View Full Version : The bush administration is anti-sex
downquark1
08-09-2003, 18:24
I just wanted to post this before kronas:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,3604,1037335,00.html
And this is a bad thing, how exactly? It is pretty much my opinion...
Typical American ideas.....
Cant belive that there govermenet is fuding that though, and that one comment about it been like the 1950s is spot on.
What is so typical American about that?
downquark1
08-09-2003, 20:47
Originally posted by Jerrek
What is so typical American about that? It's quite "holyer than thou" and a bit hippocritical regarding their culture. I imagine this attitude is mainly from the south.
Originally posted by ic14
Typical American ideas.....
Cant belive that there govermenet is fuding that though Yea? Check this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-808477,00.html) out! This is what ours is allowing!
Originally posted by Jerrek
What is so typical American about that?
It's typical of certain areas of American politics.
Unfortunately there are groups like the Moral Minority and the Religious Wrong (oh, sorry, should that be the "Moral Majority and Religious Right"?) who have, regrettably, got politicians so scared to go against what they assert that every US President has to make out that they're a honest, god fearing, church-going nice guy otherwise they feel they risk they're going to lose votes.
Of course, just like Prohibition, this is sheer hypocritical bunkum, everyone voted to get rid of the "demon alcohol" and then went and drank in the local Speakeasy anyway (and there were more unlicenced Speakeasies than there were licenced bars before prohibition!). In the same way many Americans profess to right-wing Christian ideals (because what would the neighbours think otherwise) and then go out and do what they want anyway.
The problem is that The Powers That Be are trying to "infect" children with with a totally false mind-set because "it's good for them" and do so by *denying* them information that they really need to know (because that will only encourage them to "do wrong").
It's ludicrous and hypocritical, but that's the USA.
So now you're against religion Graham? Do you have a problem if someone is religious? Do you have a problem is someone guides his life according to his religion if it does not harm other people? Do you have a problem if someone elected lets his principles guide his decisions?
What is your problem with religion?
Originally posted by Graham
It's typical of certain areas of American politics.
Unfortunately there are groups like the Moral Minority and the Religious Wrong (oh, sorry, should that be the "Moral Majority and Religious Right"?) who have, regrettably, got politicians so scared to go against what they assert that every US President has to make out that they're a honest, god fearing, church-going nice guy otherwise they feel they risk they're going to lose votes.
Of course, just like Prohibition, this is sheer hypocritical bunkum, everyone voted to get rid of the "demon alcohol" and then went and drank in the local Speakeasy anyway (and there were more unlicenced Speakeasies than there were licenced bars before prohibition!). In the same way many Americans profess to right-wing Christian ideals (because what would the neighbours think otherwise) and then go out and do what they want anyway.
The problem is that The Powers That Be are trying to "infect" children with with a totally false mind-set because "it's good for them" and do so by *denying* them information that they really need to know (because that will only encourage them to "do wrong").
It's ludicrous and hypocritical, but that's the USA. Sounds like the UK as well.
downquark1
08-09-2003, 21:49
Originally posted by Jerrek
So now you're against religion Graham? Do you have a problem if someone is religious? Do you have a problem is someone guides his life according to his religion if it does not harm other people? Do you have a problem if someone elected lets his principles guide his decisions?
What is your problem with religion? No he has a problem with hypocracy and brainwashing. Don't take things in the wrong context.
Originally posted by Jerrek
So now you're against religion Graham? Do you have a problem if someone is religious? Do you have a problem is someone guides his life according to his religion if it does not harm other people? Do you have a problem if someone elected lets his principles guide his decisions?
What is your problem with religion?
Err, sorry? *Where* did I say anything about "having a problem with religion? Or if having a problem if someone is religious? Or the rest of it?
Oh, I didn't.
What I *DO* have a problem with is hypocrisy. What I also have a problem with is people thinking that *their* way of behaviour is "the right way" to do things and that everyone else is "doing it wrong".
I have no problem with people holding any beliefs they want *provided* they don't try to impose them on anyone else, especially if they're trying to force them on children by telling them that "if you don't do it this way you're damned to hell" or "nobody will respect you" or any of the other sanctimonious BS that was quoted in that article.
Originally posted by Ramrod
It's ludicrous and hypocritical, but that's the USA.
Sounds like the UK as well.
Well, it might be if the Vicar of St Albions, the Right-up-his-own-a--- Saint Tony Bliar had his way, but in some ways we're actually better than the US in this because our politicians don't feel obliged to have to make a pretence at being good little Christians in case they lose votes.
Of course we've got plenty of *other* sources of hypocrisy, such as the tabloid media to make up for it... :(
Originally posted by downquark1
What is your problem with religion?
No he has a problem with hypocracy and brainwashing. Don't take things in the wrong context.
Blimey! I've just posted a reply to his message and then, a little further down I find this!
Thanks downquark1, it's nice to know someone gets where I'm coming from :)
this is typical bush yes i am anti bush his religions beliefs are affecting his work now hes trying to 'preach' it in to young people to abstain from sex there is nothing wrong with sex its natural take all the precautions and do it as much as you want thats my view dont like it sling yer hook :p ;)
Originally posted by Jerrek
And this is a bad thing, how exactly? It is pretty much my opinion...
We all know it's only ugly dudes that can't get any that agree with this sort of thing ... ;)
What I also have a problem with is people thinking that *their* way of behaviour is "the right way" to do things and that everyone else is "doing it wrong".
Really. Well I don't. I firmly believe that murder is wrong, and if you don't agree, you can just go away because you're wrong and I'm right. If you don't even believe in what you believe yourself, you're worthless.
I have no problem with people holding any beliefs they want *provided* they don't try to impose them on anyone else
Sort of like how the government is imposing on us the belief that murder is wrong?
this is typical bush yes i am anti bush his religions beliefs are affecting his work now
Kronas do you have a problem with his religious beliefs?
And Bifta, what if a girl agrees to that? Don't be so narrow minded.
I for one will not laugh if a person tells me that he or she is saving it for someone special. I don't think you're cool or a "man" only after you ****ed a girl. What the government is doing is to encourage abstinance, something that I agree with. Should the government be doing this in the first place? No, I don't believe this is government jurisdiction. But then, I would cut down on 95% of the government, but perhaps that is just me.
downquark1
09-09-2003, 08:33
Sort of like how the government is imposing on us the belief that murder is wrong? your right, murder isn't anything bad, it will cure the over-population. In fact why don't we just kill all smokers and obese people, they will be less of a drain on the NHS and we can boil down their bodies for essential chemicals.
Unfortunally we have to draw the line somewhere, society seems to be confused as it is. Personally, I think the government should leave this subject to the church, or they should teach the students the information and give them the choice.
If you teach everyone the pros and cons of murder and think most people will agree it's a bad idea - that's democracy, but issues like this draw too much divided opinion for the government to start preaching it.
Kronas do you have a problem with his religious beliefs?
yes religion is influencing his political decisions he is imposing it on others by creating this abstanence BS
:mad:
Stephen Robb
09-09-2003, 10:15
Another glorified nanny state. It's getting just as bad here. Don't do this, don't do that, you will die a horrible death if you persist!
We know what is best for you. Oops! Sorry we got that wrong, you can now do this again, but don't do that. Wouldn't be so bad if they were constant, and stop going with the wind every time.
At the end of the day, it all boils down to Bush or Blair inflicting their ideals on the rest of us. You can also bet your bottom dollar or pound, there is a wife behind it. Remember the jokes about Clinton, was he running the country or his missus?!
Originally posted by Graham
<snip>What I also have a problem with is people thinking that *their* way of behaviour is "the right way" to do things and that everyone else is "doing it wrong".<snip>
Moral relativism rears its ugly head once more. I will tell my son (when he is old enough) about heaven and hell because I am firmly of the belief that this is the truth. How arrogant of you to suggest that your understanding is correct and mine is not.
I have tremendous respect for the Americans in the way they have attempted to retain a sense of absolute right and wrong in their culture. Fine, they screw up lots, but so do we all. I find the snide, pernicious and wholly European idea that then only real crime is to tell someone else their belief is wrong to be totally obnoxious.
To hold such a position you have to hold also that there is nothing higher than belief - that absolute truth is either unknowable or does not exist. The problem is that once you make belief the foundation of belief, it has nothing to stand on. It's a bankrupt philosophy and one which, I believe (!), has no long term future.
On a slightly lighter note, I love 16 year olds John Wagsters quote (4th paragragh down).
Probably wouldn't get away with quoting it on here.:)
Originally posted by Pompey1
On a slightly lighter note, I love 16 year olds John Wagsters quote (4th paragragh down).
Probably wouldn't get away with quoting it on here.:)
:rofl:
He's right though...
And on the subject of the Guardian article, the supercilious, patroniziong tone it takes could only have come from that wonderfully liberal rag.
Honestly, we talk about peer pressure as if it's something that only exists in the playground when in fact the whole of our society is gripped by the idea that if you're not having lots of sex you're somehow deficient, square, or otherwise nerdy.
Anyone who wants to moan about young people being 'brainwashed' into remaining a virgin would do well to think about how society at large is busy 'brainwashing' teenagers into doing the opposite.
downquark1
09-09-2003, 12:07
Honestly, we talk about peer pressure as if it's something that only exists in the playground when in fact the whole of our society is gripped by the idea that if you're not having lots of sex you're somehow deficient, square, or otherwise nerdy.
Surely, the best way it to educate the pros and cons and let them decide.
If I had no plans or wish to have sex any time soon, wearing a ring to constantly remind me would be too much. Also, if I changed my mind I would be labelled as a hypocrit.
Originally posted by downquark1
Surely, the best way it to educate the pros and cons and let them decide.
I have no plans or wish to have sex any time soon, but wearing a ring to constantly remind me is too much. Also, if I changed my mind I would be labelled as a hypocrit.
Maybe, but you have to make allowances for the cultural differences between the US and here. Wearing rings may well be OTT for us, but probably makes perfect sense to them. As for hypocrisy ... well, changing your mind and the way you behave isn't hypocrisy, hypocrisy is saying you believe one thing and doing something else at the same time.
While I have sympathy for the 'educate neutrally and then let them decide' approach, public health campaigns in other areas certainly don't take that line. Smoking, alcohol abuse and diet have all had the public information film treatment recently. There was a very clear 'don't do it, here's why' message in them. Similarly there are plenty of good emotional and pathological reasons to seriously restrict your number sexual partners, even down to only ever having one.
There are religious reasons out there to be discussed as well. These get more prominence in the US because the US is more ostensibly religious than, say, the UK.
I think one of the reasons this shocks us to much is that at the moment, we are a promiscuous society, it is in every aspect of our society so it's difficult to see past it. But taking the last 3,000 years of history into view, there have been societies that valued promiscuity, societies that valued chastity and societies that went from one to the other and back again. In human society, there is nothing unusual in holding either position.
yes religion is influencing his political decisions he is imposing it on others by creating this abstanence BS
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. This is a free country, and freedom of religion is the basis of this country. Our founding fathers left Europe precisely because Europeans seem to have issues with this concept.
And religion wouldn't be religion if it didn't guide his life.
I have tremendous respect for the Americans in the way they have attempted to retain a sense of absolute right and wrong in their culture. Fine, they screw up lots, but so do we all. I find the snide, pernicious and wholly European idea that then only real crime is to tell someone else their belief is wrong to be totally obnoxious.
Towny, I couldn't possibly agree with you more.
downquark1
09-09-2003, 12:55
I have tremendous respect for the Americans in the way they have attempted to retain a sense of absolute right and wrong in their culture. Fine, they screw up lots, but so do we all. I find the snide, pernicious and wholly European idea that then only real crime is to tell someone else their belief is wrong to be totally obnoxious.
Towny, I couldn't possibly agree with you more.
Am I the only one who thinks that sex is used to sell almost everything on American TV? It's a promonant subject of all their sitcoms?
Originally posted by Jerrek
[B]
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. This is a free country, and freedom of religion is the basis of this country. Our founding fathers left Europe precisely because Europeans seem to have issues with this concept.
and look now europe is trying to control every single 'country' in it :rolleyes:
the fact is the usage of a 'pledge' to not have sex is just wrong i believe in freedom i may not like something say religion but others can choose to do what they want when they want to
im just not with this idea of abstaining staying pure stuff and its just showing the way governments are handling these situations trying to 'control' there citizens and people following like sheep :rolleyes:
Originally posted by downquark1
Am I the only one who thinks that sex is used to sell almost everything on American TV? It's a promonant subject of all their sitcoms?
For sure, the level of freedom guaranteed to American citizens sets up a number of difficult contradictions in their society. But despite the profoundly religious nature of that country, I don't think the people who make cable-access porn shows in their garage on a Saturday night are the same ones preaching in the pulpit on a Sunday. And even if some of them are, hypocrisy is a human disease; we're all guilty of it to a greater or lesser degree.
Originally posted by kronas
Originally posted by Jerrek
[B]and look now europe is trying to control every single 'country' in it :rolleyes:
the fact is the usage of a 'pledge' to not have sex is just wrong i believe in freedom i may not like something say religion but others can choose to do what they want when they want to
im just not with this idea of abstaining staying pure stuff and its just showing the way governments are handling these situations trying to 'control' there citizens and people following like sheep :rolleyes:
You accuse the government of wrongdoing by suggesting that people might like to take a voluntary pledge, and you accuse the people of being stupid for going along with it 'like sheep'.
It's fine for you to disagree with what's going on, but you can't just demonise everyone who gets involved with it, especially as the whole thing is voluntary.
Originally posted by towny
It's fine for you to disagree with what's going on, but you can't just demonise everyone who gets involved with it
i didnt traditionally the people follow the government when they are fed the information on this occasion its true but im simply pointing out that i disagree with the whole notion
hence the freedom of choice bit in my post i just dont like it when governments start having too much control in issues we the 'public' should decide on
downquark1
09-09-2003, 13:33
Why should the government preach this?? It isn't a bad thing to society (assuming safe sex is practiced). And since the US is suppose to be multi-cultural, what do other cultures and religions think about this?? You can't be a president of such a country and preach christian specific beliefs.
downquark1
09-09-2003, 13:38
Nobody on stage actually talks about sexuality, beyond stock references to raging hormones. Nobody is very specific about what they mean by sex - though it's clear that they think oral sex is bad. There is no mention of masturbation. Heterosexuality is automatically assumed.
After sitting through two hours of this, the teens stand to take the pledge publicly. They then slip on a silver ring, on sale in the foyer for $12.
Publicly pledge? Isn't this OTT. It sounds more like a cult they have been pressured into joining. I have no problem with the beliefs but this kind of actvities are seriously OTT.
Originally posted by downquark1
Why should the government preach this?? It isn't a bad thing to society (assuming safe sex is practiced). And since the US is suppose to be multi-cultural, what do other cultures and religions think about this?? You can't be a president of such a country and preach christian specific beliefs.
Separation of Religion and State is fundamental to the US constitution, but so is freedom of religious expression. Bush is avowedly Christian (a Methodist, I believe) and the American people knew this when they elected him. They can't complain (if any of them are complaining) if he now goes ahead and carries on seeing things from his own publicly-stated point of view.
In any case, despite chastity traditionally being seen as a Christian thing, it is an accepted belief of most major world faiths so muslims, hindus etc are hardly going to argue with him.
I think it odd that Planned Parenthood, a safe-sex promoting charity in the US, had to be 'forced' (according to the Guardian) to mention abstinence as a means of not transmitting STDs. This is so blindingly obvious that you have to wonder why, if they are so concerned with teenagers' health, they had to be forced to mention it even as one option among several.
downquark1
09-09-2003, 13:47
Bush is avowedly Christian (a Methodist, I believe) and the American people knew this when they elected him. Bush wasn't elected.
Originally posted by Bifta
We all know it's only ugly dudes that can't get any that agree with this sort of thing ... ;)
And quite possibly also those of us who feel that sex should still hold some sanctity in today's society.....
I wonder what levels of AIDS the world would have if people kept themselves for marriage?
downquark1
09-09-2003, 13:54
Originally posted by Russ D
And quite possibly also those of us who feel that sex should still hold some sanctity in today's society.....
I wonder what levels of AIDS the world would have if people kept themselves for marriage? Good, idea let's turn the clock back so any pregnant woman out of wedlock is stoned.
I'm fed up of society "progressing" then people saying it was better the original way. Just like the muslim fundamentalists.
Originally posted by downquark1
I'm fed up of society "progressing" then people saying it was better the original way.
omg i find that im agreeing with your posts :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
your right i agree with the following
Originally posted by downquark1
Why should the government preach this?? It isn't a bad thing to society (assuming safe sex is practiced). And since the US is suppose to be multi-cultural, what do other cultures and religions think about this?? You can't be a president of such a country and preach christian specific beliefs.
Originally posted by downquark1
Good, idea let's turn the clock back so any pregnant woman out of wedlock is stoned.
I'm fed up of society "progressing" then people saying it was better the original way.
That's a slightly mischievous misinterpretation of what Russ said, based, I think, on what you think his religious beliefs are.
Like the good folks at the Planned Parenthood charity, a lot of folks seem to find it strangely hard to accept that the most foolproof way not to catch a sexually transmitted idsease is not to have sex.
Why this is so hard to accept I have no idea. It's not rocket science...
Originally posted by downquark1
Bush wasn't elected.
I assume you're talking about the peculiarity of the US electoral system that allowed him to win the electoral college vote while having gained a minority of the popular vote.
This is true, but the electoral system is accepted by US citizens as the right way to enforce the will of the people, and returns the 'right' result more often than not. If they're not demanding electoral reform en masse as a result, we have to accept that they're prepared to let the result stand.
downquark1
09-09-2003, 14:10
Like the good folks at the Planned Parenthood charity, a lot of folks seem to find it strangely hard to accept that the most foolproof way not to catch a sexually transmitted idsease is not to have sex.
Why this is so hard to accept I have no idea. It's not rocket science... I accept people's believes, but a modern goverment should be neutral in such matters.
They are not only promoting this practice, they are endorsing these cult like systems. I say cult because a priest doesn't demand his congregation to stand up and say " I WILL NOT STEAL" or any other rule, he merely give his opinion and interpretation and let's the congragation decide.
Originally posted by downquark1
I accept people's believes, but a modern goverment should be neutral in such matters.
They are not only promoting this practice, they are endorsing these cult like systems. I say cult because a priest doesn't demand his congregation to stand up and say " I WILL NOT STEAL" or any other rule, he merely give his opinion and interpretation and let's the congragation decide.
From the Anglican christening service:
Priest: Do you turn to Christ?
Godparents: We do.
Priest: Do you renounce evil?
Godparents: We do.
Just an example off the top of my head; there are others. Church is a body of people with the same beliefs, or else it isn't church. I don't think a body of people holding a common set of beliefs, or indeed someone in leadership standing up and saying 'these beliefs are prerequisites for membership of this religion/organisation' is necessarily cultish behaviour tho'.
Anyhows, I'm not at all sure that Government should remain neutral on matters with a health implication. As I posted earlier in matters of alcoholism, smoking etc governments certainly do not remain neutral, and rightly so IMO.
downquark1
09-09-2003, 15:21
Anyhows, I'm not at all sure that Government should remain neutral on matters with a health implication. As I posted earlier in matters of alcoholism, smoking etc governments certainly do not remain neutral, and rightly so IMO. This issue is quite clearly not about health. The articles mentions how they are against oral sex, which cannot cause pregnancy or disease.
Originally posted by downquark1
This issue is quite clearly not about health. The articles mentions how they are against oral sex, which cannot cause pregnancy or disease.
Rubbish, many STD's such as Herpes, Genital Warts, Hepatitis, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, Yeast Infections and of course HIV can be transmitted via oral sex.
Originally posted by downquark1
This issue is quite clearly not about health. The articles mentions how they are against oral sex, which cannot cause pregnancy or disease.
The herpes simplex virus will quite happily cause you either a coldsore or a nice genital wart, and it's more than willing to transfer from your upstairs to her downstairs and vice versa.
I accept they are not exclusively coming at this from a public health angle (although I do count unwanted pregnancy as a public health issue), but it is an important factor.
downquark1
09-09-2003, 15:57
Originally posted by Bifta
Rubbish, many STD's such as Herpes, Genital Warts, Hepatitis, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, Yeast Infections and of course HIV can be transmitted via oral sex. Forgive me, I was only considering HIV, which has a very low risk with oral, unless the person has a cut in the mouth.
You could say that people are pressured into sex. But equally (if not more so) this is pressuring them against. Ultimately shouldn't it be their decision??:shrug:
Yes, I read the guardian - I'm liberal :LOL:
Originally posted by downquark1
Good, idea let's turn the clock back so any pregnant woman out of wedlock is stoned.
I'm fed up of society "progressing" then people saying it was better the original way. Just like the muslim fundamentalists.
You get much exercise from jumping to (incorrect) conclusions?
My daughter was born out of wedlock. My opinion on this is NOT reigiously motivated.
downquark1
09-09-2003, 16:06
Originally posted by Russ D
You get much exercise from jumping to (incorrect) conclusions?
My daughter was born out of wedlock. My opinion on this is NOT reigiously motivated. you can't say sanctity and then say it wasn't religious.
And where did I mention sanctity in the context of religion????
If you are unable to seperate sanctity from religion try using the word 'meaningful'.
downquark1
09-09-2003, 16:11
sanc·ti ·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sngkt-t)
n. pl. sanc·ti ·ties
Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness.
The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
Something considered sacred.
sa·cred ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skrd)
adj.
Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.
Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.
Worthy of respect; venerable.
Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.
The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person
Worthy of respect; venerable.
Yeah, that sounds about right. Cheers mate! :)
Originally posted by downquark1
Now now, holster your dictionaries gentlemen ... ;) :D
downquark1
09-09-2003, 16:20
Most of the definitions reference religion, thats why I thought that, that and it is usually christianity that preach about the santity of marriage, sex etc.
Other cultures, some even Christian ones find sex while married less socking than us - France for example.
Since we've gone a little off topic I'll repeat my last point:
You could say that people are pressured into sex. But equally (if not more so) this is pressuring them against. Ultimately shouldn't it be their decision??
Originally posted by downquark1
Most of the definitions reference religion, thats why I thought that, that and it is usually christianity that preach about the santity of marriage, sex etc.
Other cultures, some even Christian ones find sex while married less socking than us - France for example.
Since we've gone a little off topic I'll repeat my last point:
You could say that people are pressured into sex. But equally (if not more so) this is pressuring them against. Ultimately shouldn't it be their decision??
Ultimately it is a matter of personal decision, but whether one side or the other is pressurizing is open to interpretation.
On the subject of sanctity in marriage, I don't agree that Christianity is any more passionate (!) about it than any other religion; I think it's just you inhabit a culture whose reference points are still largely Christian, so you are more aware of it.
I would not class any European country as 'Christian', France perhaps least of all. A lot of the liberal philospohical ideas beloved of the Guardian and its readers ;) originate in French philosophical thought.
Most of the definitions reference religion
Most, not all. Ah, but then again, it's me isn't it! Therefore it must be about religion!!!!
and it is usually christianity that preach about the santity of marriage, sex etc.
But I didn't mention Christianity.
Ultimately shouldn't it be their decision??
Yes but others can offer their advice as to which they feel is best.
zoombini
09-09-2003, 17:06
Heck, sex shouldnt be limited just to those that are married.
Sex is something that we should all be able to enjoy regardless of marital and religious status.
downquark1: Bush wasn't elected.
Don't be a moron. The majority of the electoral college voted for him. End of story.
towny: I assume you're talking about the peculiarity of the US electoral system that allowed him to win the electoral college vote while having gained a minority of the popular vote.
This is true, but the electoral system is accepted by US citizens as the right way to enforce the will of the people, and returns the 'right' result more often than not. If they're not demanding electoral reform en masse as a result, we have to accept that they're prepared to let the result stand.
That is true. The founding fathers specifically implemented the electoral college to force a more equal approach. We're not a democracy. We're a republic. We do not do things by the majority vote.
downquark1: The articles mentions how they are against oral sex, which cannot cause pregnancy or disease.
You are a very, very foolish man. If you think oral sex can't transmit STDs you really need to get a refund on your education.
Ultimately shouldn't it be their decision??
Isn't it? Isn't the government just trying to convince you to go with a specific way? Is the government forcing you to go with a specific decision? Let me think... NO.
downquark1
09-09-2003, 17:47
Yes, I'm sorry about the disease thing, the government taught it us so early I've forgotten it when it is actually some help, all I remember was that HIV was transmitted by entering the bloodstream, (something that doesn't happen directly by oral means). I admit I was wrong.
However, I object the means mentioned in the article. If you went to one of the meeting or presentations and you disagreed with the view, you would be pressed to stand up like the rest of them and make a vow, or else the scorn of the entire room would fall upon upon. Further, bullying might occur.
If you agreed and took the ring for the sake of it, then people would expect you to live up to it and criticise you otherwise. This thing maybe fine when your 16 but what if you get to 26 or 30 and haven't found your soulmate. How far are you ment to take this?
Either way it won't be effective, the US has sex written all over it, to an adolescent it must one huge contradiction, they should have taken the realistic approach (like Britain) and merely preached contraceptives and safe sex.
timewarrior2001
09-09-2003, 18:01
Originally posted by Russ D
And quite possibly also those of us who feel that sex should still hold some sanctity in today's society.....
I wonder what levels of AIDS the world would have if people kept themselves for marriage?
Thats a little narrow minded in a sense Russ, AIDS doesnt just affect people through sexual contact.........Hang on I'm in preaching mode.......Aids would still be relatively widespread due to infected blood for haemophiliacs in the early 80's and the amount of drug users.
And to Jerek.
It does amaze me that the US consciouness allows it to take religiously moral highground on one hand then be forcing its way of life on the other.
Not everyone wants the American way of life, I for instance, have nothing to fear from " little red commie *******s".
I have a freedom of speach, I could have marched in the anti war demostrations in London, and more importantly NOT been barricaded in and prevented from voiceing FREEDOM OF SPEACH like the protestors in NY.
A lot of peoples views on the US are stereotypical, I have been there, I have gotten involved in an argument in a bar with a bunch of guys who proclaimed the IRA a rightious cause and that they were proud to support them.
It sometimes needs to be pointed out to americans that not everyone loves the place as much as they do.
Personally I think that G Dubya Bush is a moron. I think he is more dangerous to world peace than saddam hussein. I think he has imperialistic tendencies and I think the US need to get rid of him ASAP.
Originally posted by Jerrek
What I also have a problem with is people thinking that *their* way of behaviour is "the right way" to do things and that everyone else is "doing it wrong".
Really. Well I don't. I firmly believe that murder is wrong, and if you don't agree, you can just go away because you're wrong and I'm right. If you don't even believe in what you believe yourself, you're worthless.
Ah, and this is reasoned debate, is it?
Unfortunately *you* are wrong...
I have no problem with people holding any beliefs they want *provided* they don't try to impose them on anyone else
Sort of like how the government is imposing on us the belief that murder is wrong?
...did you miss the bit about "I have no problem... *provided* they don't try to impose them on anyone else"?
If *you* or anyone thinks that "murder is ok" and uses that as a justification for doing it, then they are *imposing* that view on someone else and I think that's *wrong*!
I for one will not laugh if a person tells me that he or she is saving it for someone special.
It may surprise you, but neither will I.
I don't think you're cool or a "man" only after you ****ed a girl.
Another surprise: neither do I.
What the government is doing is to encourage abstinance, something that I agree with.
No, what they are trying to do is to *brainwash* children into a particular way of thinking because it fits in with the religious prejudices of the leadership.
If they were providing an "on the other hand" opinion, that would be sensible teaching, but they aren't. They're preaching that oral sex is wrong, that abortion is wrong, that even contraception is wrong, and IMO *that* is *wrong*.
Should the government be doing this in the first place? No, I don't believe this is government jurisdiction.
Exactly! This should be *none* of the government's business. The US is supposed to maintain separation of the church and the state, hell it's in their constitution! For the state to run a programme like this based on *religious* principles (because that's what it is), is breaking their own rules.
downquark1
09-09-2003, 18:15
I have a freedom of speach, I could have marched in the anti war demostrations in London, and more importantly NOT been barricaded in and prevented from voiceing FREEDOM OF SPEACH like the protestors in NY.
Well said. A few more examples:
An editor of a local anti-war news paper was put on the FBI no fly list, is still on with no explanaton why.
An iraqi professor who had been an american for decades was secretly serveyed on campus by under cover agents.
The new patriot act encourages intrusion into privacy
Specifically, the Patriot Act
Allows the government to enter and search your home, without ever informing you. The U.S. Constitution requires not only probable cause to search, but that you be notified of the search. This law- Section 213 of the Patriot Act -- circumvents the notice requirement of the 4th Amendment.
Section 216 of the PATRIOT ACT allows the government to tap your phone and computer without probable cause. Under this section, a judge MUST rubber stamp a warrant as long as law enforcement certifies that the surveillance is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." No probable cause of
criminal activity is required to issue the warrant. This violates the probable cause provision of the 4th Amendment.
Further, Section 218 allows the government to carry out secret searches and wiretaps without showing probable cause merely by certifying that there is a "significant" foreign intelligence purpose. This also evades the 4th Amendment.
Section 802 creates the crime of "domestic terrorism." This criminalizes acts that "appear to be intended" to "influence the policy of the government by intimidation or coercion" or to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population."
Finally, Section 412 of the PATRIOT Act permits the government to arrest and detain immigrants indefinitely for nothing more than a visa violation. In fact, of the 1200 known immigrant detentions since 9/11, the ACLU determined that only about five were detained on terrorism-related charges. Because the Department of Justice refused to release any information, the ACLU obtained this information from foreign embassies to whom the DOJ had courteously supplied the information where it affected one of their citizens.
The US seems to be becoming almost a Nazi state, this is why I'm interpreting this as "brainwashing" instead of harmless preaching.
Originally posted by towny
What I also have a problem with is people thinking that *their* way of behaviour is "the right way" to do things and that everyone else is "doing it wrong".
Moral relativism rears its ugly head once more. I will tell my son (when he is old enough) about heaven and hell because I am firmly of the belief that this is the truth. How arrogant of you to suggest that your understanding is correct and mine is not.
Unfortunately you mis-understand me.
I have no problem with you telling your son about heaven, hell, or even UFOs or the tooth fairy.
However if you try to *deny* him any other conflicting information *just because* it doesn't fit in with your beliefs, then I *do* have problem cf those Americans who don't want Darwin taught in schools because it conflicts with their beliefs.
It is not for *YOU* to make up his mind. He is (I presume) going to grow up into a human being who is intelligent and rational and capable of making his own decisions and that is all I want anyone to be able to do.
Unfortunately as mentioned before, this US campaign is nothing but brainwashing because it *refuses* to teach or even admit to any "on the other hand" opinions. That is not education, that is dogma.
I have tremendous respect for the Americans in the way they have attempted to retain a sense of absolute right and wrong in their culture.
I have often very little respect for the Americans because at times they are such utter hypocrites.
They call themselves Christians, then hold up signs saying "God Hates Fags". They believe in the 10 Commandments, but support the Death Penalty etc.
For more information see:
http://www.affordable-leather.co.uk/Pledge1.jpg (no, it's nothing obscene! Although it may be rude about Americans!!)
Fine, they screw up lots, but so do we all. I find the snide, pernicious and wholly European idea that then only real crime is to tell someone else their belief is wrong to be totally obnoxious.
Excuse me? What's this "Wholly European" business?
What's the first Amendment to the United States Constitution? Something about Freedom of Speech, isn't it?!
To hold such a position you have to hold also that there is nothing higher than belief - that absolute truth is either unknowable or does not exist. The problem is that once you make belief the foundation of belief, it has nothing to stand on. It's a bankrupt philosophy and one which, I believe (!), has no long term future.
Hang on! What on Earth are you talking about??
"Belief" is the acceptance of something without proof! Where did I say anything about that being *my* position?
That's the position of religion, that you must "believe" because to believe you have "faith" and that is the foundation of religion!
You can believe anything you want, but I have a mind of my own and I have the right to question any belief anyone has if they tell me that "I'm right and you're wrong".
If you can *prove* what you say, fine, I will accept it, but asking me to "believe" simply because that's what someone else says or has written in some book somewhere, is just asking me to question it!
Originally posted by towny Anyone who wants to moan about young people being 'brainwashed' into remaining a virgin would do well to think about how society at large is busy 'brainwashing' teenagers into doing the opposite.
Nope, sorry, that's not right.
Whilst "society" may be presenting one view, it is not *denying* that there is any other possible view.
The aim of that US programme, however, is to present their view as the *only possible* right view and that *is* brainwashing.
Originally posted by downquark1
Bush wasn't elected.
Please, if we're going to start that one again, let's do it in a different thread!
Originally posted by downquark1
sa·cred
Worthy of respect; venerable.
But isn't their scheme supposed to stop the spread of venerable diseases?! :D :D :D
downquark1
09-09-2003, 19:24
Off topic but:
There are some pretty crackpot views in the US. Once instance some christian groups are supporting Israel only because the prophacy of the acopolytes says that the jews must be in the posesstion of their original land. Of course, I doubt this is a majority view.
Originally posted by Graham
Nope, sorry, that's not right.
Whilst "society" may be presenting one view, it is not *denying* that there is any other possible view.
The aim of that US programme, however, is to present their view as the *only possible* right view and that *is* brainwashing.
Of course it's right. The US programme, is, granted, putting its point across quite forcefully. However it is claiming to be right on the basis of a body of evidence in support of its case, not by claiming there is no alternative. Many of the kids attending this programme are already doing the alternative.
However society at large puts the contrary view with, if anything, even more force. Teen magazines in the UK like Sugar and J17 do not make the case for abstinence; they rarely even acknowledge it as an alternative. They are full of how to do it, when to do it, how to do it 'safely', etc. They are, by their silence on the subject, effectively denying it exists, given the heavy influence they have on their readers.
You can't complain that someone is 'brainwashing' someone else simply because they are trying to mount a persuasive argument in favour of their case.
Incidentally, I put 'safely' in commas because there is really no such thing as safe sex. For example, it's accepted fact that, purely by becoming sexually active at a young age, a woman vastly increases her risk of cervical cancer, no matter what contraceptive she may use. An number of different sexual partners is also a risk factor. We could also go on about torn condoms, etc etc...
They believe in the 10 Commandments, but support the Death Penalty etc.
How is that hypocritical?
And towny, well said. :)
Originally posted by Graham
[B]Originally posted by towny
Unfortunately you mis-understand me.
I have no problem with you telling your son about heaven, hell, or even UFOs or the tooth fairy.
However if you try to *deny* him any other conflicting information *just because* it doesn't fit in with your beliefs, then I *do* have problem cf those Americans who don't want Darwin taught in schools because it conflicts with their beliefs.
It is not for *YOU* to make up his mind. He is (I presume) going to grow up into a human being who is intelligent and rational and capable of making his own decisions and that is all I want anyone to be able to do.
Unfortunately as mentioned before, this US campaign is nothing but brainwashing because it *refuses* to teach or even admit to any "on the other hand" opinions. That is not education, that is dogma.
As I posted in reply to you above, I don't think a campaign in favour of chastity - at which attendance is voluntary - has the responsibility to present the contrary point of view when that view is so ably expressed elsewhere. Neither do I think it is the place of a Church to run its sermons like an exercise in comparitive religion. The congregation are there either because they share a set of beliefs, or because they are interested in hearing more about a particular set of beliefs.
At home, I will not be presenting Jesus to my son as if he is just one of a number of equally valid options; my experience of him is so real I would be a liar if I tried to do so. However I will certainly not be denying the existence of alternatives. I don't think this campaign in the USA is denying the existence of alternatives. They are simply promoting a point of view that they believe to be right.
I have often very little respect for the Americans because at times they are such utter hypocrites.
They call themselves Christians, then hold up signs saying "God Hates Fags". They believe in the 10 Commandments, but support the Death Penalty etc.
For more information see:
http://www.affordable-leather.co.uk/Pledge1.jpg (no, it's nothing obscene! Although it may be rude about Americans!!)
You'll forgive me if I don't take this line of thought any further; we could argue endlessly about the contradictions of American society without furthering our understanding of this issue much at all...
Excuse me? What's this "Wholly European" business?
What's the first Amendment to the United States Constitution? Something about Freedom of Speech, isn't it?!
I'm talking about philosophical relativism, which arose in Europe. This school of thought is about making a value judgement on other people's world view - effectively that truth is all a matter of perception, that ultimate truth, if it exists, is unknowable, and therefore the only offence is to tell one person that their truth is 'wrong' or 'less valid' than your own.
It is not about the concept of freedom of speech at all. After all, the concept of freedom of speech as written in the US constitution bars one American from preventing another having his say, but it does not prevent the first American getting up afterwards and saying 'I'm right, he was wrong, and here's why...'
Hang on! What on Earth are you talking about??
"Belief" is the acceptance of something without proof! Where did I say anything about that being *my* position?
You didn't ... not directly in any case. It was an inference on my part drawn from your apparent alignment with the ideas I outlined above - that it is fundamentally 'wrong' to tell someone else that they are 'wrong'.
When you remove absolute truth as a possible answer to any question, all you have left are a set of 'equally valid' beliefs about what the answer might be. The upshot of all this is that pursuit of absolute truth, being pointless, is abandoned and all that is left is a philosophical world view in which only belief, and not truth, is the aim.
That's the position of religion, that you must "believe" because to believe you have "faith" and that is the foundation of religion!
No it isn't. For a start you can't package all religion so neatly together like that. A tendency to do so is another indicator that you tend to think all belief to ultimately be somehow equivalent.
I can only really speak for Christianity - because that's where I'm at. The fact that you hold faaith to be the foundation of religion, or even just Christianity, further indicates to me that you come from a relativist point of view. Faith in and of itself is not the foundation of Christianity. The foundation of Christianity is the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. Granted you must have faith to accept this - although any 'born-again' Christian will tell you that after that, the sheer presence of God in one's life can be so strong that faith is at times almost irrelevant - but in any case, faith is the path, not the goal.
You can believe anything you want, but I have a mind of my own and I have the right to question any belief anyone has if they tell me that "I'm right and you're wrong".
Of course you do. I would never deny you your right to think, and express, what you like.
If you can *prove* what you say, fine, I will accept it, but asking me to "believe" simply because that's what someone else says or has written in some book somewhere, is just asking me to question it!
Questioning it is how ultimately I came to see that it's absolutely true. But trying to 'prove' any religion would be completely off-topic (even more so than we are already) so I'll stop here and go for some dinner before my wife gets mad. :wavey:
downquark1
09-09-2003, 20:06
We seem to be tipping toeing around the issue of how strong and cult-like these organisations are. Many cults work by luring you to a meeting and putting preasure on you that you can't immediately escape from.... A bit like a car sales man.
Originally posted by towny The US programme, is, granted, putting its point across quite forcefully. However it is claiming to be right on the basis of a body of evidence in support of its case, not by claiming there is no alternative.
However society at large puts the contrary view with, if anything, even more force. Teen magazines in the UK like Sugar and J17 do not make the case for abstinence;
But you miss the point that they are *NOT* being sponsored by government money!
And, at the same time, the government is putting money *into* the "abstinance" programme, it is taking it *out* of the sex education budget and limiting what it can talk about. I quote:
"Meanwhile, spending on sex education has declined, and projects are stifled yet further by being prohibited from mentioning abortion. In contrast to the $117m allocated to abstinence programmes, the US government has set aside just $48m for sex education, and that sum includes free samples of contraceptives."
You can't complain that someone is 'brainwashing' someone else simply because they are trying to mount a persuasive argument in favour of their case.
You can when it's the *government* that's supposed to represent the views of *all* the people!
Originally posted by Jerrek
They believe in the 10 Commandments, but support the Death Penalty etc.[/b]
How is that hypocritical?
Sorry? Did "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" get deleted somewhere along the way?
Originally posted by towny
Excuse me? What's this "Wholly European" business?
What's the first Amendment to the United States Constitution? Something about Freedom of Speech, isn't it?!
I'm talking about philosophical relativism, which arose in Europe. This school of thought is about making a value judgement on other people's world view - effectively that truth is all a matter of perception, that ultimate truth, if it exists, is unknowable, and therefore the only offence is to tell one person that their truth is 'wrong' or 'less valid' than your own.
If someone disagrees with me, let them say why they disagree with me. Don't try to say that I can't say that I think someone's wrong just because "it's wrong", because you're telling *me* that "that's wrong" and we'll end up going in circles!
"Belief" is the acceptance of something without proof! Where did I say anything about that being *my* position?
You didn't ... not directly in any case. It was an inference on my part drawn from your apparent alignment with the ideas I outlined above - that it is fundamentally 'wrong' to tell someone else that they are 'wrong'.
Well I'm sorry to say that your inference is wrong. (Oh, sorry, aren't I allowed to say that?! :) )
When you remove absolute truth as a possible answer to any question, all you have left are a set of 'equally valid' beliefs about what the answer might be. The upshot of all this is that pursuit of absolute truth, being pointless, is abandoned and all that is left is a philosophical world view in which only belief, and not truth, is the aim.
Without wanting to get too deeply embroiled in philosophical word games, I just want to make a point here.
There are two types of "truth". The first is mathematical, eg 1+1=2 is true (in base 10 and with other caveats before anyone gets pedantic!)
Then there are "truths" which are simply opinions. For you, from what I've read, the expression "God exists" is true. For me, the same expression is not true, *but* importantly, it is not *necessarily* "false".
I don't know that god does or doesn't exist. However I've yet to see any convincing evidence of the fact either way. You, however, have "faith" and you "believe", therefore for you there can only *be* one answer.
The point, however, is that it doesn't really matter to me either way and I'm quite happy going on in my life without worrying about it.
BUT when someone comes along and sticks their opinion into my face and tries to convince me otherwise or "convert" me or say that "you must think this way because of *my* beliefs", I'll quite happily take their beliefs to task for as long as they'll stay.
That's the position of religion, that you must "believe" because to believe you have "faith" and that is the foundation of religion!
For a start you can't package all religion so neatly together like that. A tendency to do so is another indicator that you tend to think all belief to ultimately be somehow equivalent.
Well I actually should have said Christianity rather than "religion" at that point, but from what I've seen and heard, I *would* consider all *religious* belief to be equivalent.
Faith in and of itself is not the foundation of Christianity. The foundation of Christianity is the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. Granted you must have faith to accept this
Err, which seems to rather contradict what you just said before! (But let's not go there in this thread!)
Originally posted by Graham
Originally posted by towny
If someone disagrees with me, let them say why they disagree with me. Don't try to say that I can't say that I think someone's wrong just because "it's wrong", because you're telling *me* that "that's wrong" and we'll end up going in circles!
Well I'm sorry to say that your inference is wrong. (Oh, sorry, aren't I allowed to say that?! :) )
Without wanting to get too deeply embroiled in philosophical word games, I just want to make a point here.
There are two types of "truth". The first is mathematical, eg 1+1=2 is true (in base 10 and with other caveats before anyone gets pedantic!)
Then there are "truths" which are simply opinions. For you, from what I've read, the expression "God exists" is true. For me, the same expression is not true, *but* importantly, it is not *necessarily* "false".
I don't know that god does or doesn't exist. However I've yet to see any convincing evidence of the fact either way. You, however, have "faith" and you "believe", therefore for you there can only *be* one answer.
The point, however, is that it doesn't really matter to me either way and I'm quite happy going on in my life without worrying about it.
BUT when someone comes along and sticks their opinion into my face and tries to convince me otherwise or "convert" me or say that "you must think this way because of *my* beliefs", I'll quite happily take their beliefs to task for as long as they'll stay.
Now you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying you can't tell me I'm wrong; I'm telling you I think you subscribe to a world view which frowns upon people telling other people that what they hold to be true is in fact false.
From what you have posted before, and again above, you do hold to a general view that it is possible for something to be 'true' for one person while, potentially, the exact opposite is 'true' for someone else. You say this is tenable because there are two kinds of truth ... essentially absolute and relative.
I do not think you can just re-define a word in the English language to suit your world view. Truth is exactly how it is understood to the 'person on the street' - that which is. The concept of 'true for you' and 'true for me' is currently a popular view especially in university campuses around the western world, but frankly it is utter nonsense.
We could argue forever about right and wrong, and what is the best way to arrive at the truth, but have no doubt that the truth is there to be found. And I'm not just talking in a narrow religious sense.
Graham: The Bible never, ever states "Thou shalt not kill."
It does, however, state "Thou shalt not murder."
http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?new=1&word=exodus+20§ion=0&version=nas&language=en
Exodus 20:13
Does everyone here have issues distinguishing between killing and murder???
I very much depends on the translation of the version you read - I believe some versions use the word 'kill'.
There is a difference between killing and murder - murder is illegal, or unsanctioned, killing. Those translations of the Bible that say 'murder' are the more accurate.
That's not the end of the issue however. In the Old Testament, you can find plenty of examples of legal, sanctioned killing when God used the Israelites as his means to judge other nations through war. I would be interested if anyone can show me anywhere in the New Testament where Jesus, Paul or anyone else suggests that God might want to use Christians in a similar fashion.
I'll save you from looking - none of them ever suggested any such thing because God wishes his people to do things differently post-Jesus, for all kinds of off-topic reasons. The death penalty is extremely difficult to justify when you look at the whole Bible and not just the OT.
But we digress.
Russ: I very much depends on the translation of the version you read - I believe some versions use the word 'kill'.
Well they are wrong. Why? Because the original Hewbrew texts say "murder."
downquark1
10-09-2003, 15:00
Originally posted by Jerrek
Russ: I very much depends on the translation of the version you read - I believe some versions use the word 'kill'.
Well they are wrong. Why? Because the original Hewbrew texts say "murder." Strange how ancient hebrew looks the same as english.
Originally posted by Jerrek
Russ: I very much depends on the translation of the version you read - I believe some versions use the word 'kill'.
Well they are wrong. Why? Because the original Hewbrew texts say "murder."
And you are an authority on ancient Hebrew translations?
I think the person who is wrong usualy resides on the other side of the 'big pond'.... :D
dialanothernumb
10-09-2003, 16:08
Oh my... my dyslexia is getting me down... I thought this thread said that "the sex administration is anti-bush". Me, I'm pro-bush (but not sure I like the US President much)
Well, it just so happens I do speak Hebrew (and a wee bit of Arabic, having lived there).
The Hebrew word in Exodus 20:13 used for "kill" is "ratsach," meaning to kill, murder, or put to death. However, in the next chapter (21:12) the Bible states that,
"He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death."
The Hebrew word here refers to willful, unlawful murder, and is the word "nakah."
There is a clear difference between murder and killing. See, for the Israelites, neither accidental killing nor justifiable homicide are breaking that commandment. There are lots of times when God ordered the Israelites to kill their enemies.
You wouldn't say that you murdered a chicken to feed your family, would you? No. You say you killed a chicken. You "ratsach" a chicken.
Graham you don't know what you're talking about in this respect.
downquark1
10-09-2003, 21:34
Is anyone going to counter my "they shouldn't use these pressure techniques" arguement? This seems to have gone off topic.
Originally posted by towny
Now you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying you can't tell me I'm wrong; I'm telling you I think you subscribe to a world view which frowns upon people telling other people that what they hold to be true is in fact false.
Err, nope, you're entirely wrong and you've got it completely backwards!
I frown upon anyone saying "this is how it is, this is the only truth, you must accept it because of belief/ dogma/ doctrine/ whatever, you must not question because of that"!
From what you have posted before, and again above, you do hold to a general view that it is possible for something to be 'true' for one person while, potentially, the exact opposite is 'true' for someone else. You say this is tenable because there are two kinds of truth ... essentially absolute and relative.
Yep, that's entirely true! :) (But only for certain values of "true"!)
I do not think you can just re-define a word in the English language to suit your world view.
Why not when everyone else does it?!
However that's not what I am doing...
Truth is exactly how it is understood to the 'person on the street' - that which is. The concept of 'true for you' and 'true for me' is currently a popular view especially in university campuses around the western world, but frankly it is utter nonsense.
... I suggest you pick up a good dictionary and see just how many different definitions of "true" there are. And they're all *true*!
As I said before "mathematical truth" is demonstrable and provable. Other "truths", however, are just opinions. Strongly held, backed up by belief, but opinions none the less.
So depending on what you believe, two people can with equal validity claim that opposing viewpoints are "true". Of course what *my* opinion on the validity of both is another matter entirely!
We could argue forever about right and wrong, and what is the best way to arrive at the truth, but have no doubt that the truth is there to be found. And I'm not just talking in a narrow religious sense.
The Truth is Out There...
... But lies are in your head.
- Terry Pratchett.
Originally posted by Jerrek
Graham: The Bible never, ever states "Thou shalt not kill."
It does, however, state "Thou shalt not murder."
Which translation are we talking about? The English? The Latin? The Greek? The Hebrew?
EDIT.
ADDENDUM:
OK, having just read your follow up message, you're right, I can't argue this with you.
However I would point out that the version of the Bible the Americans read *does* say "Kill", not "Murder", so by the version they go by, they *are* being hypocritical!
However I would point out that the version of the Bible the Americans read *does* say "Kill", not "Murder", so by the version they go by, they *are* being hypocritical! [/B]
but that is then not a correct translation and is therefore invalid
They are probably understanding it as it was intended, ie. using common sense?
Originally posted by Graham
However I would point out that the version of the Bible the Americans read *does* say "Kill", not "Murder", so by the version they go by, they *are* being hypocritical! Which version would that be? The one that "Americans" read?
Originally posted by downquark1
Is anyone going to counter my "they shouldn't use these pressure techniques" arguement? This seems to have gone off topic.
i dont think there is i believe in letting people choose which path they would like to go and its there decision if its wrong then that is the persons fault they can choose to brainwashed by people who are trying to 'protect' them by showing them one side of the story or something that is false its called dictating and i despise it
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
Personally I think that G Dubya Bush is a moron. I think he is more dangerous to world peace than saddam hussein. I think he has imperialistic tendencies and I think the US need to get rid of him ASAP.
i agree with you i never liked bush what hes done by being in power now is show how much of an idiot he really is by his actions which have had a negative impact on the world and his own country
No I quite like the impact he has had on my country for most part, so far.
Originally posted by Graham
However I would point out that the version of the Bible the Americans read *does* say "Kill", not "Murder", so by the version they go by, they *are* being hypocritical!
The Americans read the same versions that we do.
downquark1
11-09-2003, 08:47
Originally posted by Jerrek
No I quite like the impact he has had on my country for most part, so far. That maybe so, can you give some examples?? I'm not being sarcastic, it's just here in europe they only tell us the bad and controversial things.
EG:
Giving Microsoft a pardon
All this anti-copy-right suing
His middle-eastern peace policy
Rushing the war with iraq
etc.
Originally posted by Russ D
The Americans read the same versions that we do. So has our version been translated incorrectly?
Ok to try and clear this up, there are about 10 (possibly more, I'm sure Towny will be able to clarify) different versions of the Bible. The problem was the original Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, and there will inevitably be expressions and wording for which there is no direct English translation. Certain versions will contain one story, other versions will have the same story but with slightly different wording.
Versions include the King James Version, New Century Version etc
Try a google and see for yourself.
Originally posted by Graham
Err, nope, you're entirely wrong and you've got it completely backwards!
I frown upon anyone saying "this is how it is, this is the only truth, you must accept it because of belief/ dogma/ doctrine/ whatever, you must not question because of that"!
Yep, that's entirely true! :) (But only for certain values of "true"!)
Why not when everyone else does it?!
However that's not what I am doing...
... I suggest you pick up a good dictionary and see just how many different definitions of "true" there are. And they're all *true*!
As I said before "mathematical truth" is demonstrable and provable. Other "truths", however, are just opinions. Strongly held, backed up by belief, but opinions none the less.
So depending on what you believe, two people can with equal validity claim that opposing viewpoints are "true". Of course what *my* opinion on the validity of both is another matter entirely!
The Truth is Out There...
... But lies are in your head.
- Terry Pratchett.
Reciting standard university lecture notes on postmodernism does not constitute a valid proof of your (ridiculous) assertion that truth can be anything other than truth. The vast majority of philosophers throughout recorded history have held that for any statement to be 'true', it must correspond to reality. Aristotle, for example.
The very statement
As I said before "mathematical truth" is demonstrable and provable. Other "truths", however, are just opinions. Strongly held, backed up by belief, but opinions none the less.
is a claim to absolute truth. Perhaps you could explain, given your concept of relative truth, how it is possible for your opinion and mine on this subject both to be equally valid at the same time? Or perhaps you can explain how you know that your assertion fits into the category of 'mathematical truth'?
I think you should think for yourself a little more and stop reciting the last thing you heard from your lecturer - if you have an opinion, then be brave and call it an opinion, don't try to dress it up as somehow 'true'. And if someone claims to be making a statement of truth, just accept that they are claiming to be making a statement about reality and respond to it as such ... either agree with them, or tell them you think what they say is not true.
To try to suggest that two mutually exclusive 'truth claims' can in any way be both true at the same time can be both patronizing and offensive.
To claim that just because an answer can't be derived from a calculator or in a laboratory means it will never be more than just an opinion is highly arrogant.
Originally posted by Jerrek
I would point out that the version of the Bible the Americans read *does* say "Kill", not "Murder", so by the version they go by, they *are* being hypocritical!
Which version would that be? The one that "Americans" read? [/B]
Err, yes, that was what I just said! :)
Originally posted by Ramrod
I would point out that the version of the Bible the Americans read *does* say "Kill", not "Murder", so by the version they go by, they *are* being hypocritical!
but that is then not a correct translation and is therefore invalid. They are probably understanding it as it was intended, ie. using common sense?
I'm tempted to say something cynical here about the usage of the words "American" and "Common Sense" in the same sentence!
Unfortunately, as that image of the US flag and the "pledge" posted a little while ago demonstrates, it seems a lot of Americans are quite content to say "these are the rules we stand by, except when it's convenient for us not to".
And, yes, I am generalising massively, but it's an impression I can't avoid from what we see reported from the US.
Originally posted by Russ D
the version of the Bible the Americans read *does* say "Kill", not "Murder", so by the version they go by, they *are* being hypocritical!
The Americans read the same versions that we do. [/B]
Yes, but we got *rid* of the death penalty.
Originally posted by towny
Reciting standard university lecture notes on postmodernism
Err, sorry? *What* "standard university lecture notes on postmodernism" are you talking about?
I graduated from Portsmouth Polytechnic in 1986 in computing! I've never *studied* postmodernism, philosophy or any other such subject! What I have done is read, thought and made up my own mind.
does not constitute a valid proof of your (ridiculous) assertion that truth can be anything other than truth. The vast majority of philosophers throughout recorded history have held that for any statement to be 'true', it must correspond to reality. Aristotle, for example.
"Reality", however, is not a *fixed* concept!!
AIUI in your world view God is "real". You believe in him. You believe Jesus existed and died on the cross for our sins.
As far as I am concerned, this is your *opinion* because this is only "belief", it is not backed up with provable facts. However I am not telling you that you *can't* believe it because of that, just that you cannot expect *me* to simply take your word for it.
To you, your belief in god is "true". But I will not accept this as "true" without proof.
However this does *NOT* necessarily mean that I think that your belief *must* be false!
As I said before "mathematical truth" is demonstrable and provable. Other "truths", however, are just opinions. Strongly held, backed up by belief, but opinions none the less.
is a claim to absolute truth.
Perhaps you could explain, given your concept of relative truth, how it is possible for your opinion and mine on this subject both to be equally valid at the same time?
Yes, because, as I said above, it is down to what you *believe*.
Or perhaps you can explain how you know that your assertion fits into the category of 'mathematical truth'?
Because it is demonstrable, provable and repeatable. I can demonstrate and prove that that 1+1=2 and so can anyone else. Belief is not required.
I think you should think for yourself a little more and stop reciting the last thing you heard from your lecturer
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
if you have an opinion, then be brave and call it an opinion, don't try to dress it up as somehow 'true'.
Err, I think I've been doing this...!
Now all you need to do is to understand the difference between "opinions" based on belief and "truth" based on facts.
And if someone claims to be making a statement of truth, just accept that they are claiming to be making a statement about reality and respond to it as such ... either agree with them, or tell them you think what they say is not true.
I could have sworn that was what I've been doing too!!
To try to suggest that two mutually exclusive 'truth claims' can in any way be both true at the same time can be both patronizing and offensive.
If you are a Christian and believe in God and that Jesus is the son of god and died on the cross, that is "true" for you.
If person X is a Muslim and believe in Allah ("the one god") and that Mohammed is his prophet, that is "true" for him.
By *your* argument, both of these *can't* be true, because they are mutually exclusive, but according to the belief systems, each, individually, is true. So are you saying that *their* god is "false" because *your* god is true?
To claim that just because an answer can't be derived from a calculator or in a laboratory means it will never be more than just an opinion is highly arrogant.
No, it's a *fact*!
Unless, of course, you can prove otherwise (Of course you'd have to do that with a *fact* that contradicts it!)
Originally posted by Graham
By *your* argument, both of these *can't* be true, because they are mutually exclusive, but according to the belief systems, each, individually, is true. So are you saying that *their* god is "false" because *your* god is true?
We're going round in circles, so to save us both getting dizzy I'll not re-state everything I've put before ... in any case, I think this last bit of your post should allow me to underline the point I've been trying to make.
You are right, my argument is as you say. I believe the nature of God to be revealed in the Bible. The Bible is true. A Muslim believes that you can only truly see the nature of God in the Qu'ran, and that truth is ultimately found only there. These truth claims are both mutually exclusive. In my definition of truth, ie that understood by most philiosophers throughout recorded history, only one of these statements can correspond to reality. I hold that the Bible is the one, and that the Qu'ran is false, and that the Muslim understanding of God is false. You may consider me arrogant for saying such a thing; I freely acknowledge that the currently popular philosophical view is that truth is relative. However I think my view is more honest as it acknowledges that both Islam and Christianity make absolute claims that are contradictory and cannot both be true at the same time.
I'm sorry for the 'lecturer' rant ... got a little hot under the collar. But I'm alright now... :spin:
Its not just the goverment thats anti sex, even newspapers are over there, they pulled a (more for adults) comic strip, becuase it mentions 'sex' and 'masturbation
CNN report about it (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Midwest/09/03/doonesbury.complaints.ap/)
The offending strip (http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20030907)
Typical :rolleyes:
I think this sort of thing, although it may *seem* to be the right thing to do (I am assuming getting STD cases and teenage pregnancies down to be a good thing), I think the way they go about it is wrong.
Partly because they appear to be trying to brainwash the kids, and partly because (in my experience) teenagers tend to do the exact opposite of what they are told.
Hey, maybe the American government should be encouraging them to have as much sex as possible! (Only Joking).
Seriously, one thing that worries me is that by teaching kids not to have sex, they are not teaching them how to have sex safely.
Originally posted by Graham
[i]I'm tempted to say something cynical here about the usage of the words "American" and "Common Sense" in the same sentence!
:D
Originally posted by Graham
"Reality", however, is not a *fixed* concept!!
You what?!:confused:
In theory reality may not be fixed but in practice it is.
Originally posted by scastle
Partly because they appear to be trying to brainwash the kids, and partly because (in my experience) teenagers tend to do the exact opposite of what they are told.
i dont think the majorty do,do that i think its more of what they feel is right and the urges that can consume them and put a smoke screen infront of there thoughts and the truth due to the ignorance at there age
Originally posted by Jerrek
Well, it just so happens I do speak Hebrew (and a wee bit of Arabic, having lived there).
The Hebrew word in Exodus 20:13 used for "kill" is "ratsach," meaning to kill, murder, or put to death. However, in the next chapter (21:12) the Bible states that,
"He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death."
The Hebrew word here refers to willful, unlawful murder, and is the word "nakah."
There is a clear difference between murder and killing. See, for the Israelites, neither accidental killing nor justifiable homicide are breaking that commandment. There are lots of times when God ordered the Israelites to kill their enemies.
You wouldn't say that you murdered a chicken to feed your family, would you? No. You say you killed a chicken. You "ratsach" a chicken.
Graham you don't know what you're talking about in this respect.
wasnt the bible written in Sanskrit &/or Ancient Aramaic & not modern Hebrew as it is spoken today? While I havent studied Hebrew or its development from the above older languages, from the study of other languages I know that word meanings can change quite drastically as a language develops.
Anyone know how to translate Sanskrit to modern English?:shrug: ;)
dialanothernumb
11-09-2003, 23:38
I have to say Graham, you have a lot of growing up to do. Irrespective of whether you are american, muslim, a yorkshireman or what ever. to have your way of life, culture and nationality generalised in the way you have sweepingly insulted Americans in your post above is childish in the extreme.
the quote that I'm particularly refering to is this
I'm tempted to say something cynical here about the usage of the words "American" and "Common Sense" in the same sentence!
Well, you conceited little smallminded bigot....!
Originally posted by hoss
wasnt the bible written in Sanskrit &/or Ancient Aramaic & not modern Hebrew as it is spoken today? While I havent studied Hebrew or its development from the above older languages, from the study of other languages I know that word meanings can change quite drastically as a language develops.
Anyone know how to translate Sanskrit to modern English?:shrug: ;)
The bible was written in ancient versions of Hebrew and Aramaic (old testament) and Greek (new testament). All three of these languages have been taught and understood constantly since they were in general use and their translation into modern languages is a largely uncontroversial process (largely, because some cults like the JWs like to mess about with bits of it).
Sanskrit is an ancient asian language but nothing to do with the original writings of the Bible.
dialanothernumb
12-09-2003, 11:11
Well, I think any internet forum will demonstrate that even todays English, from a post 2 minutes old, can be re-interpreted.
Back to the main points around the need for Bush's administration to assert itself with a moral agenda, everyone knows that Bush is a fundamentalist Christian, so we shouldn't be suprised that this is something he feels strongly about. If you were elected (ish) head of the most powerful nation in the world, you would follow some of your own policy beliefs, wouldn't you?
My view (if I were President) would be that I would not get Religious beliefs mixed up with State business. (And if I did, I wouldn't be insisting on introducing a secular constitution to an Islamist country several thousand miles away) But I'm not, so there you go. Bush has set himself a course that will either get him re-elected or kicked out next election... That's democracy, folks!
I don't feel that comfortable about teenagers having sex so young, but this is from the perspective of a Dad, worrying about his daughter, not from the perspective of a horny 16 year old outside a Disco in the early 80's with his mate's older sister, in an Escort Mk1 (or something like that... erm... anyway... moving on)
Originally posted by dialanothernumb
My view (if I were President) would be that I would not get Religious beliefs mixed up with State business.
But what if you felt that particular belief was for the good of the country? Religious beliefs aren't just a passing fad, they are something you (should) truly believe in, therefore it would be viewed as standpoint that you'd want to share with others, especially if you're in a position of authority, such as Bush.
Originally posted by dialanothernumb
Well, I think any internet forum will demonstrate that even todays English, from a post 2 minutes old, can be re-interpreted.
Mischief! There's a difference between a bunch of geeks misunderstanding each other's misunderstandings in the heat of the moment and an academic process involving some of the most eminent linguists of each generation ...
Besides, there's a difference between translation and interpretation. The translator takes the original language and transfers it into english, swahili, whatever. The aim is to put as little bias or slant on it as humanly possible. And when you have so many people translating, reviewing and correcting the work, you can get a very good result indeed.
An interpreter stands up with a copy of the Bible in his own language on Sunday morning, reads some of it out and preaches a sermon on it. Interpretations can be of wildly varying quality depending on how well the preacher understands the text in its proper context.
As for Bush, I've said the same myself. He has never made a secret of his beliefs yet he was democratically chosen by an electoral system which the American people are satisfied correctly represents their will. They can hardly be surprised if he acts according to his instincts. If they don't like it ... well, they can get rid of him can't they?
dialanothernumb
12-09-2003, 11:39
Originally posted by towny
Mischief! There's a difference between a bunch of geeks misunderstanding each other's misunderstandings in the heat of the moment and an academic process involving some of the most eminent linguists of each generation ...
Besides, there's a difference between translation and interpretation. The translator takes the original language and transfers it into english, swahili, whatever. The aim is to put as little bias or slant on it as humanly possible. And when you have so many people translating, reviewing and correcting the work, you can get a very good result indeed.
An interpreter stands up with a copy of the Bible in his own language on Sunday morning, reads some of it out and preaches a sermon on it. Interpretations can be of wildly varying quality depending on how well the preacher understands the text in its proper context.
As for Bush, I've said the same myself. He has never made a secret of his beliefs yet he was democratically chosen by an electoral system which the American people are satisfied correctly represents their will. They can hardly be surprised if he acts according to his instincts. If they don't like it ... well, they can get rid of him can't they?
No mischief intented!.. I guess that where I'm coming from is that religious text is never purely translated, it's always subject to re-interpretation, no matter how erudite and and well-intended to be accurate the translation is. Religious text is always read to reflect the prevailing understanding and moral context of the reader (or translator). I'm probably upsetting a few academics here so I'll stop!
Originally posted by towny
Besides, there's a difference between translation and interpretation. The translator takes the original language and transfers it into english, swahili, whatever. The aim is to put as little bias or slant on it as humanly possible. And when you have so many people translating, reviewing and correcting the work, you can get a very good result indeed.
But with any translation you do get the problem that with any source text there will be words or phrases that cannot be directly translated into the destination language.
In these cases, the translator would have to use a phrase or word that means nearly the same as the original. If you translate from one language to another and this happens, it doesn't matter too much.
If someone else then translates that translated text, the text they produce may start to mean something different to the original. If this has happened a lot more, then you end up with text that may bear very little resemblance to the original.
As for Bush, I've said the same myself. He has never made a secret of his beliefs yet he was democratically chosen by an electoral system which the American people are satisfied correctly represents their will. They can hardly be surprised if he acts according to his instincts.
In theory he was elected democratically. In practice (if I remember correctly) the process used was dubious to say the least.
Originally posted by scastle
If someone else then translates that translated text, the text they produce may start to mean something different to the original. If this has happened a lot more, then you end up with text that may bear very little resemblance to the original.
True, although Bible translators generally manage to avoid this by translating directly from the original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek to the destination language. The only English bible still in significant use that relied on an intermediate language during translation is the King James 'Authorized' version of 1611, whose Old Testament text is translated into English not from Hebrew and Aramaic but from a Greek translation called the Septuagint.
This resulted in innacuracies in the Old Testament translation of the King James Bible, although these were more due to faults in the work of those who translated from Hebrew/Aramaic into Greek than the work of those who much later translated from Greek into English. However the translation still compares very favourably to modern ones based on the original language texts ... while there are inaccuracies in detail, none of the errors, once corrected, resulted in a change of Christian doctrine.
In theory he was elected democratically. In practice (if I remember correctly) the process used was dubious to say the least.
There was a lot of controversy around the election due to failed technology and unclear ballot papers. It was this failure of process that led to all the shinanegans with re-counts etc. The vote for president in each state is completely self-contained and independent from the others. Once a result is declared, e.g. 'Florida has voted Republican' or 'California has voted Democrat', delegates from each state attend an Electoral College, at which each state casts an allocated number of votes for the president, depending on the will of the citizens of the state they represent. This system was devised in order to prevent larger states dominating the choice of president at the expense of the smaller. Thus, although George W Bush had no chance of polling more votes overall than Al Gore, he did stand a chance of beating him in Florida - and with all the other States declared it became clear that the electoral college votes of the State of Florida would decide the overall result.
We tend to see electoral colleges as a bad thing in the UK because of the way trade unions used them to wield influence in the Labour Party, but the USA, that most democratic of all nations (!) seems quite happy with the system, regardless of the occasional odd result.
downquark1
12-09-2003, 13:32
but the USA, that most democratic of all nations (!) quick question, Who actually decided that an why?
dialanothernumb
12-09-2003, 13:45
Originally posted by downquark1
quick question, Who actually decided that an why?
Do you mean who decided to call the US the most democratic nation? If so, my guess is just good marketing! In general Americans are very proud of their country and it's system of government, and understandably tell people that a lot
There isn't a perfect type of democracy in the world, ergo nobody really knows what it takes to be most democratic.:D
downquark1
12-09-2003, 15:55
Being raised on american cartoons, they always filled them with rubbish about america being free and democratic. They say it like it's the only free country in the world, I almost started to think UK was a dictatorship. But knowing more about it, it's quite clear UK is freerer.
Examples:
Alcohol age limit
Gambling laws
Age of consent
And it can't be so democratic if they only have 2 policital parties (what if you like neither)?
Originally posted by Ramrod
You what?!:confused:
In theory reality may not be fixed but in practice it is.
"Reality", if viewed from some sort of god-like impartial perspective is, in practice fixed, but when you filter it through human perceptions, it becomes relative.
For example if you have one of the most common forms of colour blindness you may think that there's no difference between red and green. Of course there is in practice, but in your "reality" you can't see it.
Anyway, this is way off topic for this thread, so I'll drop it here.
Originally posted by dialanothernumb
I have to say Graham, you have a lot of growing up to do. Irrespective of whether you are american, muslim, a yorkshireman or what ever. to have your way of life, culture and nationality generalised in the way you have sweepingly insulted Americans in your post above is childish in the extreme.
the quote that I'm particularly refering to is this
I'm tempted to say something cynical here about the usage of the words "American" and "Common Sense" in the same sentence!
Well, you conceited little smallminded bigot....!
Oh good grief! That was a *JOKE*!!!
If you've read any of my other messages in threads like this, you will see that actually that is the complete *antithesis* of my usual position. I don't like arbitrary labels, I don't like sweeping generalisations and I don't tar everyone with the same brush.
Yes, I know that that comment does exactly that, because I did it deliberately for humorous effect, and which is why, to clarify, I specifically *mentioned* in that message "And, yes, I am generalising massively, but it's an impression I can't avoid from what we see reported from the US."
*Of course* not all Americans are like that. *Of course* it is a massive over-generalisation. But the view we get of the US is filtered by the media (and that includes the US media because I sometimes watch ABC's Nightline and the CBS Evening News which get shown on some of our cable news channels) and the perception that often gives of the Americans is that of a people who act (or re-act) before they think or use common sense.
Originally posted by dialanothernumb
My view (if I were President) would be that I would not get Religious beliefs mixed up with State business.
And, not forgetting, of course, that the Constitution has something to say on the subject!
dialanothernumb
12-09-2003, 18:46
Originally posted by Russ D
But what if you felt that particular belief was for the good of the country? Religious beliefs aren't just a passing fad, they are something you (should) truly believe in, therefore it would be viewed as standpoint that you'd want to share with others, especially if you're in a position of authority, such as Bush.
Yup, you're right Russ. If I were G. Bush I'd feel I had a duty to encourage my country to uphold the same things as I believe. However, where I part company with this approach is when I govern a the political state of a country which has followers of many faiths with perfectly adequate religious leaders (okay, leave out th telly evangelists) Mixing Church and state is soooo inappropriate. It doesn't stop you expressing your faith, but you have to figuratively take off your political leader's hat to do so.
dialanothernumb
12-09-2003, 18:54
Originally posted by Graham
Oh good grief! That was a *JOKE*!!!
If you've read any of my other messages in threads like this, you will see that actually that is the complete *antithesis* of my usual position. I don't like arbitrary labels, I don't like sweeping generalisations and I don't tar everyone with the same brush.
Yes, I know that that comment does exactly that, because I did it deliberately for humorous effect, and which is why, to clarify, I specifically *mentioned* in that message "And, yes, I am generalising massively, but it's an impression I can't avoid from what we see reported from the US."
*Of course* not all Americans are like that. *Of course* it is a massive over-generalisation. But the view we get of the US is filtered by the media (and that includes the US media because I sometimes watch ABC's Nightline and the CBS Evening News which get shown on some of our cable news channels) and the perception that often gives of the Americans is that of a people who act (or re-act) before they think or use common sense.
Graham, you kid no-one with that wriggle. you were caught out with a nasty generalisation, and you are trying to back out of it stealthily.
We all say things we don't mean or that came out wrong... look at some of my posts! But it's important to put our hands up and admit when we get things wrong. You lose credibility with your posts otherwise.
Let me tell you, the Brits (and Germans and Irish and etc.. etc.. )don't look too pretty at times, never mind the Americans. Imagine what they must thing anytime there's a riot at an England soccer match. It happens frequently enough for your average overseas viewer to get the impression that there must be a common theme... you know what I mean
Okay, I'm going to try your approach matey:
My assertion:
"Graham you are a bull-headed fool..."
My justification: "*** hey** it's a joke, in fact as you know this is completely not what I think of you no, the antithesis....but well, you can't help getting such an impression anyway when you watch all those posts.... "
Nope, still doesn't work...
Originally posted by dialanothernumb
It doesn't stop you expressing your faith, but you have to figuratively take off your political leader's hat to do so.
If you are a Christian (or of any other faith) it should show in everything you do, including the decisions you make.
Originally posted by Russ D
If you are a Christian (or of any other faith) it should show in everything you do, including the decisions you make.
thats just imposing your beliefs on others because the decision you make is not from you its from your religion which is wrong
why cant people make there own decisions the reason i say this is because governments are listened to (unfortunately) and they dont always know if its for the best you should be able to choose
this type of decision is a personal one and should ONLY be made by the individual not by someone who clearly has no idea its back to this 'in my day BS' :rolleyes:
But what factors make up someone's opinions and beliefs? It's how you see the world, experiences etc. That's like saying being a veggie and anti-cruelty is wrong because it's formed by what you see on tv and read about in books/newspapers etc!!
downquark1, your posts always make me laugh because of the shallow content.
But knowing more about it, it's quite clear UK is freerer.
Examples:
Alcohol age limit
Gambling laws
Age of consent
Now please tell me how that makes the UK a more free nation. Please. BEcause you can screw someone that is underage?
And it can't be so democratic if they only have 2 policital parties (what if you like neither)?
Once again you show you don't know what you are talking about. There are HUNDREDS of parties. The Libertarian Party. Green Party. etc. You don't even have to vote for a party. You can go with an independent.
Graham and kronas are examples of why the Pilgrams left Europe. They are prime examples of what we are NOT. (no offense)
Originally posted by Jerrek
Graham and kronas are examples of why the Pilgrams left Europe. They are prime examples of what we are NOT. (no offense)
we are not ?
explination ?
we are all humans just because we have diffarent beliefs or non beleifs doesent change us as humans but changes our views and actions
Originally posted by Russ D
But what factors make up someone's opinions and beliefs? It's how you see the world, experiences etc. That's like saying being a veggie and anti-cruelty is wrong because it's formed by what you see on tv and read about in books/newspapers etc!!
example you think sex is not right before marriage because your religion says so, so you go and tell people not to do it but you go one step further and try and stop people by using your power in this case being the prime minister president people will listen and it is up to them........
but as i said its a personal thing and should not be preached about so to speak
by abusing your power
Originally posted by kronas
example you think sex is not right before marriage because your religion says so, so you go and tell people not to do it but you go one step further and try and stop people by using your power in this case being the prime minister president people will listen and it is up to them........
Another example - what if AIDS and other STIs are at an all-time high - the 'safe-sex' campaigns are failing fast? One idea which seems to have been ignored over the years is 'sex-within-marriage'. It also ties in with your beliefs.
What do you do?
/me gets the impression he's in for another 'banging your head against a brick wall' feeling that only comes when trying to argue a point with kronas....
Originally posted by kronas
example you think sex is not right before marriage because your religion says so
Christianity isn't just a set of rules that we are to obey blindly. Yes, God says there are things we should not do ... but as Christianity is about a relationship with God, he explains why something is good or bad, right or wrong.
Therefore when I decided I would not have sex before I was married, it wasn't just because some book said so. It was because I had a chance to think it through, understand why, recognised the wisdom of it, and because I have a relationship with the person (God) who said so, and I wanted to do the right thing by him.
It simply won't do for you to try to characterize people who live their life according to a certain faith as all being somehow robbed of all sense of individuality and the ability to think for themselves. That's just a cliche that, if you have paid any attention at all to the things Russ, myself and other Christians have posted on this forum, on all kinds of topics, you can't possibly believe to be true.
We could just as easily accuse you of liking Avril Lavigne because you watch programmes and read magazines that tell you you should. But I happen to think that, like everyone else, you have a brain in your head and wouldn't like her unless you came to your own conclusions based on the information available to you.
downquark1
13-09-2003, 09:58
Originally posted by Jerrek
[B]BEcause you can screw someone that is underage?
I would have thought the idea was to find someone your own age.
For someone who set his status to 'loveboy' you really are quite insular.
But you missed my point, George Bush's speeches are full of the word "freedom", so are armerican cartoons, it just seems that you get constant reminders. Here, people use the word a lot less often.
downquark1
13-09-2003, 10:06
Graham and kronas are examples of why the Pilgrams left Europe. They are prime examples of what we are NOT. (no offense)
So the pilgrims left europe to escape people who are against brainwashing and for freedom of decision.
downquark1
13-09-2003, 10:13
Originally posted by Russ D
But what factors make up someone's opinions and beliefs? It's how you see the world, experiences etc. That's like saying being a veggie and anti-cruelty is wrong because it's formed by what you see on tv and read about in books/newspapers etc!!
But if the president is a vegetarian should he promote vegatarianism to his public
If it's something he truly believes was for the good of the people then I'd say so.
downquark1
13-09-2003, 10:24
Originally posted by Russ D
If it's something he truly believes was for the good of the people then I'd say so. I truely belive GM foods, cloning and human genetic engineering is good for my people. If I was PM should I launch such campaigns to convince the British people.
I'm sure Hilter believed invading other countries was good for his people. Or should a good leader respect other views and form a nice middle-line policy?
I truely belive GM foods, cloning and human genetic engineering is good for my people. If I was PM should I launch such campaigns to convince the British people.
If it's something you believe in then yes of course!!
I'm sure Hilter believed invading other countries was good for his people.
Erm..you're making this rather easy for me aren't you! Yes Hitler thought it was a good idea and for the good of his people, so he did it. I'm not saying it was the right thing to do, but country leaders are meant to do what they consider best for the population - that's what they or their party gets elected to do!!
Do you not entrust polititions to do what's best?
downquark1
13-09-2003, 11:24
Do you not entrust polititions to do what's best?
In the example of Hitler haven't you answered your own question.
So, if I funded organisations of people dedicated to eating GM foods, and gave people a ring to remind them, and made them swear after each meeting to eat GM food, would that be OK? Even if there was huge oposition to it? Or should I just fund research into the dangers, while catiously promoting it as 'experimental'?
Now you're asking me a different question based on morals.
You asked if Bush should be making decisions based on his beliefs and how he sees the world. Now you're asking should he makes these decisions based on how popular they would be.
Originally posted by towny
I had a chance to think it through, understand why, recognised the wisdom of it, and because I have a relationship with the person (God) who said so, and I wanted to do the right thing by him.
your still doing it because of religion its influenced you enough to think about it and make your decision which i think is wrong and explained why.......
Originally posted by towny
It simply won't do for you to try to characterize people who live their life according to a certain faith as all being somehow robbed of all sense of individuality and the ability to think for themselves. That's just a cliche that, if you have paid any attention at all to the things Russ, myself and other Christians have posted on this forum, on all kinds of topics, you can't possibly believe to be true.
i have never said that i have seen first hand how religious people are individuals in themselves when it comes to actions and decisions
Originally posted by towny
We could just as easily accuse you of liking Avril Lavigne because you watch programmes and read magazines that tell you you should. But I happen to think that, like everyone else, you have a brain in your head and wouldn't like her unless you came to your own conclusions based on the information available to you.
whats this got to do with the topic its about abstinence and sex and whos masterminding this absteining program and other influences
i made my decision after watching various programs and reading the truth behind the stuff being said and the image she portrays that all im saying on that but why is she bought in to every topic its just stupid to bring her up in every topic and frankly i am sick of it
Originally posted by kronas
your still doing it because of religion its influenced you enough to think about it and make your decision which i think is wrong and explained why.......
Religion certainly has not influenced me to think this way.
Originally posted by Russ D
Religion certainly has not influenced me to think this way.
maybe not for you but what towny said gave me the impression in his instance it is the case
downquark1
13-09-2003, 13:24
Originally posted by Russ D
Now you're asking me a different question based on morals.
You asked if Bush should be making decisions based on his beliefs and how he sees the world. Now you're asking should he makes these decisions based on how popular they would be.
Exactly;) , democracies are based on the popularity of his decisions, if he is going to make "christian" decisions he is going to alienate other religions but more important the atheist population. Atheists, would view sex as a normal bodily function and would see no reason why to preserve virginity. An atheist with christian parents may growing resenting bush for his policy and will not vote republican.
If children born out of wedlock has since been embraced by society, then sex before marriage (the cause) must also have been embraced, remember the sixties.
Atheists, would view sex as a normal bodily function and would see no reason why to preserve virginity.
A bit of a generalisation there! So all atheists view sex before marriage as ok? I'll tell you this, Christian or not I certainly don't want my daughter to be a hypocrite by wearing white on her wedding day.
An atheist with christian parents may growing resenting bush for his policy and will not vote republican.
Or may end up supporting him for introducing a sensible idea
If children born out of wedlock has since been embraced by society, then sex before marriage (the cause) must also have been embraced, remember the sixties.
Popping the occasional E seems to becoming more and more acceptable these days, does that make it ok? As you said, embraced by society.
So let me get this straight, the whole 'Should Bush be introducing this idea' question, are you wanting an answer to it from the perspective from the people or from Bush (or any world leader with the ability to do so) himself?
downquark1
13-09-2003, 13:42
A bit of a generalisation there! So all atheists view sex before marriage as ok? I'll tell you this, Christian or not I certainly don't want my daughter to be a hypocrite by wearing white on her wedding day.
Fine, shall we say, those who embrace only logic and scienctific theories.
Point is, many will disagree with the policy with strong prejudice.
2nd point: Not everyone wants a traditional christian 'white' wedding - or even want to get married.
Point is, many will disagree with the policy with strong prejudice.
Let's see it in action before making a judgment.
2nd point: Not everyone wants a traditional christian 'white' wedding
I agree - many people have their white wedding in a registry office.
or even want to get married
Do you have any figures to back that up, or is it just your opinion?
downquark1
13-09-2003, 14:04
Originally posted by Russ D
Let's see it in action before making a judgment.
I agree - many people have their white wedding in a registry office.
Do you have any figures to back that up, or is it just your opinion? No figures:shrug:, but you can't tell me it doesn't happen.
The only 'right' in democracy is what the people want. so, should you 'greatly' please the majority and displease the minority, or semi-please all of them.
Personally, I would choose the latter.
The only 'scientific' reason, I can see for exclusive mating is preventing the spread of STD.
So your basing your theory on something which happens on a scale of which you have no idea?? Riiiiiiight.....
So how can you say the no-sex-before marriage idea will upset the majority when you don't even know what the majority is?
downquark1
13-09-2003, 14:18
Originally posted by Russ D
So your basing your theory on something which happens on a scale of which you have no idea?? Riiiiiiight.....
So how can you say the no-sex-before marriage idea will upset the majority when you don't even know what the majority is? noooo, I said no sex before marriage will upset the minority.... I'm saying as a politician you should please both.
Originally posted by downquark1
noooo, I said no sex before marriage will upset the minority.... I'm saying as a politician you should please both.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong but that's a little different from what you said here.....
should you 'greatly' please the majority and displease the minority, or semi-please all of them
And as a politition, you should be doing what's best for the country, not what pleases the people.
downquark1
13-09-2003, 17:51
Originally posted by Russ D
Maybe I'm reading this wrong but that's a little different from what you said here.....
And as a politition, you should be doing what's best for the country, not what pleases the people. Decrocacy means that if you don't please the people you don't get power to do good.
If I wanted to do what is best for my people, I would ration the food fat people have, take away cigerettes and sterolize of those with a family illness (prevent illness from being passed on). Would the people agree that is good for them?
Some might, but the minority would cause such problems I'd never get it done.
Fact is many don't see sex before marriage as 'wrong' or even a 'nono'. It may prevent the spread of disease, but so would killing all the sick people. In this non-perfect world can we deny everyone simple pleasures, just because it is good for them???
Stephen Robb
13-09-2003, 18:09
Originally posted by downquark1
Decrocacy means that if you don't please the people you don't get power to do good.
If I wanted to do what is best for my people, I would ration the food fat people have, take away cigerettes and sterolize of those with a family illness (prevent illness from being passed on). Would the people agree that is good for them?
Some might, but the minority would cause such problems I'd never get it done.
Fact is many don't see sex before marriage as 'wrong' or even a 'nono'. It may prevent the spread of disease, but so would killing all the sick people. In this non-perfect world can we deny everyone simple pleasures, just because it is good for them???
Now this smacks of a fascist dictatorship! Worse than a nanny state. You would have a real fight on your hands if you wanted to take away my fags! :smokin: :smokin: :smokin: :smokin: :smokin:
Originally posted by kronas
[B]your still doing it because of religion its influenced you enough to think about it and make your decision which i think is wrong and explained why.......
No, you haven't explained why. You talk about religion as if it's some big scary monster out to get people and make them think in a certain way. Certain religious people may act in that fashion, but a religion can't act in any way by itself. A religion is essentially just a set of ideas about the way things are and the way we ought to respond to that. Whether I choose to agree with a set of ideas is up to me, a free-thinking individual.
i made my decision after watching various programs and reading the truth behind the stuff being said and the image she portrays that all im saying on that but why is she bought in to every topic its just stupid to bring her up in every topic and frankly i am sick of it
Stop being so touchy. Avril is clearly an important influence on your life. You've started more than one thread about her and she's all over your sig. That's absolutely fine if that's what you want to do. But that does make her a good comparison for what we're talking about. I don't blindly follow a religion any more than you blindly buy Avril's records. You made an informed decision to be her fan; I made an informed decision to be a fan of Jesus. Simple really. :)
Originally posted by downquark1
Decrocacy means that if you don't please the people you don't get power to do good.
If I wanted to do what is best for my people, I would ration the food fat people have, take away cigerettes and sterolize of those with a family illness (prevent illness from being passed on). Would the people agree that is good for them?
Some might, but the minority would cause such problems I'd never get it done.
Fact is many don't see sex before marriage as 'wrong' or even a 'nono'. It may prevent the spread of disease, but so would killing all the sick people. In this non-perfect world can we deny everyone simple pleasures, just because it is good for them???
You are completely missing the point! Is it right for Bush to introduce this because he believes in it - the answer is a resounding yes because it's exactly what he (or his party) were elected to do!!
downquark1
13-09-2003, 18:35
Originally posted by Russ D
You are completely missing the point! Is it right for Bush to introduce this because he believes in it - the answer is a resounding yes because it's exactly what he (or his party) were elected to do!!
So, 51% against cigarettes
49% for
does the leader ban cigarettes. Or does he find a middle way, such as high tax and anti-cig campaigns??
I know we are straying from the point, but you will not counter my arguements about the "extreme methods" they are using.
OK before we go any further - the question of should he/shouldn't he, are you asking me to answer it from the prospective of Bush himself or of the people?
downquark1
13-09-2003, 18:42
Originally posted by Russ D
OK before we go any further - the question of should he/shouldn't he, are you asking me to answer it from the prospective of Bush himself or of the people? I don't see how it would be different:shrug:
If people hate him they will rebel, that's democracy
downquark1
13-09-2003, 18:43
Just pointing out:
In the olden days they were no laws about sex before marriage, just terrible public shunning. why should governments intervene now??
Originally posted by downquark1
I don't see how it would be different:shrug:
Because there are two possible answers,
From Bush's point of view:
It's his responsibility to do what he thinks is best for his country. If he genuinely believed it would benefit his economy if everyone went out and bought chicken flavoured pogo-sticks then it would be right for him to encourage people to do it. Why? Because it's up to him to make decisions which will benefit people!! he's been elected to serve his country well and to use his skill and judgement to make decisions to further the American people.
From the people's point of view
This is where I think you are coming from. Some people who do not share his morals might be unhappy at his idea. We do not know the statistics of how many this would be but as you have suggested, perhaps it is not right to introduce this sort of thing to a country which has millions and millions of people who regularly enjoy casual sex. Then again, we just don't know.
I am answering you from the perspective of Bush: he's a man in a high position of authority who is charged with making decisions from his own judgement and knowledge, therefore should he introduce this (or any other idea he thinks will work)?
Yes he should. It's what he's paid to do.
downquark1
13-09-2003, 20:25
This is where I think you are coming from. Some people who do not share his morals might be unhappy at his idea. We do not know the statistics of how many this would be but as you have suggested, perhaps it is not right to introduce this sort of thing to a country which has millions and millions of people who regularly enjoy casual sex.
Exactly, a polititon shouldn't go to extremes his should try and extablish a fair balance.
****************************
So, are we argreeing that these 'pressure' techniques are out of order?
Stephen Robb
13-09-2003, 21:02
Posted by towny
A religion is essentially just a set of ideas about the way things are and the way we ought to respond to that.
Your right there towny, but as my understanding of religion as it is, and you can name any religion you like, is the fundimental believe of a Superior Being or Spirit.
No, a religion is something with restrictive rules, regulations and routines (4 Rs??). The fundamental belief of a Superior being is called 'faith'.
Exactly, a polititon shouldn't go to extremes his should try and extablish a fair balance
Just because you see something as 'extreme' doesn't mean others will!!
downquark1
13-09-2003, 21:36
Just because you see something as 'extreme' doesn't mean others will!!
Your right, but I think the response from other people on the forum shows I'm not alone in this opinion
downquark1
13-09-2003, 21:41
Isn't this simular to 1984 by Orwell???
I've not read it but someone just suggested it to me. If someone's read it could they summarise please.
homealone
13-09-2003, 21:55
Originally posted by downquark1
Isn't this similar to 1984 by Orwell???
I've not read it but someone just suggested it to me. If someone's read it could they summarise please.
lol - please read it downquark1 - it is a bit of an anachronism, these days, but a good book, none the less!:)
In summary it about a totalitarian regime & what happens:D
downquark1
13-09-2003, 21:56
Originally posted by homealone
lol - please read it downquark1 - it is a bit of an anachronism, these days, but a good book, none the less!:)
In summary it about a totalitarian regime & what happens:D I meant about the anti-sex bit.
I loved animal farm:D
Originally posted by downquark1
Your right, but I think the response from other people on the forum shows I'm not alone in this opinion
I've not said you were, but you cannot assume your views are accepted by the majority just because they are your views! Maybe my views are in the minority - we just don't know. But I've answered the question about 10 times already so I'll leave it there :)
downquark1
13-09-2003, 22:28
Originally posted by Russ D
I've not said you were, but you cannot assume your views are accepted by the majority just because they are your views! Maybe my views are in the minority - we just don't know. But I've answered the question about 10 times already so I'll leave it there :) Russ, aren't you listening - I'm not saying my views are in majority - if they were this would be an easier arguement.
What I'm saying is a politition should work between the views thus not angering anyone.
homealone
13-09-2003, 22:36
Originally posted by downquark1
I meant about the anti-sex bit.
I loved animal farm:D
George Orwell was a great allegorist.
IIRC 1984 wasn't about "anti-sex" - but you did it when you were told!:shrug::D
downquark1
13-09-2003, 22:41
Originally posted by homealone
George Orwell was a great allegorist.
IIRC 1984 wasn't about "anti-sex" - but you did it when you were told!:shrug::D Isn't there a 'junior anti-sex league' or something??
homealone
13-09-2003, 22:43
Originally posted by downquark1
Isn't there a 'junior anti-sex league' or something??
that would bring it full circle - got me there, will have to check:)
Originally posted by dialanothernumb
Graham, you kid no-one with that wriggle. you were caught out with a nasty generalisation, and you are trying to back out of it stealthily.
"Caught out with"???
How can you say I was "caught out with a nasty generalisation" when I clearly and openly *admitted* it in that same message!!
We all say things we don't mean or that came out wrong... look at some of my posts! But it's important to put our hands up and admit when we get things wrong. You lose credibility with your posts otherwise.
You mean like, writing, oh, say, for example, off the top of my head, shoot me down if you want "OK, so I'm massively over-generalising here..."?!
Okay, I'm going to try your approach matey:
Please feel free to do so. Matey.
My assertion: "Graham you are a bull-headed fool..."
My justification: "*** hey** it's a joke, in fact as you know this is completely not what I think of you no, the antithesis....but well, you can't help getting such an impression anyway when you watch all those posts.... "
Nope, still doesn't work...
Well, no, it doesn't, because unless you've posted under another name before now in other threads, I don't think I've either read anything you've written, or debated with you, so I have *no idea* what your position is.
Of course what I *could* say is that you saw one comment and, without bothering to check anything else I'd written, jumped on it with both feet, only to find that you now desperately need to extract them from your mouth because you've made a bit of a fool of yourself and you're the one trying to weasel out of it.
But that doesn't help anyone and has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, so I think I'll just pass.
Originally posted by Jerrek
Graham and kronas are examples of why the Pilgrams left Europe. They are prime examples of what we are NOT. (no offense)
Err, say what?!
AFAIR The Pilgrim Fathers left England, firstly for Holland because of religious intolerance and the suppression of their Puritan form of worship.
They subsequently decided that Holland wasn't for them because their children were speaking Dutch, rather than English and decided to head off for the New World.
I'm not sure what that has to do with Kronas or me!
Ok, neither of us are Puritans, but I'm certainly all for tolerance, provided that tolerance is returned. You are welcome to do whatever you want, however you want, but if you try to push it onto me or anyone else who doesn't want it, I'm going to stand up and tell you that you're wrong.
If you don't do that, leave us alone and we'll leave you alone.
downquark1
14-09-2003, 11:41
Another point I've failed to mention:
Being rigid about this issue can cause many 'marriages because of the wrong reasons'. This is almost certainly going to cause a rise in divorce rates. In my opinion if you want to preserve the sanctity of marriage you shouldn't give any reason to rush it. Although, many may not see this a reason to rush into marriage it will no doubt be a factor in the couple's mind concious or otherwise.
Originally posted by downquark1
Isn't there a 'junior anti-sex league' or something??
Yep, there is.
Being rigid about this issue can cause many 'marriages because of the wrong reasons'
It will??
downquark1
14-09-2003, 14:17
Originally posted by Russ D
It will?? I said 'can'!!!!!! You really are rigid if you can can't acknoledge the possibility that something could happen
Since you are a moderator I will understand if you edit this post
I've find some statistics in the sunday times these fingures are taken from teenagers from a C4 survey:
1 in 3 teenagers admit losing their virginity on a one-night stand
1 in 3 think the age of consent should be reduced to14
More than 2 in 3 feel it acceptable to have threesomes and use sex toys
Almost half of teenage girls say it is acceptable to have oral sex on the first date
1 in3 teenage girls think infedelity normal
1 in 4 feel that marriage is unimportant
1 in 3 think they would rather live with someone than get married
nearly half would rather have money than marry
I personally have no problem with any of them (exceptions being: reducing the age of consent and closed infedelity).
The curse of being liberal is you have to allow people to make their own mistakes.
You really are rigid if you can can't acknoledge the possibility that something could happen
I've never said that.
Since you are a moderator I will understand if you edit this post
What exactly is that supposed to mean?
1 in 3 teenagers admit losing their virginity on a one-night stand
1 in 3 think the age of consent should be reduced to14
More than 2 in 3 feel it acceptable to have threesomes and use sex toys
Almost half of teenage girls say it is acceptable to have oral sex on the first date
1 in3 teenage girls think infedelity normal
I think those in themselves are a good advertisement for Bush's idea.
I personally have no problem with any of them (exceptions being: reducing the age of consent and closed infedelity).
You and I obviously view sex in different ways.
downquark1
14-09-2003, 15:14
What exactly is that supposed to mean?
I meant since it contains explicit sexual terms
Don't be silly! This isn't .com.....
downquark1
14-09-2003, 15:25
1 in 3 think they would rather live with someone than get married
So what will this 1 in3 do?
My point is that not everyone has the same moral beliefs as you or Mr. Bush, so enforce such believes because they do not match yours is wrong. They removed evolution from school since it 'conflicted' with religion.
These acts do not hurt anyone and are entirely upto the idividual.
I have no problem with either point of view, but to enforce these beliefs like in 1984 is wrong. Yes, I do count this as enforcing because of the methods used are quite extreme, and quite simular to the ones communists and nazi's used on their children.
downquark1
14-09-2003, 15:33
I've never said that. Yes you did, you said "it will??" in a such a way it sounded like a retorical argument.
You seem to be dodging the issues.
My point is that not everyone has the same moral beliefs as you or Mr. Bush, so enforce such believes because they do not match yours is wrong
A classic case of "you can't please all the people all of the time". In this situation you weigh up your options and go with what you think is best. You may end up upsetting some but pleasing a lot more. That's the thing with politics.
Yes you did, you said "it will??" in a such a way it sounded like a retorical argument.
I'm sorry you took it the wrong way. The reply was meant in the way of me being curious as to what brought you to that conclusion.
downquark1
14-09-2003, 17:01
A classic case of "you can't please all the people all of the time". In this situation you weigh up your options and go with what you think is best. You may end up upsetting some but pleasing a lot more. That's the thing with politics.
then resort to nazi style pressure techniques
Originally posted by downquark1
My point is that not everyone has the same moral beliefs as you or Mr. Bush, so enforce such believes because they do not match yours is wrong. They removed evolution from school since it 'conflicted' with religion.
I think we've lost sight of the fact that this is a voluntary programme. I really do think it's pushing it too far to suggest there is any kind of Orwellian coercion going on.
And as for different people having different morals enforced on them ... subtle 'enforcement' of morals goes on all the time, and tbh it's usually Christians having atheistic morals foisted on them. Societal, cultural and mass-media influences are almost entirely the antithesis of Christian teaching (and, for that matter, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and a lot of other religions I coud name).
When we suggest we might like to spare our children from 'morals' that we find offensive by educating them in different schools, we are accused of formenting racial tension or bigotry. When we try to work through main-stream schools to get our morals heard alongside the rest, we're accused of forcing our beliefs on other people.
Do you see the difficulty we have here?
Originally posted by towny
I think we've lost sight of the fact that this is a voluntary programme. I really do think it's pushing it too far to suggest there is any kind of Orwellian coercion going on.
The fact that it teaches "stay pure or else have sex, lose your boyfriend and your self-respect, and arrive at the altar at some unspecified future date as damaged goods" and that "if they are going to fall further down the road and have sex, they should flush the ring down the toilet, rather than dishonour their comrades" indicates to me that there's more than just a little unsubtle pressure being applied here!
And did you *never* have your parents "volunteer you" to go along to something that you didn't want to join and had no interest in?!
downquark1
14-09-2003, 20:46
And did you *never* have your parents "volunteer you" to go along to something that you didn't want to join and had no interest in?!
:LOL:
Next point (yes they keep coming):
Let's take homosexuality- a practise that is against most religions (exception Hinduism) and would cause disgust to many (like that list of things I posted).
Would you support government schemes to discourage homosexuality, because it is against your beliefs religious or otherwise?
I don't mind anything like that as long as it doesn't bother me, so why bother discouraging it.
Originally posted by Graham
The fact that it teaches "stay pure or else have sex, lose your boyfriend and your self-respect, and arrive at the altar at some unspecified future date as damaged goods" and that "if they are going to fall further down the road and have sex, they should flush the ring down the toilet, rather than dishonour their comrades" indicates to me that there's more than just a little unsubtle pressure being applied here!
We're going round in circles now. The pressure from society to conform is far, far stronger than the pressure from a single Government scheme to do things differently. Any attempt by anyone to persuade someone of a different point of view involves 'pressure' of some kind.
And did you *never* have your parents "volunteer you" to go along to something that you didn't want to join and had no interest in?!
Yes. Your point?
downquark1
15-09-2003, 09:23
Yes. Your point? I think the point is, your parents volunteer you for the scheme, you don't want to go, they say something like 'well if you don't like it you don't have to go again', you arrive there and they force/pressure you into making this vow before you leave.
Originally posted by downquark1
I think the point is, your parents volunteer you for the scheme, you don't want to go, they say something like 'well if you don't like it you don't have to go again', you arrive there and they force/pressure you into making this vow before you leave.
I thought so, I was just being a pedant ;) :D
However, I can't imagine them holding kids at moral gunpoint like that. And even if they did, kids being kids, will make a vow if that's what they have to do to get out of the room and then just carry on as before afterwards.
As a matter of fact, I was 'forced' to go to Sunday school from the age of seven until I developed enough of a teenage attitude to flat refuse to get out of bed on a Sunday morning. (after this I was pretty much an atheist for a couple of years before genuinely getting 'converted', but that's a different story). Point is, at Sunday school they did all the 'you must be a good boy because that's what Jesus wants' stuff, and we sang the songs and said the prayers because that's what we had to do to avoid a leathering from our parents afterwards. But the teaching had no effect on me after I left the room.
downquark1
15-09-2003, 10:05
Originally posted by towny
I thought so, I was just being a pedant ;) :D
However, I can't imagine them holding kids at moral gunpoint like that. And even if they did, kids being kids, will make a vow if that's what they have to do to get out of the room and then just carry on as before afterwards.
As a matter of fact, I was 'forced' to go to Sunday school from the age of seven until I developed enough of a teenage attitude to flat refuse to get out of bed on a Sunday morning. (after this I was pretty much an atheist for a couple of years before genuinely getting 'converted', but that's a different story). Point is, at Sunday school they did all the 'you must be a good boy because that's what Jesus wants' stuff, and we sang the songs and said the prayers because that's what we had to do to avoid a leathering from our parents afterwards. But the teaching had no effect on me after I left the room. Did they make you stand up and make individual vows? And wear a ring afterwards. Being at that younger age they won't expect any vows to mean anything, but this is to 16+ year olds, they will certainly expect you to mean it.
This type of stuff is quite common in the US, they make their children, pledge alligence to the country etc.. And don't get me started on their paranoid hate of communism
Originally posted by downquark1
Did they make you stand up and make individual vows? And wear a ring afterwards. Being at that younger age they won't expect any vows to mean anything, but this is to 16+ year olds, they will certainly expect you to mean it.
This type of stuff is quite common in the US, they make their children, pledge alligence to the country etc.. And don't get me started on their paranoid hate of communism
Almost! I 'graduated' to become a Sunday School teacher at the age of 14 and had to promise to be a good egg at the annual Sunday School teachers' commissioning service at church. The vows were not dissimilar to those taken by Godparents, so if you've ever been to a Christening you will have an idea what I had to do.
I had no choice but to take part; I had to stand there and say the words even though I was becoming deeply ambivalent towards all things religious. Before the year was up, I walked away fromt the whole thing, although I had done an awful job of it right through because I didn't believe in it.
I think you have to make some allowances for culture here; you rightly point out the allegiance-swearing that goes on in the States that makes our toes curl; but look at it the other way round. Why, as a citizen of the most powerful nation on Earth, would you not be fiercely proud and want to declare yourself a part of it?
Yes, Americans, from our point of view, do things in a more ostentatious way than we do, hence rings etc, but I still say that although a teenager may feel obliged to say a form of words, it will change nothing about their behaviour unless they have weighed the evidence and decided for themselves that they agree with it.
downquark1
15-09-2003, 12:17
Originally posted by towny
Almost! I 'graduated' to become a Sunday School teacher at the age of 14 and had to promise to be a good egg at the annual Sunday School teachers' commissioning service at church. The vows were not dissimilar to those taken by Godparents, so if you've ever been to a Christening you will have an idea what I had to do.
I had no choice but to take part; I had to stand there and say the words even though I was becoming deeply ambivalent towards all things religious. Before the year was up, I walked away fromt the whole thing, although I had done an awful job of it right through because I didn't believe in it.
I think you have to make some allowances for culture here; you rightly point out the allegiance-swearing that goes on in the States that makes our toes curl; but look at it the other way round. Why, as a citizen of the most powerful nation on Earth, would you not be fiercely proud and want to declare yourself a part of it?
Yes, Americans, from our point of view, do things in a more ostentatious way than we do, hence rings etc, but I still say that although a teenager may feel obliged to say a form of words, it will change nothing about their behaviour unless they have weighed the evidence and decided for themselves that they agree with it. Although, I agree that it won't affect all the people, it will affect some, Americans are very suggestable. I still believe it is wrong regardless.
I pledged alliance often. I still remember it by heart. I will raise my children that way too, saying the pledge every morning.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
downquark1
16-09-2003, 08:41
Originally posted by Jerrek
I pledged alliance often. I still remember it by heart. I will raise my children that way too, saying the pledge every morning.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The key to democracy is to hate your country so much you never allow your leaders to slip up on anything;).
It's very hard to rebel against a government policy if you've pledge alligence to them. And if they use the word 'freedom' in everything, it makes you feel guilty for having different opinions (when infact thats what freedom is). And when George Bush says 'your either with us or agianst us, he is excercising his rigth to free speech, but it seems to be squashing the speech of others.
Originally posted by downquark1
The key to democracy is to hate your country so much you never allow your leaders to slip up on anything;).
It's very hard to rebel against a government policy if you've pledge alligence to them. And if they use the word 'freedom' in everything, it makes you feel guilty for having different opinions (when infact thats what freedom is). And when George Bush says 'your either with us or agianst us, he is excercising his rigth to free speech, but it seems to be squashing the speech of others.
But they don't pledge allegiance to the US Government, they pledge allegiance to the nation ... which is 'one nation under God', so it seems fair enough that God should get a look-in in the classroom.
downquark1
16-09-2003, 13:12
Originally posted by towny
But they don't pledge allegiance to the US Government, they pledge allegiance to the nation ... which is 'one nation under God', so it seems fair enough that God should get a look-in in the classroom. The Governments decisions define the nation. I've seen journalists appear on British news saying they are afraid of criticising the government for fear of being labelled anti-patriotic.
I've said before that I don't think religion should influence state decisions, which is why I'm thankful I live in Britain, I will fight for the right to remain in an anti-patriotic country :LOL:.
PS: Doesn't saying 'one nation under God' alienate the Budists?
Originally posted by downquark1
The Governments decisions define the nation. I've seen journalists appear on British news saying they are afraid of criticising the government for fear of being labelled anti-patriotic.
I think this is more a comment on US foreign policy in the light of 9/11. It would be very difficult to criticise actions seen as 'getting the folks that did this.' I don't think you can extend that to every area of US government activity.
I've said before that I don't think religion should influence state decisions, which is why I'm thankful I live in England, I will fight for the right to remain in an anti-patriotic country :LOL:.
Where we have an established church and bishops and rabbis sitting in the House of Lords!
PS: Doesn't saying 'one nation under God' alienate the Budists?
Buddhists are not necessarily either theist or atheist. Generally they believe that God, if he/she/it exists, so transcends human comprehension that he/she/it is effectively unknowable. So no, the concept of God does not offend Buddhists as it is more or less irrelevant.
downquark1
16-09-2003, 13:39
Where we have an established church and bishops and rabbis sitting in the House of Lords I know, but you wouldn't have thought it.
I didn't say affend I said alienate.
But I digress.
My point is, that people who choose to embrace science and logic (and nothing else) would see nothing morally wrong with sex and would resent God being a promonant factor in the decision making of their government.
Originally posted by downquark1
I've said before that I don't think religion should influence state decisions, which is why I'm thankful I live in England
And the local tolerance is why I'm thankful I live in Wales :D
downquark1
16-09-2003, 13:48
Originally posted by Russ D
And the local tolerance is why I'm thankful I live in Wales :D Sorry, again russ - I really need to stop doing that.
I meant Britain:(
It's very hard to rebel against a government policy if you've pledge alligence to them.
Except, downquark1, I am not pledging allegiance to my government. I'm pledging allegiance to my flag and my country, and for what it stands. Did you read the pledge?
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Do you think I was happy with all the actions of the U.S. government? No. I hated Clinton.
I've seen journalists appear on British news saying they are afraid of criticising the government for fear of being labelled anti-patriotic.
There is a difference being against your government and being anti-patriotic. Unfortunately, since President Kennedy, the left was overtaken by anti-Americans. President Kennedy was a patriot. He was also a Democrat. There are Democrats today that are patriotic, but more and more of them tend to leave the party and they are getting thinner. These days being a Democrat means you are anti-patriotic. Which is sad really, since the Democratic Party in the 1950s was quite different.
PS: Doesn't saying 'one nation under God' alienate the Budists?
What percentage of the population are Buddhists? They are insignificant when you look at the whole picture.
downquark1
16-09-2003, 17:26
I have decided to explain the 'non-religious' view I keep refering to.
*****But be warned: it could leave you depressed and demoralized*****
View 1: Puritan Logic
1) People are an arrangement of atoms, mainly carbon, hydrogen and oxygen
2) This arragement forms a self contained machine capable of a 'living' and acompleshing a number of things
3) Your brain is an arrangement of neurons and chemicals that are firing and mixing.
4) this firing and mixing, produces a 'conciousness' that is able to see it's self for what it is - an animal with the ability to see it's self you what it is.
5) It decides it is higher than animals and reject all instinct and urges common to all animals
6) Therefore it only eats and drinks it's recommended daily allowance of 'external resources'. Maybe taking it in pill form and only drinking water.
7) It may find a partner and delegate tasks between them.
8)It only has sex when it wants to reproduce - even then it doesn't enjoy it.
9) It ignores all the animal instincts through it's life - basically they are hungry, thirsty and ....... ::naughty: all the time, but don't act so.
View 2: 'People today' logic
see 1 -4
5) It decides it is little or no better than an animal, and so embraces 'it's instincts and urges to a degree that makes them managable (ie. not hungry, thirst etc..)
6) It feeds it's hunger, quenches it's 'thirst' and statisfies it's ..... :naughty: and then continues with it's life until it needs to again.
Now I now thats a little deep :spin: :spin: :spin:, but in that view sex is no different from eating fatty foods, how could that be "morally' wrong???
Although, I realise that doesn't apply to a democracy, because what most people 'believe' is considered 'right'. But I thought I would just explain my reasoning (I'm not saying these are my beliefs) behind the 'non-religious' view.
And I thought I'd freak Russ out.:D
Originally posted by downquark1
I have decided to explain the 'non-religious' view I keep refering to. <snip!>
Even in 'post Christian' UK this is an extreme and minority view. People who do not subscribe to any particular religion still generally believe there is a spiritual side to existence that can't be defined or pinned down by a description of the chemicals in our bodies and how they interact. Thus while they would agree that in one sense sex is purely a mechanical function for the purpose of reproduction, it is on another level wholly different than that, involving the emotions of those engaged in it.
Christians take that the logical stage further and believe it, like our God-given emotions, is something special and to be preserved for sharing only with the 'right' person.
downquark1
16-09-2003, 18:43
Originally posted by towny
Even in 'post Christian' UK this is an extreme and minority view. People who do not subscribe to any particular religion still generally believe there is a spiritual side to existence that can't be defined or pinned down by a description of the chemicals in our bodies and how they interact. Thus while they would agree that in one sense sex is purely a mechanical function for the purpose of reproduction, it is on another level wholly different than that, involving the emotions of those engaged in it.
Christians take that the logical stage further and believe it, like our God-given emotions, is something special and to be preserved for sharing only with the 'right' person. I never said it was the correct view- I just said it was a view. One of the non-religious views.
Originally posted by downquark1
I never said it was the correct view- I just said it was a view. One of the non-religious views.
And I never said it was incorrect (although for the record I do think that) ;) :D
downquark1
16-09-2003, 19:03
Originally posted by towny
And I never said it was incorrect (although for the record I do think that) ;) :D Have you heard of "the simplest explanation is the correct one"??
This is one theory that doesn't require 'faith'
And I admitted it isn't a majority
Originally posted by downquark1
Have you heard of "the simplest explanation is the correct one"??
Yup ... have you heard of, 'once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, has to be the truth.'
No-one has proved God doesn't exist yet. The fact that there is faith in the equation doesn't mean he doesn't exist ... rainbows continue empirically to exist even though earthworms can have no concept of what one is like.
I can guess where this thread is going... :rolleyes: ;) :D
JOOI IIRC the "Under God" part of the US Pledge was added during the Cold War to point out the difference between the "God fearing USA" and the "Godless Communists".
I think there's some guy who's fighting this through the courts as being "Unconstitutional" because of the separation of church and state.
downquark1
16-09-2003, 20:36
Originally posted by towny
Yup ... have you heard of, 'once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, has to be the truth.'
No-one has proved God doesn't exist yet. The fact that there is faith in the equation doesn't mean he doesn't exist ... rainbows continue empirically to exist even though earthworms can have no concept of what one is like. I'm not arguing which one is true!! I'm just explaining to Russ using logic, how someone may not find sex immoral.
No-one has proved God doesn't exist yet. The fact that there is faith in the equation doesn't mean he doesn't exist ... rainbows continue empirically to exist even though earthworms can have no concept of what one is like
Have earthworms concived of rainbows???
downquark1
16-09-2003, 22:37
Yup ... have you heard of, 'once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, has to be the truth.'
So you've iliminated the possibility of the absense of god? WOW
Originally posted by downquark1
So you've iliminated the possibility of the absense of god? WOW
:D
Yes, by a step of faith that led to a real experience which I can logically account for (to an extent), because it is consistent with what I read in the Bible. Of course, unless you were to experience it too, you could only take my word for it. A step of faith, if you like.
Russ would tell you the same thing.
Have earthworms concived of rainbows
Not to my knowledge. I haven't asked one recently ... actually I was just trying to be theoretical and suggest that a truth that can only be accepted by faith is no less a truth for that. If something is absolutely true, it is true whether you can observe it or not.
downquark1
17-09-2003, 08:53
Just curious, can anyone logically explain why sex before marriage is morally wrong without refering to religious teachings or saying "because God said so" (which are pretty convincing arguments none the less).
It depends on how you see sex. Many see it as the ultimate physical union between two people, something so special that the only person you should share it with is the one you truly love and will spend the rest of your life with. However sex is no longer (rightly or wrongly) viewed by the media as anything more intimate than a quick bit of humping and bumping.
Originally posted by downquark1
Just curious, can anyone logically explain why sex before marriage is morally wrong without refering to religious teachings or saying "because God said so" (which are pretty convincing arguments none the less).
It would be very difficult to do that on a moral basis because without appeal to some kind of higher authority it's hard to see where moral authority comes from. After all, who has the right to say what is right and what is wrong?
You could construct a personal morality (this is very popular in postmodern western thought) but there is no guaranteed way for you to export that to other people.
You could say that morality is whatever society at large considers to be generally acceptable but, in this country at least, you will find the aspects of morality that are almost universally accepted are those that have their roots in our Christian heritage.
Casual sex is fairly widely accepted among younger people but not nearly so much among the older, and I would be surprised if many of them would claim that casual sex is 'morally right' - more likely they do it because they want to and don't see anything wrong with it; this would indicate an absence of moral framework rather than the existence of a morality in which casual sex is considered 'a good thing'.
I think you can make arguments, based on emotional and pathological (disease) considerations, for life-long monogamy but that's different to morality.
downquark1
17-09-2003, 13:21
If you base your morals on - anything you do to harm others - directly or indirectly is wrong, then sex before marriage wouldn't be countered so. Unless of course there was infedelity.
Originally posted by downquark1
If you base your morals on - anything you do to harm others - directly or indirectly is wrong, then sex before marriage wouldn't be countered so. Unless of course there was infedelity.
True, however if you rule out anything at all that hurts someone else, what else are you ruling out? Sending a criminal to jail is harmful to his innocent family, for example. A surgeon choosing to operate on one person over another could indirectly lead to a death. Sex of any kind can be harmful - it can spread disease and, if someone is badly treated, can result in emotional issues.
A complete moral code is extremely complex. Not harming others is a good start but there's a lot more to it.
downquark1
17-09-2003, 13:49
Sending a criminal to jail is harmful to his innocent family, for example Exception: if person has forfeited the right. A surgeon choosing to operate on one person over another could indirectly lead to a death.
Or if it is unavoidable.
The point is a country that has 'tolerance for all' and promotes freedom. Should think very carefully about promoting morals that have little basis in the 'scientific/ absolute truth' world.
And with that we should close the thread.
Originally posted by downquark1
Exception: if person has forfeited the right. Or if it is unavoidable.
The point is a country that has 'tolerance for all' and promotes freedom. Should think very carefully about promoting morals that have little basis in the 'scientific/ absolute truth' world.
And with that we should close the thread.
Oh no you don't!
I agree that everyone's view should be tolerated. I don't agree that this precludes one person from telling another that he thinks they are wrong.
And I'm not prepared to leave unchallenged the idea that the only absolute truth is that which can be demonstrated scientifically. I've already been round the houses on this one with Graham so I'm not going to go into it again at length. What I will say is that I found God to be absolutely real, and the clearest expression possible of 'ultimate truth'. I made a step of faith to get to this point but following that, it is now more than a mere intellectual subscription to a theology. It's very very real.
I can never prove this scientifically - we could have another thread on just this one point - but that does not mean that it is therefore not true.
Australia was there before anyone discovered it.
The planets orbited the sun before Newton devised a way of proving it.
Rainbows exist even though an earthworm - or a blind person - is incapable of experiencing one.
etc
You can close the thread now if you like ... ;)
downquark1
17-09-2003, 14:15
Originally posted by towny
Oh no you don't!
I agree that everyone's view should be tolerated. I don't agree that this precludes one person from telling another that he thinks they are wrong.
They aren't telling them what they think are wrong - they are forcing them to conform to that belief.
As I have said before I have no problem with spreading the belief, I just have a problem with the government almost 'forcing' such beliefs on people.
Again, another example would be the evolution in schools thing.
Originally posted by towny
Oh no you don't!
I agree that everyone's view should be tolerated. I don't agree that this precludes one person from telling another that he thinks they are wrong.
That is one of the most fun things in arg.... *ahem* having a discussion.
And I'm not prepared to leave unchallenged the idea that the only absolute truth is that which can be demonstrated scientifically. I've already been round the houses on this one with Graham so I'm not going to go into it again at length. What I will say is that I found God to be absolutely real, and the clearest expression possible of 'ultimate truth'. I made a step of faith to get to this point but following that, it is now more than a mere intellectual subscription to a theology. It's very very real.
I can never prove this scientifically - we could have another thread on just this one point - but that does not mean that it is therefore not true.
The problem is that faith and science look for two different things. Science looks for absolute proof. Faith looks for belief in it's followers.
I don't think the two concepts are totally incompatible (there are times when even scientists have to have faith), but I think there will always be differences.
As towny says, he (I asumme towny is a he) can never prove it scientifically. I don't think the existance of God ever will be proved scientifically. But, although I personally don't believe in God, that doesn't mean He doesn't exist.
Originally posted by downquark1
They aren't telling them what they think are wrong - they are forcing them to conform to that belief.
As I have said before I have no problem with spreading the belief, I just have a problem with the government almost 'forcing' such beliefs on people.
Again, another example would be the evolution in schools thing.
I think if the government is trying to force kids not to have sex, it won't work..
Originally posted by scastle
I think if the government is trying to force kids not to have sex, it won't work..
No government is doing or suggesting this.
And one of the mods with decide when this thread closes, thank you very much!
Originally posted by Russ D
No government is doing or suggesting this.
And one of the mods with decide when this thread closes, thank you very much!
Maybe "force" was a bit too strong. Coerce maybe?
Originally posted by scastle
That is one of the most fun things in arg.... *ahem* having a discussion.
The problem is that faith and science look for two different things. Science looks for absolute proof. Faith looks for belief in it's followers.
I don't think the two concepts are totally incompatible (there are times when even scientists have to have faith), but I think there will always be differences.
As towny says, he (I asumme towny is a he) can never prove it scientifically. I don't think the existance of God ever will be proved scientifically. But, although I personally don't believe in God, that doesn't mean He doesn't exist.
I am a he!
As for faith and proof, well, it's difficult to explain, but ...
Firstly, it's important to make sure we're understanding words the same way here: by the way you used 'faith' I think you mean 'a Faith', as in, 'Christianity is a faith.' When I use the word, I mean it in the same sense it is commonly used in the bible: 'faith' as belief in and acceptance of someone or something as being truthful or trustworthy.
That said, God does prove himself to people; however his proof is normally offered to the individual after they have taken a 'step of faith' in asking him to. Because that proof is a personal and spiritual thing, it is by definition not exportable to anyone else. This means that the essential difference between science and Christian experience is that scientific experiements are repeatable and will deliver shareable proof; Christian experience is repeatable but the proof will always personal to the individual involved. :spin:
I wouldn't expect a complete stranger to just take my word for it; it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to think I was nuts for talking about spiritual experiences. But I would hope that anyone who knew me well, especially if they knew me both before and after my conversion, would detect enough of a difference in me and my outlook on life to at least think about it.
downquark1
17-09-2003, 17:31
I wouldn't expect a complete stranger to just take my word for it; it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to think I was nuts for talking about spiritual experiences. But I would hope that anyone who knew me well, especially if they knew me both before and after my conversion, would detect enough of a difference in me and my outlook on life to at least think about it. Of course it could just be a coincidence or a freak experience. For instance I remember reading an article that said that scientists had found a nerve that triggers an 'out of body' experience.
Originally posted by downquark1
Have you heard of "the simplest explanation is the correct one"??
Occam's Razor isn't quite as black and white as that.
It's generally accepted to be that "Whichever explanation requires the least number of assumptions is generally right".
But an explanation that "it's that way because god says so" technically only requires one assumption. Of course it doesn't actually *explain* anything thereby!
Originally posted by towny have you heard of, 'once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, has to be the truth.'
Ahem, that was written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to put into the mouth of Sherlock Holmes.
Unfortunately, if you read the stories carefully, you find that Holmes doesn't always eliminate every possibility before drawing his conclusion.
That expression and Occam's Razor are both neatly summed up by the following:
"No generalisation is true. Not even this one!"
Originally posted by downquark1
Just curious, can anyone logically explain why sex before marriage is morally wrong without refering to religious teachings or saying "because God said so" (which are pretty convincing arguments none the less).
No, because, as I've pointed out before, morals are made up by humans to determine what they consider "acceptable" or "unacceptable" in their communities.
IIRC in some societies sex before marriage was not only morally acceptable, but also virtually obligatory!
Originally posted by downquark1
Of course it could just be a coincidence or a freak experience. For instance I remember reading an article that said that scientists had found a nerve that triggers an 'out of body' experience.
Not all Christians believe in 'out of body' experiences. We tend to believe the only way we will leave our bodies is when we die, and become 'spirits' (for lack of a better word). Now as sight is a physical experience, it cannot happen to spritual entities as of course, they are not physical.
Originally posted by Graham
IIRC in some societies sex before marriage was not only morally acceptable, but also virtually obligatory!
For an excellent example, read an anthrolopogical study of the Trobriand islanders of Papua New Guinea, who traditionally believe that ritual homosexual sex is necessary for young boys in order for them to be 'injected' with the strength necessary to grow up ...:eek:
downquark1
17-09-2003, 19:44
Originally posted by Russ D
Not all Christians believe in 'out of body' experiences. We tend to believe the only way we will leave our bodies is when we die, and become 'spirits' (for lack of a better word). Now as sight is a physical experience, it cannot happen to spritual entities as of course, they are not physical. That's not the point I was making. I'm was saying 'divine revelations' could do not always mean god has really appeared.
IIRC:shrug: Sorry what does that mean??
For an excellent example, read an anthrolopogical study of the Trobriand islanders of Papua New Guinea, who traditionally believe that ritual homosexual sex is necessary for young boys in order for them to be 'injected' with the strength necessary to grow up The greeks had some 'strange' ideas yet, they are acredited for a lot of societies advancements. In fact they are proof that sex outside of marriages doesn't harm a society. If I recall a television program, in one period of history, greek men would have 'wifes' but practically only have sex with prostitues (will was a openly fine 'business' in those days). I seem to remember in one example an especially rice prostitute paid to have a town (or something) rebuilt after an invasion.
That's what we need today prostitutes will morals:D
Of course that was all pre-christianity.
Originally posted by downquark1
:shrug: Sorry what does that mean??
IIRC = If I Remember Correctly
Originally posted by downquark1
That's not the point I was making. I'm was saying 'divine revelations' could do not always mean god has really appeared.
It was once posted on here that Scientists had found the part of the brain which they believed made people think they were getting divine messages etc and as Towny pointed out, all they'd done was find the part of the brain that we believe God uses to contact us.
This kind of discussion can go around....and round....and round....
downquark1
17-09-2003, 20:22
Originally posted by Russ D
It was once posted on here that Scientists had found the part of the brain which they believed made people think they were getting divine messages etc and as Towny pointed out, all they'd done was find the part of the brain that we believe God uses to contact us.
This kind of discussion can go around....and round....and round.... Yes, I'm just saying you can't tell when it's genuine. Drunk addicts, and insane people often get 'messages from God', fortunally no one would declare them as prophets.
Originally posted by Russ D
It was once posted on here that Scientists had found the part of the brain which they believed made people think they were getting divine messages etc and as Towny pointed out, all they'd done was find the part of the brain that we believe God uses to contact us.
This kind of discussion can go around....and round....and round....
Yeah, I remember the odd post or 2000 on it over at .com
Yes, I'm just saying you can't tell when it's genuine
Spot on, that's where faith comes in to it.
Drunk addicts, and insane people often get 'messages from God',
Comedian Lee Evans once said that he often wonders when murderers say they heard God telling them to do it, why doesn't God give these people messages to do nice things, like wallpaper the old lady's house next door....."Mr Smith, why are you doing my gardening and tidying up my greenhouse??"....."I can't help it Ethel, God told me to do it....." :D
It suddenly occurs to me that at no point in this thread has anyone asked or explained why, Biblically, Christians are against sex outside of marriage....so here goes!
Essentially, in the Christian view, marriage is created by God as a visible symbol of the union that exists spiritually between Jesus and the Church. Physical union between a man and a woman is the most graphic portrayal, physically, of a divine spiritual reality. And as God desires his Church to be faithful only to Jesus, so in order to preserve the purity of his Earthly symbol of this he desires a man and woman to be faithful to each other.
It goes a stage further; the church is said to currently be 'betrothed' (engaged) to Jesus and the marriage ceremony will take place after the end of the world. The church is to keep itself pure ready for that day. In the same way, God desires us to keep ourselves pure ready for our own wedding day.
I don't expect for one second that any of you are about to change your lifestyles as a result of reading this ... as I've said before I think there are other good reasons for chastity. This is just the central one for Christians.
downquark1
18-09-2003, 08:34
In evolution terms, sex is second only, to surviving. If your genes allow you to survive the world, you 'want (this is more of an instinct than a want)' your children to survive and be successful too. This means 'spreading' you genes around so your genepool is continued and the next generation can benefit from your 'successful' DNA. Of course, most would argue this no longer applies to humans, because people are expected to raise their own children.
This is one of the confusing things, God created nature, yet he wants us to behave very different from it.
So how on earth did you come to that conclusion?? From 'spreading your genes' as you put it, comes sexually transmitted infections!!
Originally posted by Russ D
So how on earth did you come to that conclusion?? From 'spreading your genes' as you put it, comes sexually transmitted infections!!
On a purely evolutionary note, downquark1 is right. Our instincts do compel (don't know if that's the right spelling) us to mate with as many women as possible. This is to ensure that more of our offspring survive. This is also why animals have litters of two or more offspring.
Looked at from that point of view, STDs don't even come into it. Although, obviously they are something we have to be aware of.
downquark1
18-09-2003, 10:21
Originally posted by Russ D
So how on earth did you come to that conclusion?? From 'spreading your genes' as you put it, comes sexually transmitted infections!! You get disease from being near people, eating bad food, etc. Does that mean we should avoid each, other and stop eating??:shrug:
We can easily carry out our natural requirements of feeding ourselves if we take precautions. How can we take such precautions while 'sowing our seeds'??
downquark1
18-09-2003, 11:41
Originally posted by Russ D
We can easily carry out our natural requirements of feeding ourselves if we take precautions. How can we take such precautions while 'sowing our seeds'?? errm, safe sex. The article was talking about stopping all sex - safe or otherwise.
Of course, later on you can go to a clinic and have tests.
You can stop STD's but you can't tell if something in a restuarant is fully cooked.
No - you were comparing getting diseases from the 'natural' act of eating, to the 'natural' act of reproducing with more than one person.
downquark1
18-09-2003, 13:35
Originally posted by Russ D
No - you were comparing getting diseases from the 'natural' act of eating, to the 'natural' act of reproducing with more than one person. yes:)
My point is you can't stop 'living' just because you may catch something. It's easier to prevent STD than it is to stop getting food poisoning at a restuarant.
Originally posted by downquark1
errm, safe sex. The article was talking about stopping all sex - safe or otherwise.
No, it was alleging that there is no such thing as 'safe' sex ... as even a condom can fail.
downquark1
18-09-2003, 13:41
Originally posted by towny
No, it was alleging that there is no such thing as 'safe' sex ... as even a condom can fail. Even bleach may not kill germs. A safety helmet won't protect you from a falling wheel barrow full of bricks (Ahh, the simpsons).
The world is full of dangers.
Towny - you know that 'around...and...around...' feeling??
downquark1
18-09-2003, 14:11
Originally posted by Russ D
Towny - you know that 'around...and...around...' feeling?? Actually I think we are covering new ground now. We've established that some would not call sex 'morally wrong' and now I'm putting into perspective the dangers of the world, so you might agree that not having sex before marriage will guarantee you do not get STD, but you can get harmed from anything you do, so why bother avoiding it so much.
Originally posted by downquark1
Actually I think we are covering new ground now. We've established that some would not call sex 'morally wrong' and now I'm putting into perspective the dangers of the world, so you might agree that not having sex before marriage will guarantee you do not get STD, but you can get harmed from anything you do, so why bother avoiding it so much.
I'm glad I avoided STDs, but there's more to it than that. A new item on BBC news today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3117108.stm
Outlines one of the key things they are trying to address - that of teenage pregnancy. And that is unarguably bad for society.
On the point of morality, agreed some people have no moral issue with sex outside marriage - either because they follow a different moral code, or none at all - however the Christian position is that there is such a thing as absolute morality, to which we are all answerable, and if we choose to ignore it in this life there are consequences in the next.
downquark1
18-09-2003, 14:56
On the point of morality, agreed some people have no moral issue with sex outside marriage - either because they follow a different moral code, or none at all - however the Christian position is that there is such a thing as absolute morality, to which we are all answerable, and if we choose to ignore it in this life there are consequences in the next.
As is your belief. But again, many would disagree.
Originally posted by downquark1
As is your belief. But again, many would disagree.
Believe me, I know ... ;)
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.