Religion...

Remove all ads!

/me applauds too, then rolls eyes for HB missing what I meant completely

If I'd meant that sex was only for the purpose of making children, I would have used "Sex=children" instead (don't any of you dare quote that out of context! ). "Sex->children" just means that sex leads to children, unless you do something about it, which I am all in favor for. It's pure biology, and denying it because you want pleasure (or to strengthen a relationship) is just plain silly (not that I'm saying anyone here is doing that). Any long-term couple with half a brain between them would have a steady supply of contraceptives for use in their "goal" of sex without children.

(P.S. You can get some at a drug store, HB. )

 

@Barmy:

I'm quite shocked by your point of view. As you say the author works under assumptions, you seem to do the same. You work under the assumption that abortion and homosexuality (this especially) is wrong.

How is day and age relevant? You're working on the assumption that homosexuality is progressive and that the fact that we live in a modern era, from our point of view, makes it necessary for us to accept homosexuality? But why is that? Something being old or new doesn't make it good or wrong.

Except the baby is a separate being. Should a mother be able to euthanise a born infant because bringing him up would ruin her life? At least in case of consensual sex, she can simply not have it. When the life of another comes into question, it's no longer the woman's own choice.

Besides, I don't buy the "can't afford a child" argument. One can always give the child up for adoption. It's just some women would rather kill their children than let other women have them. Some others simply don't want 9 months of pregnancy and make stuff up about not being able to care for one more child in the family.

If you believe that a foetus is merely a lump of cells, then you're at least being consistent (although the view doesn't hold because of it having a different DNA, blood group, then gender etc, in other words, being a separate organism). But once you recognise the foetus as a human being in a nascent form, then no "choice" arguments apply unless you admit that you are giving the mother the power to decide life and death of that human in a nascent form. If you grant her that, then euthanising old people without families to care for them isn't such a distant possibility. It simply decides that some human lives aren't worth a dick when they come in the way of career or fun.

 

Times move on, chev. It's not a question of good or bad. I'm sure gays have been around just as long as straight people have, it's just that until recently, it was seen as unnatural and gays were likely to get descriminated against if they 'came out of the closet'. Now the world has moved on and become more humane and willing to accept these things. Thank God.

I don't buy that a phaetus another life, really. Can it think for itself? Hell, it doesn't even have a sexuality until later on in the pregnancy does it? (forgive me if I'm showing a major lack of understanding).
And there are enough poor children stuck in foster homes as it is.

 

Barmy,

Actually the sex is determined from the moment of conception. A fetus doesn't develop any type of sexual organs untl a few months into pregnancy (heck, for the first couple of months it doesn't have any functioning organs of any type), but the instructions for the development are present in the DNA of the fertilized egg.

 

Ah, I thought I might've got that wrong.

 

Deepfae:
Read what I said again. I was giving an example of how Utilitarianism doesn't agree with what most of us concider moral. I was saying that to prove the point that you can't so simply define what is moral and what isn't.

Barmy:
Again, read what I said again. I compared homosexuals to rapists, murderers, thiefs, and BARBERS specifically to avoid this misunderstanding. I don't think barbers are evil, I was just showing that you choose it, you aren't born to it. And actually, there's no conclusive evidence one way or the other. I can tell you I know a guy who used tobe gay and then got saved, but you can just as easily claim that he's only repressing his 'natural' desires.
As for the whole sex issue, if you really believe that, you're more far gone than I thought. Are you really argueing that we don't have to live with the consequences of our actions?
And here, science has weighted in. Psychologically and medically, abortions cause scarring, usually significant, frequently seriously damaging.

Susipaisti:
Yet again, read what I said. I didn't say they all converted from another religion, I said they all chose Christianity on their own basis and not on the basis of their parents beliefs. My church has a rather strict interview session for prospective members to insure this is the case. We don't want any sunday-morining christians.
As for homosexuality, the lack of evidence on one side is not the issue. The claiming of evidence on the other, and subsequent lack of what was claimed, that's the issue.
Liberal ideas are those that are supported by the liberal extremes in our political sphere. That's what kind of liberal we're talking about, the political and idealogical group.

You may want to read that again. Jesus acts kindly to Samaritans, which were the equivalent of middle eastern terrorists to today's America, and even stars one as the hero in one of his tales, thus 'The Good Samaritan' is kind of like 'The Good Muslim Extremist'.
Also, Paul tells husbands to love their wives, which was unusual at the time. We're talking about a society where husbands could, and would, have their wives executed for minor offenses.
The Islamic saber-rattling was political, not religious.
Religion shouldn't be about 'make-your-own-god'. That's philosophy. Religion is about what you believe to be TRUE. If you don't agree with one of the major religions, don't call yourself one.

HB:
Actually, condoms are not at all effective at preventing HIV. The pores in the latex are more than enough to let a virus through and no antibiotic or anything like that hurts it.
There are also plenty of contraceptive methods that don't involve killing someone. The affore mentioned condoms, for one, usually work great. The only 100% contraceptive, however, is abstinance.

And for everyone that has commented on the neccesity of sex in a long-term relationship, my gf and I have been going out for over 4 years and will probably be dating for at least one more before we marry. We are both virgins and will stay that way until we marry. We have a better relationship than 90% of the people out there our age, even those who are married, so .

 

That's fine, but once you are married, you should be able to have sex whenever you want, even if you don't want another kid.

 

Oh, and you will. Once the wrappers off, it's 90% of what you think about, I'm sure the blokes here will back me up.
You shouldn't have to worry about conception every time you want a bit of slap and tickle.

 

NOG: You say that your church interviews people to make sure that they chose Christianity on the basis of their own belief, not their parents. I wonder, however, how much of their own belief is biased by thier upbringing. If the members of your church had been born in an Islamic community to Islamic Parents, would they still have chosen your church? Are there many converts in your church, or do most of them come from Christian backrounds. If the latter is the case, then it suely must point to one's upbringing crucially influencing one's choice of religion, even if one's parents do not force the religion upon one.
Also, the old argument of weather homosexuallity is a choice or in one's genes is inconclusive, at best. The point I tried to make earlier was that if there is no evidence that says something is bad, how can you codemn it? Isn't that the basis for the idea of Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

 

Just a stray fact, looking for a home in someone's ear...

While there are many, many proscriptions against homosexual activity in the Torah, Reform Judaism is starting to re-think this position. You see, Jews believe that the ideal state for a human being is to have a partner - no one should ever be alone. In Biblical and Rabbinic times, it was never considered that a homosexual relationship could be anything other than casual, and it's CASUAL SEX that the Torah is against. Now that it's apparent that same-sex relationships can be every bit as loving and enduring as traditional marriages, Reform Judaism is starting to move in a different direction.

Oh, and all that stuff that Jesus said about "Love thy neighbor" and "Do unto others"? He got it right out of the Torah and the Talmud. Give credit where it's due.

 

Well, Jesus WAS Jewish, at least origionally...

by the way, thats pretty cool, these new accepting Jews

 

Where did you get this idea? Jesus was the son of God; hardly human himself, much less jewish...At least if you are a Christian, that's what you are supposed to believe.

 

Well, not being Christian I don't believe that. However, assuming for a moment that he was the son of god, wasn't he of the Judaic faith himself? Didn't he claim to be the messiah that was prophesized about in the Judaic faith?

 

Well, if you are not Christian yourself, you could not possibly understand.
However, such a claim to a Christian is totally nonsensical and silly. I don't know any Christian who sees Jesus as anything other than the son of God, and as such, not human, not jewish.

 

Ok, first of all, using the phrase "if you are not (insert group or classification here), you could not possibly understand" has no place in a reasonable discussion. Isn't the point of disscussion *to understand*? And second of all, since when have christians had a monopoly of Jesus? For those of us that do not practice the Christain faith, are we not entitled to our anylisis of Jesus?

 

Jesus and his teachings surpass petty human divisions of religion. He was neither a Jew nor a Christian; he was simply Christ. And if you're going to saying that he was Christian because his name is in the religion's name, be prepared for derisive laughter.

 

Jesus was a Jew. He practiced the Judaic religion. The New Testament clearly states that he became man. He was of the lineage of David. He felt pain. Blast it all it hurt when he was crucified!
He got hungry, thirsty, tired, disappointed, and he cried.

And if anyone can prove me wrong then as far as I'm concerned the whole thing is a big joke bcause having some diety come down and go the motions of dying for me without any of the human suffering means nothing.

 

The largest obstacle we face?

As opposed to:

-Disease
-Destruction caused by natural disasters
-Racism, sexism, bigotry
-Overpopulation
-Globalization (whether this is actually an obstacle is arguable, however)
-Overcommercialization
-Oppressive dictators and regimes in various nations

You get the idea. What largely offends me about the original post is that it basically says that people don't know what's good for themselves, and that the world would somehow be, in a near-absolute way, better without religion. You don't really have to look further than a few totalitarian governments to see what effect suppression of religion -- and to say nothing of culture, art, personal beliefs, which are all in some way intertwined with something as fundamental as religion -- has on people.

---

Also, I find it interested that the original message condemns people accepting ideas without consideration, but that the original poster has no comment or response to it other than agreement.

Religion has its problems, certainly. But I would have to be wary of any message so extreme as to name religion, or really, any one thing as the fundamental cause of all things wrong with civilization. No one should immediately trust anyone who claims to profess a universal truth -- should we therefore immediately accept any sweeping claim to religion as the source of so many social problems?

 

@Oaz: Well obviously the claim that religion is the cause of all humanity's ills is too grand and broad a statement to be taken seriously. But this thread has sort of degenerated into a discussion of whether or not religion has been/is beneficial or detrimental. Personally, I believe that religion is a fine thing, though I believe in the good ol' concept of seperation of Church and State. Furthermore, I think that a lot of extremely devout, diehard practicioners of many religions could learn to be quite a bit more tolerant and openminded...