Chrono Compendium
Zenan Plains - Site Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: SilentMartyr on October 28, 2005, 03:02:54 pm
-
Spekkio, like the Nus are genderless. Spekkio is like an angel.
Huh? Angel?? Where would you get that idea?
-
Spekkio, like the Nus are genderless. Spekkio is like an angel.
Huh? Angel?? Where would you get that idea?
Well... Angels don't have a gender.
Sure, some of them are called "he".... but, I think they are genderless.
I could be wrong. >_>
-
Spekkio, like the Nus are genderless. Spekkio is like an angel.
Huh? Angel?? Where would you get that idea?
Well... Angels don't have a gender.
...where did you get that idea?
-
Spekkio, like the Nus are genderless. Spekkio is like an angel.
Huh? Angel?? Where would you get that idea?
Well... Angels don't have a gender.
...where did you get that idea?
*Shrug*
I must have read it somewhere.
and maybe I can blame some moives. >_>
I really don't know.
Heck! I could be wrong and angels do have genders. >_>
-
Spekkio seems male. 1) He's tough and has the testosterone of like fighting you.
2) Maybe if it was Spekkia then i'd sound more feminim.
-
Spekkio, like the Nus are genderless. Spekkio is like an angel.
Huh? Angel?? Where would you get that idea?
Well... Angels don't have a gender.
...where did you get that idea?
Where's Daniel Krispin when you need him the most?
-
Angels having genders differs on the mythology or work of fiction. In the Bible, it seems to imply that angels are male. Atleast partially.
-
And making God seem like a male with that white beard analogy. I think God is neither a he or she or it. It's more of a That. Otherwise there'd be sexual bism. Like a guy prays to God (and hes male) for beer and a sports channel, and it happens. A woman asks for an A cup and God gives her a DD. oo.
-
Aha.
It doesn't help me that I read the Bible and some mythology.
and I get somewhat confused.
-
IF you were to give God a gender, as in the Christian God, I would say he is Male. Firstly, there is God the Father, and God the Son, both of which implies male. Then, when God created humans in his image, he created Man (as in male human). There are others, but these are the main two of why I consider God to be Male.
-
If you're gonna argue that God exists, you might as well say God is married to a female God.
Really I personally find arguments over God pointless, because we're never gonna know until we die, unless some insane miracle happens where God actually comes down and talks with us.
I don't personally believe in personal revelation, because if it were true, then every damn person who's had one would be right, and that's impossible since so many damn people have had their own personal revelations or truth-giving experiences where they find out the truth...and they're all different.
Go ahead and argue if you want, but I'm just gonna wait and find out myself.
-
Go ahead and argue if you want, but I'm just gonna wait and find out myself.
Go ahead and this topic about PORRE will be locked or split >_>
-
...we're never gonna know until we die, unless some insane miracle happens where God actually comes down and talks with us.
He already did, remember Jesus?
-
He already did, remember Jesus?
I really hope you'rte joking.
I also hope that you know there's no proof that Jesus existed or even worse, was son of "God".
-
He already did, remember Jesus?
I really hope you'rte joking.
I also hope that you know there's no proof that Jesus existed or even worse, was son of "God".
I'm insulted you think I'm joking. Try reading the Bible, more specifically the New Testament. Its all there. No proof He was the Son of Godf? Ever heard of the Trinity? The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all in one. Before you say, that's not possible, remember, He's God. He can do things like that. The whole point of Him sending Jesus was so that God Himself could walk among us and teach us through Jesus. That's not to say Jesus wasn't a seperate person, but that's the beauty of it, He was and is both.
-
He already did, remember Jesus?
I really hope you'rte joking.
I also hope that you know there's no proof that Jesus existed or even worse, was son of "God".
I'm insulted you think I'm joking. Try reading the Bible, more specifically the New Testament. Its all there. No proof He was the Son of Godf? Ever heard of the Trinity? The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all in one. Before you say, that's not possible, remember, He's God. He can do things like that. The whole point of Him sending Jesus was so that God Himself could walk among us and teach us through Jesus. That's not to say Jesus wasn't a seperate person, but that's the beauty of it, He was and is both.
Maybe you're willing to live your life based on the tellings of a book, the likes of which you have no real idea of what has been through, all the translations and corruption and retranslations and all that, that may or may not have happened in the last 2000 years, but I'm not. You know the oldest version of the bible they can find is from 400 AD?
Religion is simply mankinds excuse to believe in something after this life, something to cover makind's fear of nothing after death, to give hope to ourselves and say that if we do certain things, we'll live forever in happiness. That's all it is. That is me 'belief', for now.
Anyway there is no 'proof' of Jesus ever living of existing, or at least of really being the Son of God or part of the Trinity or whatever, just a book, supposed prophecies 'coming true', and bunch of people who simply 'believe' in him. Call me adulterous or whatever you want, I'll believe it when I've experienced it.
My cousin has a funny belief. It's called "Flexible Athiesm." Meaning that typically he doesn't believe in God. But he does when in life threatening situations "Oh dear God, save me!" ;)
-
Maybe you're willing to live your life based on the tellings of a book, the likes of which you have no real idea of what has been through
Oh yeah, no idea, I've just been reading it, studying it, listening to its history being taught for only...oh almost 19 years now. Yep, no idea. :roll:
By the way, if the oldest copy they have is from 400 A.D., how come they were reading it back before Jesus was born, ya know that is what B.C. stands for. Before Christ. Its called the Old Testament. But I'm sure you were aware of that before you posted that right? Of course you were.
Religion is simply mankinds excuse to believe in something after this life, something to cover makind's fear of nothing after death, to give hope to ourselves and say that if we do certain things, we'll live forever in happiness. That's all it is. That is me 'belief', for now.
Anyway there is no 'proof' of Jesus ever living of existing, or at least of really being the Son of God or part of the Trinity or whatever, just a book, supposed prophecies 'coming true', and bunch of people who simply 'believe' in him. Call me adulterous or whatever you want, I'll believe it when I've experienced it.
That's just about the most naive thing I've ever heard. "Believing" is one of the central principles in Christianity, its faith. Its true, alot of times we have no actual, physical proof, but its not about that, its about, like I said, faith. Mankind wants to over-analyze everything, put God in a little box so they can explain Him, but it just doesn't work that way. If you are faithful, then He is revealed to you through things He works in in your life, and that will be your proof, and in turn, will be at times, unexplainable and intangible. That is stronger than any physical proof. And I believe one day, you will see it and experience it, I just hope you're on the believing side when you experience God.
-
*sigh* Faith has no grounds. It's just...faith. Believe! Believe in whatever your taught, or read, or want, or I say, or he/she says! Since you don't have proof, just believe!
I don't live my life based on things I don't know. In either case, I'm no less 'naive' than anyone living. None of us really know what's on the other side. And we won't until we get there. How we live this life is up to us, that's the beauty of life. We can live how we want.
I was LDS for 19 years of my life, straight from birth. I know the first thing about being heavy into religion, and the most involving religion in Christianity, at that. I know all about it, and the teachings, and not just of the LDS church. I 'believe' now that we should live life happy, not unhappy, especially since we don't know what's waiting (or not waiting) for us.
-
Know what I believe? I believe that life is pointless if you don't have anything to believe in. And even if one is faithful for naught, and on the other side they find they were wrong... well, at least they died fighting for their cause, fighting for their beliefs.
Now, consider the alternative, what if they were right, how much sweeter would that be to find they did not fight for nothing! That they would be rewarded on the other side for their courage! That they could spend the rest of eternity in peace, and that because they held onto that faith right until the very end that it was not folly and in vain?
That possibility my friend is worth just simply believing.
-
And if one is unhappy living that lifestyle, and then there's nothing to repay them on the other side? Honor doesn't compare to happiness in my book. And I'd rather not take the chance of wasting the only life I have being unhappy. Either way, we won't find out 'til we're dead, and I don't find one belief to be any more believable than the next.
-
I'm insulted you think I'm joking.
Too bad.
Try reading the Bible, more specifically the New Testament. Its all there. No proof He was the Son of Godf? Ever heard of the Trinity? The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all in one. Before you say, that's not possible, remember, He's God. He can do things like that. The whole point of Him sending Jesus was so that God Himself could walk among us and teach us through Jesus. That's not to say Jesus wasn't a seperate person, but that's the beauty of it, He was and is both.
By that logic, I could say that the kingdom of Zeal really existed, and it'd be truth simply because it was in some random 1995 videogame.
That's just about the most naive thing I've ever heard. "Believing" is one of the central principles in Christianity, its faith. Its true, alot of times we have no actual, physical proof, but its not about that, its about, like I said, faith. Mankind wants to over-analyze everything, put God in a little box so they can explain Him, but it just doesn't work that way. If you are faithful, then He is revealed to you through things He works in in your life, and that will be your proof, and in turn, will be at times, unexplainable and intangible. That is stronger than any physical proof. And I believe one day, you will see it and experience it, I just hope you're on the believing side when you experience God.
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful [as the Babel fish] could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God.
The argument goes like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn’t thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
I really wanted to post the classic "Where's your God now?" pic, but I guess this place is too srs bsns.
-
Actually at this point, this topic needs to be split...
-
I have lost tons of respect for knuck and Mystik. Congrats. Try and maybe do some research rather than spit up what other aetheist spit up.
-
Can you show me any good proof that we're wrong?
-
I'm not going to draw this off topic anymore than you two have.
-
I believe it's pointless to argue about religion because perfectly sensible board members start squabbling like children.
-
Sentenal, Mystik, cut it out.
It isn't cool to spout like that. You're both free to believe how you'd like. However, this doesn't mean you're right.
-
Sentenal, Mystik, cut it out.
It isn't cool to spout like that. You're both free to believe how you'd like. However, this doesn't mean you're right.
I'm not going to draw this off topic anymore than you two have.
That means that I am going to cut it out.
-
And I hadn't responded, either.
-
No need to cut it out, the topic was split.
I have lost tons of respect for knuck and Mystik. Congrats. Try and maybe do some research rather than spit up what other aetheist spit up.
That because our point of view is different from yours?
Wow.
-
I have lost tons of respect for knuck and Mystik. Congrats. Try and maybe do some research rather than spit up what other aetheist spit up.
As have I and thanks.
-
I agree, knuck. I find it very sad that they seem to only respect people who believe in the same things they do.
It goes against a teaching of Jesus. Sometime around the sermon on the mount. He says that you are not special if you're only nice to those who are nice to you, that you are not special if you are only friends to those who are friends to you. At least it's along those lines.
I did my research. I was a damn good Mormon =p
-
Your beliefs were not disrespected, your attacks against mine were. I was simply defending mine. How can you say it goes against a teaching of Jesus when you yourself were doing the exact same thing. I believe they call that hypocrisy.
Being a Christian has nothing to do with being as you put it, "special". The whole idea is that before you were saved, you are not special. You're a sinner. Christians aren't perfect or "good" people, they're just forgiven. And if you had done your research as well as you put it, you might have actually posted a chapter and verse, at least tell us what book, so that others may go and find it.
No disrespect to the Mormon church (I have a friend who's mormon), but I believe your book is a contradiction in the first place, in Revelations, it talks about adding on or taking away from the Bible, saying that someone would be cursed for doing that. Yes, its true man wrote the Bible, but it was God's Word and His teachings alone.
Revelation 22:18-19 says:
18-- I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
19-- and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away from his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
Basically, adding another book to the Bible is the same as blasphemy. But like I said, no disprespect, but this is my belief.
-
The lossing respect part wasn't because you disagree with me. Hell, I don't there are many things that I agree with Lord J, but I still respect him. I lost respect for you two because you simply spit up what other aethiest have told you, and therefore you are not open to perhaps you are wrong. You know, like saying there is no proof that Jesus existed. Might as well say there is no proof Alexander the Great existed.
Case in point is your assertion that the oldest manuscript of the bible came from 400ad. One perhaps even coexisted with the original, the Magdalene Manuscript fragments of Matthew 26. However, even I would call the Magdalene into question. Whats the next then? John Rylands Manuscript, written in 90ad, with the earliest copy that we possess dating to about 130ad. Still, I bet you will say, "130ad? Thats about 100 years since the events took place!" 100 years is not near long enough a "myth" that you associate with the bible to just be added. The sons and grandsons of those who either wrote the manuscripts, sons and grandsons of those who were present for the events, etc etc would have pointed out such changes, yet there are not. Now, lets compare this to other manuscripts we use and trust even today.
Lets take the work of Thucydides, the man who wrote the history of the Peloponnesian War. Just about everything we know about that war comes from his works. His works were written somewhere between 480bc-425bc. Guess when the earliest copy of his works that we possess comes from? 900ad. Thats about 1,300 between the original and our manuscript. How bout the writtings of Julius Caesar? Originally written somewhere between 100bc and 44bc. Our earliest copy is also 900ad, with about 1000 years between here.
Now, tell me, why would someone give works like these creadance, yet for something like the bible had suffered from mass corruption through the course of its life till we got our earliest manuscripts?
-
I didn't attack your beliefs, I stated mine, and how my belief is that there's no point in living a life based on things you don't know about if you're unhappy. If you are happy living a life based simply on belief and teachings of someone else, then by all means.
I haven't touched any form of scriptures since I left the church, and I don't have any desire to read them anymore than the tons of times I already have. I remembered it was the sermon on the mount, that should be good enough for any bible-trained people.
And don't call it 'my' book, I'm not Mormon. But they do have a good argument to battle that. No, I don't know the scripture exactly, but Jesus says he has "other sheep in another flock", being interpreted by the Mormons (you tell me how you'd interpret it) as the people in ancient America: the ancestors of the indians, who apparently also kept record, 'another testament of Jesus Christ'. Whether you believe in it or not you should only decide once you've actually read it and prayed about it. God won't lie to you, right?
Really, you shouldn't decide you've "found the truth" until you've looked at all the other "truths" that so many other people in the world have found. And if you truly believe God will let you know, THEN will you really be able to say you've looked through loads of other beliefs and found the right one.
I'm really just sick and tired of hearing people praise their religion that they grew up with when they haven't even really tried learning about other religions, like in-depth. I hate closed-mindedness. For me, I was raised a Mormon, indeed, and after hearing in-depth teachings of beliefs of several different Christian religions, the Mormon church has my highest amount of respect and 'faith' among all Christianity. But I give Christianity no more 'faith' than Buddhism or Islam stuff. They're all beautiful, wonderful religions that teach of goodness and purity and making oneself better and being good to others (mostly), and soo many people in the world "know" they live the truth, so many people of opposing beliefs.
That would be why I don't believe in faith, or any religion. If there was a truth, I believe God would let me know, because I searched and prayed really hard, and lived against my carnal will because I believed so much in it. Didn't feel a thing, except unhappy. So that's why I am who I am now, because I looked, legitimately, and found nothing anywhere.
And please don't tell me what you think is wrong with me or what I maybe did wrong or any of that. I've heard it all. My parents converted from the Catholic church, and they're VERY active; do you think they, and my active LDS friends, were happy about me leaving, and that they don't constantly try to bring me back? Just don't trouble yourself over it.
-
I am not close-minded, I know basics about a lot of religions. Yes I grew up in Christianity, but its also my choice to believe in it and follow God. Not just bc I was raised in it. I consider myself an open minded, intelligent person, so I don't think I'm completely naive. Also, Christianity is different from other religions because you always have to do something or somethings to try to get to God, build yourself up, in Buddhism I believe it could take you several lifetimes before you reach your nirvana. But Christianity teaches you that you don't have to do that, that God came to us, God stretched his arms out to us...hence Jesus Christ. Others also don't deal with the problem of sin and wrong-doings, and Christianity teaches us you don't have to be "good", you just have to ask for forgiveness and believe Jesus died for you. Its so simple that its mind-boggling and man has trouble comprehending that salvation is given, its a gift of grace, its not something you have to work for.
-
If you've done your deal of soul-searching, and believe whole-heartedly you're in the right place, and that all your beliefs will bring you happiness, than all power to you, my friend.
-
...
Do you honestly believe that I know nothing about other faiths, and haven't done my research on my religion? I've done my soul-searching, I have my relationship with God. Don't be so hasty to paint others as close-minded or brainwashed.
-
I said I was sick of hearing about closed-minded people who haven't done that stuff. I didn't say you were. And I'm glad you aren't.
However, you did say I was just believing a bunch of athiest shit, and that was another wonderful assumption on your part.
-
Really? I guess you had done your research when you said the earliest copy of the bible came from 400ad, and probably suffered mass corruption through time? You did say that.
-
That was taught to me in a religion class several years ago, and I was shown documentation stating the fact. I haven't yet seen documentation proving me wrong.
But I'm also the kinda guy who doesn't really think much on things I don't know about personally. I'm not into history much. I don't like living my life based on things I haven't experienced myself, and I don't like talking about things that I don't feel I have sufficient first-hand information about. My point in giving that date in reference to the bible wasn't to astound you with my absolute knowledge in all things, especially with a book that dates back almost 2000 years. I was mostly trying to say that we honestly don't really know what it's been through and what has been changed or whatever.
I was mostly trying to say that I don't like living off of things I don't know myself. "I'll believe it when I've experienced it" is a good saying to describe me. I'm not perfect in this, since I do make some assumptions occasionally, but I'm working on it.
Anyway, can you prove that the bible isn't a bunch of bull? Can you prove that, whether it is or not, that it hasn't been through a bunch of corruption and the like? No you can't, and you have to face that fact. What you're going off of as basis of your facts is the word of others, others who are imperfect, and not necessarily completely trustworthy, and who's to say even their words haven't been changed? Corruption has been found in church organization multiple times, and that is a fact.
This is why I say it's between you and God, no one else. If God 'tells you' the Bible (in the form YOU have), or whatever book, is absolutely positively real/the best source of truth on earth, then you've experienced that and you have that to go off. You can't go off the words of others.
That's my stand. Sorry if I didn't make that clearer before.
-
"In an indifferent universe, the only choice we have is to love one another."
-Silvercry.
-
Sometimes I think I can change other people's minds...but threads like this remind me why it's so hard to do. People will believe what they want to believe, regardless of the truth. Attacking someone's ideology usually just makes things worse. That's why Carl Sagan was such a powerful force for good. He didn't attack religious values; he explained scientific knowledge. And when that knowledge happened to tread on the toes of the conventional wisdom of religion, he pointed this out without malice or enmity. He told it as it was, and encouraged people to draw their own conclusions. If minds were changed, it was because people realized their previous understanding had been inaccurate or incomplete. The key is that they chose to change their own minds. Sagan merely provided the ingredients for them to do it. That's the sort of strategy that will win in the end.
There are plenty of decent people who happen to be religious, and making enemies of them is a poor idea because it usually just makes them more volatile. But religion itself, and all the people who practice it--even the decent ones--continually work to destroy the future of the entire world...no matter how noble their intentions. It isn't as simple, therefore, as just leaving these folks alone. That's why education and civil rights are so important: These help people to be able to adopt sound principles for themselves that reflect the best in modern human understanding. In so doing, individuals even in the most conservative lands can overcome some very deep-rooted but extremely harmful traditions and beliefs.
I've given this a great deal of thought over the years, and if you can put aside for a moment some of the things I've said in other threads, I think the best way to solve the problem is to try and make friends instead of enemies. It is the essence of why I am an imperalist. All peoples belong together, under the rule of law. My god is E pluribus, Unum. We aren't going to change people by attacking them. This doesn't mean letting bygones be bygones, but it does mean respecting people to make up their own minds. Our job in this is to provide good knowledge wherever possible, to aid people in their mind-making.
That means always checking your facts. Never make a claim you aren't prepared to support with a credible source. And don't just post links without discussion, or copy-paste someone else's argument. You yourself must understand what you are talking about. So much energy in this thread has been wasted on hearsay and rumor.
Much of what I do on the Compendium is a public service: I keep religious people from getting away with passing off lies as the truth. That doesn't win me any popularity contests, but it helps establish the knowledge pertinent to whatever issue at hand, and the logic of whatever interpretations involved. This thankless work isn't necessary, though, to help people help themselves in the best tradition of heroes like Carl Sagan. It is much easier and straightforward to deal with a debate like this one by taking the opportunity to expound upon a little of the relevant scientific discourse. Argue logic and philosophy if you must, and never miss an opportunity to point out where the religious superstition is discredited by an uncontroversial display of the facts, but in the end it's all about educating people in the marvelous workings of our world.
For instance: Abortion. Does life begin at conception? Religionists will say that the human soul is separate from all human biology, and that the soul is of course immeasurable, in an attempt to shut the biological and sociological facts out of the argument, effectively leaving you with no way to argue a pro-abortion stance. At this point you could tell them that their faith is wrong, that their perception of the human soul by definition cannot be corroborated and is therefore almost certainly false...but where will this get you? It'll get you an unwinnable argument about faith and souls and God's will and all sorts of things that have nothing to do with abortion. We saw the same game play out on another issue in this very thread.
Instead, make the biological and sociological cases anyway. If people want to trust in faith rather than reality, they are in their rights to do so. But make it costly for them to maintain the delusion: Educate them in the physical facts. Show them why you support your position, instead of wasting energy showing them why they are wrong to support theirs. Explain to them what an embryo or a fetus is all about. Talk about this in detail. Then explain to them why women can and do suffer if they are forced to complete a pregnancy against their wishes. Explain why a woman's choice is more important than an unborn fetus' development. Touch on the broader social implications of denying women the abortions they seek. Get as deeply into the facts of the issue as your expertise allows--and if your facts don't run very deep, don't get into a debate on that subject!
Many contemporary religionists are comfortable trusting in their faith and ignoring the facts because, like a president who leads a war not from the front lines of the battlefield but from the comforts of his lavish office in the homeland, religionists don't really know the facts. They have never been exposed to the proverbial horrors of war; all they have seen are the neatly-stacked reports that reach their desk. They must be given the opportunity to see the naked truth. This is what helps people change their minds. Anecdotally, I have witnessed that many people who abandon religion do so because the truth of the real world finally got to be to overwhelming for them. Those who have fallen into religion I have witnessed to do so because their understanding of the real world was overwhelmed by their frustrations with it. Both affirm the need for greater education, so that people can improve upon their awareness of the way of things.
A religionist says abortion is wrong because of this inviolable "soul" whose nature is apparently not up for discussion because it apparently cannot be discussed in scientific terms. Show them how dull that is by painting a much more vivid picture of the real world. Give them a Zerg rush of the facts. Put the sum of human knowledge side by side with their childish claim that the real world isn't where the action is. The very reason religionists don't want to get into a factual argument is that they--like every sane human on the planet--realize that facts are the currency of awareness. Everyone places at least some trust in the facts, because our entire existence is predicated upon the realities of the physical world. Our bodies dwell in the physical world, and answer to the laws of nature and the circumstances of our environment.
Carl Sagan took the white lab coat off of science and presented it in a way anybody can understand. The full power of physical knowledge is stunning, and beautiful. He convinced people of this, simply by opening their eyes to the obvious. That's why he is a hero. And I say that, unless you are equipped to play a more difficult game, you should follow his lead. It is significant progress to improve people's factual knowledge even if it does not lead them to change their minds. Why? Because of this: Anyone who successfully blends scientific expertise and religious faith in their lives, does so by letting the facts speak first. They let the facts define the truth, and they reserve their religious beliefs for passing judgments on these truths. In this case, their religious conviction is mutated into a sort of God-based ethics system, and if you simply must be religious, this is the best way to do it. Don't put your religion in science's way. Religion will lose every time.
Take a lesson from that when you're arguing with a religionist. If you want to change their minds, don't attack their beliefs. Discuss the issue at hand. Deliver up the relevant facts of whatever issue it is on which you are arguing a position. Check your facts first, then drop 'em on the table for your opponent's consideration. And let them make their own decisions. If you cannot rally the facts to your side, you do not have an argument to make...so don't get into one.
This thread...what a waste. Needless enmity between decent people.
-
What! I didnt realize there was a religion discussion going on, because i dont read stuff i dont know about, like porre.
In my opinion, Christianity has been changed, as can be seen from the many sects of Chrisitanity that are totally different.
Plus, Jesus probably did exist, because no made up man couldve created such an impact, as to of created a billion followers.
Im tired right now, ill talk to you later, of course unless someone breaks my LOCK and i die NOW!!
That reminds me, some stupid prick(s) broke into my house. They stole about $30 only (or $300 depending on my dads statement of his wallet :roll: ) and thats all pretty much. They didnt bother to take me dads wallet (which in fact was on the table the only time since we moved in) and they took my mum hand bag (same as the wallet) but threw it into some dudes backyard in a street next to ours after seeing it had no value. Luckily my mum heard something and went to check downstairs (luckily most of my family couldnt sleep, prob due to daylight savings) and they ran away before stealing my, lets see, XBOX and PS2 and GAMES!!! oh, and the dvd player, and tv...
-
Explain why a woman's choice is more important than an unborn fetus' development.
I would argue that the choice was made the moment they decided to have sex, but that’s not really the point of this thread. I get that you were just using abortion as an example to get your point across, and did a fine job of it too. 'Course, I'm sure this debate will continue unabated. Oh, Discordia!
-
I like and dislike getting into political discussions. Too much of it involves things most people really don't know much about, except what people tell them.
But to cast an opinion based on what I've been told, as far as abortion goes I'd draw the line, so to speak. Meaning it depends. I agree with Silvercry, women do have a choice: to be more responsible when having sex. If they're just sleeping around foolishly, or putting themselves in a situation where they lose control (drinking too much, or, in my opinion, going to an event involving drinking at ALL), then they don't really deserve the luxury of denying the birth of a child 'so easily', I guess you could say. Unless they do the abortion before the heart of the child starts beating. At that point, that's where I consider the child to be alive, and an abortion after this event I would consider murder. After this point, the only abortion I'd be ok with would be in the case of rape, or the birth resulting in the death of the mother.
I never attacked anyones beliefs, I simply looked at them in a manner that made them look as foolish as I see them, which was honestly a mistake. And I don't want people to think I hate or disrespect people involved in religion or anything like that, it's not true. I guess it might've sounded like it based on my previous posts, but no, I do respect people who devote their lives to what they believe is right. I just don't agree with it, and I was too harsh in explaining my reasoning. I apologize.
But J's right, in everything he's said. He handled the issue more delicately than I did, and I respect him for that.
-
Mystik: Prove that the bible isn't crap? lol. Listen, in arguements, I don't have any reason to disprove a negative. Thats a cop-out, and shows a poor arguement on your part. It amuses me, however.
Abortion: I will say little on this, because I do not come to the Compendium to argue politics. Too much, anyway. Once the sperm and the egg meet, and a child is conseived, its genetic human. The fact it cannot survive on its own is irrelevant, unless we are going to go around and able everyone who cannot survive alone as inhuman. I am not for a woman giving birth in everycase. Incest, Rape, and if the Mother's life is in danger. In those cases, abortion is nessisary for the mental and physical health of the mother, and for the health of a child in the case of incest. Basically, I don't see how anyone can argue for abortion on demand and keep mortality at the same time.
And although I don't agree with Lord J in alot of what he said, just look at how he said it. I don't harbor any ill feelings toward him, and I respect him.
-
Once the sperm and the egg meet, and a child is conseived, its genetic human. The fact it cannot survive on its own is irrelevant, unless we are going to go around and able everyone who cannot survive alone as inhuman.
Well said. As the father of an infant, I can attest that little Chibi-Silvercry would not last long by herself. A day, day and a half, two days tops with most of that last day spent asleep from the hunger and exhaustion of the preceding day.
Unless they do the abortion before the heart of the child starts beating.
FYI: That's about week four or five. Not a lot of room for error, since that’s when most women first begin to suspect they're pregnant
-
Plus, Jesus probably did exist, because no made up man couldve created such an impact, as to of created a billion followers.
Hey Harry Potter also sold a lot of books. :p
I'm not going to write five pages of text on the religion subject. (I lack knowledge in english to do so)
I just wouldn't follow such a hypocrite, evil and egocentric God as the one from Christianity.
That's just me I guess. For each their own.
About abortion, I think the woman should be allowed to abort regardless of the fetus age.
-
Plus, Jesus probably did exist, because no made up man couldve created such an impact, as to of created a billion followers.
Hey Harry Potter also sold a lot of books. :p
I'm not going to write five pages of text on the religion subject. (I lack knowledge in english to do so)
I just wouldn't follow such a hypocrite, evil and egocentric God as the one from Christianity.
That's just me I guess. For each their own.
The point of my post yesterday evening was that if you ever want it to be more than "just you" who feels that way, calling people's deepest-held beliefs "hypocrite, evil, and egocentric" is exactly the wrong thing to say. Changing people's minds begins with understanding that they have a reason for holding their present beliefs.
If, on the other hand, your goal is to draw a line between yourself and religionists, then you will succeed splendidly...but a lot of good it will do you in the end: Most people are religious, and folks like us are grossly outnumbered and underrepresented in the corridors of power. Antagonizing the majority is dangerous, seldom called-for, and requires a level of ideological commitment and intellectual mastery that few possess.
~ Josh (posting from Officeland)
-
The point of my post yesterday evening was that if you ever want it to be more than "just you" who feels that way, calling people's deepest-held beliefs "hypocrite, evil, and egocentric" is exactly the wrong thing to say.
Hey it's on the Bible!!
-
The point of my post yesterday evening was that if you ever want it to be more than "just you" who feels that way, calling people's deepest-held beliefs "hypocrite, evil, and egocentric" is exactly the wrong thing to say.
Hey it's on the Bible!!
Excuse me?
-
Don't mind Josh, they live in a world where christians eat small children's puppies for fun.
Josh has limited knowledge of Christianity, but knuck's ignorance of theology is mind-numbing, so try not to let them get to you. Not unless they actually give points, which Josh sometimes does.
-
Don't mind Josh, they live in a world where christians eat small children's puppies for fun.
Josh has limited knowledge of Christianity, but knuck's ignorance of theology is mind-numbing, so try not to let them get to you. Not unless they actually give points, which Josh sometimes does.
Ah I see, understood.
-
Don't mind Josh, they live in a world where christians eat small children's puppies for fun.
Josh has limited knowledge of Christianity, but knuck's ignorance of theology is mind-numbing, so try not to let them get to you. Not unless they actually give points, which Josh sometimes does.
Sometimes, eh? Limited, eh? Puppies, eh?! You've done it this time, pal! Your house is sooo getting pumpkined, or, if pumpkins are in short supply, zucchinied.
-
Don't mind Josh, they live in a world where christians eat small children's puppies for fun.
Josh has limited knowledge of Christianity, but knuck's ignorance of theology is mind-numbing, so try not to let them get to you. Not unless they actually give points, which Josh sometimes does.
Sometimes, eh? Limited, eh? Puppies, eh?! You've done it this time, pal! Your house is sooo getting pumpkined, or, if pumpkins are in short supply, zucchinied.
You're too late, I already TPed it. And left a "Spare the Puppies" pamphlet, missionary-style.
-
You're too late, I already TPed it. And left a "Spare the Puppies" pamphlet, missionary-style.
How very Jehovah's Witness of you.
-
See how fast I can turn this thread into smily?
-
I agree with Sentenal again. Rape, incest and damaging of mothers physical/mental or childs physical/mental health would warrant an abort. Maybe if in the period of 9 months if you go seriously finacially bad. But aborting because you "feel like it" and because you have rights...thats just bad pants
-
I agree with Sentenal again. Rape, incest and damaging of mothers physical/mental or childs physical/mental health would warrant an abort. Maybe if in the period of 9 months if you go seriously finacially bad. But aborting because you "feel like it" and because you have rights...thats just bad pants
Agreed.
-
I agree with Sentenal again. Rape, incest and damaging of mothers physical/mental or childs physical/mental health would warrant an abort. Maybe if in the period of 9 months if you go seriously finacially bad. But aborting because you "feel like it" and because you have rights...thats just bad pants
Of course, it's also bad pants to bring a child into the world that you are in no way (finacially, emotionally, intellectually, ect...) prepared to care for. That's why I'm pro-condoms. Hell, if I weren't so anti-government intervention, I'd almost say socialize contraceptives. Could only do good for the country.
-
I'm stupid. What do you mean socialize condoms?
And plus, did I come off as anti-contraceptives? Im not
-
Of course, it's also bad pants to bring a child into the world that you are in no way (finacially, emotionally, intellectually, ect...) prepared to care for.
So very true! So why not simply not have sex until you reach a point in your life where you can take care of a child?
I mean seriously: where do babies come from? Anybody? Anybody at all? Sex. The sole purpose of sexual intercourse is to conceive children. Period. End transmission. Everything else, how good it feels, how much fun it is, the foreplay, the kinky outfits you might wear, the way your significant other calls you daddy and pulls your hair when you’re getting it on is all well and good, but THAT’S NOT THE POINT.
Sex = baby. Not every time, of course. Its also not the sole reason many of us do it, but that doesn’t change its purpose. So why is there this shock when pregnancy occurs? Sure, we have ways of trying to prevent it, condoms and hormone manipulation to name a few. But Mother Nature has been doing this a little bit longer than we’ve been trying to stop it.
Do I sound insensitive? Good. Touchy-feely, politically correct “its ok to have sex, just be safe” BS is one of the major problems we have in this country.
Am I Pro-life? Not at all. Pro-choice al the way. I just have a different decision point than most pro-choice people. I’m against abortion as a form of ‘birth control‘. Rape. Incest. Mother's life. These are the only reasons to have an abortion.
The 20-something career woman who got too drunk at the Christmas party and got knocked up in the broom closet. Sorry, no sympathy for you. Have that kid. You knew the risks . You knew the possible outcome. You chose to ignore them and have sex.
The 15 year old who had sex just so the guy will like her. I do feel sympathy for you. I’m sorry. The guys a bum (I’m not about to let the fathers off the hook here, see below). Have the kid anyway. You knew the risks . You knew the possible outcome. You chose (there's that word again) to ignore them and have sex. There are thousands of childless couples out there that would gladly take care of the baby for you. Yes, you lose time in your own life. Yes, your schooling/career takes a back seat for 9 months. Yes, your reputation is ruined. Actions have consequences. Denying another person a life for your bad choice is the ultimate cop-out. Welcome to Real Life. Been here long? I’m Reality, and I’ll be kicking you in the teeth until the day you die.
However,
The choice belongs to the parents – well, lets face it – the mother. My opinion, harsh as it may be, is my own. I don’t presume to tell anyone that they should follow it. No one, not me, not you, not the government should have the authority to tell the mother what choice to make -- or even when to make it. As the saying goes: Mother Knows Best.
And yet, I have to wonder, where are all the fathers? Where is the guy who was in the broom closet at the Christmas party, or the teenaged jock who just added another notch in his belt? Why are all these girls having to make this choice alone? He helped create the life, it is just as much his issue as it is hers. Oh what’s the matter? Afraid you might miss a few games because you have to take her to la maze class. Tough. If she’s putting her life on hold to give this kid a stab at life, guess what hero, so will you. She wasn’t alone on that bed. And if the choice is made to abort, you should be there holding her hand as the life of your child gets snuffed out. Feel like a big man now?
Looking for an easy way out of this mess? I have an answer for you: don’t have sex until you reach a point in your life where you can handle a child emotionally and finically. Don’t look at me like that. I managed to do it, and I know I’m no picture of self-restraint. Sex with a condom sucks anyway. I finaly get why most people ‘forget’ to use one. Imagine eating your favorite meal, only your tongue and the inside of your mouth have been completed coated with cellophane. Doesn’t sound too yummy does it?
Guys, keep it in you pants. Girls, keep your legs closed, and everybody wins.
So speaks The Great Silvercry.
-
Am I Pro-life? Not at all. Pro-choice al the way. I just have a different decision point than most pro-choice people. I’m against abortion as a form of ‘birth control‘. Rape. Incest. Mother's life. These are the only reasons to have an abortion.
That means your a three exception Pro-Life.
-
Way to miss the point.
-
Of course, it's also bad pants to bring a child into the world that you are in no way (finacially, emotionally, intellectually, ect...) prepared to care for.
I mean seriously: where do babies come from? Anybody? Anybody at all? Sex. The sole purpose of sexual intercourse is to conceive children. Period. End transmission. Everything else, how good it feels, how much fun it is, the foreplay, the kinky outfits you might wear, the way your significant other calls you daddy and pulls your hair when you’re getting it on is all well and good, but THAT’S NOT THE POINT.
On the whole, I think your post is a well written and thought out look at the issue. And if it worked for you, then that's all the better, and I'm quite happy, for you, your wife, and for the child that the two of you will be giving the life she deserves. But I am going to nitpick this one point. In MOST animals, reproduction is the sole point of sex. This is not the case in humans, bonobos, or (I believe) dolphins. With these exceptions, it is a point, certainly the most obvious, but not the only one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
-
Interesting article. I learned something new today. :)
As interesting as it was, it changes nothing. Just because intercourse is used for something other than reproduction, that doesn’t change its purpose. Sex can be used as form of payment/currency, a show of power, a source of entertainment, or to quote the article: "as a greeting, a means of conflict resolution and post-conflict reconciliation".
But that's not what its there for. It a bonus, something to enjoy, but not the reason the act (or acts) exist. It exists in order for a species to reproduce. Everything else, while noteworthy, valid, and enjoyable, is mere icing on the cake that is life.
-
Silvercry, you are absolutely right. Thank you for stating the obvious brilliance that needed to be said. The human race is full of ignoramous. People who can't hold back from doing stupid things just because they wanna do them so bad.
That's why I respect religions or parents who enforce 'morals', not because it's "God's will", but because it's smart. I find myself lucky to not be drawn to alcohol or drugs of any kind. That shit won't make anyone happy in the end. It's so easy to enjoy yourself, or even 'escape reality' without fucking up your mind or body with that garbage, and you can save tons and tons of money.
I'm sick of hearing that some people simply 'can't have fun unless they're drunk.' That's a load of bull. There's something in life everyone can enjoy, they just have to find it. Sure, alcohol or drugs may be the easy way out, but since when was the easy way out the best? It comes with too high a cost, I'm warning you.
-
Heh. What they never tell you is that sometimes you can't have fun when you are drunk. Except by that time, it's too late to do anything about it. Ooops.
-
When will I learn? I should have picked another example. The abortion issue is such a can of worms...
It doesn't need to be. It shouldn't be. Religious entrenchment in our society has made of this controversy so much more than it warrants. If only we could step outside the confines of our biased perspective and see just how small a teapot this truly is! Indeed, the reason abortion is such a nonissue is that it can be answered in terms of siding with or against women's rights, and abortion is to women's rights as a candle is to the sun.
I wish people would be more reasonable, and less stubborn. Abortion is only a controvery because people are stubborn...not because there exists a legitimate gripe between the warring factions. A woman deserves the right to an abortion, on demand, for any reason. It's really that simple. Instead of beating a dead horse, we should be concerning ourselves with truly urgent crises, like energy, environmental sustainability, women's rights, education...the colossal issues of our day. Abortion doesn't deserve the passion we invest in it. If you ask me, abortion is merely the battlefield, not the war. The war itself is between Christianity and all women-debasing religions, and the spectacular evolution of human culture since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and the Enlightenment that accompanied it. It is, quite literally, the old versus the new...the past versus the future...tradition versus enlightenment.
I am past caring for the courtesy of conflicting opinions. There is no valid dispute here. I've had the abortion debate so many times that I've lost all count. People's minds aren't going to be changed; that is the essence of obstinacy. And here, this thread is proof of that...ever since I mentioned abortion as a tangential example in my reply to the completely different argument that had governed this thread up to that point, the entire discussion has turned upon abortion. How droll! Yet after so many tellings, the joke grows stale.
So...where do we go from here?
I have an idea! Let's argue about abortion some more! In fact, let's just have a whole dedicated thread for everyone to shout themselves hoarse in. Then, in other topics, maybe we can carry on other discussions, that happen to reference abortion, without the conversation being utterly hijacked onto that subject. Yes, that sounds marvelous! I'm going to start an abortion thread right now, a dedicated thread where we can fight Round 38 million of this neverending battle in style, without trampling on the toes of other topics of conversation. Join me there, if you dare! And, if anyone here would rather not take it to that thread, I do not want to see you hijacking other topics with more of this pointless abortion brouhaha!
-
I think most everything that's had to be said about abortion has been said. Doesn't seem like a heated topic as other things.
So what about gun-control? I'd think it'd be a good idea for people to have to earn a gun permit, and only be able to keep a gun if it's easily protected from children, but also easily accessable in case of emergency...which is a virtually impossible combination. Then again, I personally hate weapons on a whole, so...eh. I don't really think I have an opinion on this issue.
Really though, you are right. It seems everyone in hear is old and mature enough to apparently have already made up their minds, we've already heard all the arguments and opinions of all sides on all these issues and decided which side to take long ago. So really there is no point in discussing this stuff...
...but maybe we'd like to, because it's like sport. Because we get to throw our take on things out there, we like to say things and pick apart each other's arguments and try to make them look flawed, weak, or hold no bars, and then try to (while being polite) make them look like a fool while throwing our own, obviously correct point of view into the fray, and then our opponent does the same...
I'd say who cares? Let's discuss what we want to discuss just because we can be heard, and who knows? Sometimes we get humbled, sometimes we see that our point was proven correct and we've at least earned that respect. Truly it is like sport, and is fun, dangerous, painful and passionate all at the same time, like a real sport.
Though really it would be nice to discuss the important issues that face each of us. Americans should discuss the pressing problems of America, other countries should do the same for their own countrys problems. Once we're all in good shape on our own, then we should worry about others. Not much point trying to help others if we can't help ourselves, right? I guess it's nice to try, but it seems to me it'd be more important to get the road clear first before trying to drive down it.
...this post became much longer than I originally intended. J's influence. Dammit.
-
Interesting article. I learned something new today. :)
As interesting as it was, it changes nothing. Just because intercourse is used for something other than reproduction, that doesn’t change its purpose. Sex can be used as form of payment/currency, a show of power, a source of entertainment, or to quote the article: "as a greeting, a means of conflict resolution and post-conflict reconciliation".
But that's not what its there for. It a bonus, something to enjoy, but not the reason the act (or acts) exist. It exists in order for a species to reproduce. Everything else, while noteworthy, valid, and enjoyable, is mere icing on the cake that is life.
Sorry to bring abortion up again, but I believe that sex is used for pleasure too. Tell me, Silvercry, if this is not too personal, have you had sex once just for the Jessica (yes, i can say Jessica, I did solve the question)?
-
Sorry to bring abortion up again, but I believe that sex is used for pleasure too. Tell me, Silvercry, if this is not too personal, have you had sex once just for the Jessica (yes, i can say Jessica, I did solve the question)?
Er...no. That would be the point Silvercry brought up. Sex is for procreation. Our bodies work in a way where it feels good to do so. The pleasure is a result, not a purpose.
...and I wouldn't ask a question like that if I were you...
-
This topic was ruined. =(
-
Of course, it's also bad pants to bring a child into the world that you are in no way (finacially, emotionally, intellectually, ect...) prepared to care for.
So why not simply not have sex until you reach a point in your life where you can take care of a child?
This I can agree with, up to a point. I'll elaborate below.
The sole purpose of sexual intercourse is to conceive children. Period. End transmission. Everything else, how good it feels, how much fun it is, the foreplay, the kinky outfits you might wear, the way your significant other calls you daddy and pulls your hair when you’re getting it on is all well and good, but THAT’S NOT THE POINT.
"The point" of sex is defined by a culture. It is not merely a way to have babies; the main point of sex at the age most of us hover around is for fun. You're confusing the end with the means here. Just because I have a sword doesn't mean that all I use it for is killing people. I own it, and therefore I define its purpose. I will certainly use it to defend myself, but how often do I really have to do that? I haven't had to, so far. Most of the time, I use it to cut apart incredibly stubborn things, or when I can't find a screwdriver. Similarly, I am the sole possessor of my sexuality, and thus I define its purpose, which right now is to have fun. I don't intend to ever have children; they'd have the same kinds of struggles I with my Asperger's syndrome have had in growing up, and to subject another being to that would be one of the most immoral things that I personally am capable of. But I'm not going to deprive myself of emotional and physical fulfillment for that reason. That, and a kid would take away from my time to do what I want and to be with my wife. If that seems selfish, I've done my job.
Guys, keep it in you pants.
No.
Girls, keep your legs closed, and everybody wins.
*searches for response*
No.
And what's this about "just for the Jessica"? There's an Uncyclopedia entry I could link to about now, and it's frighteningly true in my case, but what the hell is that supposed to mean?
-
That's why I respect religions or parents who enforce 'morals', not because it's "God's will", but because it's smart.
More and more in today's societies, "traditional" values are being shown again and again to be the safest, and to produce the most stable households, with the best results for the children of such (success, crime rates, etc). Perhaps God was right? Who'da thunk it?
Sure, alcohol or drugs may be the easy way out, but since when was the easy way out the best? It comes with too high a cost, I'm warning you.
That's actually an axiom you can take even if non-religious: if you're given an easy and a hard choice in a moral situation, the hard one is probably the right thing to do. Heck, even Yoda said it.
-
That's why I respect religions or parents who enforce 'morals', not because it's "God's will", but because it's smart.
More and more in today's societies, "traditional" values are being shown again and again to be the safest, and to produce the most stable households, with the best results for the children of such (success, crime rates, etc). Perhaps God was right? Who'da thunk it?
It's true, it's true. And I'd agree that he is right...if he's really there.
Sure, alcohol or drugs may be the easy way out, but since when was the easy way out the best? It comes with too high a cost, I'm warning you.
That's actually an axiom you can take even if non-religious: if you're given an easy and a hard choice in a moral situation, the hard one is probably the right thing to do. Heck, even Yoda said it.
...well...yeah. I am non-religious =p. And in all seriousness, if Yoda said it...c'mon guys, why are we still arguing? :wink:
"The point" of sex is defined by a culture. It is not merely a way to have babies; the main point of sex at the age most of us hover around is for fun. You're confusing the end with the means here. Just because I have a sword doesn't mean that all I use it for is killing people. I own it, and therefore I define its purpose. I will certainly use it to defend myself, but how often do I really have to do that? I haven't had to, so far. Most of the time, I use it to cut apart incredibly stubborn things, or when I can't find a screwdriver. Similarly, I am the sole possessor of my sexuality, and thus I define its purpose, which right now is to have fun. I don't intend to ever have children; they'd have the same kinds of struggles I with my Asperger's syndrome have had in growing up, and to subject another being to that would be one of the most immoral things that I personally am capable of. But I'm not going to deprive myself of emotional and physical fulfillment for that reason. That, and a kid would take away from my time to do what I want and to be with my wife. If that seems selfish, I've done my job.
That's...totally missing what Silvercry is saying. Again.
And since I love the quote feature oh so very much:
Sex is for procreation. Our bodies work in a way where it feels good to do so. The pleasure is a result, not a purpose.
If even clearer explanation needs to be given, then here: the act of sex exists for the human race (and others) to procreate, that is it's purpose. However, humans don't always use Sex for it's purpose, because they like the feeling they get during intercourse, so they make the purpose of their Sex to simply give them pleasure, trying to ignore the original intent of Sex and being shocked and angry when Sexs' original purpose pulls through, despite their efforts to ignore it.
...does that make sense? I have a feeling I'm getting pretty repetitive, these days... :?
-
Sure, alcohol or drugs may be the easy way out, but since when was the easy way out the best? It comes with too high a cost, I'm warning you.
That's actually an axiom you can take even if non-religious: if you're given an easy and a hard choice in a moral situation, the hard one is probably the right thing to do. Heck, even Yoda said it.
...well...yeah. I am non-religious =p. And in all seriousness, if Yoda said it...c'mon guys, why are we still arguing? :wink:
Yoda isn't infallible. In fact, the only reason he appears wise in The Empire Strikes Back is because he's had twenty years of solitude to reflect on all the shit he did wrong with the old Jedi Order, which was quite a lot. If the prequel Jedi did not enjoy a virtual immunity to the laws of the Republic by virtue of what the ancient Jedi had done for the Republic, they would have been shut down almost instantly as a harmful influence on its members. But because of their immense influence and power, they were given carte blanche to ruin lives and set back the progress of society. Palpatine's philosophy is arguably more productive and certainly more efficient than the "righteous path" espoused by the Jedi. There is NO REASON to take the harder path for the sake of some manufactured righteousness. It goes against sentient nature, and anything that goes against sentient nature leads only to suffering.
"The point" of sex is defined by a culture. It is not merely a way to have babies; the main point of sex at the age most of us hover around is for fun. You're confusing the end with the means here. Just because I have a sword doesn't mean that all I use it for is killing people. I own it, and therefore I define its purpose. I will certainly use it to defend myself, but how often do I really have to do that? I haven't had to, so far. Most of the time, I use it to cut apart incredibly stubborn things, or when I can't find a screwdriver. Similarly, I am the sole possessor of my sexuality, and thus I define its purpose, which rght now is to have fun. I don't intend to ever have children; they'd have the same kinds of struggles I with my Asperger's syndrome have had in growing up, and to subject another being to that would be one of the most immoral things that I personally am capable of. But I'm not going to deprive myself of emotional and physical fulfillment for that reason. That, and a kid would take away from my time to do what I want and to be with my wife. If that seems selfish, I've done my job.
That's...totally missing what Silvercry is saying. Again.
And since I love the quote feature oh so very much:
Sex is for procreation. Our bodies work in a way where it feels good to do so. The pleasure is a result, not a purpose.
If even clearer explanation needs to be given, then here: the act of sex exists for the human race (and others) to procreate, that is it's purpose. However, humans don't always use Sex for it's purpose, because they like the feeling they get during intercourse, so they make the purpose of their Sex to simply give them pleasure, trying to ignore the original intent of Sex and being shocked and angry when Sexs' original purpose pulls through, despite their efforts to ignore it.
...does that make sense? I have a feeling I'm getting pretty repetitive, these days... :?
What it seems like he's saying is that sex for any purpose other than procreation is immoral. This is a wholly wrong and indefensible position.
-
If even clearer explanation needs to be given, then here: the act of sex exists for the human race (and others) to procreate, that is it's purpose.
Sex doesn't have any purpose. It has functions: to procreate or for pleasure.
-
Lock the topic please. We already have an abortion thread.
-
Lock the topic please. We already have an abortion thread.
I disagree. Yes, we have a dedicated abortion thread now, but there's a lot of interesting material in this topic, with room for further discussion in the future, and I don't want to see it locked. There's already too much topic locking going on here.
-
Most topic splits are due to me as you can see. That isnt relevant, but...so what interesting topic is there, O Master?