inspired notion of MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.... This is why it is sooooo difficult, not black and white, often NO good options EXIST AT ALL. WW2 was, by 1940, unavoidable and fully justifiable but still a horrible thing. (I know that is a new concept to a dogmatic individual but reality always winds up clashing with religion.) This is why we MUST debate and carefully consider before (say) going to war, instead of being Bozo (Bush) and declaring "Your with us or against us". "This is a crusade."
My point is that religion and the bible is ONLY counterproductive when confronting such dilemmas. Killing is not ALWAYS wrong. (How many 100,000's did God kill in the bible anyway?---and all of those for nothing other than belonging to a different belief.)
I used some examples--no one here wants to read a 'book'. I suggest you read "The Moral Landscape." by Sam Harris. (I have yet to read it myself but it deals with this subject in depth)
I admitted that you made a valid point. So I find your comments uncalled for. Your third sentence has no basis in fact. You'd have to find a date associated with the claim before 2600 B.C. find a document or artifact demonstrating the practice dated prior to that and I will believe you. I find your last statement problematic because I never specifically said that. I suppose you could assume that since you obviously think I oppose the practice. However I am having an academic discussion about its origins and practices throughout history. You however seem to be getting offended by the fact that even though the practice may have occurred throughout history it was never widely accepted and obviously has not become the norm anywhere. Outside of Mesopotamia the practice was considered strange if not worse. I even looked into it more in Greco-Roman times and the practice rarely occurred which gives credence to how it was looked upon socially.
I see a lot bashing going on. Why not not discuss the merits of the issue instead of bashing people because they have an opinion? Like it or not (LION), the constitution guarantees that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievance." It appears that the SBC is fully exercising their right in this matter.
The real question to discuss is whether sexual orientation is a civil right? First off, the SBC makes no laws so I don't think anyone has to fear being made to do something they don't want. Second, based on the exercise of their religious beliefs, the convention peaceably assembled and spoke their belief. They haven't even petitioned the government at this point.
So let's look at one our civil rights as contained in the IX amendment to the constitution. "The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So is sexual orientation a right retained by the people? Comments?
Guys like this, are usually the ones that are on the "down low".
and you call me presumptuous? Thank you for referring to me as a religious hack when I've never once discussed my own religious views in this thread.
Since we're giving out reading lists. Try reading A History of God by Karen Armstrong. Probably one of the best Commentaries on Judaism, Christianity and Islam. How they came about and why they believe what they believe, as well as do they have a future.
Granted the following is currently the oldest known, but to assume it is the oldest is ridiculous. Especially when we know it's a genetic issue... And the further you go back in time, the less marriage looks like what it is conceived to be today. But the funny part about this is that you are wrong about me needing to go back before 2600 BC.. You know why? Let's evaluate:
Btw before I make the statement, this is pretty damn close to 2600 BC... And the practice of same sex coupling is likely far older than this. Granted there is no hard evidence for same sex marriages beyond before this time period.. But Christianity didn't begin until Jesus was supposedly born.. You do know what BCE means right? .. Hence "Christianity" didn't exist yet! BC means before Christ.. AKA before Christianity!..Yes that means before Christianity ever existed. Yahwists before this era were not "Christians" even though they worshiped Yahweh / El-shaddai, and many rejected the Christian concept.. Fun Stuff!
Now there you go stereo typing again or is it name calling? I guess in my case I would have to consider Houstonite's comment as name calling as I am not "on the down low". So I guess the comment would be slanderous in nature, which could give rise to seeking redress under the civil law. A civil right. I had hoped for better.
Nobody should be calling anyone names.. No need to go that low. So I agree with Publious here. And btw, those trying to claim it's not a civil right are in violation of the constitution... The whole thing needs to go to the supreme court to have these states conform to the constitution.
SillyBilly,
Well now there you go being SILLY again, lol. I didn't call YOU a hack of any sort. I know there is lot here and tempting to skim...but read that bit slowly.
But since YOU called me a hypocrite (when I clearly wasn't--due to your presumtion that I subscribed to that one 'comandment'.) I will point out that you will INEVITABLY be a hypocrite if you try to adhere to any dogma.
(((Thank you--noted and I will look into it))) Understand that I only offered a book because you were asking that I write one here to more fully justify my previous points.
OK first off there is no study that can tie homosexuality to specific gene. So we don't KNOW it's a genetic issue. Further if it was strictly a genetic issue and by that I mean there is a specific gene that a person has that makes you a homosexual passed on from generation to generation it would be self defeating over time. That's not to say I am asserting that it is strictly a social/behavioral/environmental issue.
First off I read your quote like 5 times to see if I was missing something. Now maybe I lack the cultural understanding of Ancient Egypt to comprehend what it means but I do not read it as describing homosexuality.
No dude we never used the terms Before the Common Era and Common Era in my classes. (eyeroll)
As for your dating. You may be right and I'll give you some leeway on the dates but we can't assume practices occurred over long periods of time that are outside the norm. As an example Egypt had it's own example of Monotheism but that was swiftly swept aside, evidence of it destroyed and shunned. On that point just because the practice occurred at a said date doesn't mean it occurred continuously from 2400 BC to 1 AD. There we're 3 Kingdoms of Egypt from your start date, dark ages, wars and conquests in between those, a Persian Puppet State and then a Macedonian. As I'm sure you know policies and ideals change particularly when new governments form. So we can't assume that the same traditions occurred continuously. I mean, it's not like the Egyptians built Pyramids for 2500 years straight either. The practice stopped after the Old Kingdom.
HEADLINE: "Southern Baptists: Gay rights aren't civil rights"
RESPONSE: "Well, isn't THAT special?" And WHO could it be that told you lovely folks this. Whoever could it be. Could it be .....SATAN!!!!?????
It doesn't have to be a "specific gene". It can involve more than one actually. And yes it is a biological issue to which we also find very common in nature..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saO_RFWWV…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYMjXucTF…
Essentially there are a lot of factors that may be involved... It's entirely a natural thing.. Even dolphins have gay sex.
OK only one of your links works for me but I can use it so we'll go from there. The first two paragraphs say,
Now, being the younger sibling of an older brother is not genetic. That is environmental chance. The second paragraph is more clear about biological traits and even makes the claim of it being both genetic and environmental. So your own article backs up my statement on the matter. Thank you.
I don't dispute that it is a natural occurrence. I am well aware that Dolphins, Monkeys and many other species exhibit homosexuality. That doesn't change the assertion stated by article or my own assertions that we don't know that it is a genetic issue or that it is a combination or genetic precursors and environmental conditions.
I suppose the argument you are trying to make is that you don't have a choice of whether or not you are gay. Maybe not, evidence certainly leans that way. Although I would retort that if you put a gay male in a room full of beautiful women long enough eventually he will have sex with them. That doesn't mean he doesn't prefer homosexuality but is being gay simply a preference, a lifestyle or what? If it is partially dependent on environment if we change the environment will someone become straight? Don't take my assertions and questions the wrong way. I'm not asking them to be antagonistic. I'm simply posing them in an attempt to discover what the truth is in the matter or as close as we can reasonably come to it.
It's not a matter of terms or usage of terms here.... And which terms are you having a problem with here exactly?
Wha? Your statement here makes no coherent sense. Nobody is talking about homosexuality occurring over long periods of time that are "out side the norm".. Are you even on the same page here?
How about this.. name a time period in history where monotheism only existed.. Nobody is discussing a time period where Egypt had a phase of monotheism here... :/ Though I am curious to what your point was here in regards to my post..
Irrelevant.. You miss the point entirely, and worse yet, you are attempt to restructure your argument as if what you just said actually has any value or merit to the point I had made. Well news to you, it doesn't..
Irrelevant
Again.. Irrelevant to the point I made..
We are not discussing the subject of "traditions".. It's irrelevant. And no one ideology "owns" the concept of marriage.
Again this has nothing to with anything I have discussed or stated regarding the subject. So I am going to ask you very simple questions:
Do you retract this statement?:
And I am not interested in hearing you try to weasel out of it by trying to cling to an argument of "traditions"... Especially when it can just as easily become one!.. So stick to my point please vs trying to circumvent it.
The entire human body and what goes on with it is entirely genetic to which include environmental factors... That includes the human brain... It's definitely genetic.. And yes it can be environmental and genetic. Most attraction includes environmental and genetics. Hence, visual appearance can be an environmental and genetic variable. This is true for both heterosexual and homosexual. And there is hormones, chemical balances and all sorts of things.. The point is, you can't just say it's going to be "JUST" associated to a magic single gene or variable.. Homosexual behavior is actually a relatively new field of study in science because it often wasn't paid much attention to until recently. And I can tell you right now the answer isn't going to be "OH because they Choose to be gay"... That's not going to work on explaining gay dolphins either.
Man I am tired... starting to type like utter crap :/ .. 2 am.. time for bed :) .. Perhaps another day!
I was being facetious. I thought the eye-roll gave that away.
Yes there seems to be a communication issue here. Your argument was that Gay Marriage has existed longer than Christianity. Well in order for that to be true Gay Marriages would have to have been happening continuously and more particularly continuously in the same cultural/geographic area for a period longer than 2000 years or the total combination of the years it was active from it's first instance to it's last in each said period, although it occurred intermittently is greater than 2000 years. I realize that might sound confusing. However, it is written correctly.
I do not retract it my statement that you asked about. If anything I would wish to specify because your original argument about Gay Marriage was in regards to Mesopotamia but your 2400 BC reference cited Egypt. Although they are close by today's standards, in that time period they were not. They did not have cars, planes, phones or the internet, so ideas and culture took far longer to spread. Now if you're proposing that each culture came to the idea independent that is fine but how long was it accepted for in each society? What evidence do you have to support that? Did the idea spread during that time, before it was Ultimately shunned by Christianity? Persia was never greatly affected by Christianity did they outlaw the practice when they conquered Mesopotamia and Egypt?
As to the statements you called irrelevant, I disagree. I think you're failing to grasp what I am arguing or you are simply pointing them out as irrelevant because you have no other course to follow. Marriage is a cultural thing, that makes it an aspect of tradition. My point was to cite historical examples that have established dates to mark cultural transitions. Because of these transitions you would have to cite continuous examples throughout Egyptian History for the time period you proposed.
As your argument stands now, what you're asking me to do is look at one or two pieces of evidence from two different cultures both of which experienced war, conquest, revolution, famine etc.. and only one of which you've established with a date, to take that evidence and establish a pattern of behavior in a culture or society that would show acceptance of the practice of Gay Marriage for period greater than 2000 years. In essence you're asking me to take it on faith. I'm sorry but I will not.
Wow, your first statement is just plain wrong. Go ask a biologist the difference between genetic and environmental.
I'm pretty sure I already made the assertion that it is environmental and genetic. Try to read by full posts.
As to your claim about a single gene, I have never made that assertion and in fact I think I argued against that. So it seems we're in agreement there.
On the element of Choice. I think you're used to having that argument with people. I have not brought that up at least specifically and I was not directly implying it. Although I can see how you might infer it. With that said I have not made the argument for it being a choice nor do I intend to so we can drop that one.
Yes, people generally leave when they realize the futility of their argument. ;) Goodnight!
Yes there seems to be a communication issue here. Your argument was that Gay Marriage has existed longer than Christianity. Well in order for that to be true Gay Marriages would have to have been happening continuously and more particularly continuously in the same cultural/geographic area for a period longer than 2000 years or the total combination of the years it was active from it's first instance to it's last in each said period, although it occurred intermittently for greater than 2000 years. I realize that might sound confusing.
OK now it is correct. Changed is to for.
"if it was strictly a genetic issue and by that I mean there is a specific gene that a person has that makes you a homosexual passed on from generation to generation it would be self defeating over time"-Quoted from a posting above.
I think this line shows a little mis understanding of the way genes and genetics work. We can see that it is straight people who produce gay people, in other words gay people would not have to reproduce to pass the gene on.
It is most likely that the gene is recessive and therefore you need two copies in the individual for the trait to be passe on. Mum and Dad can be carriers and not express the gene.
It is rather naive for any of us to think nature would leave sexuality to the throw of a dice and leaving it up a to be learned. To be clear we have yet to find the gene(s) responsible for hair color and eye color, does that mean they are not genetic? Of course not. genetics isn't a simple task of pointing to a gene and saying there it is, 100s of genes could be responsible for sexuality.
Now let us tackle one last issue, this argument that same-sex marriage did not occurred in the past therefore marriage has always been between a man and a woman and this is somehow extrapolated in to thoughts we should not change marriage then. My first thought was, well 2001 is in the past and Netherlands had same sex marriage then.
My next thought is what a rediculous argument by that line of reasoning I should be writing this on a cave wall and speak with all witha vocabulary consisting mainly of hte word 'Ug" .
Things change, we moved from nomadic life to settlements, we learnt to write things down and now we ( the USA) needs to play catch up with other western countries and learn to extend equal rights to all of its citizens.
I think you failed to read the rest of that post and the rest of my posts in their entirety.
Your example of eye color and recessive genes is valid and I understand it. As an example I have blue eyes. My father does not, he must carry a recessive gene for me to have blue eyes. However, I think we can safely assert that homosexuals, unlike people with blue eyes, breed less than heterosexuals. That's not to say they don't have children they simply breed less because well homosexuality doesn't produce children. So they must do something they may not be fond of to get the same results. In the short term that would have no real consequence but over the long term say one million years, homosexuals would be having less children on average than the average person to the point where the gene would be almost non-existent. Think Albinism. Sure they exist but they are so rare the appearance of one is always noticed instantly. It would be the same with Homosexuality. It wouldn't be wiped out completely but it would be far more rare than it is, so rare that they idea would seem more novel than anything else. My statement of self defeating over time is valid for that reason.
As to your statement of Naivete, well I would argue that statement is arrogant because you presume to believe something is true based on little to no evidence. Particularly when a recent article was already posted in this thread discussing it being a combination of both genetic and environmental factors.
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa
The most telling paragraph that it is not 100% genetic is this one.
The example is given of identical twins. As many people know, identical twins share the exact same DNA. So if it is genetic then if one identical twin is gay the other has to be gay. That is not the case. It is only higher instances of it. That is clear evidence that there are genetic precursors for it but there is an environmental component that we do not understand.
Thank you, come again.
Herald9- you reference a chapter in the Book of Mark about marriage that does NOT EXIST, "Mark 19". Not only does it not exist but there are only 16 chapters in the book of Mark. And NOWHERE in the whole Book of Mark does it mention any sort of definition of marriage. You are probably just repeating someone else's mistake. I doubt that you even read the Bible for yourself or even go to church, except maybe to try and prop up some assertion you made up. Cheer up though, there are a great many peudo-christians out there that do the same exact thing.
For the Jackal, I think term genetics is rather confusing and will probably need to be adjusted as we're learning more regarding the subject. Specifically the connotation of the term for the general populace is often misleading. Unfortunately, most people think that when someone says something like "it's genetic", people automatically assume such things like twin studies will show 100% the same results. Also, people don't realize that you can share identical genes with someone but environmental factors can cause various genes to be expressed while others not. People also don't understand that there is a whole class of things which are considered genetic effects that aren't the same as the usual dominant/recessive ones they're used to seeing. We actually need another term that hasn't had it's connotation already set in order to describe such things.
For SillyBilly. Something can be entirely genetic and yet show different results from twin studies. For example, epigenetics. These are heritable changes in gene expression that are not caused by a change in the DNA. These can be caused by non-genetic or genetic factors and can be different in twin studies. Also, your analysis regarding the trait homosexuality and the self defeating over time is only valid if you assume that the trait is modeled by a very simple set of genes for which only homosexual couples produce homosexual children. That is rarely ever the case when it comes to behavioral traits. If homosexuality is dictated by any of the other host of things not modeled by the simple set of genes (epigenetics, histone modifications, post-translational protein modifications, or any of the other more interesting effects) then your model falls apart and the conclusions aren't valid While I do believe you're correct in the assertion that there are likely environmental (hormonal changes in womb etc.) factors for homosexuality, the way you attempted to analyze it and the conclusions you draw from the examples you gave have problems.
One problem with twin studies that we've learned about is that they assume that the genetics are actually identical between twins. However, due to such effects as mentioned earlier, this is probably not the case. So, you can have an effect that is entirely genetic but show as different between identical twins because other factors resulted in the genetic change which resulted in a different phenotype. However, this would still be called a genetic effect (might even cause a change in the DNA) even it if was caused by an environmental factor. This will result in a high concordance between the twins you test but not result in 100% concordance. The degree of this concordance for when to call something a completely genetic trait or when to call it having an environmental effect is difficult to decide because we don't really have good models for this.
For the rest of you. With regards to genetics I would highly recommend reading more on the subject because your original ideas from a decade ago of how genetics works (dominant recessive etc.) is highly limited and doesn't even scratch the surface of what we now know regarding DNA, RNA, proteins, and everything in between. For traits such as behavioral traits, trying to explain them using simple ideas regarding dominant and recessive would be like trying to explain the inner workings of a jet engine while only understanding the concepts of a sphere and a square.
Ok...read some of the other above posts. Um...a few things.
According to some of the logic here if we put a gay guy in a room with beautiful women he will eventually sleep with one of them. So then if you put a straight man in a room full of Chip n' Dale dancers will he eventually have sex with one of them? As a straight guy, I would say no.
Also, no, if you change the environment a gay person will not become straight as any environmental effects are probably hormonal during brain development. Brain is already developed in a adult... Additionally, if you changed the hormonal environment during brain development, this would be unlikely to be definitive because there is a genetic component with regards to the trait itself and a genetic component with regards to the response to the environmental stimuli.
With regards to younger sibling of older brother comments in previous posts. One possibility is that the mother's womb has a different hormonal environment between siblings which can result in differences in brain development. This would be why it is covered in an article concerning homosexuality. Same thing with left-handedness. This could suggest an environmental component. However, genetics can dictate responses to environmental stimuli and environmental stimuli can have an effect on genetics thus demonstrating the complicated interplay between genetics and the environment. So, one can't simply call it solely a genetic or environmental trait or say that it isn't genetic or it isn't environmental. This goes into my previous post above about really needing new terminology.
As a Wiccan, I had no problem acquiring a marriage license and having a judge perfrom my ceremony. However, people from a couple sects of my belief system, the Dianic Wiccans (lesbians) and the Minoan Brotherhood (gays) cannot practice their faith and honor the Goddess with expressions of love in a marriage because the law says they can't.
Therefore, it is my belief that the laws against same-sex marriage are unconstitutional because it prohibits Dianics and Minoans from practicing their religion as they choose.
I've brought this up to those who oppose same-sex marriage and thus far no one's given me a compelling, legal argument for how allowing Dianics and Minoans to practice their faith in a consensual marriage would impede everyone else's rights.
Hmm this comments topic has become just a lovers quarrel between FUEL & SILLY BILLY. Bet Fuel is the reciever and Silly is the Pitcher.
Crystal-569996
Stop being so hateful? Really? Go look at the Westboro BAPTIST CHURCH and their way of "expressing their right" to believe what they want. Yeah, that's a church alright. These 'churches including the Baptist" preach 'damnation' if you do not subscribe to their beliefs. You stand up against them with your own 'beliefs' and then suddenly you are preaching hate? Let them have thier first amendment rights... but it clearly VIOLATES mine and my 14th Amendment Rights as well.
Of course you just had to roll Obama into the whole comment didn't you? I have news for you, the whole issue will not be decided by Obama or Congress. This will end up in the hands of the US Supreme Court. When it does, it will be declared un-constitutional to deny same sex couples the right to marry.
So can someone explain why we should care about what an organization that was founded upon justifying slavery in the American South, and who still has a problem with ordaining women has to say about civil rights?
The SBC and its affiliate churches need to have their tax exempt status revoked. Well honestly all religions do. But in this case they're specifically stepping into the political arena.
@Lauren
That passage was about divorce, which ironically has the highest rates in the Bible Belt. Go figure, eh?
2 becoming 1 flesh is a metaphor regarding a child, and how once two people "become one flesh" (ie a child) that the child can never be split back into two parts, thus making true divorce impossible.
Marriage does not require that a child be born to be considered legally valid anymore. So to be honest, the passage really does not legally reflect in any way on modern marriage, much less gay marriage.
@SillyBilly
This is understood, but once Christians stop citing Leviticus and cherry picking the OT to back up their rhetoric - I will stop criticizing their use of the OT to back up their rhetoric. You say that it's non-Christians that don't understand that the OT was fulfilled by Jesus - but no, we aren't the ones that use the OT whenever convenient to support our arguments, then deny its validity whenever it doesn't suit our arguments.
written by FrogMorton!
I'll never understand why religious folks have to LIE in order to try and make an argument favorable to their cultism.
Not one single passage purporting to be written, as history, within the first hundred years of the "Christian
era", can be produced to show the existence at or before that time of such a person as Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ, or of such a set of men as could be accounted his disciples or followers. No contemporaries wrote about "christ jesus" except for the alleged scribblings within the cult book, Bible, represented to be from his disciples. And, by the way, we have nothing from his own hand. As well, the assertion about Josephus is a fraud.
Those who would be likely to refer to Jesus or his disciples, but who have not done so:
A.D. 40 Philo1
40 Josephus
79 C. Plinius Second, the Elder2 Philosophers
69 L. Ann. Seneca
79 Diogenes Laertius
79 Pausanias Geographers
79 Pompon Mela
79 Q. Curtius Ruf Historians
79 Luc. Flor
110 Cornel Tacitus
123 Appianus
140 Justinus
141 Ælianus
Out of this number it has been claimed that one (Josephus) spoke of Jesus, and another (Tacitus) of the Christians. Of the former it is almost needless to speak, as that was given up as a forgery many years ago. However, for the sake of those who still cling to it, you haven't considered the following:
1. It was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius.
Eusebius, then, is the first person who refers to these passages. Eusebius, "whose honesty is not so great as to allow of our considering everything found in his works as undoubtedly genuine." Eusebius, who says that it is lawful to lie and cheat for the cause of Christ. [sound familiar?] This Eusebius is the sheet-anchor of reliance for most we know of the first three centuries of the Christian history. What then must we think of the history of the first three centuries of the Christian era?
2. Josephus has nowhere else mentioned the name or word Christ, in any of his works except the testimony above mentioned, and the passage concerning James.
3. It interrupts the narrative.
4. The language is quite Christian (Josephus was a Jew and died a Jew).
5. It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it, had it actually been there then, in the original text.
6. It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus.
7. Under the article Justus of Tiberius, this author (Photius) expressly states that this historian (Josephus) has never taken any notice of Christ.
8. Neither Justin, in his dialogue with Typho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen against Celsus, have even mentioned this testimony.
9. But, on the contrary, Origen openly affirms (ch. xxiv., bk. i, against Celsus), that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ
The celebrated passage in Tacitus which Christian divines—and even some liberal writers—attempt to support, is to be found in his Annals. In this work he is made to speak of Christians, who "had their denomination from Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate."
So, consider the following:
1. This passage, which would have served the purpose of Christian quotation better than any other in all the writings of Tacitus, or of any Pagan writer whatever, is not quoted by any of the Christian Fathers. [oops!]
2. It is not quoted by Tertullian, though he had read and largely quotes the works of Tacitus.
3 It is not quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus, who set himself entirely to the work of adducing and bringing together all the admissions and recognitions which Pagan authors had made of the existence of Christ Jesus or Christians before his time.
4. It has been nowhere stumbled upon by the laborious and all-seeking Eusebius, who could by no possibility have overlooked t, and whom it would have saved from the labor of forging the passage in
Josephus; of adducing the correspondence of Christ Jesus and Abgarus, and the Sibylline verses; of forging a divine revelation from the god Apollo, in attestation of Christ Jesus' ascension into heaven; and innumerable other of his pious and holy cheats.
5. Tacitus has in no other part of his writings made the least allusion to "Christ" or "Christians."
6. There is no vestige nor trace of its existence anywhere in the world before the 15th century.
7. The worshipers of the Sun-god, Serapis, were also called "Christians," and his disciples "Bishops of
Christ.
So much, then, for the celebrated passage in Tacitus.
Now, for a man who was able to perform so many miracles and inspired such large crowds, why did no contemporary historian take notice write anything about him (that wasn’t forged)? Josephus did write about John the Baptist, so…why not Jesus? Why didn't jesus himself ever put pen to paper? Why didn't the apostles ever write anything else, other than just the NT scribblings??
In a panicked, pathetic attempt to give their cult mythology some value and relevance, xians frequently overlook the details and facts which show it to be quite false.
And, before anyone comes up with any of these others, here: Thallus, Pliny and Trajan all post date Christ and make the same sort of references to christ that I am making in this sentence. (hearsay). Since "Lucian" is Lucian of Antioch, then his source was the Bible, so he is also out as a corroborative source.
BTW, my disbelief in the existence of the man (ignoring his nature for the moment), is that he does not appear in any records or writings of his contemporaries. The Roman empire was just too bureaucratic and chatty to not credit someone who caused such a hullabaloo…he would not have escaped multiple notations in various records…official, historic and personal. But, somehow, he managed to, even though he was such a controversial individual running around performing miracles and such...pretty ridiculous, really.
For Abe Lincoln, we have letters written in his own hand. Alexander the Great left a wake of cities, coins, and monuments during his day. Plato left his own writings and physically influenced numerous students. There is nothing similar for Jesus. All written testimonials start up almost a generation after he was supposed to have died. There are no records, no likenesses. Nazareth doesn't even show up in non-biblical sources until much later.
Does this all mean that Jesus didn't exist? Well, not exactly. The complete absence of proof like this doesn't directly mean he didn't exist. Does it mean that there's no evidence and all followers of Jesus are having to make a leap of faith to believe that the gospels are true? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Depends on who you ask. Their body count throughout history isn't much to brag about, though, when contrasted with
the teachings of their mythical icon... and NONE of this makes the jesus-myth a fact of history. However, to suggest that someone was this influential and iconic in this time period, and yet not one single shred was ever written down about him by his contemporaries, as history, is extremely unlikely and makes the concept of the jesus-myth highly suspect at best.
who cares if the old testament or new condemns marriage? the book is fiction written, over a lifetime after jesus supposedly lived, off of hearsay.
not marriage, homosexuality.
And don't forget it does not apply legally in any way whatsoever to the law of the land, in accordance with the US Constitution. So, it's pretty much irrelevant, and any law based in religion and without a secular/rational justification is absolutely unconstitutional.
Crystal to put it in the clearest possible way - THe difference is that this group is trying to take away RIghts - people on the other side aren't saying it's not OK to disappprove of homosexuals. It's just wrong to discriminate against them For many people I think it's just they feel discombobulated at the idea of how gay people make love.
I was thinking theocracies were an antiquated concept, but it appears to be gaining in popularity among some of the largest American religious denominations.
I hear that the Saudis already have the infrastructure set up for just that sort of thing. Although, it is Islam - not Christianity - their particular likes and dislikes are pretty much the same.
Sure sure, you say that they stone people to death for sinning and what not - well, that's just because they've been at the theocracy thing for awhile now! They have it down pat.
So think of it like you are getting to skip over the hard part of many years dealing with whiny libs complaining about your religious legislation and demands. Think that you get to skip right over all the trouble of knocking down secular institutions, freedoms, and enlightenment thinking in order to establish the religious state and skip straight for the juicy stuff at the end. It's quite the deal!
SillyBilly-3587160
In recessive genetics the individual with the expressed trait does not have to reproduce to carry on the trait, you merely need a pool of carriers. In this case the straight parents. For example lets pretend for arguments sake that there is one gene for being straight we will call it 'S' and one for being gay 'g'. Because the gay gene in my example is recessive you need two for the trait to be expressed. If you have the S gene it is dominant so you will be straight regardless of what the complimentary gene is. Remember we are diploid and in general have two copies of each gene.
In an example with two carried parents Sg and Sg you have 25% chance of have a child with SS genes (straight), 25% chance of having a child with gg genes (gay) and 50% chance of having a child with Sg genes (straight but carriers). In well documented cased there can be many times the number of carriers to those expressing.
Yes I agree being gay _may be— mix of environment and genetics however you still must have the gene for the environment to act, however the environmental forces at work are most likely to occur in utero. However since the many gay gene studies were carried out we have discovered that our genes are more tricky than we thought putting a spanner int he works for the environmental influence on sexuality to be a total winner,
Also in a final note the concept that identical twins are 100% genetically identical is not correct.
It is interesting you point out twin studies where there was about a 50% chance of both being gay if one twin was. This is the same statistic for many other observations for the incidence of early onset baldness in identical twins why? The way genes are expressed and turned on and off in individuals differ even in twins; no not because of the environment because the body selectively turns on and off genes if there are multiple copies and not always with the same outcome.
This also points to a multi gene influence on sexuality where a combination of the way they are expressed influences sexuality. Researchers also identified copy number variations between twins. For example and merely a speculative example Twin #1 has one copy of gene 'X" their hair stays lush and black until they are 50, twin 2 has 2 copies, their hair goes grey at 25.
Well I hate to break it to you but you're first paragraph is wrong. Ever heard the term "Prison Gay"? Men who are forced into an all male environment, that have homosexual relations to overcome an instinctual urge to mate. When they are no longer in the environment the cease the activity. Women do they exact same thing. That is not to say that they all become gay but a large percentage do.
Second paragraph is also wrong at least in part. I never discussed a time table for when the change in environment could or would occur, I left it purposely vague because we don't know what the environmental factors are, they could be more than just hormonal changes, it could be a social dominance issue, we don't know. It could occur in the womb, it could occur as infant or it could occur at puberty. Brain chemistry can change as an adult, this can be a matter of will, a change in environment conditions or a freak accident such as a blow to the head. WE DON'T KNOW!
This seriously made me laugh. Greatest post in this entire thread.
The Christians that cite Leviticus are what I like to call, Stupid. I will allow some cherry picking I.E. the Ten Commandments, but otherwise I think you're right. Since most of them are situated in the south and love to play football, the next time they are throwing the pigskin around, ask them why they are committing a sin and touching the skin of an unclean animal. That will make them scratch their heads.
To everyone else that is arguing Genetics versus Environment. This seems to be an issue of semantics at this point so I am through with it. I've said my peace.
As for everyone that seems to lump all Christians into the same group and assume they are all bible thumpers, that believe in creationism, that God wrote the bible and we should take it literally, I find that unfair.
For the record. I was raised Catholic, I was confirmed, I still consider myself a Christian. Not because anyone tells me to believe it or any other reason than I simply choose to. I was however a History Major, I love Astronomy and Theoretical Physics, and I believe in Evolution. To me Science and Religion can co-exist. Why people seem to be at odds with them is beyond me. Some of the most brilliant scientists in History, Albert Einstein, Sir Issac Newton and others believed in God. I understand trying to defeat a persons faulty logic but to take the opposing position against everyone that believes in God and attempting to change there mind is the same as the so-called Christians that tell you if you don't believe in Jesus you're going to burn in hell.
The Bible is not fake, it is not all untrue or made up. Sure some of it is a fictional story or parable and not to be taken literally but other parts of it are accurate descriptions of historical events that Historians can use and have used to discover the truth about what happened. In many cases, they have either other documents outside the Bible or archaeological evidence that confirms what it tells. In either case it can be used as a teaching tool and that is ultimately what it is meant for.
Some people use the Bible to get closer to their idea of God. Think about that for a second. Their idea of God. Everyone ultimately has their own idea or concept about God. Some people use it to advance their own ends. God like everything else is a matter of perspective. Some people choose not to believe in a God, others choose to be devout believers. There are two ends to the spectrum but there are also many colors in between. Each one is entitled to their own belief. That is our belief as a Nation. If we all believed the same thing this world would be a pretty boring place.
silly, the reason science and religion can't coexist is cause science is setting out to find out how and why something happened, religion is a theory of what happened and why without attempting to find out if it's correct.
Why do I not believe them? Why do I think that while they put this attitude on their public face they will turn around when they think noone is looking and shout "God hates queers!" Baptists are some of the most two faced, decietful, and hate mongering Christians I have ever known.
Lots of religiophobic people here today spouting their usual garbage to justify themselves.
The main issue in my mind is not the shining step forward (civil rights) focused on so heavily by the gay community, but the dark underbelly of the issue which will render a two leaps (or more) backward as a concurrent consequence. Quite a few of the shining steps forward in the social engineering by various groups have had their shining moment in the sun, only to have two or more leaps backward with very negative consequences resulting. Of course, the groups who won, utterly refuse to own up to their shining moment causing the leaps backward causing the social fabric of this country to weaken. These groups also refuse to think beyond the shallow, self centered goal and also appear to refuse to think about the true consequences their actions will bring. We have had so many failed 'progressive' policies with the consequences of those actions being far worse than the original problem. We really need to sit back and think a bit what we are teaching our young kids. What values are we instilling in them? Does anyone ever think about the fact that if you give a kid an inch, they will take a mile? What consequences could this possibly mean for society?
Oh that's right, the gays can't think beyond the ends of their sex organs. I forgot....
Except that is not what religion is. Sure religion attempts at times to answer questions about the nature of the universe but most of those attempts were made prior to science ever existing as a discipline. If religion has failed in any aspect it is in adaptation. Some people wish to concentrate on the physical world and that is where science dominates. Religion is more about the spiritual world and should stay there. If it continues to delve into the physical then it will continue to get it's hand caught in the proverbial cookie jar.
Buddhism as an example makes far less of an attempt to discuss the physical realm and concentrates on the spiritual realm with great success. The ideas of mind, body and spirit and how one must look internally to discover the truth. Christianity has done that to some extent. Christian theologians often discuss looking inward as opposed to outward for God. The real issues came about during the Protestant Reformation. At that point anyone could read a Bible and interpret what it means. That moment is both Christianities greatest triumph over an oppressive and corrupt church and greatest curse in about 1000 years. Now you have any person who may have a limited education who reads the Bible and then preaches to everyone what they believe, without having a full understanding of where it comes from or what it is supposed to convey.
SillyBilly,
"Ever heard the term "Prison Gay"? Men who are forced into an all male environment, that have homosexual relations to overcome an instinctual urge to mate. When they are no longer in the environment the cease the activity. Women do they exact same thing. That is not to say that they all become gay but a large percentage do."
Yes, we are all familiar with that form of prison behavior, but it really has nothing to do with homosexuality. Homosexuality is a psycho-sexual orientation that causes men and women to be sexually and romantically attracted to those of the same sex. Men in prison are neither sexually nor romantically attracted to other men unless, of course, they are homosexual themselves. What they are looking for is simply a form of orgasmic release, the pleasure that comes from releasing sexual tension however it is achieved. Have you ever seen a dog hump another person's shoe? I have. The dog has learned that it can achieve an orgasm by rubbing its penis against a person's shoe, and so it does. The dog is not in love with shoes nor does it have a sexual preference for shoes. It's just a form of masturbation without the use of hands, which a dog does not have. Likewise with men in prison. A hole is a just hole, and one can achieve an orgasm by inserting his penis in just about any kind of hole and pushing it in and out, especially when that hole is made of flesh and there are no other flesh holes available. There is no kind of attraction whatsoever in such a transaction, and in fact, prisoners often rape other male prisoners out of a sexually sadistic desire for dominance over them. It's more of a dominance/submission relationship than anything having to do with homosexuality. It's a power relationship, and nothing more.
And of course, you have example of this that you can cite for us.
Otherwise, you're just talking out of your ass.
Time for an American history lesson again. Now, I'm not actually thinking that my narrative is going to change anyone's mind, but it will give some of you some food for thought. Maybe help some people cope psychologically with what's going on and how this whole "gay rights" situation is going to turn out.
Before and during the Civil War Christian denominations, mostly south of the Mason Dixon line, used Bible verses to justify slavery as a holy and righteous thing. If you go back and read books like Leviticus you'll see that there are scriptures in the Bible that actually say it's okay to own slaves, beat them, and even physically mark them as your own territory. Southern white Christians in particular justified the owning of black people by saying that their skin color was the "mark of Cain".
Skip forward a bit. Women's sufferage. Up until the 1920's women were denied the right to vote. This basic civil right and other rights like equal pay for equal work were repressed by a Christian majority. They quoted dozens of Bible verses from the Old and New Testaments stating how women were inferior to men, should be subserviant to men, and should not be allowed to teach or hold any position of authority over men. Yeah, those verses are in there, and a lot of Christian opponents of women's sufferage made all kinds of arguments and rationalizations as to why and how women should not be allowed eqaul rights to men because it says so in the Bible.
About the same time in history as women's sufferage we have the Prohibition era. Evangelicals cited Bible passages about how drunkeness was a sin and extrapolated from that the idea that alchohol was at the root of all criminality in the world. They then got the idea that if alcohol were made illegal and weren't sold anywhere that no one would drink it and crime would dissappear. They managed to convince congress of this and as a result it became a federal crime to possess, make, sell, or drink alcohol. In spite, or because of, this law the production, sales, and consumption of alcohol boomed across all parts of the nation from the rich to the poor and the Italian Mafia experience a golden age in the USA.
Fast forward to the 1960s. Civil Rights movement for black people. Most visibly this was opposed by a powerful organization of white protestant Americans known as the Klu Klux Klan, whose membership was at 4 million at the peak of its power. Racism against black people is a carry over from the days of slavery, but the arguments against the equal rights of African Americans is less grounded in the Bible than they are on stereotypes of black people, even though the "mark of Cain" is still referenced. Much of the discrimination was carried on until the late 1990s by such Christian organizations as the Southern Baptist Church.
I may be off on one or two minor details, but they are minor and do not detract from the overall historical accuracy of my narrative. Some may want to deny that these positions were held by Christians, some will claim that the Christians who did these things weren't "true Christians". Whatever the case anyone here who has had a high school education in our nation's history will know how these situations turned out and the negative impact that the positions held by these Christian groups had on countless people.
Contemplate the outcomes and consequences of these chapters of our nation's history. Whether you agree with the direction of my narrative or not, contemplate these next words carefully: the gay rights issue is next.
That's fine, I can agree with that. Did you read the post that I was responding to?
@ManFromNantucket
Great Post! You are off on a few minor details but as you said, they are minor.
SillyBilly,
"Did you read the post that I was responding to?"
I did, but it didn't make much sense to me. I couldn't quite figure out what the guy was trying to say. By the way, I might add, I don't know why so many people gang up on you. I personally find most of what I've read in your posts quite intelligent and sensible even if I don't agree with all of it.
Actually the act itself doesn't make you gay.. How many of them think of women when they are force raping another inmate? And no, it's usually a control tool in prison. And please provide us a peer review journal that shows us they become gay.. And have you asked yourself that question about those whom are bi-sexual or may already have been gay? Do tell us what your resources are.. Because I tend to use peer reviewed journals:
A latent variable model of developmental instability in relation to men's sexual behaviour Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B August 22, 2001 268 1477 1677-1684; doi:10.1098/rspb.2001.1675 1471-2954
...orientation (heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual) and number of sexual partners in their...evolvability and variability of traits. Genetics 130, 195^204. Houle, D. 1997 Comment...Klingenberg, C. P. & Nijhout, H. F. 1999 Genetics of yuctuating asymmetry: a developmental...
AND:
Biological Sciences - Neuroscience
From the Cover: PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects PNAS 2008 105 (27) 9403-9408; published ahead of print June 16, 2008, doi:10.1073/pnas.0801566105
Biological Sciences - Genetics
Inaugural Article: Functional analysis of fruitless gene expression by transgenic manipulations of Drosophila courtship PNAS 2005 102 (46) 16550-16557; published ahead of print September 22, 2005, doi:10.1073/pnas.0507056102
...Cha-gal80 led to weakened homosexual courtship in single-pair tests...minimally operating to induce the homosexual...1 Hall, J. C. ( 1979 ) Genetics 92 , 437 –457. 114447 2 Ferveur, J...context of singing defects and homosexual courtship affected by mutations...
An apparent excess of sex– and reproduction–related genes on the human X chromosome Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B January 22, 1999 266 1415 203-209; doi:10.1098/rspb.1999.0623 1471-2954
...between the Xq28 region and sexual orientation in human males (Hamer et al...the X chromo- some and male sexual orientation. Science 261,321^327. Hu, S...D. H. 1995 Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males...
And I will even quote here:
Incorrect.. It only takes one to actually look up research on the subject to figure out that it has to do with both. This isn't a "VS" issue, it's a process of studying the relationships between environment and genetics to which influence each other. So no, you can't just go looking to point to a specific Gene and say "HAHA!" even if it plays a large role in said issue.
I agree it's stupid, but in the context of their position, Leviticus isn't the only place in their bible to which addresses the issue to which they use for their bigotry in regards to homosexuality:
And if you especially read the context of the Romans, it's very explicit about it being considered an abomination by those who wrote the bible...
No we can't lump all Christian's together in the same group. Especially when their is over 30,000 sects of Christianity. However, you either go by the written context of the bible or you don't. Hence which parts would you be cherry picking to believe as literal and which parts are you not? And it's not a matter if you think said GOD wrote the bible, it's what your religion uses as it's doctrine of religion. Hence what would you exactly be basing your religion on if the bible never existed?
Yes I agree entirely. However, they are not compatible with each other.
It doesn't take much more than reading Genesis to figure this out.. :/
Newton yes, but Einstein was an Atheist, or at best a Pantheist.. Many great minds were religious. I often cite them myself because I don't have a problem with it. The problems arise between religion and science is when those who are religious begin to lie and resort to pseudoscience and total lack of regard intellectual integrity when science doesn't fall into conformity with their beliefs. AKA Creationists being a prime example.... Another area where religious people get into trouble is where they are addressed on what their religion is actually based on and where it actually came from. Hence, telling a Christian that their religion evolved out from it's polytheistic roots doesn't play well. And keeping them intellectually honest is a rather difficult task when so many employ dishonest tactics in discourse. :/
So the question really boils down to is how dishonest does one need to be with themselves to retain a belief in what is obviously mythology born from previous mythologies they themselves considered mythologies..
Well I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.
I understand why they do that. Most of them see me arguing against them. Rather than read the post for its substance, which is usually arguing that they either misquoted, misinterpreted, misread or cherry picked the Bible and the reasons why; they simply get defensive and assume I'm about to tell them they're going to hell because they don't believe in God or they're gay and they're going to burn or whatever. When in reality that is not the case. Most of what I'm arguing against is faulty logic, baseless accusations, lack of consistent/reliable evidence and improper citations. I'm defeating the people spouting logic and science with logic and science. They really hate that.
Notice when someone else makes a valid point that they've backed up with actual evidence I agree with them or concede my point. Most people do not give me the same courtesy.
Wrong! It only needs to happen ONCE! Hence, now you are being intellectually dishonest by trying to apply your own rules to what you would consider gay marriage before Christianity.. You were refuted, and you need to deal with that. Worse yet, you have no idea how common it was giving such things were really only and largely documented in the upper ruling classes.. The fact it's has occurred long before Christianity isn't going to change because you want to change the argument to a dishonest attempt to circumvent it.
Simply put, you have been refuted entirely!
SillyBilly,
"Buddhism as an example makes far less of an attempt to discuss the physical realm and concentrates on the spiritual realm with great success. The ideas of mind, body and spirit and how one must look internally to discover the truth. Christianity has done that to some extent."
Yes, that's exactly right. I was reading in one of the Buddhist Jatakas one day and came across a story of a disciple of the Buddha who wanted to discuss the philosophy of materialism with him. The Buddha simply dismissed materialism completely as a viable philosophy and refused to even so much as discuss it. In the Western world we are staunch materialists. We distinguish between matter or substance on the one hand and its attributes on the other. We assume that if there is an attribute, such as the color red, there must be some substance that underlies that color (red) and of which that color is an attribute. In other words, there must be some "thing" that is red. But I think Buddhism is closer to Plato's idealism. For the Buddha, there are only attributes (called "aggregates"), but there simply is no substance underlying them. That is a very difficult philosophy for most Westerners to grasp, yet it is really all we ever experience. All our experience is based on qualities or attributes perceived by our senses, color, taste, sound, smell, etc. We never really experience substance; we only assume it is there. I think some of the discoveries in quantum mechanics tend to support the Buddha's position, although I'm certainly no expert at quantum mechanics, mathematics not being my strong point.
Color Red is still a physical informational property to which includes its description. Immateriality is a logical fallacy for the simple fact that nothing can not be a property value of something.. Hence, you can't be made of nothing and exist. Nothing doesn't have the capacity to literally exist.. It's that simple..
No, there doesn't "have to be" anything red. And red is just a physical term description of something else physically observed and processed.
First part is correct, and second part would be false ;)
Jackel you are arguing the event or action versus the feeling behind the event or action. At that point it becomes subjective and a matter of semantics. You might as well beg the question that if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? The fact is homosexual acts are occurring in a specific environment. Your point is noted but my statements are still valid.
Well I'm sorry but I do not see the world as Black and White. So you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. I've taken multiple classes on the subject from a Beginning of Christianity course to a course on Ancient Mesopotamia. I had professors with more awards, more papers and books written and more degrees than you or I have. Unless you suddenly claim you have a Ph.D. No where was it discussed that you have to believe that the entire Bible is literal or it is not. There are even Theologians that don't believe the entire thing is literal but some parts are histories and some parts are fictional stories told for symbolic reasons or as a teaching tool. Leviticus as an example is the Jewish Legal Code. It is not a story or a history but a law. So to argue whether or not it is fact or fiction is pointless because the terms do not apply.
Thank you for quoting Paul, could you please explain to me who Paul was? where did he come from? what was his profession? how did he become a Christian? Once you've answered these you might begin to understand why he believes what he believes and why he wrote what he wrote. As a point of fact, Paul is not Jesus. Lets not confuse the two. Although his words are contained in the New Testament they are not considered Gospel. They are merely letters.
Einstein was an Agnostic not an Atheist. That means he believes in God. Learn the difference in the terms please.
I have no idea. You'll have to ask them. What does that have to do with anything that I've brought up?
Honestly dude at this point it just seems like you're arguing with me out of ego for your point of view and not out of any desire to reach the truth or the facts.
No and No. Christianity as a religion has been practiced continually for 2000 years. If two males were married 4500 years ago and it never happened again the practice has not existed for 4500 years and it has not existed longer than Christianity. It only happened 4500 years ago and existed for assumed life span of the two individuals. You are the one being dishonest here, that are you completely fail to understand the words that are being used and what there meanings are.
Existence is a state of being. So in order for gay marriage to exist for 2000 years the practice must be continually in occurrence for 2000 years by the same culture or have spread from that culture to another culture contiguously over that period. It cannot be, someone was married 2000 years ago for 10 years then died and it didn't happen again for another 1000 years and/or in a part of the world 1000 miles away.
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman, in The Character of Physical Law (1965)
P.S. WTB longer edit times on posts so I can correct my spelling mistakes. They drive me crazy.
Here are some articles you should read if you are interested in knowing why immateriality is a logical fallacy and has no means for practical application:
Immateriality: The Fallacy of Magical Nothing!
Information: The material physical Cause of causation
And if needing an more simplistic understanding of this I can break it down for you :
Or:
This is what is empirically supported.. And as an example, regarding your senses...Yeah, we can physically remove each one of those.. And these are pretty good videos btw:
The most astounding fact:
Dust that sings:
This remarkable thing:
Science Saved my soul:
And you always have a very good physical demonstration watch:
But if that isn't enough I could go into information science in regards to consciousness ect in a much deeper context if need be.
This is an appeal to ignorance because we already have practical application of quantum mechanics. You are confused because we don't fully yet understand everything about quantum mechanics as some sort of argument against physicality.. Well, it's not, and it's not going to change physicality is the only possible reality.. Sorry nothing worlds of nothings don't exist. It's not possible for nothing to be something. Nothing can't contain an existence or support one. Nothing can't have any sort of informational value.. Nothing is just a descriptive word to describe a zero base starting point, or to express the absence of something else you either expect to have or be there. Nothing in the literal context can't actually be something. Even empty space isn't "nothing", and is a state value of energy to which we can physically measure..
Empirically speaking, Immateriality is a logical fallacy. It's a literal self-refutation that nullifies itself by consequence of it's meaning or supposed property. The term literally means "made of nothing".. Well, that's simply not possible. You can't be made of something that doesn't exist and can't exist. Just understanding what nothing means in the literal context will tell you why that is.
TheJackel,
"Color Red is still a physical informational property to which includes its description. Immateriality is a logical fallacy for the simple fact that nothing can not be a property value of something.. Hence, you can't be made of nothing and exist. Nothing doesn't have the capacity to literally exist.. It's that simple.."
You make the mistake of thinking there is only one system of logic. In fact there are many possible systems of logic. In the Western world we have traditional Aristotelian logic with its syllogisms and law of the excluded middle term and we have mathematical logic and many systems of symbolic logic such as Polish logic and many valued logics. Buddhist and Indian logic are quite different from Western systems of logic. In fact, the Western scholar F. Th. Stcherbatsky, a member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, wrote a two volume work of over 1,000 pages on Buddhist logic in 1930 entitled Buddhist Logic. It was published in the United States by Dover Books in 1962. I have it in my library. An excerpt from the preface to that book says:
"In addressing itself to the philosopher this work claims his consideration of a system of logic which is not familiar to him. It is logic, but it is not Aristotelian. It is epistemological, but not Kantian. There is a widely spread prejudice that positive philosophy is to be found only in Europe. It is also a prejudice that Aristotle's treatment of logic was final; that having had in this field no predecessor, he also has had no need of a continuator. This last prejudice seems to be on the wane. There is as yet no agreed opinion on what the future logic will be, but there is a general dissatisfaction with what it at present is. We are on the eve of a reform..."
You need to bone up on your philosophy a bit. I'm afraid you are just a bit naive in that respect.
You do realize I was quoting a Physicist right? and that it was an attempt at humor by him and by me? Do you not have any sense of humor at all? I have posted a few things in here now that were either a joke or were quotes from other people that you appear to have missed their point and purpose entirely. Lighten up please. You'll think better.
Yes, and I understood what he actually meant by it ;) And relax, I simply addressed the issue :P
It doesn't matter what form of logic you are attempting to use. It's all still applicable to information science in the physical context.. The form of logic isn't going to negate the facts of reality. O.o
I am not disagreeing that they are different. But when it concerns information science in the overall context, it's not actually relevant considering the empirical logic is what is relevant. :)
This is great, but that's not what I am addressing :/
What are you addressing? I don't even know what your point is anymore. All I see is I say the sky is blue and you say no it's not it's grey. I feel like I'm having a conversation with an argumentative teenager.
TheJackel,
"But when it concerns information science in the overall context, it's not actually relevant considering the empirical logic is what is relevant."
Empiricism is a philosophy, too. In fact all of what we call "science" in the modern world is an outgrowth of natural philosophy. Aristotle was one of the first natural philosophers and logicians, and that is one reason why our Western way of thinking and science are so Aristotelian. But it is not the only way of thinking nor is it the only valid way of thinking.
So which is right Einstein's Theory of Relativity or Quantum Physics? or better yet String Theory? and if everything is made of vibrating strings, what are the strings made of?
Little hint, it's usually a good idea to read what I quoted and replied to... It doesn't take a genius to figure out when someone is elaborating on concept. If you can't bother doing that, there is no point in further discussion with someone that doesn't pay attention..
Probably because that is the little childish game you have been playing since the start while not paying attention to anything said. It's been a circular game with you to which consistently involves you playing a game of intellectual dishonesty. Kinda like goal post moving on the subject of Gay marriage before Christianity..
The Irony of that statement is absolutely amazing to say the least
"if everything is made of vibrating strings, what are the strings made of?"
Good point, SillyBilly!
U mad bro?
It's a relevant philosophy, and you are specifically using it anytime when you are trying to use facts... And it's applicable to everything to do. Other philosophies hold at best relativistic value to which include the denial of reality. So yes, I will take a empirical system over "make it up and believe on faith system"...
Energy is only made of Energy.. It's not made of anything else. The question you deposited was poorly structured.
I guess you don't like Einstein's equation on energy?
TheJackel,
"It's a relevant philosophy, and you are specifically using it anytime when you are trying to use facts... And it's applicable to everything to do. Other philosophies hold at best relativistic value to which include the denial of reality. So yes, I will take a empirical system over "make it up and believe on faith system"..."
You are so very much a product of the modern world, trapped within the straight-jacket of its materialistic and empiricist assumptions. To question those assumptions would be like committing blasphemy to you. And yet you should know that there is a difference between great scientific minds and mere practitioners of science. The great minds of science and mathematics, such as Einstein, Heisenberg, Riemann, Lobachevsky, Russell and Whitehead all questioned the presuppositions upon which science and mathematics are based. That is what lead them to make their great discoveries in the first place. Anyone who is simply content with the current and popular way of thinking will never be great. You have to learn to think outside the box.
This "discussion" has become like any issue; people want absolute proof and answers where it is not possible to give them.
I am sure gay marriage has been performed all over the world since the year dot (unfortunately I am unable to empirically define what the year dot maybe). Just because anyone can or can-not produce a sketch and etch or a scratch to show this does not mean it is true or even untrue.
However I say, so what. So what if gay marriage has been around for 10,000 years or 10 years. Either time course does not give people the power nor the right to say no. Gay people have been forming relationships and bonds since the year dot and will continue to do so.
I have never heard of any one complaining that we lived nomadic lives for most of the existence of humanity so we should not be undertaking this "un-natural" state of permanent settlements. There are 1000 different ways to get married and yeah I'll peg my hat on that marriage is older than Christianity, no one 'owns' the definition of marriage, but again who cares I'm not concerned with yesterday more with today.
Now this is going to be a very long post.. But since the questions seem to be getting deeper, I may as well post it.. It's up to you to either take the time to read it, or to ignore it.
If you want to understand the theory of everything, we already know the base answer.. The problem is understanding that answer and how it can unite the other fundamental forces.. Energy is still a not very well understood thing in regards to which it can do, or what all it's properties are. We don't fully understand quantum physics, or how certain things like gravity entirely work.. However, that's not relevant when concerning that we already know what the quantitative base properties and values are in both physics and information science... We already have a Universal Set of all Sets, we just don't fully understand it. Understanding the universal set isn't going to just tell you how energy works in quantum mechanics..It's not that simple.. But I can help you in understanding the base Universal sets we come to empirically understand in science, information science, and in even in dealing with systems theory. So I will outline it here for you in regards to energy and information theory within the scientific and empirical context:
there are 3 fundamental laws that govern cause and effect, information, and energy. These same 3 laws, principles, or attributes govern consciousness, morals, ethics, laws, emotions, and feelings, or any Complex Adaptive system with feedback. So what are they?
* POSITIVE
* NEGATIVE
* NEUTRAL
These are not only the base laws of existence, they are the attributes to everything, and everything we know of is made of energy. thus it's considered under information theory that Energy =/= information as both substance and value (as previously noted above). Thus the 3 fundamental properties, attributes, and laws are the cause of all causation. Information and energy are thus simply stated as "Cause".
There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral;
Action
Reaction
Process
Mathematical equation
Answer
Choice
Decision
Intent
Purpose
Moral
Ethic
Emotion
Feeling
Piece of information
State
Function
Ability
Response
System
Feedback
Opinion
Phenomenon
Condition
Ability
Power
Electric Charge
Selection
Adaptation
Mutation
Transformation
Position
Point of view
Observation
Sensation
Perception
Or the relativity of anything above
Existence is seen as a phenomenal reality of physical self-oscillating, self-organizing energy that makes you, me, the stars, matter, or anything with plus mass possible. "A universal set of all sets". We can make basic principles such as:
And:
And you might ask me how does this apply? How do we know this has any basis in fact?.. Well it's not that hard, and I can perhaps outline a few example questions I had answered before:
Here is another example of someone making a similar claim:
Here is my response:
And let's post my other response to this quote below:
Yes we can:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/09/23/1325247/brain-imaging-reveals-the-movies-in-our-mind
The problem they are having is that conversion to digital binary is difficult for several reasons. The brain works differently, and is both a quantum and neural computer to which also deal with Ion information flow / processes within brain cells to which are not very compatible with electron information processes and binary systems... But we are getting closer to that as well:
http://singularityhub.com/2010/09/08/scientists-closer-to-reading-words-from-your-brain/
Besides word reading, this abstract is worthy of addressing:
Neuroscience is slowly making progress with translating brain signals into useful information. We’ve seen how the firing of motor neurons can be used to control a computer cursor and mechanical devices with Braingate, neurons in the Broca’s area of the brain (another speech center like Wernicke’s) have been used to delve into how we process language, and scientists have had some luck[url] translating brain activity into vowel sounds as well[/url]. Each of these techniques, however, have required researchers to place electrodes within the brain itself. Pushing wires into your grey matter has a host of associated risks and limitations including brain damage. The University of Utah experiment used microelectrodes on the surface of the brain. While still under the skull, these electrodes do not penetrate the brain and only use surface signals to guess at activity deeper in the brain.
And with quantum computing around the corner, we could possibly start seeing Blockbuster movies created straight from the imaginations of people like Spielberg ect. Ok, that might be a while yet...:P However, there are definitely ethical issues with such tech.. And I know what everyone here is thinking in regards to that..And I'm sure might go into science is evil fit any moment now.. But that's not going to change reality to suit his religious beliefs.
Also, here is nice little guide on Nero Transmissions:
http://science-education.nih.gov/supplements/nih2/addiction/guide/lesson2-1.htm
And here is some other fun learning material:
http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n12/fundamentos/neurotransmissores/neurotransmitters2.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111115103518.htm
http://www.mind.ilstu.edu/curriculum/neurons_intro/neurons_intro.php
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcsjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu%2F2007v31%2F6%2FHCOG_A_270292_O_NLM%2FHCOG_A_270292_O.pdf&ei=KSomT6m0Msrq0gGLt4HJCA&usg=AFQjCNGjeY9yKiTk5hPjHDdU1hEjiSDzyA
How about a Transistor that can communicate with living things?:
And this goes back to what I was talking about in regards to Ion information flow and processes.. Hence, here is the abstract:
And lets address the following as well:
And:
And:
As well as:
And let's not forget this either:
But lets provide some basic understanding of information theory here:
Scientists Extract Images from the Mind
Computer Chips Fused with Brain Cells
Robot controlled by braincells
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9Ci3QCgPxg
And:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Information
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Physical_information
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Algorithmic_information_theory
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Free_Information_Infrastructure
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Information_theory
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Medium
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Information_processing
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Observation
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Entropy
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Systems_theory
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Cybernetics
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Library_and_Information_Science
And if you really need an in depth understanding of information science in relation to cognitive systems ect you can reference all of this to get a better understanding of the field:
This article largely discusses complex systems as a subject of information and the attempts to emulate physical complex systems with emergent properties. For other scientific and professional disciplines addressing complexity in their fields see the complex systems article and references.
Complex adaptive information systems are applicable to all of the following as well:
If you want to get even deeper into the subject we can do that here:
See Also:
Abstract 1:
This to which helps us understand Cognitive systems:
Cognitive systems:
And we can put that into an example context in the following:
Example by another's argument / question:
Quote:
This is interesting, and it's a valid question to ask at the end.. But how does this deal with our discussion? Well, let's find out by exploring my response to the above quoted comment:
My Response (edited):
Time is is nothing more than successive instances of now. The flow of time is the inertia of information. And without the inertia of information, there can be no means to support things like cognitive systems capable of producing a conscious state or self-awareness. Without the inertia of information there can be now system with feedback, no interactions, or actions to which could drive a force to causation. In simple terms, time is an expression of process, existence, and duration of.
Son in giving that time is the instance of now, and the inertia of it, we often think it's the conscious instant of now. However this is wrong because it takes time for information to process. This means that a source of inquiry such as a baseball that has been pitched to you inorder to be hit by you, the ball must first be sensed and then processed before any state of awareness of the ball can be realized, or put into a consciously aware state or time frame of reference. This means that the conscious state is pretty much a reflection and processing of the past to where the actual instant of now is before the conscious state ever emerges...
Need a better analogy?:
So to understand this, you must realize that this deals with time frames of reference to where these processes must be sustained in order for the image, or your conscious state to continuously be displayed or continuously be an emergent property. There is no other possible way as this is the only way it can happen!
So for every time frame instance of an image displayed, or frame state of awareness, there are several before them to which produces them. This concept directly applies to consciousness, and a state of awareness as it does to your computer screens displaying of your desktop. Your conscious state is like that, it is fundamentally like the image being displayed on your computer screen. However, there was another question asked here that I don't mind going over:
No, There is only the instant of now, and a reflection of the past. The past actually no longer exists. Hence, once you progress one instant to the next, the instant prior no-longer exists. The reflection of this past is just the lag due to processing that must happen before the instant that had already happened can be realized to have happened. And the future doesn't exist either until it happens.. Perhaps to clear this up for you, I can explain how time works in regards to existence:
Everything in and of existence shares a universal key frame of time. Hence, all things that exist, exist at the same time and all happen at the same time. This time frame of reference is the instant of now. The relativity people get confused about is just perception of time..
Example:
This applies to everything, and that is the basics of relativity.. But if you need a more detailed discussion on "time".., you can go here:
Time: The Godly Impossible Creation
So to conclude the basics of what we do know and understand:
If the inertia of energy to which is the capacity of information as both substance and value were to ever reach a state of absolute suspended animation to where there is no inertia of.., there wouldn't be you, me, or any possibility of a conscious mind.
Who mad? I'm stating facts O.o ... Are you trolling Bro? How about you actually address what's being addressed and not worry so much about Ad hominems ect.. You know, actually engage in honest discourse :/
Apparently so are you..But hey try making that reply on this forum without requiring material physicality. It's rather interesting to see people make such self-refuting arguments. Especially ones that have no value and are simply dogmatic. But hey Mikey, this alone collapses your entire argument:
Yes this empiricism is so evil ;)
You might as well say "I'm sure God exists I just have no proof."
"Nobody owns the water man it's god's water"
On a more serious note. "Force @!$%#es upon reason's back."
You're not why should I? Hell half the stuff your linking as evidence supports my argument, yet you claim it for your own. So at this point I might as well troll you till I get bored.
TheJackel,
"If the inertia of energy to which is the capacity of information as both substance and value were to ever reach a state of absolute suspended animation to where there is no inertia of.., there wouldn't be you, me, or any possibility of a conscious mind."
Congratulations! It seems you have discovered the secret of everything. So why is there you and me and the possibility of conscious mind to begin with?
Now this is precious.. Apparently you don't understand what Einstein's equation means regarding energy.. The self-refuting arguments I am seeing from you people are just getting better and better :/
So you brought up a non-issue.. May I ask why?
Feel free to elaborate in detail.. Be very specific and tell me exactly how my argument supports your argument... And then back yourself up and demonstrate it. I'll wait...
ROFL! greatest paragraph ever written. Allow me to summarize.
We already understand how everything works even though we don't understand how everything works. No worries though because we already understand how it works even though we don't. Here I will outline it for you.
Are you related to Yogi Berra?
TheJackel,
Einstein was just a man. He was a great man; no doubt about that, but just a man nevertheless. He pulled his pants on one leg at a time the same as you and I do. Do not make him into a god. I don't think he would like that, and I don't think he believed he had discovered the secret of everything, either. He was too smart for that.
It's simple.. It's possible! You are emergent property of existence itself to which even allows you to have the possibility to exist. Technically speaking, we are existence arguing with itself. Existence is the totality of causality, an literally is that to which is everything. If you really want to look for a GOD, the only thing you can really state being applicable to it would be existence itself.. I can ask you a very simple question:
Pretty hard to exist without existence and it's rules to which everything that includes consciousness is governed by. So you really want a Theory of everything..It's existence itself. Energy and information just so happen to be the capacity essence value of existence. You can feel free to demonstrate otherwise.. Thought ought to be amusing to watch..
This is what we call dishonest quote mining.. It does not state that we understand how "everything works".. It's states that we know the base rules and properties.. These do not tell us exactly how they work in any given thing such as quantum mechanics. It states that these will be inherently fundamental and necessary base properties, values, and rules in quantum mechanics ect.. And your very own post proves the point and demonstrates the validity of this.. Hence, you are arguing against yourself just by posting a reply, and you don't even seem to get it or realize it.
Wait for it. He will tell us why we are wrong in a few minutes. He has all the answers to everything. Bow before all knowing Jackel.
I patiently await your Nobel Prize.
TheJackel,
"It's simple.. It's possible!"
Aristotle would tell you that potentiality does not equal actuality.
Ad Hominems have no value here. This has nothing to do with making a Man GOD either.. There is no GOD to existence son.. It's impossible created existence and it's rules when one requires them to exist much less function at all. The concept of GOD is moot. The only GOD of existence is existence itself to which governs all that exists. And that alone makes the concept of GOD moot. Why? Because everything that is, is of existence itself. That would make everything GOD.. Thus entirely MOOT!.. And thus not relevant if things are made by conscious or unconscious processes. Or even by both..
Do you even listen to what you are saying, or ponder them what-so-ever before you post them? This again is a self-refuting argument that proves the point. You must have a fun time arguing against yourself here :/ .. Let me help... If existence and it's rules didn't allow for the possibility of your existence, you wouldn't be here. That includes any conscious entity, or anything for that matte that rely on cognitive systems and processes that support them.
Had to fix that.. :P .. And let me elaborate here.. Gods are purely concepts of opinion and title of opinion to where anything and literally everything can be considered a GOD. Or even not a GOD. Pantheism for example, in the modern context, is existence itself as GOD. Well their GOD exists doesn't it? And what is GOD without existence right? Those alone are pretty damning and tough questions aren't they? .. So at what point does it become moot? Hence, you can only move the goal post back so far, or clime the totem pole before you reach the top..
None will be given, this is already known stuff that isn't also just commonsense...
Good to see you are going intellectually nowhere with more dogmatic trolling. :/ Way to make yourself irrelevant.
This is probably the most intelligent thing you have posted on here.
TheJackel,
"It's simple.. It's possible!"
Aristotle would tell you that potentiality does not equal actuality. And you used the word causality as if it were a simple concept. Aristotle distinguished four principle causes: 1. the material cause, 2. the formal cause, 3. the efficient cause and 4. the final cause, and philosophers have puzzled over the concept of causality since then. Some, such as Hume, have even questioned the entire concept of cause and effect and whether or not it is mathematically possible ever to establish a cause and effect sequence. But for you, everything is so simple because you have found the secret to everything. Like I said, congratulations! You should be in a position with your vast knowledge to do great things for the world. I'll be looking forward to that.
"Pretty hard to exist without existence and it's rules to which everything that includes consciousness is governed by."
That's pretty obvious, but you haven't answered the question as to what existence is to begin with. The philosopher Martin Heidegger wrote his masterpiece Being and Time in an attempt to answer that question of what is being, and Sartre attempted it in his work Being and Nothingness. Neither gave a satisfactory definition of the word. That's another concept philosophers have puzzeled over for centuries. But you have found the answer. Congratulations again. And, by the way, aren't you TheJackel who was a born again Christian a while back? I remember communicating with a "TheJackel" here on Newsvine a while back who was always talking about God and Christianity. Are there two "TheJackel's" on Newsvine?
For SillyBilly. The problem here is you're making absolute statements that have exceptions or are not true for the average. For example, in one of you're previous statements.
Although I would retort that if you put a gay male in a room full of beautiful women long enough eventually he will have sex with them.
It doesn't matter if a percentage of non-gay males end up having sex with other males in prison because not all do. Additionally, you didn't even give a percentage for "large percentage" so we don't know if it's even more than half. That's why the previous statement I made is correct, at least to the same level as your own statements. I played by the same rules governing probabilistic statements you did, I took a small sampling and drew a conclusion from it while neglecting counter examples. Also, as others have pointed out previously, homosexuality as an attraction to members of the same sex and is rather different from prison behavior. Trying to draw conclusions regarding homosexuality from prison behavior would be using a very poor model for the trait unlikely to give you relevant results.
Second, the second paragraph is correct. You didn't address the timeline for when you would think that changing the environment would have an effect, so I addressed possibilities for developmental stages in the womb and adult stages. Being intentionally vague due to lack of understanding of a field does not exempt you from being corrected when the statements you're making are not true.
To add to the point of the hormonal effect on homosexuality, the changes as an adult are minor compared with changes during development. Most of the major physiological differences between gay and straight males are set up long before puberty. In fact, many of these physiological differences are associated with hormonal changes in the womb and support the idea that hormonal environment during development has a significant impact on sexuality.
For Mickey. I was addressing 3 different points from 3 different posts. That's why they're broken up into pieces. Secondly, the reason I'm correcting sillybilly is that statements he's making are either not entirely true or just plain false (his twin study conclusions, his analysis of what would happen to a sole genetic trait when homozygous recessive breads less, his statements regarding what constitutes a genetic issue etc.). As other have also pointed out, they are incorrect. This is why it seems people are ganging up on him. He's attempting to both argue a philosophical point and make statements regarding genetics. Those with philosophical differences will argue against him from their philosophical perspective and those that have a very good understanding of genetics will correct him. If he would have left things as a philosophical or historical argument instead of trying to discuss genetics, scientists would have simply passed it by and went on to read about the giant wombat grave in Australia.
Ok.. Feel free to explain that without existence.. Oh wait... Also, my argument made no claim of it being so simple giving that I do understand that causality is a very complex issue.. But you are missing the point made entirely.
That's great.. Nothing can't do any of those things, or support them... Feel free to demonstrate for us nothing being the formal cause, the efficient cause, or the final cause... If you want to argue for immateriality, that is exactly what you are going to have to do. And lets be honest, that is going to be a very futile effort. And I am well aware of their philosophies.. But self-refuting philosophies render themselves irrelevant by consequence of their premises. Hence they prove themselves wrong, and thus are dismissed, and self-dismissed.
doggysaywhat,
"Those with philosophical differences will argue against him from their philosophical perspective and those that have a very good understanding of genetics will correct him. If he would have left things as a philosophical or historical argument instead of trying to discuss genetics, scientists would have simply passed it by and went on to read about the giant wombat grave in Australia."
That is no doubt true. Everything is based on your philosophical presuppositions. That was the definition of philosophy that one of my college philosophy professors gave: philosophy is the study of ultimate presuppositions. That was just his own understanding of it, but I thought it was a pretty good definition. I never was discussing the question of whether or not homosexuality is genetically caused, though. That is outside my area of expertise. I think the reason most gay people think it is genetically based is because they can never remember a time in their life when they were not attracted to their own sex, even before they knew what sex means. Their belief is based on personal experience, and it may be true. I really don't know. It's the old argument of Nature vs. Nurture, and I don't think we really know enough about it at this point in time to answer that question definitively. Maybe some day we will discover the truth about it.
This isn't hard either.. Existence simply exists without creation because non-existence *nothing* can not be a literal existing person, place, object, substance, or thing. Non-existence and nothing are synomynous, and can also not contain or sustain an existence or have a capacity value to support any sort of existence.. By definition alone, they state themselves as non-existent. Everything that does exist is and comes from existence itself regardless if from conscious or unconscious processes, or if we understand them or not.. As an example:
Or to put it more specifically.. Things can only come from existence itself, and be made of what existence itself is made of. That includes empty space, you, me, and everything else. And what we are is energy beings made of atoms, and atoms made of energy to which the capacity of our existence, consciousness, and essence value of existence itself. The problem is that you are relying on old outdated philosophies that are really no longer relevant. Especially considering our modern understanding of science, information theory, and physics....
There is no magical world of immateriality.. It's a self-refuting logical fallacy..
Except for the fact that some presuppositions are actually relevant. And I have quite demonstrated more than one here.... One major example is your statement on empiricism, then you continue on here proving me right in every literal context possibly just by posting replies here on this forum. I don't even need anything more than that..
TheJackal,
"Nothing can't do any of those things, or support them..."
But that is the whole question right there. What is something and what is nothing? The words are simple enough, but finding a definition of them is not. As Socrates said, everyone thinks he knows what such words mean because they are words we use everyday, but when you question them about what they mean, you find they really do not have a very good idea at all of what they mean. And what do you mean by a self-refuting philosophy?
Real easy...
Something is real and has value, property, substance
Nothing is just a descriptive word or place card holder for something else like a starting point or the missing coffee in your empty coffee cup that isn't actually empty.. Nothing isn't anything at all in the context of being a literal "something".. Nothing doesn't exist. And if nothing existed, there wouldn't be any existence what-so-ever. And that is impossible. You can feel free to demonstrate the existence of nothing for us. Perhaps you can tell me "where" nothing exists.
TheJackel,
"Existence simply exists without creation because non-existence..."
The first rule of lexicography is that you never use the word to be defined (the "definiens", in Latin) in its definition (the "definiendum") nor any synonym of the word. To say "existence simply exists" is nonsense and a violation of the lexicographer's art. I will admit that lexicographers frequently violate their own rule, but that is because certain words we use every day are extremely difficult if not impossible to define. For example, if you look in the dictionary under the word "have" you may find something like "to possess". But that is not a valid definition of the word "to have" and is a violation of the lexicographer's rule. To possess is simply a synonym for to have, and if you do not know the meaning of the one, its use will not give you any idea of the meaning of the other. That is what Socrates was talking about. Sorry, you appear by the time I posted this to have changed your definition of existence. We are going to fast.
"And if nothing existed, there wouldn't be any existence what-so-ever."
I think that is what logicians call a "tautology", expressing the quality or meaning in the predicate which is already contained implicitly or explicitly in the subject.
you haven't looked up the definition of existence have you.. That which includes ..I quote "that which is the totality of all that exists" ... And it is not nonsense to say Existence simply exists".. Lexicographer's art is thus irrelevant and itself is dependent on existence to be of existence.. Modern definition of existence can be regarded a an entity and the essence of entities..
Yep they do.. it is often also self-refuting ..
This why you go by context of use.. For example, reality and existence are synomynous. And share universal properties. And we aren't here to play word semantics over intended meaning and context in regards to the use of said words. Basically you are looking pretty desperately for a way to circumvent an issue that is not circumventable. Just like you can't post a reply without information..
TheJackel,
"Basically you are looking pretty desperately for a way to circumvent an issue that is not circumventable"
No, it is simply that you are not philosophically inclined. You should leave philosophy to those who are better equipped to handle it. Stick with science or whatever it is you do.
Jackal - Here some additional info to get the religious nuts going,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/why-are-there-gay-men_n_1590501.html.
There could be an evolutionary cause to homosexuality for men. The two topics that will set them off.
For, Mickey.
There probably is a small nurture portion or even an aspect of choice in a small segment of the homosexual population. However, it is very unlikely that this portion outweighs the nature portion in most people. Otherwise we would have seen more concordance in fraternal twins for example as their nurture portion is very similar. When breaking down the variance explained by different factors, genetics and hormonal environment generally rank the highest with societal views ranking quite a bit lower. So, while we don't have an exact number or breakdown for the cause of homosexuality, we can give good ideas about which aspects are more important compared to others.
Here is what we can find in common with Materiality:
Existence:
Reality:
Material:
Substance:
Corporeal:
Now lets look at Immaterial:
Nothing:
Nonexistence:
Immaterial:
Incorporeal:
It becomes quite obvious which one is a self-refutation / logical fallacy. Things of nothing don't exist.
doggysaywhat,
I wouldn't argue with you about that. As I said, genetics is outside my area of expertise. I'm a student of philosophy. I'll have to leave that to you scientists. But don't you think it may still be a bit premature to say definitively that is has no genetic basis? The fact that we have not yet discovered any such basis is no proof that there is none. New discoveries are being made all the time in genetics. I would be inclined to say that only time will tell.
TheJackel,
That's a nice list of dictionary definitions you have given, but dictionary definitions are hardly philosophy. As I have said, you are not philosophically inclined. Please stick with science.
This is an Ad Hominem.. And philosophically you are in a no win situation you can't get yourself out of here. Nor do we see you backing up and demonstrating your position such your comment about Empiricism to which was entirely refuted without even breaking much of sweat just by using information science, and information theory. The problem you are having with me here is that I know information theory and science very well, and that philosophies and even your own posts and reply are going applicable to them.. It's not something you can circumvent, and you just end up looking foolish in trying to.. :/ Let me put it this way, you lost this discussion the moment you tried to enter it..
Welcome to reality :/
TheJackel,
"The problem you are having with me here is that I know information theory and science very well"
You may know science and information theory very well, but it is painfully obvious to me that you do not know philosophy. Science is an outgrowth of philosophy, but it is not philosophy. What I said is not an ad Hominem argument, either. An ad Hominem argument is attacking the man rather than his arguments as an attempt at refuting his argument, and I have not attacked you in an attempt to refute your arguments. I have simply pointed out that you are not philosophically well equipped and should stick with science. I am not trying to refute any argument you may have made.
Have you submitted your theories for the Nobel Prize yet? Why are you wasting your time here?
That's great .. I am a student of information science and theory. And understanding the words and the definitions of those words are pretty important when constructing a philosophy that won't become self-refutations and logical fallacies. Outdated self-refuting philosophies are of no importance here. And all of which will be applicable to information science and theory regardless.. You aren't going to win this discussion because you had already lost it just by posting alone. See the thing is, I don't sit here and string words together into logical fallacies and then claim them facts, or believe they are real.. Such things as beliefs immateriality magically having an basis in logic or fact of reality. Immaterial belief is essentially believing nothing is something as opposite of what it actually is and is defined as. It's basically self-refuting thought and believing it. If anything that is bankrupt in philosophical terms it is that.
SillyBilly,
"Have you submitted your theories for the Nobel Prize yet? Why are you wasting your time here?"
I don't think there is a Nobel Prize for giving lists of dictionary definitions, is there? And I still think TheJackel is an ex-born again Christian. I think he got unborn again.
TheJackel,
"You aren't going to win this discussion because you had already lost it just by posting alone. See the thing is, I don't sit here and string words together into logical fallacies and then claim them facts, or believe they are real.."
Go find yourself a good textbook on philosophy 101 and read it. It might do you some good. Do you even know what a logical fallacy is? I'm skeptical of that.
I: One can not convey, send, or express a message without information
It's just a theory I should send for a Nobel Prize right? Seriously, ad hominems are no serious means to debate someone intellectually.. Is this serious the best intellectual argument either of you can submit here? And I can't claim a Nobel Prize on already known stuff in science... I almost kind of feel humbled that you think these are "my theories" lol.. But hey, whatever floats your boat!
Because combating willful ignorance in a country swimming in it is a good philosophy.
Are you sure? cause I watched a nice big long show on the Discover Channel hosted by Stephen Hawking discussing the Universe and he didn't say anything about an established theory that explains everything. In fact him and other physicists said there isn't one. That Relativity and Quantum Physics don't reconcile. I've also read numerous papers describing that. That there are multiple theories that are attempting to achieve that distinction including, String Theory but none have yet. Now I suppose it is possible that you know something that they don't or I don't but I highly doubt this is the place for it. Now who am I to believe? The most Brilliant minds on the planet that have well established careers and conducted viable experiments? or some random guy on an internet forum that quotes the dictionary?
www.infoplease.com/cig/theories-universe/quantum-mechanics-vs-general-relativity.html
www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/books/weird-science.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Here's a couple articles on Relativity versus Quantum Mechanics for you.
SillyBilly,
"I watched a nice big long show on the Discover Channel hosted by Stephen Hawking discussing the Universe and he didn't say anything about an established theory that explains everything."
It's called reductionism. For Freud it was sex. All of reality could be explained in terms of the libido, the sexual drive. For Marx it was economics. The universe and everything in it could be explained in terms of economics. For TheJackel, it is information theory. That will explain everything. The idea that all of the universe and reality can be explained in terms of one thing goes all the way back to the pre-Socratic philosophers. For some it was water, for others fire, and for others earth. But there is some one thing behind all of reality in terms of which everything else can be explained. It's certainly nothing new except that no one has ever succeeded in the attempt.
Not according to Jackel. This is a widely known and accepted theory that of course only he is privy to.
SillyBilly,
"Not according to Jackel. This is a widely known and accepted theory that of course only he is privy to."
I know. I've got to go now. I'll talk with you guys tomorrow.
Nor have I deposited one that "explains everything"... You're out of context to which was already explained to you. You clearly need to go back and work on that reading comprehension issue.. Explaining everything involves explaining how exactly everything works, and that is not what I did. I outline the base universal sets, values, and properties to educate you on the basics.. I already told you that you can't just used the basics to explain how everything works even though everything relies on them. There is difference between knowing Earth is planet and knowing how the planet came to be a planet. If you can't understand the base principles ect, refuse to bother even attempting to understand them, need to rely on quote mining, or rely on ad hominems, there is a serious problem with your position.
Not entirely, but a lot of it has. You haven't spent much time reading up on it have you? Or seeing what practical applications we gotten out of it eh? And no quantum physics has fully yet been explained giving it's quite in it's infancy. There is a lot to learn yet. But that really doesn't address my points because you can't have physics without energy, capacity, volume, materiality, or existence for that matter. The fact you don't even seem to know what Einsteins equation means when you replied to my comment about energy being made of energy was more than enough for me dismiss you on this subject of physics entirely.
For someone that doesn't understand what Eistien's equation means, I highly call that into suspect. Or call that you really hadn't a clue as to what you were reading. :/
That depends on which one pans out. So far the standard model is the prevailing model.. But this deals with how energy does what it does. It does not change the fact of what it is, or what the base value and properties are to which are universal. The theory of everything, if solved, will tell us how all that works. And that is the complicated and hard part. And we already know the answer is going to be quantized because you can only live in a quantized existence. Yes it's pretty hard to live in a place of zero quantity / value (nothing).. Understanding this isn't going to be easy regardless of knowing the base answer already.
Knowing the answer and understanding it are two different things.. And I am telling in terms of what we actually know in science. Nothing here is coming from me as it is coming from what is already established in science. So just because we know everything including space itself is made of energy doesn't mean we understand how energy works, or everything it can do. And we know in science that energy and information are two sides of the same coin, and just looking at your monitor is simply a simple example I can point you to so you can actually understand it.. I could sit here and post it in terms of physics equations for you, but would you understand it? Probably not right? My articles deal with breaking it down into something you might be able to more easily grasp.
Silly - Just to refine your discussion regarding General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. As to date, they have not reconciled quantum gravity with General Relativity gravity. The reasons are (1) the graviton has not been detected and (2) the mathematics surrounding gravity unification is still evolving. String theory includes gravity in its model, but the effects of gravity flow through the compacted dimensions thus reducing its strength. Downside is that extra dimensions have not been discovered yet. If the Higg's is confirmed and it is the lower energy ranges that they have been looking in, then this could be the first evidence that extra dimensions could exist.
Now, Jackels comment regarding information is also correct. Leonard Susskind's holographic theory states that information in the universe is all spread at the edge of the universe. From a physicist's point of view, everything in the universe contains information and information cannot be destroyed.
None of which violate conservation of energy.. But I am guessing you didn't know that did ya? I am very well aware of the current state of unification of forces in physics. Neither of this conflict with I have told. And btw, string theory really has gone nowhere.. The more promising is where they combined all those into M-theory.. But here, I'll post another discussion on this subject to which I had with someone else earlier:
I am not in conflict of modern science. You are misunderstanding modern science. Non-mass means no mass greater than Ground.. In science, zero is used a lot to mark a starting point, or a ground state.. Zero mass means no mass greater than the ground, or potential energy well.
Zero-point Energy:
Ground State:
Mass Energy Equivalence:
We can relate this to Invariant Mass:
So what is a mass-less particle?:
However, these particles are not technically "Mass less" in physics. They are just mass-less in regards to invariant mass. They have what you call relativistic mass:
What is rest mass?:
Hence, there is never actually literally zero mass..
Time is the inertia of energy in terms of physics.
Super symmetry might actually be a rare state, and the article only deals with the simplest version of super symmetry. And nor has it ruled it out just because they haven't seen the particles.. However, that article may now be outdated giving the more recent discovery:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120413160004.htm
However, regardless of the results, it's going to be a matter of Physics of a physical system.. :) We just don't know exactly how it works.. And the worst part is, it may be impossible to measure the lowest state giving anything trying to detect the lowest field sate would be greater than that state. This means that sensitivity to take such a measurement would be impossible. What we do know is that the lowest state can never actually reach literally zero..
There is no violation of mass energy equivalence here.
And here is how the Higgs is roughly said to work... It's a predicted field that interacts with other particles as a medium to which causes drag on other particles. This in turn causes particles to gain a positive mass over the zero ground state.. Photons don't interact with the higgs and thus have a zero mass.
equation for the relativistic energy of a particle;
where M0 is the rest mass of the particle (0 in the case of a photon). Hence this reduces to E=pc. Einstein also introduced the concept of relativistic mass (and the related mass-energy equivalence) in the same paper;
What this shows is that a photon does have relativistic mass proportional to its momentum. It just doesn't have any "rest mass" or invariant mass (this is specifically what they are talking about in terms of no-mass at all)..They are not stating the photon has literally zero mass. But another way to show this is:
Again shows us that Light has relativistic mass because it has energy and momentum. And even a pure vacuum has mass:
Which brings us to "Mass Density":
The density value of the vacuum is that of empty space. Thus the vacuum In terms of mass density, its absolute value is less than 10-26 kilograms per cubic meter. In terms of energy density, this is about 10-9 joules per cubic meter. If you go by more recent measurements by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and the many other experiments, they converge on a positive cosmological constant, equal to roughly 7 × 10-27 kilograms per cubic meter. This corresponds to a positive energy density of about 6 × 10-10 joules per cubic meter.
And that will be true regardless of quantum mechanics vs realtivety because energy conservation is not ever violated here!
This is only recently that Physicists are considering experiments to test String Theory. String theory does use super-symmetry, but isn't necessary for super symmetry. However, the next theory favored if the current more simple theory doesn't pan out is this one:
The problem with String theory is trying to divide by zero... This is why string theory is likely to be ruled out entirely. And what is going well for the standard model is the fact that many of the supposed predicted particles are being found to which were used to argue against it because they hadn't been discovered yet.. Such as:
To which also now includes :
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120427095621.htm
Tell that to a black hole.
That doesn't happen regarding black holes either.. They don't violate energy conservation either. They can convert energy to other states, but it can't destroy literally destroy it or information.. Even Hawking himself has since refuted that claim.. Information can only change function, state, or purpose.. IE example:
Erasing a message on a chalk board is not a destruction of information. It is a destruction of the message, and what made up the message is the chalk that falls to the floor or rubs off on to the eraser.. The message simply changes, and so does the information. No different than chopping a tree down to where the tree ceases to be a tree and then becomes fire wood.. Hence, information can't literally ever be destroyed. Same analogy dealing with black holes that are like giant erasers in the night sky..
You always miss my points. It's like ingrained in your DNA.
Wouldn't it be much easier to throw all these religious southern dipshyts into a volcano to appease their invisible god in the sky?
jussayin-
Once again, we have the stupid leading the stupid. Look at the photo, a bunch of old and bitter hags and hagettes that probably can't even get it up or get any anymore.
Black holes can convert energy to other states, but they can't literally destroy energy or information. Hence you can't take something physical and magically convert it to nothing, and nor can you take nothing (to which doesn't exist) and convert it to something..
This might be because you don't seem to have a coherent point to work with.. But feel free to better explain it for me, and be very detailed on that please..
For Mickey. Homosexuality does have a genetic component. As I said before, it usually ranks quite highly in studies trying to account for the variance in the trait. However, it is probably lower when compared to the hormonal component. Both though are larger when compared to such things like societal pressure, parental viewpoint etc. We do know enough regarding the trait to make the statement that the nature has a larger effect when compared to nurture. We also know enough now regarding genetics studies that it isn't solely a genetic trait. Regarding hormonal vs. genetics, it's likely that hormonal plays a larger role but the confidence of that is less than when comparing either to the role that choice or societal pressure plays. For such things as complicated as behavioral traits, it's very rare that they're solely genetic or hormonal in origin. When discussing them, it's also better to think of them as a spectrum rather than one or the other as this is a more accurate representation of the expression of the trait in the general population.
With regards to black holes for others. If you're going to have a discussion regarding that subject. I would highly recommend reading up on the holographic principle and the black hole information paradox. Here are two links which will give you the basic idea behind the principles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
LOL " Now, Jackels comment regarding information is also correct. Leonard Susskind's holographic theory states that information in the universe is all spread at the edge of the universe. From a physicist's point of view, everything in the universe contains information and information cannot be destroyed. "
WARNING WARNING!!! Religious FANATICS on the loose!!!
LOL since when is a " theory a FACT " typical ignoramus!! but good for a laugh!! LOL :-))
Eagle - Nothing to add again?
Let's not forget that Susskind came up with the holographic theory after arguing with Hawkings in regards to Hawking's assertion that information is lost after after particles cross the event horizon.
Doggy - There is also a recent paper suggesting the homosexuality is an evolutionary trait http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20120613/10287/homosexuality-gene-mother-reproduction-evolution.
Actually, when it comes to science, the status of theory is reserved for hypothesis which have been heavily tested and demonstrate very high consistency with experimental evidence. Scientist don't actually call things "Facts"... ever. Calling something a fact would require observation of all possible events past and future to demonstrate that there isn't an event that disproves the theory. It's more of a semantics issue. People's general use of the term theory is no where near the use of theory for a scientists. This is the same as the term work for a physicist vs. work for the average person. Very different meanings.
Scientific theories are quite often more true than what people consider facts as these theories have actually been tested. Most things people consider facts have far less than rigorous testing when compared to scientific theories. The general person doesn't recognize this and calls it a fact. A scientist recognizes that nothing can truly be called a fact and understands how truly arrogant it is to call something a fact when you can't possibly take measures of all possible events at every time point in the past and future.
However, simply because something demonstrates to be true in every single tested cases but can't be proven true for the whole set of all future cases at every point in space is not enough reason to dismiss it as "just a theory and not a fact".
For TReed. Oh I would definitely agree that it's an evolutionary trait. Regardless of what the mixture of the cause (genetic, hormonal, etc.), it definitely has an evolutionary component. Having gay relatives which contribute to the upbringing of offspring but do not add in additional cost through producing their own children offer a way for a social group to produce offspring which obtain a larger portion of parental attention when compared to a group where everyone has children. This is a similar effect as to that of grandparents. Grandparents provide a huge benefit to offspring without producing any more children and allow more time to be dedicated to the offspring. This often helps with mental development, survival rates, likelihood of future breeding etc. This was particularly true in early humans where dependency on the tribal group was paramount. Anything that could provide a method of caring for children as efficiently as possible led to more surviving and better equipped offspring.
Eagle, despite that your post is clearly trolling the fora, I'm compelled to answer the issue concerning black holes and information loss vs destruction.. I've already had to deal with people like you on this subject, but it's good thing I like to convert those musings to actual educational material:
That's not what Hawking argued though. I actually learned something new here myself. I use to think he meant it in the literal context years back too. So I did some further research into his theory here, and it didn't actually say that information would literally be destroyed in the literal context.
it didn't have to do with information literally being destroyed into literal nothing vs states of information (many physical states)converting into a same physical state. Instead it's shown that they would retain their quantum states / information encoded in their wave function.
It makes more sense when you read:
He's not talking about physical energy itself being literally destroyed to where it doesn't magically exist anymore, and neither does Susskind's Holographic Universe to which is in regards to the limits of the observable universe that was the result from the big bang btw.
As an analogy:
There is no loss of mass, capacity, energy, information or volume. There is no literal loss of energy! Formatting a hard drive is essentially converting energy states into the same state. Using a magnet with a strong enough field strength along with the orientation of the degaussing field that is able to penetrate the aluminum housing of the hard drive would be strong enough to reverse the polarity of the high coercivity magnetic particles on the disk platters. It destroys the data by converting it, not by literally destroying it. You can actually get Hard Drive Degaussers..:
http://www.garner-products.com/HD-3WXL.htm
Fun stuff!
Oh, and other Physicists have of course published work on this issue:
Abhay Ashtekar, Victor Taveras, Madhavan Varadarajan
(Submitted on 11 Jan 2008 (v1), last revised 22 May 2008 (this version, v2))
Comments:
4 pages, 2 figures
Subjects:
General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)
Journal reference:
Phys.Rev.Lett.100:211302,2008
DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.211302
Report number:
IGC-08/01-02
Cite as:
arXiv:0801.1811v2 [gr-qc]
And btw, this also deals with information escaping a black hole or to where you can get information back to which was once regarded that what goes in never comes back out. Never seen in the context of energy / information literally being destroyed..
Exactly! Have you ever heard of the Double slit experiment? Essentially, at least at the quantum level, the act of observing changes the way electrons behave. If I may extrapolate that. The act of observing or measuring changes the outcome of experiments. Why? If that is the case, then how can we say anything is certain?
Here's a nice little video to help explain.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YqgPAtzho
Faith Brother Just have FAITH, Science IS " God " so where is YOUR Faith?!
Actually It's anything that interferes with the electrons or photons. Double slit experiment just tells us we can't determine which slit the electron or photon passes through because the measuring equipment will interfere with the outcome. And the interference can effect wave or particle behavior. And yes the uncertainty principle applies to certain situations, especially if you want to start getting into chaos theory and emergence.. However, people don't get to play that card in a generalizing argument for a credibility or authority argument. That's equivalent of looking for an excuse to close your eyes and plug your ears to everything science that doesn't some how conform to your beliefs ect.. Nothing for example is going to change the certainty that you can't post or respond without information / energy here.. Hence the uncertainty principle doesn't apply here. This means to say that nothing is certain is in itself a logical fallacy.
What this experiment actually tells us is that energy interferes with itself, and so does the quantum foam tell us that energy interferes with itself. And if it couldn't or didn't, your computer wouldn't work and nor would you be possible to exist. Electromagnetism wouldn't be possible, and thus neither would life. So it's a good thing that it does.
Sorry science isn't "faith based", nor is it "GOD"... And you again have nothing of value to add to this discussion. You're like the high school kid in the stands that likes to throw a rubber chicken out on the ice to feel relevant.
I liked it, but then again I actually understand when people make facetious comments.
Facetious comments, to which of course includes intended trolling a forum. Not at all impressive.. ;)
For SillyBilly, you can't extrapolate those things to the macro world because, as you move towards the macro world, the effect observations have on experiments due to quantum mechanics is far smaller than what is measurable in the experiment. In the macroscopic world, this uncertainty collapses to determinism with an extremely high accuracy. This is a common mistake people make regarding the uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics when trying to apply them to other areas or use them in philosophical arguments.
For example, let's take a ball moving at say 1 meter/sec, is 1kg in mass, and has moved 1 meter. Momentum is 1 kg*m/s distance is 1m. Uncertainty principle puts this at 1 J*s (Joules*seconds) > h/4*pi. So if we know the momentum as 1kg*m/s than our minimum uncertainty due to quantum mechanics in the position of the ball is h/4*pi. h is on the order of 10^-34 J*s. So, the uncertainty in the distance traveled is also on the order of 10^-34 M. This distance is not measurable. The smallest distance we can measure with accuracy is done at the large hadron collider and is on the order of 10^-19m (been awhile since I checked that number so it could be off by a few orders of magnitude). So, while there is a level of uncertainty in the measurement caused by quantum mechanics, that level of uncertainty has almost no effect on the experiment in the macroscopic world.
Additionally, while we cannot say anything is absolutely 100% certain, we can give a high likely result. As the previous thought experiment demonstrates, assuming no equipment error (best possible result), you can get a value that is accurate to within 30 decimal places. Not being 100% accurate but rather 99.99999.......999% (add in as many 9s as you need) is considered close enough to say with a measurable degree of certainty. One could also turn such things into a probabilistic statement such as there is a 99.999999999 etc.% chance that this experiment will lead to this result. It may not be 100%, but we don't turn around and say that because it's not 100% we "can't say anything for certain".
Here's another example to demonstrate this point of near 100% and to show how silly it is to take anything not 100% as not certain. Take a room for of molecules. The positions of such molecules are governed by random motion. So, one can come up with a probability statement regarding the location of each of the molecules. For simplicity we'll assume that the probability of one molecule being on the left or right side is one half for both. Now, add in a second molecule. New probability is (1/2)^2. Similarly for 3 molecules we have (1/2)^3. Continue this for a room full of molecules. We have (1/2)^N. We'll make this simple and assume you're in a 2 cubic meter room (small yes but no reason to make it larger). Density of air at sea level about 1.2 kg/m^3. We'll assume nitrogen is a good weight to approximate air at 28g/mol which gives us around 86 mols of air. Multiply by avagadro's number to get something on the order of 10^25 molecules. So, chance of all air molecules ending up on one side of the room would be (1/2)^(10^25) which gives chance of this not occurring as 100*(1-(1/2)^[10^25])%. Notice how this is not 100% but close enough for us to give an extremely accurate prediction. If we assume we take measurements once a second, from near the start of the universe, this prediction would not be wrong by now in any of our tests nor likely ever be wrong in the lifetime of the observable universe.
So, this becomes a statistical certainty. That is how scientists determine certainty in a field. The probability of the prediction being incorrect given a set of parameters is so low, that it doesn't make statistical sense to talk about the results as non-certain. It's more of a semantics issue that people attempt to use to support their philosophical viewpoint which only really make sense to them and those that share a similar set of non-testable assumptions.
doggysaywhat,
Very good post :) .. However, sadly that is where many theists like to play the GOD of the gaps game as if that magically and suddenly makes their arguments or points at all relevant or worth anything.. We see this game constantly played while they provide nothing of substance to the discussion or in regards to actually backing themselves up.. I almost like to call it the Carl Sagan Dragon game... And to add to your post, we can actually provide and produce practical application of such things... That even includes quantum entanglements. Already we are getting very practical use out of quantum mechanics to which includes the now very likelihood of practical quantum computers. Heck, we even created light from a vacuum state already:
http://phys.org/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html
Yes, quite interesting fields. Unfortunately, I've never really liked quantum mechanics, hence the switch into biology. However, there is a point that is important to make regarding quantum mechanics. People mistakenly believe that when you do something as observe a quantum-mechanical effect in the macroscopic world like the double slit experiment or use quantum mechanics in larger scale objects such as computers, that it means objects at that large scale are now governed by quantum mechanics in their entirety. However, what they're usually missing is that the nature of the particle being observed (double slit experiment with electrons or photons for example) is determined through quantum mechanics. This doesn't mean the nature of a baseball in a similar experiment (very different from an electron) is determined by quantum mechanics. This holds even if you can observe a quantum mechanical effect in the macroscopic world through repeated measures of a quantum mechanical effect at the microscopic world.
Paraphrasing::
The road to sciences hell is littered with the good intent of theories!!
HOLY CRAP! Jackel, just write a friggin book already! Seriously, write a book on all your ideas towards life, the universe, and everything, find a publisher, and sell the pickings of your brain at Barnes and Noble.
On a lighter note this has turned from a debate on gay rights to one of the most interesting philosophical debates on life the universe and everything that I've read on these forums.
I would get sued claiming those ideas as mine lol. Yes it's often in my own words, but the science I am talking about is not something I can lay claim to. I could write a book about the science of course, and that would be fun to break down complicated issues for people as good educational material. So I might consider that :) But this response to my posts is, and not referring to you my friend, is the usual response I get from people unwilling to address the content or engage in honest intellectual discourse. It's almost sad that people have to attack the person in ad hominems when they are unable to be intellectually engaging or address and respond properly to the content of someone's posts... This behavior is noted in both Mikey, Silly..That's the kind of mentality you find in religious America today where it's highly dogmatic. These people have no regard for intellectual integrity what-so-ever. And that is really pretty sad :/ But that's ok, because they probably thought they were the target audience. Half of what I do here is expose their dogma while providing real educational material. So when people actually read these threads, those that are actually interested in learning new things can, and while at the same time see the difference between dishonest discourse and intellectual discourse. And I have been compiling dishonest quotes from these people for a while now, and will likely be posting an article on dishonest discourse and lack of intellectual integrity (minus their user names to adhere to the COH of course) :)
I'm glad you enjoyed the debate :) However, I would say only parts of it could be considered an actual debate giving that much of the other sides arguments were dogmatic and engaging. If you read back, you can see a lot of avoidance, and not much on their part in regards to addressing or actually reading the contents of my posts. I also asked quite a few questions they never bothered to address or answer. Hence, there really wasn't much of a debate because the other side really wasn't interested in debating on an honest level. But it is good to see that some people can still get something out of it and perhaps walk away with a little bit more than what they came in with. :)
Cheers! :)
This is very true, you can't say that quantum physics have much if any effect on the macro level.. There comes a point of diminishing effect, and I can't agree more with your statement here :)
Btw, to add something to the mix here regarding quantum mechanics, or more importantly QED vs the Macro level when concerning the concept of the butterfly effect to where the quantum effects convert to macro level effects, or have influence on the marco level. Now this is based on recent science or idea on the expansion of the Universe. And it goes like this:
Everyone knows what inertia is, but there is something interesting about inertia. And that is that we can't actually state that there is never any inertia, or state that things are never not in motion. You can put a coffee cup on your desk and try to tell me it's not moving, but that would be relative and not actually correct. The Earth is rotating on it's axis and orbiting the sun, and the sun orbits the Milky Way galaxy on one of it's spiral arms.. More interesting is that the Universe is expanding, and this is the interesting part:
It can not be said that space itself, giving that it is an energy state / field, isn't itself always moving, with inertia, or oscillating. This effect being of course observable on the macro level. And latest research into the quantum foam may suggest that such activity in itself may contribute to the expansion of the universe to where the quantum effects on a grand scale could have influence on the macro level (the expansion of the universe). Hence, dark energy is suspected to be the energy of the vacuum itself. And that would be quite interesting if they experimentally prove establish that.
But keep in mind, that is just food for thought on quantum effects becoming emergent on the macro level and having direct influence on the macro level.
TheJackel,
"Hence, there really wasn't much of a debate because the other side really wasn't interested in debating on an honest level."
There is no point in trying to "debate" philosophical subjects with the philosophically illiterate; with someone who thinks being can be "explained" in terms of existence; with someone who uses the word "fallacious" as if it were a synonym for "false"; with someone who thinks dictionary definitions have something to do with philosophy, etc. That is why I bugged out of this "debate" and do not intend to reenter it.
^ This
You're saying existence defines existence. Well that is a logical fallacy. It's called a circularly argument.
Here's a link to help explain.
ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-pbc-circular.htm
Here's a definition:
"The circular argument uses its own conclusion as one of its stated or unstated premises. Instead of offering proof, it simply asserts the conclusion in another form, thereby inviting the listener to accept it as settled when, in fact, it has not been settled. Because the premise is no different from and therefore as questionable as its conclusion, a circular argument violates the criterion of acceptability."
(T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Wadsworth, 2001)
Here's another:
"Circular argument: A sentence or argument that restates rather than proves. Thus, it goes in a circle: 'President Reagan was a great communicator because he had the knack of talking effectively to the people.' The terms in the beginning of the sentence (great communicator) and the end of the sentence (talking effectively) are interchangeable."
(Stephen Reid, The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers, 5th ed., 2000)
As another example, if someone made the argument that God exists, then when asked, "How do we know this?" responds, "The Bible tells us so." is then further asked "Who wrote the Bible?" "Well God did." That again is a circular argument. To things can not support each other.
You're the one being intellectually dishonest here. That or you fail to comprehend these concepts.
Also the argument that God does not exist because there is no proof is also a logical fallacy of distraction and argument from ignorance. Just the same a Theist arguing the opposing position is committing the same fallacy.
Now of course if you wish to defy common logic and argue for paradoxical concept that is fine but I'm afraid that is another discussion entirely and would go against everything that you've been trying to work for here.
SillyBilly,
"The circular argument uses its own conclusion as one of its stated or unstated premises. Instead of offering proof, it simply asserts the conclusion in another form, thereby inviting the listener to accept it as settled when, in fact, it has not been settled. Because the premise is no different from and therefore as questionable as its conclusion, a circular argument violates the criterion of acceptability."
What you say in your post is absolutely correct, but I'm afraid you are tiring your fingers to no avail. You might as well try reasoning with a duck. You would have more success at that.
This is true essentially the law of large numbers comes onto play here. Obviously the majority of electrons in a general area of space in proximity to an environment habitable by humans would not exhibit the same properties on a macro scale that is demonstrated in the double slit experiment.
There are problems however. The practicality of any scientific theory is the predictions it makes are that these predictions can be consistently and reliably observed through experiments. That is the fundamental problems with both relativity and quantum mechanics. They each are terrific at making predictions on their respective scales. However when taken to their opposing levels their predictions break down.
To add another problem which may be related to the above one. Although it is statistically improbable that all electrons is a specified area of space would suddenly begin acting like waves instead of particles it is not impossible. On an infinite time table and even better on an infinite space-time table, unless the probability is zero, sooner or later the action will occur. Therefore at some point in space-time, all the electrons will act like waves. Now this action may have already occurred. It may have happened at the moment of the Big Bang. I don't know. Never-the-less, it either has happened or will happen and it could happen more than once.
You know what's awesome? We're supposed to be talking about whether or not Gay Rights are Civil Rights, the Baptists Churches Opinion on the subject and things related to it. However, this discussion has completely sidetracked into a discussion about Theoretical Physics and Philosophical Logic. Brilliant!
SiilyBilly,
"However, this discussion has completely sidetracked into a discussion about Theoretical Physics and Philosophical Logic. Brilliant!"
Yeah, I noticed that. We did wander a little off topic, didn't we? It happens all the time here on Newsvine. :)
I blame Jackel.
SillyBilly,
"I blame Jackel."
And I don't think you would be too far off in assigning blame to TheJackel. If you look back over the posts, you will notice that you posted a comment about the Buddha that started out:
"Buddhism as an example makes far less of an attempt to discuss the physical realm and concentrates on the spiritual realm with great success. The ideas of mind, body and spirit and how one must look internally to discover the truth. Christianity has done that to some extent."
And then I responded to your comment with my comment in post #1.110. Then TheJackel jumped in with a rather philosophically incompetent critique of my post, and it degenerated from there into a bitch-slapping contest about quantum mechanics and philosophy.
Yeah, I've quit trying to read old post because I then have to scroll through Jackel's super long posts where he cites EVERYTHING EVER and then argues in a circle.
SillyBilly,
"Yeah, I've quit trying to read old post because I then have to scroll through Jackel's super long posts where he cites EVERYTHING EVER and then argues in a circle."
I hate real long posts, too, and I don't think anyone ever reads them anyway. I know I don't. But I suppose they're necessary if you are going to expound a theory of everything. Everything covers a lot of ground.
There is a lot of Dogma going on up there lol
Do explain how existence defines existence is a circular argument. Do you even comprehend what a circular argument is? I don't think you really know what that is.:
This does not at all apply to Existence defining existence lol... It's like me asking you if you are in and of existence? Well, Are you? Go ahead, answer those questions... Hence the evidence supports the conclusion and thus is not a circular argument. No surprise to see people who trying to use terms they don't even comprehend. Just reading the definition of existence defines existence silly rabbit!.. Hence, there is nothing "circular about it" as it's stating a direct fact. Learn what a logical fallacy is before trying to claim something as such.
Again not applicable to the subject of existence.. Please try again.. Lets help you with the proof part:
Without existence, you wouldn't exist... You must be in an of existence to exist. Feel free to prove otherwise. Maybe you can demonstrate for us how to post a reply without needing existence, or to be in and of existence ;)
I elaborated on the subject, and no I didn't interupt you as you could very well have carried on.. Nobody was holding your hand and preventing you from doing so. And of course you have to use ad hominems and personal attacks to sound like your the top dog in the room.. Lots of huffing and puffing there, but with zero intellectual substance.. Talk about bitch slapping contest, you surely didn't win that one either.. The best arguments either of you have here in this article thus far are mere tantrums of dogmatic behavior. Both of you are intellectually bankrupt here, and it gets more obvious as we continue to see both of you get increasingly more dogmatic with the inability to intellectually engage in honest discourse. Let's give you a prime example:
Let's define ad hominem and intellectual laziness:
And I at least understand the definitions of these logical fallacies before trying to apply them.. Yep, something Silly might want to learn how to do before doing so.. And intellectual laziness falls under when someone just skips over content because they either can't deal with it intellectually, honestly, or they can't deal with it because they are to lazy to do so. And you both clearly displayed that. And as evidenced by:
Now that is Pathetic... And you don't think anyone reads them? Yeah, this is why we get people here stating comments like:
Yeah, people don't read anything I post lol... I could go through other threads list thousands of replies to things I write on these issues. It seems the only cards you have left to play here are the ad hominem and dogma cards. And that is simply because you got literally owned in every debate you chose to engage in dishonestly. Hence, you have shown your irrelevance by making yourself irrelevant. Good job!, you make my posts far better than they are the more dogmatic and dishonest you get. So for that, I guess I have to thank you. Yes, thank you..No seriously, thank you! :)
Ad hominem.. Hence of no value...
Perhaps you can explain "being" can be explained without existence, or "being" in and of existence.. Maybe you can explain to us what an existent non existing being would be lol.. Well, being is actually being a part of existence kiddo! Man, and you tried to call me philosophically illiterate? You're kidding, no, you really have to be kidding because it's rather hilarious to see someone who is actually philosophically illiterate calling someone philosophically illiterate. Oh man the IRONY of your statement couldn't get any worse.!
Lets see:
Way to go, and you call me illiterate? Damn, now I have to teach English here to! O.o
Do tell us how you write a coherent philosophy without understanding the definitions of the words you would use. You really need meaning to have a philosophy at all. It's like Wow, this just gets better and better. Saying dictionary definitions have nothing to do with philosophy is just so wrong that is laughable that you would even say that. You bugged out because you have no idea what you're talking about, and it's painfully obvious at this point. Do you even bother to think before you post this stuff? Use your brain son, putting it to such waste is just sad..
I blame Canada! ;)
For the Jackel. Yes one thing in physics that people don't seem to fully understand is the range for which various effects or fundamental forces are dominant. In the macro world of say baseballs, cars, people etc. quantum mechanical effect is minimal. When you switch to another sized world such as the quantum mechanical world, there are various forces more dominant at the level which leads to all sorts of oddities that only a very few bright individuals on the planet were able to predict (unfortunately the rest of us are still scratching our heads as to how in the world they had this insight in the first place).
It's very interesting when you start moving to sizes for which currently known forces are minimal. If you move towards galactic cluster size and larger, the effect of gravity become extremely small due to the distances involved. This is were this current unknown force (dark energy) takes over. Some refer to this as the "5th" fundamental force. The are two main forms of this dark energy that people have theorized, the cosmological constant, and scalar fields such as quintessence. The difference between the two being scalar fields can change in time and space whereas the cosmological constant is well.... constant.
Vacuum energy is a very good candidate for this force. However, there is one very interesting issue with Vacuum energy. If vacuum energy is the cause of dark energy, than there should be a way to go from the vacuum energy in space to the cosmological constant (you can actually go through and convert the cosmological constant from whatever form it's in to an energy term, it just requires some algebra gymnastics, so often you will see people refer to the cosmological constant as an energy term). Essentially, this constant and vacuum energy are the same idea. Some force which pushes the universe apart. From the observable expansion, we can make estimates on this force/constant from the cosmological constant on the order of 10^-9 J per cubic meter. However, when you look at the predicted value based upon applying quantum electrodynamics, you get a value on the order of 10^113 (I'll avoid doing math here and just give results. The math for quantum mechanics is rather involved and it's been a very long time since I've done it myself.) This results in a disagreement of over 100 orders of magnitude between what is seen on the grand scale vs. what was predicted. Arguably the worst prediction in all of physics...
The entertaining things now are how to reconcile this large difference and the theories proposed are all over the place. Some have suggested that this is a naive application of quantum electrodynamics and not valid due to gravity being an important player at large scales, others have suggested that the standard model needs adjustments, and even others have suggested the existence of some sort of cancellation term which is equally as large as that predicted from QED that cancels out almost all of the large vacuum energy (that one is hard to stomach though because it's rather inelegant to just say "we lucked out and it cancelled out almost completely"). Another very odd one is to scrap the idea of a constant all together and go with the idea of quintessence (scalar field that can vary in time/space). However, this theory would lead to some very odd results because a changing field could result in different fundamental "constants" such as charge of an electron, mass of various particles etc. depending on how the field changed. This would probably involve and entire reworking of the standard model as well.
TheJackel,
"You're kidding, no, you really have to be kidding because it's rather hilarious to see someone who is actually philosophically illiterate calling someone philosophically illiterate."
I have a B.A. in philosophy which, while insufficient to qualify me as an expert in that subject, is easily enough to enable me to recognize the difference between philosophy and bull@!$%#, and I have been seeing too much bull@!$%#. As for the rest, reread my post #1.198, paying particular attention to the last sentence.
You clearly don't seem capable of showing it. B.A is meaningless if you can't seem to do anything with it but play dogmatic games and resort of ad hominess. Is this your poor attempt at an Authority argument. Well, I think it is, and giving from what I've seen you post here, I seriously question you having a BA in philosophy. And you clearly can't tell the difference between philosophy and bs when you recognize your own BS. And quite frankly, Philosophy is chalk full of BS for the most part. So what we have doing here Mikey is doing nothing intellectual in regards to philosophy or engaging in honest debate. You simply got put in your place, and you're essentially crying about it. So go ahead and please adhere to your "last sentence" until you can honestly enter a discussion without resorting to Authority arguments, ad hominems, or any other form of trash that has no value in a discussion.
And if you want to know how to contribute to a discussion properly Mikey, maybe you can learn how by perhaps reading doggysaywhat's posts.. You know, someone that makes an effort of offer something of value to a discussion. And this is just friendly advice you can either choose to ignore, or take note of.
TheJackel,
"You clearly don't seem capable of showing it. B.A is meaningless if you can't seem to do anything with it but play dogmatic games and resort of ad hominess. Is this your poor attempt at an Authority argument"
One whose knowledge of philosophy is limited to what he can glean through search engines on the Internet is in no position to make such a judgement. And I have no bone to pick with "doggysaywhat". His and SillyBilly's posts strike me as quite intelligent.
TheJackel,
"Philosophy is chalk full of BS for the most part."
And how would you know that, since you have obviously never read any philosophy? You can only legitimately judge what you know, and you obviously do not know philosophy.
"You know, someone that makes an effort of offer something of value to a discussion. And this is just friendly advice you can either choose to ignore, or take note of."
And I already gave you some friendly advice: Stick to science, and leave philosophy alone until you learn something about it.
Lol! In this single sentence you just disqualified everything you have said previously. Logic, Science and all other disciplines are all borne from Philosophy. There is a reason Ph.D. means Philosophical Doctorate.
Thank you for that.
Wow TheJackel, you have to be the most obnoxious person on the forums. You make superposts that half the time don't make any sense. All you're doing is arguing for science and gay rights when the 2 people you're arguing against aren't even really arguing against you. They just want you to make sense. Give it up man.
SillyBilly and Treasonforreason,
The thing I find most troubling about TheJackel is his hypocrisy. He spits venom like a viper at others, all the while accusing them of attacking him. His favorite expression is "ad Hominem" which I suppose he uses because he thinks it makes him sound "learned", but which he uses inappropriately most of the time. He is beginning to remind me of Mrs. Malaprop in Richard Sheridan's 1775 play The Rivals, famous for her malapropisms.
Oh I have read plenty of philosophy son.. Again you seems to hug tightly to ad Hominess
Except for the fact that science tends to debunk many so called magical fairytale Philosophies. Do yourself a favor, actually try addressing the content I've posted vs trying so hard to avoid it with Ad hominems.. Heck we can't even get you to honestly admit Gay marriage occurred before Christianity ever existed much less address why immaterialism is a laughable self-refuting joke.
Curious, did I say all philosophies are BS? Ahh NOPE! Reading comprehension problems Silly? I think so! You might want to learn how to read before making a reply to a comment.. News flash, philosophies based on logical fallacies, and self-refuting concepts are irrelevant. It just becomes retarded backwards logic that only festers in the minds of those with willful ignorance.
Oh no thank you for once again displaying your inability to intellectually engage in an honest discussion. Nothing like quote mining and Ad Hominems right? ;)
Ad Hominem ;) And obnoxious are people like you or them that constantly come to forums and use dishonest discourse, ad hominems, and troll the fora..
Do tell me what didn't make sense, and then explain that in detail for me.
Sorry, standing up for yourself is not being hypocritical, nor is stating facts about your behavior resorting to hypocrisy. Trying to play the victim here? And sorry, you do resort to Ad hominems, and continue to. You haven't addressed any of the content in my posts above on an intellectual basis. And once you get proved wrong on a subject, you immediately resorted to dogma and ad hominems. I could sit here and outline those for you..
Quite the claim there, care to back that up?
Perish the thought! Immaterialism is the very foundation of Discordian Philosophy!.
Egads!
TheJackel,
"Oh I have read plenty of philosophy son.. Again you seems to hug tightly to ad Hominess"
You claim that you have read plenty of philosophy, but it doesn't show. And there you go again with your favorite expression "ad Hominem", only this time you can't even spell it correctly much less use it correctly. Furthermore, if I am your son, then you must be at least in your eighties. Maybe that's why you can't spell anymore. You're so old you have forgotten how to spell.
"Except for the fact that science tends to debunk many so called magical fairytale Philosophies. Do yourself a favor, actually try addressing the content I've posted vs trying so hard to avoid it with Ad hominems.. Heck we can't even get you to honestly admit Gay marriage occurred before Christianity ever existed much less address why immaterialism is a laughable self-refuting joke."
What sort of "fairy tale philosophies" would you be referring to? I have never heard of a "fairy tale philosophy". Is that supposed to be something like a "self-refuting philosophy" you so foolishly referred to in one of your previous posts? Or perhaps you are thinking of Grimm's Fairy Tales or Hans Christian Andersen, but those have nothing to do with philosophy. It just reinforces my point that you are not very familiar with philosophy if you can so easily confuse philosophy with fairy tales. As for the science you like so much to boast about, since you are so fond of searching the Internet for things to post, you might try searching the Internet for "philosophy of science". The Online Britannica has a good article on it you might be able to learn something from. It's at least 19 pages long, though, but take your time. And as for gay marriage, I have said absolutely nothing on that subject one way or another. If you want to believe that gay marriage existed before Christianity, that is your prerogative, but I would like to see some evidence to support your claim. Or is that too much to ask?
"Sorry, standing up for yourself is not being hypocritical, nor is stating facts about your behavior resorting to hypocrisy"
Yes, it is hypocritical to accuse others of attacking you while totally ignoring your own attacks on others. It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
"And sorry, you do resort to Ad hominems, and continue to."
Stop using that expression "ad Hominem" or at least learn what it means and start using it correctly. If I see it in one of your posts again, I am going to puke.
"You haven't addressed any of the content in my posts above on an intellectual basis."
I most certainly have been responding to the content in your posts. You have just been ignoring my responses, preferring to talk to yourself instead.
"Quite the claim there, care to back that up?"
Yes, as a matter of fact, would. In one of my posts I said that Einstein was just a man. You responded in your typical fashion, "ad Hominem". That is pure nonsense! An ad Hominem fallacy is when you are engaged in an argument with a person and rather than addressing yourself to the logic of his argument, you respond by demeaning his character in some way. For example, if I had been engaged in an argument with Professor Einstein about banking, and he had made an argument in favor of banking as an honorable profession, and in response to his argument I had replied, "Oh, you would say that! After all, you're a Jew!" That would be an ad Hominem fallacy because I would be attacking him rather than the logic of his argument. When you accused me of an ad Hominem fallacy for referring to Einstein as just a man that was nonsense for two reasons: 1. I was never involved in any argument with Professor Einstein in the first place; therefore, my remark about his being just a man could not be taken as an attack against the man rather than against the logic of his argument. 2. It is not a put down anyway to refer to a man as a man, and I'm sure Professor Einstein would have had no objection to being called a man. If you think otherwise, then whoever screwed your head onto your shoulders got the threads crossed. You keep using the term "ad Hominem" as if it simply meant an attack against another person. That is not what it means. An attack against another person is just that: simply an attack against another person. It does not become an ad Hominem fallacy expect in the context of an argument when it is used instead of a logical refutation of the other person's argument. So please learn how to use it correctly.
TheJackel,
"you immediately resorted to dogma"
I'm sorry. I left that one out, except that I could just as well have continued to leave it out for all the sense it makes. But I will do you the courtesy of responding since you keep accusing me of not responding to you. When in my posts have I ever referred to a "dogma" or do you even know what that word means?
Way to back peddle. You said "Philosophy" you did not say what type you meant. You made a vague remark. You can't blame me for interpreting it generally. It is not my job to discern what type of Philosophy you are referring to. It is your job to refer to it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_philosophy
Here is a Glossary of types of Philosophy so that you can cite to us each and every type of philosophy that is BS.
Um, no.
An ad hom argument is any argument which fails to address the subject material, but attempts to diminish the credibility of the source on grounds not directly related to the subject at hand. There is no requirement, whatsoever, that an ad hom must be an insult or demeaning in any way.
Read it again:
Apparently you've never heard of a rhetorical device called a metaplasmus. Don't feel badly, most people haven't.
Flagrant ad hom argument.
Declaring "foolishness" without stating support, rationale, or reason. Ad hom argument.
Claiming faulty sources of information without support, rationale, or reason. Ad hom argument.
Etc., etc., etc.
You can claim these are not ad hominem fallacies to your heart's content. You've fooled no one.
Regards
Proud Pagan,
"An ad hom argument is any argument which fails to address the subject material, but attempts to diminish the credibility of the source on grounds not directly related to the subject at hand. There is no requirement, whatsoever, that an ad hom must be an insult or demeaning in any way."
And the subject at hand is an argument. Maybe you had better find a better book on logic. If it is a logical fallacy, it must refer to an argument; otherwise it is not a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies concern arguments. That's why they're called logical fallacies. And by the way, why are you responding to my post instead of TheJackel, to whom it was addressed? Did he die and leave you to respond in his place?
Proud Pagan,
"An ad hom argument is any argument which fails to address the subject material, but attempts to diminish the credibility of the source on grounds not directly related to the subject at hand."
And by the way, a fallacy is not really an argument at all, as you claim. A fallacy is simply an error in reasoning that results in an invalid argument. Arguments may contain fallacies or may be fallacious, but a fallacy is not itself an argument. An argument consists of propositions, usually a proposition called the major premiss, followed by a series of one or more propositions called minor premisses from which a conclusion is drawn. The premisses of an argument may be either true or false, and the argument itself may be either valid or invalid. The validity of an argument depends on the form of the argument; not on the truths of its premisses, but if an argument is in a valid form and all its premisses are true, then the conclusion must also be true. That is what is meant by saying that the conclusion "follows logically" from the premisses. If one or more of the premisses is false and/or the form of the argument is invalid, then the conclusion does not follow from the premisses and may be false. There are many, many types of fallacies, generally classified into two types: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies involve the structure of the argument itself, such as the law of the undistributed middle term; informal fallacies do not. The "ad Hominem" and the "ad Hominem Tu Quoque" fallacies are examples of informal fallacies. I just thought I'd give you a quick and dirty introduction to formal logic. Of course, there's a lot more to it than that. I studied formal logic. It is a requirement for every philosophy major because logic is to philosophy as calculus is to physics. I also studied symbolic logic.
correction:
"such as the law of the undistributed middle term"
That should be "the fallacy of the undistributed middle term"; not "law".
Mickey,
No! Really?
What do you suggest?
Drop the bull@!$%# semantics. I provided examples. Feel free to address them.
I'm not referring to your post in its entirety, only your faulty presentation of an ad hom argument.
I've been watching your little argument purely out of morbid curiosity. I couldn't give a rat's arse how old you are, claim to be, or your claims of education; from the outside, it's descending to a point of looking like a couple of @!$%#ing children slap-fighting each other. But you damn well don't get away with redefining a well-known concept because you find its presence inconvenient.
Regards
Go back and read the source material. I never used the word fallacy.
But if you like fallacies, go look up "Moving the goal-posts."
Regards
Poud Pagan,
"What do you suggest?"
There are many good textbooks on formal logic. The one I used in college was simply entitled Logic, and I think the author's name was Copeland. But that was a long time ago, and I am not even sure it's still in print. However, I still remember enough logic to recognize bull@!$%# when I see it. So don't try to pull the wool over my eyes.
"Drop the bull@!$%# semantics. I provided examples. Feel free to address them."
It isn't bull@!$%#. It's called logic, and my presentation of an ad Hominem fallacy was not faulty. I also gave and example of an ad Hominem fallacy in my post. You are right about one thing, however, the assertion in an ad Hominem fallacy does not necessarily have to be demeaning, but it usually is. It just detracts from, does not address the logic of the opponent's argument, is irrelevant to the argument, and results in an invalid argument. It is your assertion that it is an argument that is faulty. It is not an argument; it is a fallacy, and fallacies are not arguments. It looks to me like you are just getting frustrated because you know I know what I am talking about, and that I don't buy your bull@!$%#. But I should tone down my language a bit, I guess, since I realize that I am dealing with amateurs here, and it would behove you to tone down your language as well.
Proud Pagan,
"Go back and read the source material. I never used the word fallacy."
That's right. You referred to the ad Hominem as an argument, and you should have used the word fallacy. Then you would have been correct because the ad Hominem is a fallacy; not an argument.
Again, I provided examples. Feel free to address them.
So now you're a mind reader? Fascinating.
You have not a clue to whom you are speaking. :-) Why don't you just dazzle me with that superior logic of yours, and prove me wrong.
I color my language however I see fit.
Regards
Let's keep it simple; please translate: Argumentum ad Hominem
Regards
Proud Pagan,
I think you are being argumentative now just for the sake of being argumentative. I do not like that and will not respond in the future. There is simply no point in it.
In other words, you can't refute Pagan's points. Duly noted!
I'm more curious as to how new people are still reading this article from like last week and then even bothering to read the cornucopia of non-sense in order to understand this argument.
I defer to my previous answer; I wasn't interested in the argument itself as I was in simply raising a point.
Kind regards
gordy,
"In other words, you can't refute Pagan's points."
There is nothing to refute since Proud Pagan's posts consisted of nothing more than nasty remarks about me and errors in his/her understanding of what logic is. As for the errors, see my post #1.226. The rest of his/her remarks are nothing but bull@!$%#, and I will not respond to that.
Sorry for the language, but this thread has turned into a pissing match. There are no longer any arguments, just arguing.
Mickey - So what type of logic are you trying to use? Formal, informal? Ontologic argument? Epistemologic argument? Just curious.
Then you either haven't been paying attention or his points when right over your head. Which is it?
I've reviewed the posts and there is no BS where Pagan is concerned. You on the other hand....
Both Mickey and Silly have been engaging in dishonest discourse through this entire article. Most if not all their relevant points have been refuted, and when they couldn't handle that, they began getting more interested in personalizing and attacking the people whom disagree with them.. And I highly doubt Mickey has any sort of degree in Philosophy considering he doesn't even "seem" to comprehend half the crap he's talking about regarding the subject.
And of course we are still waiting for either of them to address the content they claim is "BS".. In fact, they seem to like to say it is so while unable to back that up. Hence, just saying so isn't making it true, or at all relevant in terms of being true..
When I refer to responding to a post, it entails having an actual intellectual response that doesn't include "Oh that's BS" because you can say so.., or something like "Oh don't listen to Jackel , his posts are too long".. Kinda of like your comment about empiricism and then your inability to respond to my reply regarding it to which entirely refuted your so called attempt at a philosophical argument against it. Or how about getting put in your place regarding gay marriage before Christianity ever existed? Yeah, you provided nothing but dishonest goal post moving and dishonest discourse every time you had been refuted.. And then you got really upset when I started addressing the so called philosophy of immateriality being a logical fallacy. And again you showed no sign of honest intellectual engagement.. And it didn't get any better when you started to try to call me a hypocrite for defending myself as if that had anything to do with being an ad hominem. See the difference between me and you here, I actually addressed your arguments logically and intellectually when it concerned the subjects being discussed. Yep, I actually backed myself up without resorting to authority arguments in trying to claim I have some sort of BA or PHD as the main source to claim of credibility.
This is goal post moving, and your displaying it by example.. And back to empiricism, this is however not a fallacy:
You are not going to win against information science, especially when you are forced to use it's premises to even make an argument with here.. You've been refuted, deal with it! And your so BA wouldn't exist without it either.
I did not backpedaling, it is you here that is back peddling.. My comment was intended not to generalize because I understand that not every philosophy is BS. Who do you think you are fooling here? Do I need to point something out like Creationism, or the flat Earth Society?.. Would believe the Sun is a flashlight 3,000 miles above a flat earth as believed by the Flat Earth Society? .. Yeah, my statement stands that there is a lot of BS in Philosophy. It does not state, nor had it as much as you might have wished it to, say all of philosophy is BS.. The only person backpedaling here is you in an attempt to move the goal post and change the context of the argument to try and get the upper hand. You're going to need to try a lot harder than that.
To which you used in the form of an ad hominem. The rest of your post provided nothing of value on the subject discussed.
Sorry, this response was not an Ad Hominem:
Please try again Mickey, and make sure you read the definition of ad hominem before making the charge. And maybe you can actually respond to that argument I made properly while you are at it.
Oh, and regarding my spelling.. I have dyslexia and trying to write stuff out is a real pain in the backside. I make many errors to which often includes me adding a "d" when trying to write the word "an". And proof reading doesn't guarantee that I will find every error I make. Lot's of my typing also depends on key memory and not what I see on screen. But hey, if you need to be a spellchecker and proof reader for me, feel free to do so.
TheJackel,
"Both Mickey and Silly have been engaging in dishonest discourse through this entire article. Most if not all their relevant points have been refuted, and when they couldn't handle that, they began getting more interested in personalizing and attacking the people whom disagree with them.. And I highly doubt Mickey has any sort of degree in Philosophy considering he doesn't even "seem" to comprehend half the crap he's talking about regarding the subject."
I think both Mickey and SillyBilly have both been completely reasonable and entirely too patient in their responses to your posts. You should know that the attempt to even read one of your posts is a trying and most aggravating experience; trying because you don't write terribly well. I'm sorry to say that. I do not like being mean to people, but it is true. Your posts are not very well written. Compare them with the posts by SillyBilly or doggysaywhat which are usually quite well written. It helps others comprehend what you are trying to say if you state it in precise, clearly written sentences in well organized paragraphs. And it is aggravating because you are insolent and constantly attacking people. I know you will say, "Who? Me?" The answer to that is, "Yes. You." But you obviously believe it is only others who attack you and that you never attack others. What can I say? You are hopeless.
"Yep, I actually backed myself up without resorting to authority arguments in trying to claim I have some sort of BA or PHD as the main source to claim of credibility."
You seem to be obsessed with the idea that I have a B.A. in philosophy while at the same time denying that I do have such a degree. You do not believe it, and it is absolutely of no importance to me whatsoever whether you believe it or not. You should look back over all my posts on this page and you will notice that I never once in any of my posts even mentioned the fact that I have a B.A. in philosophy. I did not mention it until after I said you were philosophically illiterate and you came back with the reply that it is I who am philosophically illiterate. I had not mentioned that I have a degree in philosophy before that point because I did not think it was of any importance, but after you called me philosophically illiterate, I felt that was an appropriate place to mention that I have a B.A. in philosophy so I am, in fact, far from philosophically illiterate. I only mentioned it once (in my post #1.211 and have not mentioned it since then. It is you who keep harping on that fact. I have no need of using my degree in philosophy as any sort of appeal to authority or whatever it is you imagine it to be. I know what I am talking about, and that is sufficient.
"Kinda of like your comment about empiricism and then your inability to respond to my reply regarding it to which entirely refuted your so called attempt at a philosophical argument against it."
This is like the second or third time I have heard you complain about my comment about empiricism. The only time I recall even using the word empiricism is when I said empiricism is a philosophy, which is precisely what it is. So what is your problem? Why do you keep griping about it? You seem to have an obsession with that word. Why is that?
"Or how about getting put in your place regarding gay marriage before Christianity ever existed? Yeah, you provided nothing but dishonest goal post moving and dishonest discourse every time you had been refuted.."
I said absolutely nothing about gay marriage one way or the other. I simply said that if you believe there was gay marriage before Christianity, I would appreciate it if you could provide me with a few specific examples of it, and I added, "Is that too much to ask?" Well, I guess it was too much to ask because I still have not seen any examples of gay marriage before Christianity.
"Sorry, this response was not an Ad Hominem:
You are absolutely right about that. That response is not ad Hominem nor did I ever say it was! So what is your problem?
As for the rest of your post, I am not even going to respond to it because you are becoming more and more incoherent with each post. I find it difficult to even read and comprehend just what the hell it is you are even trying to say. Moreover, you keep confusing me with others, and accusing me of saying things I never said but that someone else might have.
TReed,
"Sorry for the language, but this thread has turned into a pissing match. There are no longer any arguments, just arguing.
Mickey - So what type of logic are you trying to use? Formal, informal? Ontologic argument? Epistemologic argument? Just curious."
You are absolutely right about that. I myself referred to it as a "bitch slapping contest" in one of my previous posts. But it is going to end, and I am the one who is going to end it now. As for your question about what form of logic I am using, I don't understand what you mean. Ontology is the branch of philosophy that deals with being or existence and epistemology is the branch that deals with the theory of knowledge. Neither one of them has anything to do with logic. As for the words formal and informal, those refer to types of logical fallacies, but I still don't get what you mean by that.
Mickey - By formal and informal, I am meaning a formalised logic such as mathematical logic and informal as in argumentation theory. Ontology is also used in information theory as structural framework. I am trying to figure out your tact with Jackel. You both make valid points, but your backgrounds are different which gives you both different points of views.
TReed,
"I am trying to figure out your tact with Jackel."
That's a good question. I really have no "tact". I have simply been trying my best to respond in some way or other to whatever he says in his posts. To my way of thinking, at least, there is really no argument at all. As you rightly said, it has simply degenerated into a pissing contest, and I really do not know why. He makes one set of accusations against me, often false, such as his remark about gay marriage which I had said absolutely nothing about to begin with, and I respond with another against him. I'm really beginning to find it all very tiresome, and I don't think I will be responding to him again. That's the only way to end the pissing contest.
"By formal and informal, I am meaning a formalised logic such as mathematical logic and informal as in argumentation theory."
I see. You were referring to logic as a whole, formal logic and mathematical logic. By formal and informal, I was thinking in terms of a formal fallacy, such as the fallacy of the undistributed middle term, versus an informal fallacy such as the ad Hominem, Gambler's Fallacy, Hasty Generalization, or Ignoring a Common Cause. I was not thinking in terms of the science of logic as a whole. I was not personally employing anything other than your common, vanilla-flavored brand of logic such as anyone who is thinking clearly would use.
"Ontology is also used in information theory as structural framework"
Is it? I did not know that. I have heard about information theory, but I really don't know very much about it. Is that your area of expertise? Ontology is also a branch of philosophy that deals with the question of being just as some of the other branches of philosophy are Epistemology (theory of knowledge), Ethics, Aesthetics, and Metaphysics. Logic has usually been considered a branch of philosophy since Aristotle was pretty much the first one to codify the principles of logic in his treatises that constitute the Organon, such as On Interpretation, Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics, Topics and On Sophistical Refutations, and it has generally been included under the curriculum of the philosophy departments in colleges and universities. But that may be changing these days. I'm not sure. It has been a long, long time since I majored in philosophy.
"You both make valid points, but your backgrounds are different which gives you both different points of views."
I think that is true. TheJackel says his area of expertise is also Information Theory, and mine is philosophy, although I wouldn't call myself an expert on philosophy by any means. I think that is why we end up pulling each other's hair out by the roots and scratching each other's eyes out. There is really no point in it, though, because we get nowhere, and I have grown tired of it. That is why I am simply going to have to stop responding to TheJackel's posts. It's the only way to end the pissing contest. If he responds to my last post to him, I won't respond. Anyway, it's nice to talk with someone like you. I think you and I could communicate without getting into a pissing or bitch slapping contest. That's the way I prefer it.
So still no ability to address or answer to posts intellectually.. Check! I even wonder how many questions I had asked both of you in my posts to which neither of you had ever addressed. Well, it's pretty much every single one of them... Let us know when you learn what honest discourse is..
Intellectual laziness, and more inability to address a post .. Check! And Ad hominem.. This also tells me the most of the stuff I am addressing you on is way over your head and ability to actually address. Meaning, you seem to have no formal education in the fields of science dealing with information theory ect.. If you can't address a subject, just admit it and stop trying to play the dishonest game of trying to protect your self-pride that has obviously been hurt here after getting completely refuted several times over. You couldn't even honestly handle a simple discussion with Proud Pagan with any sort of honest intellectual integrity.. Hence, you are now just utterly embarrassing yourself.
Do feel free to back yourself up.. And do feel free to tell us what exactly you don't seem to comprehend.. From what I can tell, most of it seems to be far above your head or educational grade. So perhaps you can outline that for us and be very specific.. And given your response times, I can tell you didn't bother to even read anything.. You're simply caught shooting from the hip and getting owned in a debate.
Again, your degree is worthless if you can't even seem to retain anything from it and demonstrate it. What did you get, a BA in ad hominems and dishonest discourse much like William Lane Craig? Let me tell you something, a BA in Philosophy to which you used as an Authority argument is meaningless..Especially when you consistently engage in dishonest discourse with little regard for intellectual integrity. And giving that you seem to have no idea why the meaning of words and their definitions are extremely important in developing a coherent non self-refuting philosophy really tells me that you either are dishonest, don't have a degree in Philosophy, or went to a really terrible school.. Hell the first things they should teach you are the fundamentals of information science... And it's quite clear you can't seem to grasp those here.
AHH no, the context you used it was clearly an attempt at an authority argument. Especially when you used it to avoid having to address an argument put forth to you. Now I wouldn't have had an issue with that if you could have shown to back yourself up with that by posting something actually philosophically intellectual in regards to the subjects being discussed. Nope, what you did was resort to ad hominems and all sorts of dishonest discourse that included goal post moving.. So if you can't properly use your supposed degree with any sort of intellectual integrity, it's meaningless. It just becomes a chest thumper...
Perhaps you can begin to show it? ... Here's a philosophy for you: The adherence to Intellectual integrity is the soul of meaningful discourse.
Not directly, but you sure did try to play on it... And that didn't get you anywhere.. And that isn't even what bothers me... What really bothers me is people who think being dishonest in a debate is a good form of discourse and a meaningful tact to avoid an argument they can't handle.. Kinda like your stance on empiricism and Silly's on gay marriage before Christianity to which were refuted. In both cases you two continued to refuse to admit being refuted while at the same time trying to move goal posts with the intent to try and circumvent the fact you were refuted. Or you just didn't bother answering at all. This is where your high horse pride got in the way...
Of course I am... Did you think I would let you off so easily on a issue you keep ignoring and trying to avoid? It seems you think you don't need to play fair in a discussion and treat people peoples responses within what is commonly known in honest discourse. It seems you have no ethics concerning discourse in addressing the content of peoples posts, comments, or questions they directly ask you. Once you went down that path, it was clear there would be no meaningful discussion with you.
This is going to be an interesting thing and example for you to follow. You're correct, it was Silly I had that specific issue with... So that charge remains with Silly, and I do apologize for mixing you two up. However, this does not resolve the issues we are having here.. Still waiting for you to properly address the content of the material provided you, and the many questions either of you bothered to answer. See how admitting when you are wrong, or make a mistake is not so scary?
Usually turns into one when one side can't seem to engage in honest discourse. These last few 20 or so posts definitely was, and you seemed to have no problem initiating it or playing along. So perhaps you can get back to answer questions I've asked, and addressing the subjects discussed without dishonest discourse.. This is your window of opportunity...
Yep, and we addressed that issue.. And I found it interesting you had fought so hard to avoiding addressing that intellectually. So what part of information science to which I had discussed did you have a problem with? Please be specific with examples, and provide something to back yourself up with.
Sorry, Philosophy is a form of logic, and holds a very strong relationship with Philosophy. Take the definition of "Logic" for example:
And logic can be someone's philosophy in addressing nature for example when you get into, lets say, your example of Epistemology.
Hence, logic and Philosophy are essentially two sides of the same coin if you really want to break it down and get into the semantics of it. Worse yet, so does ontology:
Both of which have everything to do with "Logic"... More specifically, the use of logic. To say they don't have "anything to do with logic", tells me that you indeed seem to be lacking a fundamental understanding in the fields of information science. And clearly noted in the definition of Philisophy:
This to which brings us to form Logic in which philosophy is essentially and largely based on:
And many of us who understand information science often regard Philosophical logic as a branch of logic , and Logic being a branch of Philosophy. Essentially they are attached to the same tree to which are often interchangeable in the study of either or. Yes they are attached at the hip and they have a lot more to do with each other than your claim of them having nothing to do with each other.
Ita triumphant nescii.
What-ever you need to feel good.. :/
Amen to that
gay civil unions
"whatever"
gay marriage
NEVER!
Seriously? The word marriage is what has you all up in a twist?
Websters defines marriage as:
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
See the key part of that? "A consensual and contractual relationship".
Not a "religious rite to be performed only between a man and a woman".
Not "an anachronistic relic designed to protect the inheritance of property rights"
My marriage had no religious component what-so-ever. Did that make it a "civil union" since it appears you want to imbue the word with magical religious meaning?
Even as another straight person, I don't want to suffer your 'in my face' public displays of affection - but if I tried to prevent you from it - you'd scream that I'm blocking your Constitutional rights.
So - why can you block gays from doing the very same thing you demand the right to do?
because YOU deem it wrong? I deem your public displays of affection as wrong - If you have the right to deem it wrong and feel it's your right to enforce that with laws, I can deem your PDA's as wrong and block yours with laws.
Equal treatment under the law sucks for opinionated bigots don't it?
Yes. That does make you union a civil one. It is NOT a marriage.
I will have to let Illinois know they sent me a marriage license instead of a civil union license. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Just to clarify Isr. You are correct that Marriage in it's origins was not a particularly religious right. It was a contract between two families. However the right was usually performed either by the religious figure like a shaman or priest or the chief. In many ancient cultures the religious law and the secular law were one and the same as each culture had a unique religion. That is not the case today. The contract between the two however was for the purpose of bearing children and raising a family. It was not for the purposes of seeking some emotional connection of love and companionship with the other person. Our modern concept of Marriage requiring romantic love is exactly that, modern. It has only been around in common place since the Victorian Era. Marriage to protect property rights was something that evolved because intelligent people wished to use the system for their benefit and that of their families. We have inherited that tradition. The idea of Marriage is not the real problem. The problem is that we've inherited an archaic legal system that is slow to change and can't keep up with modern ideas of rights. Therefore people have to be married in order to enjoy certain benefits in the realm of taxes and healthcare, among others.
Personally, and mind you this is a completely personal opinion, I don't care what you and your partner/wife/girlfriend/etc. do in the bedroom - nor shockingly, do I think about it, try and figure it out, or anything else about anyone's sex life. IT IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS... so why do you care what goes on in other people's bedrooms?
If you drop your personal bias out of this topic, drop religious connotations to marriage… you might realize that all citizens of this country are supposed to be equal under the law. And while the law is able to sanctify a marriage in this country – applying rights and obligations when you legally enter into said contract – you cannot deny one person the same rights you give to another, simply because you don’t ‘approve’ of them.
For the record, my husband and I have been married for 14 years. Neither of us care what you want to call it, but to deny a citizen of this country the same legal rights as another, based on a perceived difference?... it is just wrong.
Jake DarnellRestored
How is it that religious people think that they own the TRADEMARK to the word "Marriage?" Why aren't they making a stink that - horrors! - some marriages are performed as a State-sanctioned contract rather than requiring that it be blessed by an Invisible Deity?
corewynn-
Article IV section 1 of the United States Constitution says you're wrong:
"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."
Hartvig: DOMA says you're wrong. It allows states to ignore the Full Faith and Credit clause; states that do not allow same-sex marriage are not required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any state where they are legal.
Why are you making a stink of this article as have the multitude of others before you. It is always, "You are always wrong, a bigot, a racists or a homophobe. It is the people of the church that makes up the BAPTIST Church. Just like the Boy Scouts of America. Just leave them alone. They will allow you to participate in big ways but don't need to be bitten in the hand by public accusations everytime a article is published. 99% of the United States is not Florida, New York, Northeast, California, Las Vegas or Utah. 99% of the United States have small gay and LBGHT populations and your mind set is very foreign. Ranting and raving and name calling makes you enemies. I am from the south, though not a Baptist, I have many friends that are and your babble is babble. Push Bloonberger around or the overweight Guv of New Jersey. Cut us some slack.
No homo. The most hateful people on earth are gays. They hate anyone that opposes their awful choice and they hate themselves as well. And all that name-calling... that's so gay.
Jake Darnell, gay marriage is happening..halleujah, praise the Lord, Amen!!
Why do people who believe marriage is a religious institution get divorced in a court of law? If you believe marriage is a religious institution, which wife should get your worldly possessions?..the one your married in church (and divorced in court but never divorced in church) or the second one you married at the town hall? Now if marriage is a religious institution, tell me why your first spouse shouldn't get everything when you croak...
Timothy1Mil::: The most hateful people on earth are so many straights-- like you. They like to be left alone-- and they like to make friends with straights as well as gays. They DO NOT hate themselves, and they DO NOT resort to hateful name-calling. I don't know where you get your ideas. But your ideas are misinformed ignorant ideas.
I knew of one couple who were a devoted couple for 45 years. They were separated by death, but not for long. They are together again. They were both good friends of mine, so I know of what I speak.
The Southern Baptist Convention was formed in 1875 in Augusta, Georgia to provide a Baptist denomination that supported slavery. Almost every KKK member was also a Southern Baptist and what was said in church on Sunday often resulted in what happened at night. Why do you think the KKK was all about burning CROSSES? The Southern Baptist Convention did not disavow it's raciest past until the 1990's, twenty years after the Mormons.
So this does not surprise me at all.
Erin - The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No act of congress, unless duly passed and confirmed by enough states to amend said constitution, can allow any part of the constitution to be ignored.
As a former paralegal, I know that. And that is just one of the bases on which DOMA is being challenged: that it is unconstitutional because it contains such language. Do you really think this is the first time lawmakers have done something like this?
BTW, no state law or constitution can violate the US Constitution, either, which is why laws like Prop H8 and the latest NC law/amendment are also unconstitutional.
Am I the only one who sees the irony in the Southern Baptists claiming the homosexual rights acivists are "misappropriating the rhetoric of the civil rights movement"?
These are the same people who were staunch segregationists during the civil rights movement.
My wife and I are atheists. There was no religious ceremony involved in our state and federally recognized marriage.
Religion is not a requirement for a marriage in order to be recognized on the state or federal level, this is guaranteed because of the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights which ensures a secular government through the establishment and religious freedom clauses.
On top of the fact that religion is not a requirement for marriage in this free country - not all religions are anti-gay. There are many which will happily perform religious marriage rites, and such religious rites are just as valid as any other religion's. In this country, all religions have equal protection under the law.
Religions already have their own term for marriage by the way: holy matrimony.
Just as a point of information; it goes well-beyond this. It the entire history of U.S. Law, even going back to pre-Christian England, there has never been a requirement of church approval for a marriage to be considered legal.
Regards
Does anybody besides me think that this election by the southern baptist convention is the epitomy of a "TOKEN" ??????
It's a good thing that the Southern Baptists don't make the rules about what is a civil right.
I support their right not to live a homosexual lifestyle in order to adhere to their religious dogma.
Hey folks. If an officer of the court can perform a marriage ceremony, it is a civil right. Shut up and leave the LGBT community alone.
Fine then, all those gay Southern Baptists can remain single. Just keep your religious beliefs out of my government, thank you very much.
"We deny that the effort to legalize 'same-sex marriage' qualifies as a civil rights issue since homosexuality does not qualify as a class meriting special protections, like race and gender," the resolution says.
What I find funny is that the new president just elected by the Southern Baptists probably didn't "qualify as a class meriting special protections" a mere 30 or 40 years ago...
Well, it took them 137 years to elect a black man, maybe in another 137 years or so they will elect a homosexual.
What a bunch of wankers.
EXACTLY.
And it was just this sort of entirely unsubstantiated declaration that kept the SBC thumping the Bible in support of discrimination and segregation for years.
Someone really needs to inform them that not everyone in this country is subject to their religious law - nor can they constitutionally inflict their religious law upon anyone else, just as a heads-up or something. They seem to forget that.
In the universal spiritual educational system, the Baptist church is a kindergarten. Or maybe it's special ed, I don't know.
I'd say it is not even in preschool yet.
Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Dale you need to read your Bible. No nation has ever stood that accepted homosexuality. God called it an "abomination" in the Old Testament and concluded in Revelation 21:8 that those that commit "abomination" will suffer the second death.
When the adulterous woman was brought to Christ, he did not condone her sin, forgave her sins and told her to "go and sin no more". Homosexuals can be saved, but must turn from their sin the same as the adulterous woman, the thief, prostitute, etc. As Christians, we love the person but cannot accept or condone the sin.
America is not a christian nation, we are a secular nation with secular laws and as such ALL American citizens should be afforded equal rights to marry the one they love without all the religious babble! IF you could get married without a civil marriage license only some church certificate then I would have said that your religion should have a say in the process but that is not the case. Marriage IS a civil right with federal and state legal benefits afforded to married couples these rights and benefits are being withheld from a portion of the American people due to religious discrimination!
You know, I grew up in churches that reassured themselves they "had the truth" because they could string together the longest line of [unrelated] "proof texts" from the Bible. Wake up and smell the coffee. Your children and your children's children are abandoning the pretentious hypocrisy of main line "Christian" denominations. Just look around yourself the next time you go sit in a pew. The median age of the audience is over 65.
You need to read the constitution, RWF. And by the way, do the Jews have to follow Christ as well?
RWF - I guess it's a good thing we are a secular nation then eh? I'd hate to live my life by Biblical tenets.
I sometimes have to work on Sundays but Exodus says I should be put to death for that. Thank goodness I don't grow crops side by side. Not sure I'd like being stoned. Although, my shirt being made of two different threads is directly contrary to the Bible so perhaps I should be.
Isn't the Bible a fun way to base rights and laws?
Grow up, educate yourself and join the 21st century. But then again, you jamokes don't believe in the Theory of Evolution, either, do you?....
Yes, and a woman should not wear anything that pertains to a man, or so the Bible says. And yet we saw a woman in the very front row wearing, gasp, a trouser suit.
I sure am glad i don't believe in the theory of god.
[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.
"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina
"The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor,
"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond.
It comes down to two things: 1) No religion "owns" the concept of marriage. Therefore, no religion can tell anyone - other than those who chose to believe that religion - who can marry and who cannot. 2) If those of you who struggle with calling single-sex marriage, "marriage," and therefore prefer the term "civil union," you have just defined it as a civil right. Therefore, this discussion, and the whole Southern Baptist rigamarole, is a waste of time.
As Christians, we love the person but cannot accept or condone the sin.
Then why the hell do you Christians feel the need to repress other people's rights? You don't agree with homosexuality? Fine! You can do that! But to go beyond that and say that gays cannot marry because the bible says it is wrong is stupid. I don't want your biblical laws governing my life. Many comments have already pointed some of the laws in the bible. If you don't follow those then you are a hypocrite.
RWF-1111599Restored
Why should we who are not Christians be forced to live under your religious laws? This is just Christian Shariah that you are advocating as surely as Saudi Arabia enforces Islamic Shariah.
You all need to keep your religions out of the rest of our faces.
Radical liberals just don't understand us Christians and always overreact. They overreact almost as bad as some women do when their husbands disciplines them for the first time. Just because we suggest killing gays, locking them up away from the community, not letting them work or vote doesn't mean we hate them. We are trying to save their souls because we love them even though they are abominations.
Take our country back! Vote for Romney.
I'm going to assume you are being sarcastic or posting satire, Rhazes. Surely no one thinks that seriously.
RWF - Can you show any nation that has always existed?
Rhazes - Beat your wife much?
That's the shame of it. Gays are so self-important, they think God can create a universe but can't change their sexuality. Who are they to think they can't be saved? What egos on these poor misguided creatures.
I believe Rhazes made that comment with tongue firmly planted in cheek. It is, however, frightening that there are indeed many Christians who DO feel that way.. From the Southern Baptists, to the Assemblies of God to the Michelle Bachman Wisconsin Synod Lutherans.
@poopyluv
I'll clarify the slavery you are talking about. First, slavery back then was nothing like slavery we'd think of in a modern society. You couldn't capture a person and force them to work for you. That was punishable by death. Slavery back then was far more similar to what we'd think of indentured servantism. A poor man and his family would work for a wealthier family in exchange for food, clothing, and a place to live. They had to be released every seven years or on the year of Jubilee which was every fifty, whichever came first. There were laws that dictated you had to treat slaves humanely.
GaysBigots are so self-important, they think God can create a universe but can't change theirsexualityignorance. Who are they to think they can't be saved? What egos on these poor misguided creatures.Fixed that for you.
RWF::: OK. so your bible says that homosexuality is a sin? Show me in your bible where it says that you can shack up with a mistress while your wife is sick-- show me in your bible where it says it is OK to do it TWICE. Show me in your bible where it says that you can throw your wife to the curb and throw her away because she was injured in an accident and is no longer the trophy wife you married. And show me in your bible where it says that it is OK to throw your wife AND YOUR CHILDREN under the bus and not care for your children.
I hate to hear these faux christians say that some things are against their bible yet they completely overlook other things.
I don't know about your guy in the sky, but MY GOD is compassionate and loves everyone. I guess MY GOD and your guy in the sky are TWO different persons.
This once again illustrates that no other branch of Christianity is as dominated by spontaneous, spewed-forth Bible thumping rhetoric than the Southern Baptist Church.
Change your avatar: you despise the truth.
What truth is it that you think Sees despises?
Herald and ram are just upset since they can't get a civil union in their state.
All gay people already have equal rights. Go out and marry someone of the opposite gender. Quit asking for special rights when there is no basis for demanding it!
Special rights? What special rights would those be?
Ignorance is plentiful today. Did MSNBC pass out flyers in some bumpkin town. Hateville, MS; Killanigga, OK; ChristKills Falls, TX; Gaybludgeon, LA. Southern Christianity is about the most hateful thing there is. Racism, sexism, murder, molotov cocktails, false imprisonments, etc.
Southerners who claim to
loveChrist are pure E V I L ! ! ! ! ! !He is saying special rights, because he himself is "special". I just call him retarded.
we do have equal rights. its the christian right that squaks every time we try to use them. why don't you folks keep your church and your beliefs to yourselves, and then we can both move on happily.
besides...what part of "all men are created equally" do you not understand? I have the right to marry anyone I choose.
The special right that a woman could marry an adopted son or that two sisters could marry as long as they declared that they were gay.
I'm surprised you didn't trot out that dependable right-wing talking point "well, then they will want to be able to marry a dog or a tree" so I guess I have to give you some credit for at least TRYING.
If you can show me a single, reputable source that says that your examples are what the LGBT community is asking for, I will concede your point. I don't think I will be forced to do that however.
A civilized society does not condone sin. Homosexual behavior is a sin. The consequences are a degradation of any society and eternal damnation for the practicing sinner.
A loving person points this out for the individual to turn from this inevitable judgement which will come when God Almighty determines.
A hateful and self serving person condones sin and encourages the practice in the lives of others.
America has it's foundation set in the Judeo/Christian ethic. To deny this is to be delusional and educated by the American Public education system, which was hijacked by God hating humanists 50-60 years ago.
Sin is an opinion. You can't judge a non-christan by the bible.
why don't you take a good, long, hard look at that christan foundation herald...its not as pretty as you might think. unless you are one of those christans who promote genocide and slavery
WRONG. America has no basis in any Judeo-Christian "ethic". To claim otherwise is to be delusional and uneducated (BTW, I am a product of the American public education system, with two bachelor's and two master's degrees -- what have YOU done?)
John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli, 1797
I learned THAT in our American public school system -- and I also work in the American public school system.
Next!
Harold, you don't get to define sin for anyone but those who believe as you believe. That is why this isn't the US of Harold and his church.
iiisschroder You really are stupid aren't you?
Willie Smith So are you
Harold9 BS!
Herald9::: You say that your bible says that homosexuality is a sin? Who wrote the bible? A bunch of MEN-- not the guy in the sky or his father.
How do a bunch of MORTAL MEN know what went on thousands of years before they were born? Oh, the guy in the sky had a tape recorder and recorded every word that he said? What brand tape recorder did he use-- I don't get thousands of days out of one, let alone thousands of years. And my batteries don't last that long either.
Your bible is just a book of stories written by MORTAL MEN, not the guy in the sky or his father. So homosexuality being a sin is just a bunch of MORTAL MEN saying it.
They are not asking for special rights. They just want the ones they get under the constitution like the rest of us. It must be terrible to be such a hater.
Herald9,
Now I know you are not a believer in the Bible, (over all that is a good thing), because the bible makes it clear that there is only one unforgivable sin, and it ain't even genocide, mass torture let alone being chosen by God to be Gay! It is the failure to accept Christ....that is it.....do that and be A. Hitler you GO straight to heaven!!!!
So--since you don't believe in the bible--I'm wondering how you came up with that notion that Gays go to hell?
Some people believe everything they read in their bible and are always "calling people out" as they like to say, instead of looking to their own soul. I say leave me the hell alone.
If these are the people who are going to heaven, then I'll chose to go the other direction. At least I won't have to listen to their self-righteous crap anymore.
Anyone who would what to limit the freedom of anybody based on their myth needs to find another country. We really don't need them.
Yahweh is imaginary. All gods are imaginary. If you believe in a myth (religion) you are delusional.
I hear that the Saudis already have the infrastructure set up for just that sort of thing. Although, it is Islam - not Christianity - their particular likes and dislikes are pretty much the same.
Sure sure, you say that they stone people to death for sinning and what not - well, that's just because they've been at the theocracy thing for awhile now. So think of it like you are getting to skip over the hard part of many years knocking down secular institutions, freedoms, and enlightenment thinking in order to establish the religious state and skip straight for the juicy stuff at the end. It's quite the deal!
Religion being valid/invalid real/false is not the question here. What is, however, is the FACT that a law in this country cannot be based on a religious principal. The only thing standing between gays and full rights in the US is christian belief. This issue is black and white, an open and shut case....
Love the sinner - hate the sin. This is not gay bashing, sodomy is wrong ether heterosexual or homosexual.
Obama declared June Gay month. In reality he declared it HOMOSEXUAL month since gay is a slang term.
Sodomy may be wrong, but it makes for a fun Saturday night. You should try it sometime. You might be a little less of a tight-a$$!
I doubt that, homosexual sex doesn't sit well with the usual hypocritical faux Christian out there these days.
Whats it to ya? Judge not, yet you christans insist on going around judging everyone else's "morality"... Stay out of my life and I'll not be involved in yours. Give me one non-religious reason my homosexuality is wrong. I expect sources by the way, not opinions.
I doubt that, homosexual sex doesn't sit well with the usual hypocritical faux Christian out there these days.
Sodomy, by and of itself, is not a strictly homosexual activity. I can guarantee you many a married preacher is committing sodomy on a nightly basis with the little Missus!
No thanks, I am sure your a$$ is loose enough for all of us. We'll just take your word for it.
That statement right there shows me you're condemning something without knowing what it is.
Who mentioned anything about anal sex (Although, that is one aspect of sodomy)? Maybe you should put down the Bible and pick up a dictionary?
@ IsrJablonski: If I could have given you 100 votes I would have for your comment!
I don't believe sodomy is right or wrong. It is whatever makes two consenting adults feel good. I think Jake thinks it's wrong because his dutiful wife says it is. I think Jake may be repressed!
#7.3
Sure Walker, See " Evolution " and more to the point the part about " Survival of the fittest " so, now, one for you, what is the cost for treating a HIV/AIDS patient, and who pays for it?
Actually the term Gay as applied to people who have same sex attractions predates the term homosexual by forty years. Beside people have a right to be called by the name of their choosing. Who are you to decide what the are to be called. You would be the first to scream if someone started calling you a name. I suppose you call black people colored or something even worse. What do you call Jewish people or hispanics?
If only.
Education is the antithesis of religion.
wouldn't know what that has to do with the price of tea in china EA, but its really making me not like you. i don't plan to reproduce, so i suppose evolution is out of range for me. as far as hiv/aids, there are far, far more straight people with aids than not. as far as survival, we shall see...if people would stop breeding so much, we all might survive a little longer...hows about that?
They don't have the right to be wrong.
Just as you don't have the right to dictiate right from wrong.
Yeah...whose right and wrong are you speaking of?
The only way this issue can be resolved is to let the Federal Government decide once an for all. You cannot let the individual States decide because a mess will ensue, as it has already done. You can't have 37 States say no to gay marriage and 13 States say yes. What the hell is that for resolution on a sensitive subject. It is either "yes" or "no" but it must be across the board. Half ass solutions does not resolve a damn thing. I am not in favor of changing the definition of marriage. However, I do not think it is right to allow individual States to make separate laws that affect a group of people. Think about it, would you want some States to band left-handed people from living in their State? How about Georgia bands smokers and Vermont does not? How about Montana refuses to recognize Florida drivers license? Let's get this resolved once and for all.
Are these people so weak in their own faith in themselves that they have to actively seek out an enemy? There are so many other issues that pose a real challenge to their religions so why is it that they will go out of their way to attack something that is indeed a civil right? And with such fervor! Honestly, they are speaking of fencing in people, expecting that the government should kill homosexuals and even spreading such nonsense around the world. This is a shame and a black eye on what Christianity should be perceived as.
They are always fighting "the devil".
I read once that if these folks would concentrate on the real message of Christ, loving your fellow man, "the devil" would get bored and go away.
Is premarital sex dirty? We'll, yeah. If you're doin' it right.
Woody Allen in "Take the Money and Run"!
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. This 2012 Convention of Southern Baptist churches is true to its heritage of PR hypocrisy. It elected a black President because it had "commissioned" a study that recommended it put more people of color into leadership rules. It allowed a ludicrous "alternate" name (Great Commission Baptist Churches) because it had "commissioned" a study that told them Christians seeking a church home were less likely to try their churches because of the emotional/historical baggage attached to the "Southern Baptist" name. And it has declined to affirm LBGT persons in their fellowship because, even without a formal study, it knows that most of its churches will disband before they accept the reality of gay marriage.
You can put lipstick on a pig. It is STILL a pig!
I am confused about this topic. My Catholic upbringing tells me that it's wrong but my common sense tells me let them marry. If it is truly wrong than let them deal with the outcome with God. As long as they aren't hurting other people, it's not my place to tell them what they can or cannot do. It seems so simple.
When it comes to a person's rights, it doesn't matter if you think it's right or wrong. It's wrong to discriminate, period. You can continue to believe it's wrong to be gay, or whatever, but your belief should not restrict another person's rights.
You have a made a common fallacy. Although gay marriage may not hurt other people directly, it can hurt them indirectly. An impressionable person can be influenced by the actions of others, so influencing others to sin is a form of indirect harm.
iiischroeder...that is still a personal choice if you are looking at it that way. If the person is under 18 it is a crime regardless. If they are over 18 it is their personal business. So the "harm" you are perceiving is your opinion, not fact. Actually, your "impressionable" people become christians moreso than gays. In my experience, most christians don't do much more good than gays either....just sayin'
@iiischroeder, if that's the case then why aren't they up in arms over adultery and divorce? Last time I looked at Leviticus adultery was an offense that was punishable by being stoned to death! Funny it's only homosexuality that they single out, seems like they're cherry picking who they hate.
@iiischroeder well by your logic, the SB itself shouldn't be allowed since it does indirect harm. Like teaching children that there's an invisible man who watches everything you do and demands worship or else you'll be tortured forever... but he loves you.
That's pretty harmful too.
iiischroeder -
So I can't do anything that might affect your delicate nature? Please! Get a life.
You have made a common fallacy, iii. Influencing others to be bigots and homophobes, to try to take over a country and make it a theocracy based on iii's personal religious beliefs, to threaten innocent children and deny citizens their civil rights would be directly harming people, but you seem to think all that is fine. No one is telling you to even change your personal beliefs and behaviors, but you insist everyone else should change theirs to suit you. Your reasoning just won't work because it's based on your personal religious opinions.
How would you like it if my personal religious beliefs based on a book I believe to be straight from my god were firm in stating that no heterosexuals could marry and that they were all sinners. You wouldn't like that much, I bet, and you would protest and ask why I thought I had the right to decide who you can marry legally since this hypothetical woman you love is a..gasp...woman. You'd be pretty unhappy and you would be right. You marry the person you love and I'll marry the one I love. As long as they are both consenting adults is no one else's business, and your very own God is the one supposed to be judging, according to your own book.
If your faith is so weak that my marrying another woman will wreck it then I feel sorry for you. If you have children you can explain it as you wish, but just as in your world you can choose how to explain it, I would do it in my world with biological facts and compassion, reason, and an explanation that while "we" don't happen to be heterosexual, some are and they have the same rights as those who are homosexual. My kids wouldn't be confused or damaged or tempted to change who they are as yours might in your world. Sad and the reason this country has something called separation of church and state.
I think I just broke my mouse button trying to like your comment way more than once...
SinisterPhnx.....Me Tooo!!!!
Alverant, people who have belief in God live happier, healthier lives. This is a fact. Besides giving more hope and meaning to life, religious people tend to suffer less from high blood pressure, heart disease, etc. You can call that abuse, but if you truly believe that there is nothing after death, I think you should be thankful we are allowing these children to live longer. If they're wrong, guess what, it won't hurt them.
Show us your proof of that stupid statement..and NOTHING fronm Faux News or some church bulletin.
Tried to get links but it didn't work.
Go to the main page of MSNBC and put "being religious helps you live longer" in the search box on top. Scroll down to the web results. You will find several articles on it.
There are also articles on it on the web.
To..ccmnxc""""
So say the people who believe in god
The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.
iiischroeder
I'm going to save you the time of reading all the long, drawn out comments about your comment and just sum it up.
It's a stupid argument.
Gays "influence people to sin"?
Stupid isn't the word for that statement.
Try moronic, imbecilic, etc.
Ahhh, remember the SBC also thought it was Biblically correct to support slavery in the U.S. But in their defense, the Bible is pro-slavery.
Makes you think.
Tax free status is neither a religous nor civil right... time to make them start paying for their bigotry.
Its pretty black and white corewynn, if religions want to preach political issues from the pulpit and try to sway peoples' votes who sit in the pews, then they have no right to be tax exempt.
Yup time for the political machines with pews to start paying, instead of insisting on getting their "special rights".
They are looking at the argument from the perspective of,.."Is even being gay right or wrong, let alone gay marriage", which is exactly the wrong way to look at it. I absolutely guarantee the Supreme Court will not look at it that way. The only thing the courts will look at is this question: Is it a violation of a person's civil rights and/or a violation of the constitution to discriminate against a person or persons based on their sexual orientation? I believe the court will be close to unanimous in affirming the rights of gays to full marriage and all rights that follow. There will be some crying and shouting, but in time, people will accept it and within 20 years or so, will become a very normal part of our great American society.
Considering every viable argument against homosexuality is based on the bible, or some other opinion, their house of glass cards will be crashing down quickly...
As stated in the Bible before the end of time there will be a great falling away from God. We see this most everyday in the never ending attempt to make the abnormal to be normal, the sinful to be righteous, and the condemned to be right and normal. No matter how irate and ugly the comments here or anywhere there is nothing that will change these facts. If you don't know God and have not experienced his calling from sin to repentance it is totally understandable how you can mock and make fun of those that at least make some attempt to follow him. Those that crucified Jesus also mocked and ridiculed him and even still he forgave them and said forgive them for they know not what they do. It is easy to band together with those like ourselves whatever the cause and be loud and insulting but in the end it will be each one of us standing before God alone to be judged. The only unforgiveable sin is turning away and denying the Holy Ghost which comes to each of us as a still small voice into each heart. Some have only one opportunity and some have more than one but each person will have at least one call to repentance. What we do when we recieve that call will determine where we spend eternity. We can be joint heirs with Jesus in heaven or spend an eternity in hell where no one is welcome and the body will burn forever yet never burn up. Some think the soul will burn up and it will be over in hell but that will not be the case. No doubt there will be many attacks on what I have written but that is expected, if at least one stops and thinks about their condition it will not have been time wasted.
There isn't a falling away from God. Their is a falling away from the backward institutions that tell people what they must think, feel, and do. That is why religious fundamentalists hate higher education - people begin to question the role of intrusive religions in their personal lives. God is doing fine with the massive numbers that believe. Religions are going down kicking and screaming because they are losing money and the ability to brainwash the masses.
ONE EXAMPLE is all I'm asking. We have religious freedom in this country. I don't have to conform to any idea about God that is not my own. As a human being I can marry who I choose. One example is all I'm asking... just one...
Dan, I believe that you truly believe all that you say and I respect your right to do so. Fortunately you don't get to make laws based on all that you just said, though, since those are your beliefs and not the beliefs of many, many in the world. I am not insulting religion and I wouldn't choose to live in a place where no religions were allowed any more than I would choose to live in a place where religious groups made the laws based on their own personal religious beliefs.
Some of you seem to think people who disagree with you automatically hate God or religion, or that those who want laws to be based on common good and not one group's beliefs automatically hate right or good or even God. You are just wrong. There are many flavors of religion and many flavors of Christian. All of us have a right to be heard and to be treated with respect.
It's time religion take a back seat and mind their own business. If you want to continue to persecute and judge everybody, then I think it's time to remove your tax free status. What part of separation of church and state do you all not understand??? Meanwhile, in other news, yet again, another religious nut wing was caught paying for a gay escort.
who gives a f*ck about what 'some' book you like says?
the ability and freedom to marry 'anyone' is a civil right, idiots!
can anyone please provide a 'reasonable' argument how same-sex marriage affects anyone except the two ppl getting married?
Please show me anything in the constitution that says two people of the opposite sex can "marry"
please show me in the constution that two ppl of the same sex 'can't' marry or exercise all of the things hetero's do.
interesting how neither of you addressed my question...is it bcz all you have is bigotry as an argument?
pan, i'm on your side. the republican's think that gay marriage will lead to people marrying animals or furniture. funny considering most of them have had sex with farm animals...
I does say in the constitution that you can't deny someone's rights because they are different from other people.
Show me where in the Constitution it said women or blacks had the right to vote or where it says blacks and whites can marry each other? These were just accepted beliefs until the minorities involved stood up, the religious right responded by getting laws passed that eventually were determined to be unconstitutional. You say "show us where it says that two people of the same sex can "marry.", I ask you to show me where - in the Constitution of the United States - does it say they can't!
#17.5 -
That is " different " by Nature, not different by choice!
Thats the second one...EA are you trying to insinuate that being Gay is a choice? I tried to make the choice to be straight when I was younger, and I'll tell you that it didn't work out. I can put my parts in the parts of a woman and make it work, but I felt like I was living a lie. There was no real strong attraction there, and I did not want kids. Now that I have made the decision in my life to be true to my self, I feel so much more comfortable and confident. I am happier than I have ever been. I could see having kids some day if I can ever afford it financially. The love, however, is there.
All sexual behavior outside of marriage is sinful (unless I'm doin' it) Gay sex is wrong (unless I'm doin' it) Send me your money and I will fight the Devil. Give until it hurts.
Okay-- coupla things--
first: how is this news? While not Baptist, as a Christian, I agree with their stance. But how is it news? Duhhhh.
Second: how and why is this then prompting another debate on the matter? Don't we all know where we stand? Does anything anyone says here in this forum help anyone else to change their mind? Haven't there been threads on this matter, ad nauseum??
Sheesh.
You would probably think this was news if it were your rights being trampled upon...
Where the US stands on this policy is in direct violation of our own constitution... How we change people's minds is getting truth out one person at a time.
yes there have been many many threads, and there will be many many many many more as long as there is hypocrisy in this nation.
no-- wrong. The fact that a group of Christians doesn't find gay marriage to be a civil right is NOT news. And my "rights" are trampled upon every day of the week, every time I'm forced to wear a seatbelt or face a fine; every time I'm forced to wear a motorcycle helmet or face a fine. I have the RIGHT to choose not to protect myself. And yet, there are the police waiting with their ticket book. How is that constitutional?
Newsflash-- our rights are being trampled upon daily. Get over it. No one is telling gays they can't be gay. Sleep with your billygoat. I could care less. You can even call it what you want-- just don't ask the federal government and other citizens to adopt your new and improved definition of marriage.
If you're on "send" then yes exposure to the truth will not help.
Myth believers don't have control over the word marriage. If you want get married in a cult building (church). They call it holly matrimony.
Well wearing or not wearing your seatbelt does not equate to the federal government telling me I can't marry the person I love, and it is news. Every time someone's rights are ignored it is news worthy. I'm sorry you don't have the self preservation to wear your seat belt, but that is a whole different story. If you feel that strongly about it, don't do it, and don't pay the fine. Take them to court.
I'm not asking anyone to accept anything or to change the definition of any word. I want equal treatment under the law. That is all.
P.S. driving is a privilege, and being gay has nothing to do with billy goats
So, you were surprised to read the Southern Baptist Convention voted as they did? That was news to you that this group of Christians didn't think your "right" to alter the definition of marriage equated to the civil rights of blacks? This is news? Um, okay. Then you need to get out more.
If you think that seatbelt laws are more important than civil rights, you might want to get out more.... See I can do it too, and it doesn't fix anything...
I am not surprised at all by the Southern Baptists' decision. In fact I was raised as a Primitive Baptist, which is a shade more strict in some ways, and a shade less in others, but all in all very opressive. But as I said before, any time someones' civil rights are being denied, it is always news.
By the way, I don't care about the definition of marriage. I don't care if it is changed. You can call gay unions "gay-ass ring ceremony" and I'd be ok with it. Just as long as the rights and privelages are the same. I don't see the problem with marriage being about two people instead of a man and woman...it shouldn't matter. It seems childish to argue about..
" I don't see the problem with marriage being about two people instead of a man and woman...it shouldn't matter. It seems childish to argue about.."
#19.6 -
So Walker? You do not think there is a need to discuss the positives and the negatives(Pro/Cons) to what may well be the major upheaval for the existence of the USA, and hence the existence of a whole culture?
rwalker, I don't think seat belts are more important than civil rights. My point was that the American people are sleeping while the government is taking away our freedom little by little.
I just don't agree that your issue is a matter of civil rights. You're not oppressed. No one's sending you the back of a bus or sending you to a gays only water fountain. You just want something you can't have.
EA please reword your question. I don't think I understand. I was actually speaking of the deffinition of the word "Marriage", not the actual concept of two people marrying each other...I was saying that it should matter what it is called, just that there are equal rights under the law.
Marla, I agree that the people are asleep and the powers that be are gobbling up rights, resources, money, power, and truth at an alarming rate. Our rights and privlegdes are slipping away one by one.
I want equal treatment. That is all. If someone told you that you can't get married you would squak about it too, or you should. And you would be right to. If you can't see that the goverment telling me that I can't marry the person I love and have all the same rights and responsibilites that go along with it, then maybe you need to look at your own belief structure. We will never agree that this is not a civil rights issue.
I do want something and by the Gods I will have it.
Well, on that we can agree-- whatever happens, it will be by God's will. He creates prosperity and calamity-- all is by His hand. He very well may allow our nation to redefine what He defined as the union of one man with one woman. He allows all sorts of sin to occur. Yes, I know from other posts of yours, you don't believe in scripture. I'm not trying to push my faith at you, simply sharing my opinions based on my faith.
I know this is a hurtful issue for you. I apologize for being flippant earlier.
In turn, I apologize for being insulting to your belief system in some of my other posts. It is just that their are too many other christains that are far too willing to step in and try to enforce their personal morality or belief structures on people that simply don't believe in those ways. Not that I haven't tried, but it simply didn't work for me. Thank you for being respectful, and yes it is an intense issue for me and people like me.
However fired up I was during some of my other posts, its not that I really don't believe in Christ's message, its just that I have HUGE problems with how Christianity is presented, and represented by certain groups of folks these days. I can't help but believe that the bible has been manipulated and changed by the hands of men who desire power and to control others. Christ's message, however, is key, and golden. Those words are the important ones. Check out some of the older books that were removed from cannon in the first millenium like the Gospel of St. Thomas. Christ has some really intriguing things to say in that one. Some very powerful rants are in there. They have been translated less through time and will give you insight as to how He wrote and in what style He told his Parables.
Personally, I'm proud of these fine upstanding baptist brethren. It takes courage to stand for what is right, when people are saying the opposite. Nothing different than what the apostles themselves had to go through.
Poeple, there is a whole lot of misinformation out there, but let me help you out here. There is no conclusive scientific evidence that people are born homosexuals. In fact, when you actually read the studies that try to point in that direction, you find so many flaws that had it been on any other subject, it would have been laughed out of scientific circles long ago.
While people should certainly have the right to pursue their sexual preferences in most aspects, deviant sexual behavior should certainly not be encouraged. It is so overwhelmingly encouraged that now those that want help from it have troubles finding it and/or are labeled as deviants themselves for not accepting it.
The is hope, and I encourage you to find it. Here is a link of a very large organization of doctors and physicians that acknowledge your cry for help and will do so for you.
www.narth.org
j70141 in Colorado,
"There is no conclusive scientific evidence that people are born homosexuals...deviant sexual behavior should certainly not be encouraged."
I think the question of whether or not homosexuality is inborn is of greater academic interest and importance to straight people than it is to most gays. Gays know who they are; they really don't need science to tell them that, and they don't need any encouragement to be who they are, either, unless they are psychologically maladjusted.