That was uncalled for. Although I understand what you are saying, as there wasn't any relevant content in my post. I was merely attempting to ease myself back into the discourse; no intent of raising hostilities. Hope you have a good day. (Aug 13, 2013 | post #147506)
I agree; and reading from teh little quote of article this forum gave, I would argue that being a judge isn't about giving people what they deserve as much as it is arbitrating the law. (Aug 13, 2013 | post #29)
Hello again Topix, good to see the dialouge is carrying on after so many years! How far from the original topic have we managed to deviate? (Aug 13, 2013 | post #147498)
Wait; you just declared that it was morally wrong, thereby pushing YOUR morals onto an act which you, presumably, have no participation in. All we're saying is that there is a lack of sound logic to that methodology. All that 'immoral' seems to mean is: "Uh, we don't have any real reason to support this, but we're just going to say that it is wrong to do such-and-such ". The statment that men are made for sexual reproduction and women are made for sexual reproduction doesn't suddenly mean that the only reason for relations, sexual or otherwise, is for the purpose of reproduction. indeed, nowhere is it stated that we must reproduce. As for other forms of sex; well, necro- and zoo-philia are instances in which the enactor is engaging in an act without the consent of the other party, i.e. rape, and are thus both wrong. Pedophilia is frequently done without consent as well, and sometimes when consent is given it is uninformed consent or coerced through means such as trickery, hence falling into the same category: rape, and/or statutatory rape, which is wrong. There do exist contries with lover legal ages of consent, which shows that pedophilia is at least partially a construction of our society. On the whole though, physical contact--including sex--without consent is a crime because it is something that a person would not want to have happen to them; but as far as consent is given, there is no reason for anyone else to butt in to the issue. (Dec 15, 2011 | post #4582)
Well, my body comes from the world of men, my mind from the universe, and my soul from Beyond. Though that might not mean much to you, since it's not really able to be put into words. I am of the opinion that the origin of matter in the big bang was a supermassive black hole left over after the decay of universe which had already ceased to be; perhaps even a combination of multiple of them. My postulation for the lack of observable remains of the former universe is that there was literally nothing left to see; hence, everything that remained of what once was is the material from which the present universe came to be. I see no reason to tink that the material wasn't always there, although likely in a greater amount. I was under the impression that Adam and Eve weren't supposed to eat from either tree... But I digress, to the point that I will say I find it just as unlikely that the entirety of existence spontaneously came to be at the will of an all-poweful deity as I do the notion that the entirety of existence spontaneously came to be for absolutely no reason at all. (Dec 15, 2011 | post #4581)
Well at that time, the equinox was only rally celebrated by fans of astronomy and those who used the moon in their religion; seriously, there wouldn't be a christmas while Jesus was alive, anyway. It would just be 'this guy's birthday'. (Dec 15, 2011 | post #6193)
Oh, I think I understand the motivations fairly enough, but the idea of an eternal hell seems flawed. As does the contention that God created everything I see; for while he may have created the physical material, it was the work of humans that shaped the contents of this world into th eforms we see and utilize. And so long as he chooses not to interfere with the free will we are given, then it can be deduced that the inspiration of the individual mind--the resonating spark of creation--originat es from the minds of mankind, rather than being forced into us from God. As for the hogs in a home; well, I would appreciate that you not tell me what I would or would not do; after all, you do not know my mind. I actually don't think that cohabitation with animals would be so bad; a lot of them are far more sanitary than we give them credit for. If the hogs were misbehaving in my home, that might be unwelcome, but as long as they were well-mannered I don't see a reason to take issue. On the issue of sin, I frown upon most of it; at the same time though, I believe that the persons who wrote the words in it took the opportunity to slip in a few things that were not dictated by God, but by individual prejudice. After all, humans aren't perfect. But it is not impossible to live a life without sin, as many claim; simply that most don't want to. It's g;aringly obvious to me that merely accepting the christ would not be enough to earn entry to heaven in it's own right. But I don't believe in forgiveness. After all, at their core, people seldom change. There are certainly stories of a single experience altering someone's entire outlook, but I cannot honestly participate in such unbalanced weighting. And that's what matters to me; honesty. (Dec 15, 2011 | post #6192)
While this is interesting, it does seem to appear to draw a conclusion from a number of unrelated facts and make conjectures without a sound logical basis. Certainly it was not the arrested Israelis who perpetrated the attacks, since those with direct involvement all perished. And were all 200 of them arrested for the same thing, or a number of unrelated circumstances? When I read one linked article, it pointed out that the four or five who were arrested for filming didn't actually arrive until after the first tower had been hit; and at that point, the reason for documentation would be obvious--A lot of Americans managed to record the event, too; it was newsworthy. We tend to have American citizens who were arrested uin foreign countries on television at the time they return; heck, we have some people on for no discernible reason at all. It just seems natural that other countries would do the same. So while there is a slim potential of a grim conspiracy, I think it would be more likely that this is just a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of facts blown slightly out of proportion. ...Sorry about answering on this thread, but it doesn't seem like this issue will last very long. (Dec 15, 2011 | post #82658)
well, not necessarily. Rights can be denied through mortal means, so the only way to ensure their proliferation is also via mortal means. On a side note, I was not created by the god of men (nor any of his inferiors). (Dec 9, 2011 | post #4408)
These threads always seem to degenerate into multi-sided affairs with preachers, rationalists, and name-callers all ridiculing one another. Time and again, it has proven ineffective; so might we please grant a bit of forgiveness and try to carry on the discussion civilly? Foe example: YELLODOG, while I do respect that you have faith, but I have a slight objection to the premise that one's soul is sent to either heaven or hell. On one hand of this objection is that it does not make sense to me that a loving god would sentence its creations to eternal torment for something as petty as not recognizing his son. Also in the vein of religious objections is that, according to scripture, I believe it is said that one day the Devil will be defeated, and if that is so, there is no basis to believe that the captive souls would face further torment. My personal belief is that there is the possibility of reincarnation, which would be an outcome exclusive from going to either heaven or hell; have you perchance considered that god would not reveal the entirety of his workings to mortal scrutiny? (Dec 9, 2011 | post #6166)
So what about the American right to freedom of petition, which grants the right to protest? (Dec 9, 2011 | post #4403)
Ahh; water is a rather interesting substance. Behaves very much unlike most liquids in several respects, giving it a few amazing properties. Gotta love that stuff. (Dec 9, 2011 | post #81905)
I actually have a better scenario for both A and B, since both involve qualitative evaluations and a point of creation. But that'll have tto wait. (Nov 29, 2011 | post #80571)
Well, I suppose that bodes well for me. (Nov 29, 2011 | post #80570)
Well, conversely, that leaves a lot of possible gods to have been the alleged origin of life. And at present, we don't have a clear picture of how life came to be in the first place, so I don't see anything wrong with leaving out the creation/formation /introduction of life out from the classroom. I'll admit, I don't >believe< that any gods exist, but that doesn't make it impossible for at least one to exist somewhere. Perhaps it could even have been a technologically advanced being masquerading as a god, who has since moved on, leaving no discernible trace of having been. ...But we'll leave those conjectures to Von Daniken. (Nov 29, 2011 | post #80569)
Q & A with Rucin
Lord of the fish!
I Belong To:
Myself and my beloved ones
When I'm Not on Topix:
I'm probably asleep.
Read My Forum Posts Because:
I only have justice in mind
I'm Listening To:
Read This Book:
Jonathan Livingston Seagull
Dogs, swords, video games, internet, foggy mornings.
On My Mind:
A full load.
I Believe In:
The power of the human mind.